In terms of roll-out, how will you ensure that this is better understood by public sector bodies and commissioners? I'll give one example. Last year, I had a haemophiliac constituent, a young man who was offered a job by Flintshire council. The job offer was subsequently withdrawn on the advice of the council's occupational physician, as they termed the person, although the constituent and his family said that that clinician had low or little knowledge of haemophilia, and the constituent and his family had documentation from his own expert clinicians showing he was perfectly able to do the job. However, the council dug in and initially rejected the relevance of the framework for action on independent living in this context, despite my referring to it in correspondence with them.

You refer to 75,000 disabled people actively seeking work, and, clearly, I fully acknowledge that. Almost every disabled person I meet, work with or have as a friend, if they're not in work already—and too few, sadly, are—they want to be. They want a job, they want their own front door, they want their independence. In taking this forward and tackling the barriers beyond their control that you referred to, how will you ensure that you don't replicate or duplicate the parallel work that's already going on, for example, with the Department for Work and Pensions community partner teams recruited from people outside government, outside the civil service, who have personal lived experience of disability, but only initially on a 12-month contract. I hope you might consider joining myself and the cross-party autism group, following recent evidence from them, to urge the UK Government to extend that beyond 12 months so that the work coaches and others can have a better understanding of the barriers that disabled people encounter.

How will you engage, or are you engaging, with Remploy Wales's work and health programme from the UK Government, which, although it's only compulsory for those unemployed for more than two years, has found that over 80 per cent of the people on the programme are disabled people with long-term health conditions who have voluntarily joined that programme because they wish to access work? Equally, how will you support initiatives such as the Wrexham enterprise hub, who have scheduled an autism future employment event on 25 January next year? I'm sure that you would have an interest in that, and would be grateful if you could confirm how you might wish to engage in working with Hafal, who's also involved, and Glyndwr University.

How do you respond to the concern expressed in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report 'Poverty in Wales 2018' that says, regarding employment, disabled people make up just 5 per cent of the Welsh Government's own workforce, despite comprising 22 per cent of the population, given the wider figures you illustrate, and similarly address the concern they raise that

'In Wales, 39% of disabled people are in poverty compared to 22% of non-disabled people',  again, almost always because of those social model barriers that you referred to in your own statement?

Will you reconsider the Welsh Government's approach to the scrapping of the Welsh independent living grant? There is still widespread concern amongst recipients or former recipients of that grant that the lack of ring fence, the requirement to agree with local authorities what's good for them, or what their needs might be, is a removal of their independence. Look to what happened in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the Governments there, politically miles apart from myself, did the right thing and established an independent body run by Disability Wales's equivalent organisation there. Now, I'm not going to name them, because you heard me last week and last month repeatedly quote new third sector schemes that learned that they have lost their funding, or will be losing their funding, when they're delivering independent living, early prevention programmes enabling people to have control of their own lives, taking pressure off statutory services who've lost their funding, because, invariably, statutory commissioners have decided they're not the priority they should be, and therefore because of dumb commissioning, dumb budgeting, they're piling millions of avoidable additional costs onto statutory services. You did, last week, comment or respond regarding that, but I would be grateful if you could just slip in a line, so that those people affected by this can, hopefully, hear some further assurances.

Now, it's five and half years—