Diolch, Llywydd. The brevity of the Government's response will be noted and people will come to a judgment, I'm sure, about whether that afforded this Assembly the proper courtesy.

I conclude this debate by speaking in favour of today's motion, a motion tabled to seek maximum transparency around the questions of if or how specific information was shared prior to the recent ministerial reshuffle. The leak inquiry by the Permanent Secretary concluded there was no unauthorised sharing of information regarding the reshuffle, but in order to seek maximum transparency, we believe that we require the publication of the report as a whole. I believe that argument has been laid out very clearly across the political parties in opposition this afternoon. 

Which questions were asked? We need to find out. How were conclusions reached? If there was no unauthorised sharing of information, was there authorised sharing of some information, which would, by definition, not be a leak? Alternatively, if it was found that no sharing of information took place at all, what sparked the speculation regarding the reshuffle? I don't believe we've had a November reshuffle before, not in recent years, certainly. Was this investigated?

Publishing the inquiry report would be a clear way to seek answers to such questions and to provide the transparency that we need. We need total confidence—we, as the public in Wales, as much as us as parliamentarians—in the outcome of the inquiry. Looking at the wider picture, what we're seeking here, all of us, surely, are means, whatever they need be, to strengthen confidence in the systems and procedures of Government and, indeed, of this Assembly.

Members will note that the motion refers to redactions. My party's view, and it is a view we've heard elsewhere, is that those redactions are absolutely essential to ensure anonymity of witnesses, and we're satisfied that even a redacted report could help to draw us out of this cycle of endless questions that never seem to be given satisfactory answers.