Okay. On that second one, I have no idea; I'll ask Liz to come in and tell you from her understanding what it is. On why we haven't looked at reorganisation sooner, I actually had—. When I was last local government Minister, actually, Hannah Blythyn was my deputy then as well, and we had several conversations with the fire and rescue authorities and the chairs about whether the model was fit for purpose. I think there are mixed views, aren't there? Very few people welcome reorganisation because it makes organisations look very inward for a while, and if you're trying to deal with outward difficulties, then becoming very introspective while you rearrange your deck chairs can be something nobody looks forward to. But I think it's just becoming increasingly obvious that the current model doesn't really work, and there's a range of reasons for that.
So, in my previous time as local government Minister, for example, I had an interaction at least once, possibly twice—I'm doing this from memory, Joel, so forgive me—with the remuneration board, for example, because—. This is a very personal view, but my own view is that, often, what happens in a local authority is that people vie for the jobs that carry remuneration—so, cabinet posts and so on—and then, eventually, you get to the posts that the backbenchers get, and the backbenchers who didn't get those other posts get those posts. Now, that's really unfair because some people have chosen that, because they'd be really interested in the national park or the fire authority, but, you know, that's not a far-off characterisation.
So, I had a conversation, at that time, with the remuneration board, about whether there should be remuneration for people who take on combined joint authority work, for example—national parks and fire services. Actually, I got rotated out of that job before I finished that conversation, so it's a conversation I'll pick back up again. But I do think there are some issues there, you see, about how that—. So, I don't want to make that sound as if the people on there are not dedicated and able and doing their job well; that's not what I'm saying. But what I'm saying is, if you've got a series of competing interests in a local authority that you need to fill out, you can, inadvertently, make some look less, I don't know, positive than others, by the remuneration that's attached to them, and I think that's a mistake, so I think there are some issues there. But it won't be the only issue; there are other issues as well, about the structure, the training, the size, the interaction with the service, the ability to hold a uniformed chief officer to account in a committee that's very formal. There are a lot of other issues there, aren't there, that we need to take cognisance of.
I mean, actually, this committee would have a lot to say about its ability to scrutinise the Welsh Government that might be germane to it. You know, scrutiny is quite a hard thing to do in some circumstances. So, how we hold a professional uniformed service to account with lay people is an interesting—. You could write a PhD thesis on it, I expect; maybe there is one, hopefully, sitting on a shelf somewhere. So, I think it's a bit more complicated than why didn't we just reorganise it before. There's a lot of work to do, but I do think we're going to have to come up with a governance model that looks a bit more twenty-first century than the one we have.