I understand that points have been raised about people and where the evidence was taken, because it was a desktop review. My understanding also is, before finalising that report, there was a conversation with one of the people who was a whistleblower. But we’ll get through that with the HIW review, and, if there’s a need to look at our process again, with the learning that will come from this, we will want to learn that. That’s the point about being open and accepting—that we don’t start the HIW review from the point that this is about defending the service. It’s actually about understanding what’s happened, and understanding what we could and should do differently in the future.

There are of course a range of serious allegations made today in opening this debate, and the statement about Kris Wade having clearly committed a series of sexual assaults. I am not in a position to say whether that is the case. That’s part of the challenge about the interaction with the criminal justice system, and their opportunity to investigate that and to understand what has happened. The HIW review will look at the range of issues through the whole process. I’m interested in the delay in resolving the employment issues after suspension. I’m interested in what’s the interaction between different representatives—is there a good excuse, is there not—and to understand what more could and should we do. Because, occasionally, when you have lengthy suspensions, it’s not good for the organisation, it’s not good for the individuals, or the people all around that potentially as witnesses.

We’ve discussed the Kris Wade case previously. I’m sure we will do again. I just want to make clear that, in response to some of the other points that were raised in other challenges around this health board, I think the Paul Ridd failing of care is a really interesting example of where, having been criticised, having had a serious adverse finding made against it, the family re-engaged with the health board to want to try and improve the situation. It’s a mark of the fact that the nurse of the year this year is in the learning disability service within the health board. Lots of her work in terms of the award she’s got is because she’s engaged with that family and listened to them and they’ve changed the way they behave within that health board, in particular around people with learning disabilities. That’s an example of the openness we want to encourage. We, of course, ideally, want to have a system where we remove the opportunity for failures to take place in the first place, but it’s really important that we do take the opportunity to learn and then to act after that to improve the quality of healthcare that all of us expect, not only for ourselves, but for all the people who we represent.