I thank the Member for her comments and questions. Perhaps I can try and deal with the size and the membership of the panel first. I think we're fortunate to have already secured a panel of genuinely independent-minded expertise and experience that covers a range of fields across social care, across the health service, people who have direct experience within Wales and outside Wales, too—that’s important, to see different perspectives—people who have international learning and international experience, too. So, I hope that gives that reassurance that we’ve discussed previously about this being a genuinely wide range of expertise that we've managed to secure, which I think we should all be very pleased with, actually, and to give people that assurance that this group of people will do that job with an independent mind, and that means that they'll have information drawn to their attention on work that's already been done, but that won’t determine what they then conclude. Because if they disagree with anything, if they want more evidence to be found, as I said in my statement, it’s for them to do it, because, ultimately, whilst I take on board your point, and I agree with you, that this is not about reinventing the wheel on work that's already been done, but this review has to be independent, it has to be challenging and has to be evidence-based, and it's a review that, ultimately, the panel will have to put their names and their reputations to—and these are significant figures within the field of health and social care.

And that's why, going back to the point about the terms of the review and timescale, it's sensible to make sure that the terms and the timescale make sense with each other, and to have a discussion between spokespeople if there’s a need to consider whether we've got those two things aligned. I think we have, but let's take a review of it when the panel are in place; after all, we're looking for them and their expertise. But I certainly don't want something that goes on for two years. When I talk about the possibility of extending time a small bit, I do mean a small bit. I'm talking about period of weeks or months; I'm not talking about it going on to two years. I think two years is too long. If the review takes two years, then I don't think there's going to be a real opportunity to allow that review to then be considered and to have a real impact in this term and the next one. Now, we all know the political cycle, and in two years’ time, people will be gearing up and looking for other things, and it will stop us having the sort of maturity and objectivity that I think we need in this debate. So, I hope that's helpful about the review and the timescale being real and honest.

Again, I take on board your points that were made in our previous discussions as well about the balance between those issues that the Government shouldn't make decisions on, because they’re part of the review’s consideration, but, equally, not avoiding our responsibility to deal with challenges now, whether that's in the Government or within the service as well. I don't want to see things somehow stop and be put on pause, because that is not the right thing to do. We're talking about the future. We're not talking about issues that we need to decide upon now, and I don't seek to avoid my responsibility or the health service's responsibility or social care's responsibility to continue making movements forward. That means there will be difficult choices that have to be made in advance of the panel's reporting, but that's what we have to do. That goes with the responsibility of being in Government, and I certainly won't be looking to avoid that.