Thank you for the comments and the questions. I’ll try and deal relatively briefly with them. On the new treatment fund, then, if you like, the predecessor to this will help to inform where we are on hepatitis C and a range of other conditions where we’ve provided significant resources to make sure they’re available on a consistent basis. It is for the initial year, as I said before and in this statement, and we expect health boards to be able to resolve and to manage their resources thereafter. It is often the first year of a new medication coming on board that is difficult for a health board to manage and to budget for. So, it is based on our practical experience. I don’t actually think that the challenges of keeping the NHS to budget can all be laid at the door of the cost of innovative medications that are approved by NICE or the AWMSG.

That’s the second point, about this being an evidence-led process. So, it won’t simply be that, at the end of the first year, I will decide, or a health board will decide, that we actually don’t want to provide this medication any more. It will be there, it will be available. Politicians won’t decide on its effectiveness—it will come from an authoritative review from NICE or the AWMSG. That’s the point about the medication then being available.

On the money, we’re targeting at need. So, you’re right that some health boards will prescribe or deliver or lead on the treatment of a range of conditions, and tertiary centres will have a different experience of that than others. It’s really about making sure that the patient—the citizen—gains the benefit. I hope that’s helpful.

I welcome your comments about both the review group and the patient voice. I’m pleased to hear that you found the meeting with Mr Blakeman useful in giving you some confidence about the expertise and independence of this particular group and making sure the patient voice is heard loud and clear through the process and, indeed, the contact that the review group will have with Members as part of that as well.

On your point about co-funding, it is not part of the terms of reference we agreed with the group. I think there’s a broader question there. There’s more than just the IPFR about co-funding. I think it is ethically incredibly difficult to go down that route. I’ve not asked the review group to look at that. It’s not been part of the conversation that we’ve had and I don’t think I should try and introduce it after the conversations that we have had. I think it’d be the wrong thing to do. I think it is definitely a debate for another time and another day.