Minister, thank you for this statement. I’m very, very well aware that my colleague Darren Millar has called before for a review on both the independent patient fund and, of course, the Welsh Conservatives have been calling for some kind of treatment fund for many, many years.

Going through your statement, I’ve just got a couple of questions. The first is that you referred to some of the new medicines that come with a very high price tag, which I think we’re all absolutely aware of, and you talk about the resources invested where the proven benefit for patients is in balance with the cost. I wondered if you might be able to give us an indication if that proven benefit would be condition related or, in a more holistic sense, where the drug may actually prevent a side effect or a continuum—you know, something that would develop in time as a successor, if you like, to whatever the ailment is that the person has. I ask that because recently in England there was a court case where a judge was talking about how the exceptionality, the way that a drug might behave on a person, made it valid whether it behaved on the person because they were unique, or their condition was unique, or whether it was simply because the—I can’t think of the word for it—continuing problems that might be associated with the condition were not unique and were coming along later but you could still bring forward the drug to prevent that from happening—a bit chicken and egg. So, I just wondered whether you were going to consider that in deciding what becomes an emergency treatment. So, therefore, that comes to my next question, which is on the stakeholders. Which stakeholders have you consulted to decide what will be? Is it just NICE; is it just the all-Wales medicines group; are you talking to consultants; are you talking to drug companies to decide what kind of drugs would be the best ones that would go into your treatment fund?

I know that the Plaid Cymru spokesperson discussed with you the resources available—the £80 million that you’re going to bring forward. It’s not just that, though. I wondered if you could outline what strategic planning and modelling has been undertaken by the Welsh Government. I did listen to your answers to Rhun ap Iorwerth about what happens when health boards take on board the drugs, and what happens at the end of the 12 months, but if I could just cite a case in point, because you refer in your statement to treatment for hepatitis C. Incredibly successful; a 90 per cent cure rate once somebody gets it, and yet it’s still a postcode lottery throughout Wales. Although the Welsh Government funded the roll-out, and that then went out to the health boards, not all health boards have picked it up because it is eye-wateringly expensive. They haven’t incorporated it into their run rate, and people are not being given it when they need it. We have evidence that we can offer to you to prove this. I would hate to see in 12 months’ time, with all of these other wonderful treatments that you are going to look at, the same kind of things happen because some of them will be extremely, extremely expensive. Therefore, I would like to understand what strategic planning and modelling you have applied to this. I would like to have greater clarity as to how some of the conditionality decisions have been arrived at, at present. I would like to understand where the money for this is coming from. I don’t think I managed to pick that up from either your statement or your answer to the Plaid Cymru spokesperson. In regard to the independent patient funding request, there’s no information on the individual patient funding request by health board. I put a written question in to you, and you came back and said that there was no central data. That kind of thing makes me very, very concerned that if we don’t have the evidence, how can we evidence the success of IPFRs? How can we evidence the methodology? How can we stop postcode funding? How can we ensure that fairness and that parity that you discussed earlier?

I really will work with you hard on trying to support a review of the IPFR. I think it is vital that we get this fairness across the board. But I have found that trying to get some of the evidence needed has been extremely difficult, and I would like to have a really clear understanding of how you see the group going forward and being able to extract the data that they will require from the health boards in order to ensure that this report is not just timely but that it is concise and, actually, that it is also really, really well evidenced. As I discussed with you when I had the good fortune to meet with you yesterday—and I am grateful to you for that meeting—I would also like to ensure, or ask, that you would ask the review panel that are going to look at the independent patient funding request to look at not just their overall strategic conclusions, but also how they think it could be delivered in an effective way. Conclusions are one thing; delivery is an entirely different thing. I think it would be really worth it if they could give some nod towards the level of resource—the level of financial resource and physical human resource—that you may have to commit to making this a uniform, consistent, fair practice across the entire country. Finally, Minister, I would like to again ask you to consider how best we get an advocate for the patient voice who can sit on this panel and really ensure that the patient voice is heard all through this. Sums are one thing, but when somebody is desperate for that little extra stretch of life because they have something very important they want to achieve—to see a wedding, to see a grandchild, or whatever it may be—or just because most of us don’t want to die, then we’ve got to try to marry that desire for life with the money that you have in your pocket. By listening to the patients, perhaps they can help show a way that we can go.