Thank you very much. Natasha Asghar, I think, made some very succinct points that were really helpful, which the Minister has picked up. I don't think the public is ever going to be particularly aware of the Act. People are not going to read the Act, but they do need to know about the principles underpinning all the public bodies who are named in the Act. I don't think that we can be blaming the Act for public bodies who haven't sufficiently engaged with the citizens that are affected by a particular measure. I think it's good to hear that the Minister has given some reassurances about increased flexibilities on how funding can be spent, and to give public bodies longer term funding so that they can meet that objective, rather than always having to have yearly cycles.  

Shorter reports, absolutely. I think that point's been made. This tome, it has got lots of stuff in it, but few people will have read it from cover to cover. But I think the future generations commissioner has heard us on that, and she produced a really, really succinct report very recently on how we approach retrofitting, which is a really challenging subject. It's full of facts and figures, and it's only about 16 pages long. So, well done. It's going to be a really useful tool for working out how we approach that really important matter.

Peredur, obviously glass half full as far as you're concerned. You think that the Act should have been the gift that communities need to ensure that they feel more consulted and more involved in decisions that affect their lives. Obviously, involving citizens cannot be a tick-box exercise, but I do think that the Act does actually give them more clout than you give it credit for. It was never intended to be a mechanism by which we would hold up change, because no change is absolutely not an option. It is about ensuring, though, that we've got the right change and that all the stakeholders are involved in having their say on that change, and ensuring that public bodies who are tasked with that particular thing are actually making the right decisions within the framework of the Act. I hesitate to disagree with the venerable judge that the Act is not fit for purpose, but the Act cannot rectify the shortcomings of public bodies. It's public bodies themselves who have to address that.

We need to have a can-do attitude to this, and I'd like to quote the chief executive of Natural Resources Wales, who told the committee it's no use moaning about funding,

'moaning about funding is not going to help anybody. We're in a really difficult situation and we have to make the best of what we've got.'

Absolutely. We all need to do that. And so, we really do need to, I think, use the tools that the Act provides us to find the path forward in the difficult situation we all face. It was great to hear Sarah Murphy having the approach to the Act that I hope will be very, very useful in the way that the Equality and Social Justice Committee does its work.

So, Jane Hutt is absolutely right to praise the role of Sophie Howe, who's been really successful in showcasing the importance of the Act, both with the House of Lords and the United Nations. Clearly, PSBs must have a role in bringing people together, and the work that you mentioned about active citizenship in Monmouthshire and adverse childhood experiences in Cwm Taf. We seriously need to look at all the things that we have to do in the context of the Act. There's so much richness in the Act, and we need to come back to this regularly as a way of ensuring that we are meeting the demands of the Act in everything we do.