I thank Hefin David for that really important question. The basic thesis underpinning the Bill is that it effectively will lead to more transparency in this way. And I think we're inspired a little bit by the experience in New Zealand of this when they established their equivalent commission, and it operates on a similar basis in the sense of Government setting the overall strategy and then the commission having its own strategic plan reflecting those requirements and so on.

HEFCW already operates on a basis that is transparent in the way it allocates funding. It's publicly available, the criteria are established and the sums are dispersed in a way that is very public, and I think that is something that is easier to deliver in that sort of arm's-length environment. So, I actually think that the bringing together of the further education, adult learning and apprenticeship funding streams in that kind of arm's-length way will actually enhance the transparency in the way that, perhaps, HEFCW currently does for HE. The key advantage that the proposals in the Bill bring about is that the funding is allocated on the basis of that public strategy, if you like, so there's a strategy that is devised, that is consulted upon and that is transparent, and the boundaries, if you like, between institutions—or the historic boundaries at that point between the sources of funding—are not the guide to how that money is allocated. So, I think those two routes will significantly enhance the transparency across the post-16 sector.