Thank you for the response, and I'll try and respond briefly to each of the eight areas of questions that you've raised. And, of course, at the outset we agreed not to publish a new vision to replace 'Together for Health' because we're going to have a review. It would have been odd if I had said, 'Here is our view for the future of the health service, and then let's have the parliamentary review.' There's a trade-off in doing that. And at the outset I indicated there would be some things that we'd have to get on with and do before the review, and other things we'd need to wait for the review. I think it's that first point about when a programme for transformation will commence. Some things are already happening, but the review itself has recognised that it wants to see more of—. So, some of that transformation is in train. The challenge is perhaps the pace and the scale of that transformation. And as you'll know from having had a chance to read the report, they recommend having a transformation team in place for at least a year, to try and drive that change.

In terms of when we'll review that, well I do expect to review the report, both during the construction of the long-term plan for health and care that I've said we expect to be able to publish at the end of spring. That's a pretty tight timescale, but I think we need to maintain the momentum, so it doesn't sit on a shelf within the Government, or other people's libraries. And we'll need to think, as we publish the plan, about what timescales we'll then look at to measure our progress. An obvious one will be in a year's time, and we'll think about other waypoints to check on our progress. That goes into your point about both recruiting people to deal with transformation, and having a strategic transformation team.

We'll need to look at the current skills we have, both centrally, here within the civil service, and centrally, a leadership team in both the health service, but also the social care system as well. When you think of the people who we currently have, and how to drive that transformation, if we accept the recommendation about having a team, who are those people, where do we get them from, and where do the costs come from to actually pay those people to do the job, and their authority to properly engage with the service to drive improvement? Those are real issues for us to consider, as we deliver a plan, and then look to take that forward.

I take seriously your point about the engagement of health and care staff, and their training. That's obviously something that we need to look at. Innovation and improvement—well, certainly, the improvement activity often comes from training, from recognising that best practice needs to be standard and common practice, and how we look to have a learning environment, and a rich learning environment. And that comes into one of the key recommendations in the report as well.

On public engagement, I had a number of conversations with Lee Waters, and others, about whether the public would be genuinely engaged in the review. And they took that seriously: they had citizens panels and they took the opportunity to listen to and talk with the public. Part of our challenge is how we engage the public in a more regular conversation about health and care in any event, and in some of this, the social care sector is further ahead than the health service, and people are being more engaged in their choices. There's something about how the health service catches up with that, and equally how we have a more general debate about health and care, which doesn't rely on either a point of crisis or a point of real anxiety and controversy locally. Lots have been getting engaged in either their local service or a hospital service about something they disagree with or are concerned about. We need a broader and deeper engagement. To be fair, some of our health boards in Wales are better at doing that on a regular basis than others. So, again, that's a key point of learning and driving through, otherwise having the citizen be a more equal partner in making health and care choices is unlikely to happen, let alone the design of services.

And I think I've tried to deal with your point about staff training and engagement. I want to come back to your final point about money. We agreed across parties, in the terms, not to address money in this review. Because, if we'd done that, we could have easily spent a whole year just looking at how to fund and what to fund. These are controversial choices, and we all have different views on how we shall fund within a reducing resource base, which is objectively the case. The Government has a reducing resource base in real terms. The percentage of health and care spend continues to rise, as in our vote on the budget later today that puts more money into the health service. Our challenge must be: what is the long-term funding settlement going to be, and the requirement to do that? There's a different debate to be had there, about what individuals do to contribute to social care, for example, the funding of social care, the work that Gerry Holtham was doing with Mark Drakeford, my department, Huw Irranca, in looking at the long-term funding for social care. So, those questions can't be parked.

What we have to do is, to come up with a final point in the review and the quadruple aim: how do we nevertheless derive greater value from the Welsh public pound that we invest in these services? But, we'll continue to have to debate funding, what we expect to deliver from that, and what we're prepared to do in not spending that money in other parts of public services, if we choose to invest more of our funds in the health and social care system.