Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much indeed for your statement. I'm delighted that the new treatment fund appears to be doing so well. It must be horrendous to be somebody who has some dreadful condition that is in dire need of innovative and radical treatments, and to have the worry of whether or not you can access it through your health board. This seems to be filling a gap in the planning process, and I truly do welcome it. I do have a couple of questions, which I'll ask you in the spirit of, perhaps, you being able to follow up at a later stage and ensure that we are really getting the absolute best out of this fund. 

I note that the reports by the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group and the new treatment fund show that in the last 12 months, the number of recommended medicines has dropped from 24 with eight superseded medicines in 2016, to 21 medicines with two superseded in 2017. Cabinet Secretary, would you please outline the reasons for this? Is it that, in order to access medicines faster, the number of medicines in the new treatment fund is being curtailed? Or is it more that, once in the system, that medicine goes off the books and, subsequently, there is an expected hope that candidate treatments for the fund will dwindle to much smaller numbers? Is this the thinking behind making the true new treatment fund a five-year programme?

Cabinet Secretary, you say in your statement that £16 million a year supports faster and more consistent access. It would be interesting, though, to see the patient and access data, to determine how widely the health boards are using the newly available medicines. The most basic information on access data provided last time was that all health boards were taking on the 17—then, it was 17—newly available medicines, but in terms of patient reach there was no detail, and I think that that would really help our understanding to ensure that we do have consistent access for all people throughout Wales, no matter where they happen to live in our country.

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, given the commitment to anticipate the licensing and adoption of innovative treatments, are you confident that health boards are able to horizon scan effectively, thereby improving infrastructure planning so that new innovations are maximised to the fullest extent, and that appropriate support services are also in place? Because I did note in your comments about the ABPI. However, for example, a case in point concerns the new drugs to treat hepatitis C, which have been made available through the new treatment fund—very, very welcome by patients and lobbyists alike. However, given that elimination of hepatitis C is the avowed aim, and given no hepatitis C strategy is in place, but simply renewed guidance, should the adoption of innovations, such as—I do hope I've pronounced this right—glecaprevir, be part of such a strategy? Because—this ties back to my earlier question about patient access—some people are very hard to reach, but with these new drugs, we can make astonishing strides in improving the quality of people's lives. But it's not just the drug alone in the case of something like the hep C drug; you actually need the support services, the counselling, the outreach and the lifestyle changes to really make that significant difference. The drug is only a part of it. So, I wondered if you could just comment on that as well, thank you.