Thank you for the three distinct points of questioning. On the first of understanding whether there’s been a different approach to the technology assessment undertaken by NICE on both the clinical effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness in terms of improved life outcomes, I couldn’t honestly tell you about the detail of that, although I’ll happily have a conversation with officials and people in the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group to understand whether there was any difference, but I’m certainly not qualified to give you an answer on whether there was a different approach. I’ll happily have a look at the process and the manner in which that’s been undertaken and come back to you.

On the second point, about whether we have the same deal in Wales, yes, we do. We have the same terms applying in Wales at the same time. That’s been a part of that negotiation. I was actually in the audience at the NHS Confederation conference in England when Simon Stevens announced the deal from the stage, which set a few hares running about whether it was an England-only deal or not. So, I’m really happy to have been able to confirm it’s an England and Wales deal, with no differential in terms of the availability of the treatment here in Wales.

Then, for the future, I think this really does tell us something about not just campaigning, but actually about the grown-up relationship we need to have, both with the public and decision makers, but also with the people in the pharmaceutical industry. Because it’s easy to run a campaign based on the emotions of people potentially having a life-extending or a life-saving drug, but as you rightly recognise, there has to be a balance for the public purse and for all of us together about how much we are collectively prepared to pay for individual treatments and to understand the genuine efficacy of those treatments. We’ve seen in the cancer drugs fund, the independent review, that it recognised that of the £1.27 billion, about £1 billion couldn’t really have been said to have been spent on improving outcomes. That’s a poor way to go about this, and I don’t think it’s a great use of public money. So, we do have to understand that a process that is genuine, that is expert and evidence led provides proper reassurance about the value and the efficacy of treatments, and equally that more grown-up conversation throughout the pharmaceutical industries about what they can expect and what the public purse can and will deliver, and that evidence we require on that efficacy and the cost and value of it.