Can I just begin as well by thanking Meilyr for the sterling work that he's done as the chief inspector, and say thank you for being so easy to work with and so upfront when asked questions? It certainly makes a difference in helping us to scrutinise the work of Estyn. I'd like to thank Estyn generally for its continued work in helping our schools and colleges and other education settings in their journey to improved standards.

But having said that, I think I would like to ask you some questions, Minister, about the six months before the March lockdown, because while there's been, as you say, a modest improvement in terms of consolidation in perhaps a few small areas, actually we're not seeing a huge amount of improvement. In fairness to the nursery or the pre-school settings and the primary schools, the results are better there, but I'm wondering if you can tell me why you think there's been no improvement, or marked improvement anyway, in the secondary sector. Because this is not a new challenge that we've been facing, and while Estyn obviously inspects different schools from those that have gone previously, those schools have had access to all the reports, all the support from consortia, all the claims of better exam results and, to be fair, more money in this last year before COVID in order to improve their school standards.

Is there something about the way that we inspect secondary schools that has a built-in bias against them in some way? Or are they generally fit for purpose, the tools that are used to disclose whether there are problems here? Because while you painted it in a very good light, I think we have to accept that just under half of our secondary schools require further monitoring. Of the 25 secondary schools inspected this year, 11 of them—that's nearly half—require monitoring, and four of them have joined last year's remaining 18 secondary schools in a statutory category a year later. Can you tell us what you think is the problem here? What's not working in the standards improvement system to help these schools come along, despite the assistance that I mentioned earlier? One of the things that has really got to me, actually, about this particular report is that of the 48 per cent of secondary schools that needed either improvement or urgent improvement—that's almost half the cohort—this, and I'm quoting from the report,

'this is often the result of low expectations and poor planning.'

Why on earth are we still reading about low expectations in reports like this? Why are we still seeing them? School leadership and quality of teaching come up in these Estyn reports year on year, so I'd like to know why you think we're still reading that.

And then, finally, because I think this is an important question, the £29 million that you've referred to—and I think they're going to get £12 million more—to help schools recover their standards, what level of standards are you expecting them to recover to? Because reading these reports, if we're just trying to get to the stage we're in now—and I appreciate that might be a temptation, because COVID has been very damaging—it's not a particularly ambitious use of that money, is it? We should be trying to raise standards despite the difficult predicament we are in. 

And if you'll allow me one more, Dirprwy Lywydd, what are your views on the curriculum roll-out now? You're quite right to point to the fact that Estyn said that digital use has improved and use of the tools to improve well-being, that's improved, but there's a lot more in the new curriculum than that. I'm not convinced that secondary schools, in particular, are going to be anywhere near ready for this in the way that I suspect you hope they will be. Thank you.