Secondly, documents that are commercially confidential, under the interpretation and the lack of clarity that we have now, are no longer subject to confidentiality. It means that any document—a tender bid for example, a commercially confidential document—would be potentially releasable without further clarity. That is the reality of it without further clarity. [Interruption.] If Members don't want to listen—. I'm trying to put a reasonable case here for them. If they don't want to listen, that's a matter for them.

More importantly, if a whistleblower came forward to a Minister with a serious allegation on the basis of confidentiality, and a document was created as a result of that, there is now no guarantee of confidentiality without further clarity. There is no guarantee. I cannot give, as First Minister, any guarantee of confidentiality to anybody, nor can any other Welsh Minister, until this matter is clarified—until this matter is clarified. It also means that any person who produces a document in confidence, or who gives evidence in confidence to any investigation or inquiry, is now not able to receive an absolute guarantee of confidence. That's how serious the situation is.

Now, how can this be resolved? How can this be resolved? Well, there are three ways of resolving it. First of all, a change in the law—section 37. We can't do that. Section 37 is incredibly badly drafted and nobody disputes that. We can't do anything about that. Secondly—not my first choice—is for the matter to be decided in the courts by way of a declaration. That is not the way that I would want to deal with this. We have to protect our position as a Government. The third way of doing it is for a protocol to be developed, as happens in every other Parliament—a protocol to be developed—in order for Members to understand what would be in order and what documents would be releasable in the future. This is exactly what happens at Westminster. There is no reason why this can't happen in the Assembly. 

So, I reiterate the offer we have already made to the Commission, and we make it in good faith, and that is that tomorrow's debate is not time-sensitive and I do not advocate cancelling the debate—I don't advocate withdrawing the debate—but there is an opportunity for that debate to happen in the future. What is clear here is that there are serious legal and constitutional issues that have arisen that need to be resolved, and the way to resolve them, surely, is for this to be done working with the Commission to develop a protocol to provide greater clarity to Members. I make that offer to the Commission and, indeed, to you, Presiding Officer, to deal with this issue in a way that avoids the need for legal action.