I recognise that there are number of questions and I’ll try to be brief and to the point with each of them, but I do want to recognise the contribution of Andrew Blakeman, which was recognised by Members in different parties here but also by other members of the review panel, and stakeholders as well. We are fortunate to have secured his services, with his background in the private sector but also an understanding of how the health service works as well.

On the point about funding: everyone objectively signs up to and recognises that the NHS has a limited resource and there has to be a system of understanding how we allocate and prioritise treatment, and how we understand clinical value and wider financial value in the service. The challenge always gets to where individuals recognise they’re on the wrong side of the line in that, either because, unfortunately, some people have conditions where we can’t actually help them, and other times where, actually, there is a treatment that is potentially effective but is hugely expensive. We see examples of that on a regular basis. Every few months there will always be something in the wider press about a potentially effective treatment that is actually really expensive, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence turn it down. These recommendations aren’t going to stop that being the case. Hopefully, though, there will be a more rational conversation about how those choices are made, where there is a technology appraisal, as well as how we deal with the individual patient funding request. But exceptionality remains a criterion for the rest of the UK, so we are very much different to the rest of the UK as a result of accepting these recommendations.

I don’t think it’s fair to characterise the continuing process we’ll have for the next few months at least as being clinical evidence versus an accountant and their spreadsheet. The people who make decisions on IPFR panels are experts. They are people who treat people; they’re not faceless, nameless bureaucrats. These are people who run, lead and manage our service and provide front-line patient care. And we should take care in the way that they make those choices and the way we then describe the choices they make, in what I’ve said are really difficult, complex and sensitive choices to have to make. And the point about the postcode lottery—the suggestion that there was a postcode lottery was part of the reason that we went through the review, and, actually, the panel found that there wasn’t significant evidence of a postcode lottery. There were instances where people could point to an example and you couldn’t properly explain it. That goes into us needing to properly deal with an all-Wales cohort set of decisions, and, actually, we’re doing more of that. And what we should see spurred on as a result of this report is actually how we see that all-Wales cohort of decisions made and taken. Because, on examination, it would appear that what on the face of it looked like an inconsistent decision is actually about a variation in the individual characteristics of the patient, and the likely benefit that they would receive, and that goes back into the difficulty intercommunicating this area honestly and concisely. I’m happy to confirm the quality function should be in place by September, but that the criterion for the clinical guidance should be in place by May. So, actually, we should see exceptionality removed at the time that that guidance is in place.

And finally, on the point about horizon scanning, I had a recent helpful and constructive meeting with the ABPI about how we want to make improvements in this part of the process. So, there is work that is ongoing between industry representatives and the Government. And just to be really clear, this isn’t about somehow either selling out the health service, to give in to the ability for companies, who of course, after all, have to make a profit to continue their business, but it is about understanding that it’s in their interests to have a more upfront process, where you have information at an earlier point in time, so we don’t have an expensive contest between them and the service on whether their new products are available to provide the clinical benefit that we all expect that they will achieve. So, I think we’re in a good place and I’ll have more to say in the future on this particular aspect.