Thank you for all those comments and questions. I'll start with your first one about how people can be supported to give evidence. The Wales infected blood scheme wasn't particularly set up to support people to give evidence to an inquiry, but I do think we need to consider the needs of people who will need to give evidence and where that evidence can be given. What I'd like to see is that the inquiry operates on a basis where it will take evidence across different United Kingdom nations to make it easier for people to attend.

To be fair, I indicated earlier I've had a response from Mr Justice Langstaff to my earlier letter and I think that it's constructive. I think there's an indication there that they will consider how they meet not just the language requirements of people from Wales, but, in particular, ensure how they hear from people in devolved nations, thinking about how they do that whilst going about considering the terms of reference. So, it is—. The letter certainly doesn't close the door in saying, 'No, everyone must travel to a central point,' and I think we need to continue to pursue that. He's also indicated that he would wish to meet the cross-party group in this place, which I think is a very helpful and constructive offer from the chair as well. I hope that the chair of the cross-party group would—I expect—welcome that too. 

So, we need to consider with individuals, but also with Haemophilia Wales, as the largest support group, how best we can work together to support individuals. So, I don't want to cut anything off, but, equally, I don't want to give an open-ended commitment that I may not be able to meet. And, actually, I think the best thing is to make sure that we get the inquiry to move around the country to make it easier for people to attend in the first place.

You referred to the letter that had cross-party sign-off that previously went to Jeremy Hunt. I think that was helpful in reiterating that this is a genuine cross-party attempt to get at the truth. In that, we indicated that NHS Wales co-operated, and that position remains unchanged. I expect NHS Wales to co-operate. If there is any particular issue about information being made available, then I'll certainly consider the ability of the Government to direct information to be made available, but I do not anticipate there being any organisational barriers to documentary evidence being made available. Indeed, that would include documents that the Government held. I think, previously, for example, journalists have been given access to documents that exist that the Government holds and they didn't find anything of particular interest, but the access is there and it is available. And that goes into some of the points about the terms of reference and what is a reasonable timescale.

As far as compelling witnesses is concerned, my understanding is that the judge that has been set up under the inquiry does have the ability to compel witnesses. But the terms of reference and the timescale are linked, because the conversation about what the terms will cover will help to determine what is likely to be a reasonable timescale. And there'll be differences of views. Some people would rather see a short and sharp inquiry that focuses on a couple of issues to get to the truth quickly. After all, this has been going on for a long time and some people may not wish to have a long time of going over history that is painful and difficult. Some people may wish to see an inquiry that concludes within their lifetime. And others will say 'You have to have the fullest inquiry possible, and if that takes a longer period of time, then so be it.' That's why the consultation on the terms really do matter, and in setting out those questions—. You may not have had an opportunity to look at the website, but I think it's very helpfully set out to focus people's minds on what to ask for and why, and it gives people a steer that if it's a more focused inquiry, it can be shorter, but if it's broader, then it will necessarily be longer. So, people need to think about what matters to them most in responding to that consultation, and in helping to draw up the terms of reference. But I think the fact that the inquiry chair starts off with that open-minded approach and asks people what they think is a good marker of the way we should expect the inquiry to be conducted.