Thank you very much, Llywydd. I am more than content to note this report and even to welcome it. Over the past year, it seems to me that this place has started to feel slightly different; the Record has improved and I’m pleased to see that some of our security staff have started to welcome me in Welsh. They’ve probably seen my lanyard; I hope that's the only reason. I also feel that I have benefited from the language improvement classes as well as the Welsh history lessons that came free of charge, which I wasn’t expecting. But it’s also been a pleasure to see that there are more people now wearing these lanyards and more Welsh learners using the Welsh language here in the Chamber. There’s a strong message conveyed there too, because I’ve noticed that some, at least, have come from areas of Wales where there aren’t many Welsh speakers. There are many people who perhaps haven’t crossed the bridge to understanding how important the Welsh language is the length and breadth of Wales, and to see some Members from the Valleys, for example, standing up and speaking Welsh perhaps for the first time, that sends a clear and important message, I think.

I'm pleased that you made reference to the culture committee in the report, and, although I'm happy to see a baseline in terms of Assembly advertisements and business, it's still disappointing that the report is full of sentences in terms of 'an increase in learners' or 'several courses' or 'groups of learners', without providing specific figures. It's going to be impossible to see next year the scale of any success there. I'm sure there will be success, but it'll be difficult to identify that success, and in terms of individual skills too.

I know it's difficult to say who has made progress, because there's a question of confidentiality involved there, but I particularly feel that it would be useful to understand how many Members' support staff have taken up the offer and what sort of problems they've encountered in terms of taking up the offer, given their patterns of work. I'm not making excuses for them, of course, but we all know as Members how difficult it is to find time during the week for us to have some help with the Welsh language, and the same is true for our staff too.

So, as a Commission, we've had a staff survey quite recently, and that includes Member support staff. Was there any information that emerged there on how many people were aware of the pages on the website about the scheme, about help with translation, for example? Do we know how many hits the language scheme pages have had? It wasn't clear to me in the general staff survey what our staff thought about the scheme.

In terms of the Commission, of course we are looking at a flexible workforce now, and I understand that the capacity to provide services within teams, rather than asking for unrealistic levels of skills of all individuals, is important. But, in response to the debate, I wonder whether you could say a little more specifically about where you've looked for ideas before creating this language skills framework and who has oversight of the process of deciding on fluency levels? Because the investment and resourcing board is no more, of course.

Just turning to the Government papers, which Bethan Sayed referred to already—is it clear, in terms of subordinate legislation, whether that problem emerges from the UK Government or the Government here? Because if the Government here is—well, both of them, actually. Anyone now who is subject to standards shouldn't be looking for excuses for not complying with those standards. Of course, everyone can excuse the odd slip here and there, but to have something that's apparently more systematic than that—then there are questions to be asked of the Government here and perhaps the Government in Westminster. I'd like to know how you're going to face and deal with that.

I'm going to check my answerphone message, certainly. That's something I need to do, because, if we've received a complaint about that, I'll need to sort that out.

Just to conclude, Llywydd, I agree with the point about both languages being broadcast simultaneously, particularly as someone who is still learning. Subtitles are far better. We heard this morning in committee about S4C and what they're currently doing in terms of their subtitling system, and I know that the Commission has been in contact with them. Just to give you an example, I was listening in the cafe earlier, or trying to listen, to Simon Thomas's question—and I'm talking here about the internal system, not an external system, and for someone like me who is looking for opportunities to pick up new vocabulary, it was disappointing not to be able to listen to Simon, because he often uses words that are new to me. Therefore, if people outwith the institution have the same experience—[Interruption.] [Laughter.] They're words new to you, apparently, as well. Okay, that's fine. If there is something that we could do in future on that, for someone like me, it would be a major step forward I think. Thank you.