Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to move the debate in the name of Paul Davies that's on the order paper this afternoon. And in particular, it's worth reflecting just very briefly on the events of yesterday—that we were faced with this debate not actually taking place.

In particular, if I may draw the Assembly's attention to the letter that was sent to the Presiding Officer, in particular point three that stated that the Government believed that the Table Office and the Presiding Officer were acting unlawfully in accepting this motion. That was what was in the letter that was put forward. As I understand it, that was then subsequently leaked to the press, which is somewhat ironic, to say the least, that we're having a leak inquiry and here's a leaked letter, which I believe came from the Government, as I understand it, to the media. So, I wonder whether we'll have a Permanent Secretary inquiry into this particular leaked letter. But it is worth reflecting on that type of language that meets you on the first page—not 'thinks' it's illegal; it's actually telling the Presiding Officer that it 'is' illegal. That, by any stretch, is a very threatening and intimidating environment to try and create around a debate in the Assembly here.

I want to focus on three areas, if I may. Over the last three months, the various arguments that the Government have put forward to try and stop this report being published in redacted form. The first came forward in January from the First Minister, when I questioned him in First Minister's questions, and that was about the privacy and confidentiality of witnesses who had given evidence to that inquiry—and I agree entirely. I agree entirely that that should be adhered to, and that is why, in the motion today, we have said that the report should be made available in a redacted form, to make sure that that confidentiality is provided and, above all, the security and safety of witnesses who feel they might have been threatened if their names came forward, although I'm a bit skeptical of where the threats might come from if those names came into the public. And I do regret that the First Minister, in his choice of language in First Minister's questions at that time, said, when he was responding to me,

'What he is asking the Permanent Secretary to do—because it's her decision—is to out those people, for the evidence to be made available and their names. Such a course, I have to say, would be both dishonourable and dishonest, and would bring the Welsh Government into disrepute.'

I reject that. I flatly reject that, and I refer the Assembly to the Hamilton inquiry report that was made available, in particular clause 22 in the Hamilton inquiry report yesterday, which clearly showed how Hamilton went about the process of protecting the identity of witnesses in that report. So, that clearly answers the point that you can provide a report and protect witness identity where that witness identity has been provided.