Thank you for that, again, constructive contribution and also for the conversations that we’ve had with other spokespeople leading up to today. Again, I welcome the recognition about the IPFR review, that it’s the right thing to be doing. The one point of disagreement I have is about the cancer drugs fund saving lives. We don’t have any evidence that the cancer drugs fund saved lives. There was some potential life-extending conditions. There’s lots of evidence we run through in this Chamber on a regular basis about a range of different people criticising the cancer drugs fund, including the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons and the medical director of NHS England. But we’re now in a position where the UK Government has recognised that the fund was too narrowly drawn and there wasn’t a proper evidence base for the medications in it. They’ve now got a NICE process, I suppose—an approval mechanism that goes into it—but I do agree with you that the cancer drugs fund is too narrow. That has always been the position of the Welsh Government, because we don’t think that it was ethically acceptable or defensible to value one patient’s life with one condition above another patient with a different condition that was life limiting. That’s why we never took that approach. That’s also why we now have a new treatment fund that looks at all conditions that are life limiting. So, we’re having real fairness and equity for all patients across the piece. I do think that is absolutely the right approach to take.

I’m not aware of there being an issue with the speed at which AWSMG has undertaken its appraisals. There is often an issue about getting the right sort of information and actually getting pharmaceutical companies to agree to a patient access scheme for those conditions that are potentially effective but are often horrifically expensive. So, there is still a need for an honest and grown-up conversation with those companies. I fully expect that ABPI will be wanting to talk to us about their perspective on this and I’m sure they will want to give evidence to the IPFR review and to be engaged with this Government around a whole range of issues about research, development and life sciences. We need to have an eyes-open approach and engagement with the industry. We can’t expect there to be new research and development by constantly criticising the industry that is doing it. But, at the same time, we need to make sure there is real public value and public value is being driven through the decisions we make on what we procure and why.

I’ll just finish with a point about life sciences and research. I’m really pleased to see that there’s been a move forward in the life sciences sector here in Wales and the approach that’s been taken over a number of years is bearing more fruit. We’re seeing real interest from a range of private sector bodies who want to be engaged in the research community here in Wales. I look forward to having more discussions about this with my colleague the Minister for Skills and Science, but we have a good story to tell on health and care research. If you talk to the health and care research community in Wales, they’re really positive about our approach and it’s because we listen to them. We asked them about what we could do better with the resources we had and we listened to them. So, our approach is grounded in what they have told us that we could do more effectively. So, I hope the Members will engage more and more with health and care research here in Wales. We have a good story to tell on a range of fronts, but I’m definitely ambitious for the future and hope that other Members will get engaged and involved with the research community.