Thank you for the series of points and questions there. It’s worth reminding us all that there is, of course, increasing demand for eye healthcare. So, it’s part of the ability to detect more conditions, but also the success story of more of us living longer. Of course, not all waits cause harm, but some potentially do, and there’s the point about clinical need.

I take a slight issue with just some of the language but not the thrust, as it were, of your question, in that managers may not have done this, because HIW recognise in their report, in the language, that it does not know if the allegations are true, or represent a systemic policy by the health board. But I have been clear, on several occasions in the past, that patients should be seen in order of clinical need. I’ve already asked my officials to contact the health board mentioned to go through the allegations that are made.

On your broader point about outcome measures, it’s fair to say the Royal National Institute of Blind People, for example, support our agenda and the moves that we’re making to improve eye healthcare, with more care in the community, and they, as do I, want to see more pace and consistency. I’ve had a very constructive conversation with them about both what we are doing and the areas of challenge, and that includes our targets and outcome measures, because I think there is a powerful case that our current RTT targets in this area do not promote the best interests of patients, or help to support the service to make sure that clinical need is the prioritisation. So, there is an ongoing conversation between the RNIB and clinicians about how we reform and revise those targets, and I’m expecting to have a report come to me this spring. So, there’s work already in train, because I’ve already recognised that we could and should make improvements to not just service, but how we measure and understand what success looks like in the service to support and underpin best clinical practice.