Thanks, Suzy Davies. And, of course, I'm always open to debate; I enjoy debates as much as anyone here, but I thought we'd try a different approach on this occasion. I'll take feedback and see whether it is the best way, but it has allowed her to make her points, to be fair. I really can't, I think, do more than reiterate what I said to Mike Hedges, which is, to be quite clear, that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Commission, in approaching this budgetary process, to take out now the consideration around the remuneration board, because that is completely separate. It can't be used for, as she put it, the baseline, if you like, and if there is any underspend there, it will be returned to the block grant.

I think that when we come to consider your budget—. I don't want to completely tie the hands of the Finance Committee when we look at your budget in due course, but I think it would be reasonable, and I hope that you, in your budget presentation, will show to us very clearly how that remuneration money has now been dealt with—how it's been taken out, if you like, from the overall allocation—so that that doesn't confuse anyone looking at the baseline into thinking that there has been an increase above the block grant simply because you are no longer able to use what is up to about £800,000, possibly £1 million. So, I think we will take that into consideration when we consider that.

We will then look at the rest of your baseline, I would suggest, and say, 'Has there been an increase there above the block grant level?' And, if there has, 'What's the reason for that?' I think that's where the final comments I made in the statement and earlier comments I made—. It would have to be (a) a very good case, and you'd have to not only persuade the Finance Committee but ultimately, of course, the whole Assembly, and (b) it would have to be in line with the assistant auditor general's comments about the prioritisation of the programmes—the ones that are nice to have, the ones that are absolutely essential. 

We understand that we're getting some more responsibilities and powers around income tax. There are some things that need to happen within the wider, if you like, empowering of the Parliament here. That does have some finance implications, but also I'm aware that the chief executive has been looking at overall staff numbers, redeployment and using the staff numbers to the best of her ability. I think we'll take a look at it in the round; I think it's only fair to do that. But, to reiterate, let's take out the remuneration board part now because that's no longer part of the deliberations, and look instead at the rest of the budget and how that has been increased or not. Maybe you'll come with a decreasing budget. Who knows? I think that's highly unlikely, but the Finance Committee would certainly welcome it.

But more seriously, we will need, I think—it's reasonable as a committee—to set aside the remuneration board determination now; that's a completely separate issue, more in the hands of Members themselves as well. So, Members will also be more directly accountable for the spending of their own. It may lead to more, perhaps, direct accountability of Members and people asking questions about what Members have spent their allowances on, but that's not for me and not for you, that's for the wider accountability of Members here to the Welsh public.

Just finally, your question does give me an opportunity to say, as well, and remind Members, that we do have Commissioners and they are ultimately responsible for preparing the budget. The Finance Committee does the job of scrutinising the budget, but in advance of that, there is surely a way of people discussing with Commissioners around their, either concerns or priorities, that they'd like to see in the budget.