The previous questioner asked particularly about the timescale of the technical consultation. I'm just interested in your confirmation, maybe, that you still intend for this legislation to have completed its journey through this Assembly by the end of this Assembly, and maybe you could map out some key milestones for us on that journey if that's possible, just so that we have that broad timetable a bit more clearly in our minds, because there are a number of hares running here, really. You mentioned a number of reviews: the technical consultation itself, of course; the Reid review, which will feed into this; the Weingarten review, as well. I'd be interested in hearing how you think all of these can actually come together and be aligned effectively to ensure that all of these are taken into full consideration. 

I've raised with you before the sixth-form question, and it was in the White Paper, and rightly so. You say that the majority of respondents were in favour of including sixth forms under the proposed system, although some made a pitch, if you like, to phase them in at a later date. I'm just wondering if you could tell us what more information or what further discussions you need to come to a decision around that and how that could potentially affect the timetable. Would that require legislation later on? Or would you incorporate that into your proposed legislation for something that will be brought in at a later point? Because, clearly, many of us are hoping that this will be a coherent and comprehensive reform of the sector. There's a danger that if we start hiving certain bits off that it becomes piecemeal. I understand the difficulties around that particular issue, but I'd just like to hear a bit more about your thinking in that respect.

You did mention adult community learning—or you namechecked it—at the beginning of your statement. There's not much more and, clearly, we've heard one or two things in your last response. Clearly, the decline in part-time adult provision is very worrying, and adult community learning, some people feel, is very much on its knees at the moment. So, the sector is telling me that it can't wait for these changes, although there was very little, actually, in the White Paper on adult community learning. There is a risk that we end up talking too much about sixth-form colleges, universities—we need to talk about them, of course, but I think we need to get the balance right. So, I'd just be interested in hearing a bit more about how we can really incorporate the sector's voice into the discussions from now on, and not fall into the trap of paying lip service—I think that is the second time that phrase has been used—and how that voice will be heard within the commission's role, because we come back to this parity-of-esteem principle that we're all pursuing, and it'd be good to have greater clarity, again, on that.

You touched on the extension of the role of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol. I would reiterate that we need to make sure that the role isn't eroded in any way, that it retains its existing responsibility, its enhanced responsibility and its distinct role within the new landscape. Maybe you could acknowledge—or will you acknowledge—that additional responsibilities have to mean additional resources as well, albeit we're in a very difficult time, I know, in that respect. But one, one would expect, would have to follow the other.

On that point, it probably is too early to start talking about budgets and all that kind of thing for the proposed new body, but I remember well, when discussions were being had around the establishment of Natural Resources Wales, that one of the reasons being put forward was that it would create an efficiency of savings. I'm not sure whether that is part of your consideration or to what extent that might be driving some of what is playing out now. I'd be interested to hear whether you envisage some sort of projected efficiency saving from the new arrangement—or is that not part of your consideration at all? It'd be interesting to know, actually, at what point you think that might become clearer.

We've touched on addressing the barriers to post-compulsory education and training, and the cuts that have had a disproportionate effect on a number of groups. I presume that the outcome agreements that you mention in the statement would maybe look to address some of those in terms of ensuring that maybe some people with care-giving responsibilities, or those requiring particular kinds of support, are offered that. You say that it's a driving principle for your student support reforms in terms of addressing some of these barriers, and I'm just looking for confirmation that that will be embedded into the commission's remit.