I completely agree with the point you finished on, Julie Morgan. It must be that we need to listen to and be led by the views of those people directly affected. This is about what has happened with their lives, including the families that have been left behind, as well as what we do in the here and now. The point about the fact that people have already died is well made and understood, and it's something here about thinking about the terms of reference again, and in fact, in his letter to me, Justice Langstaff said he's highly conscious of the need to balance a thorough inquiry against what can be achieved in a reasonable period of time. This is especially important for this inquiry, given the poor health of many of the people affected, and we have to think about that point, actually, putting forward views on the length of time of the inquiry, on the breadth of the terms of reference. But the best way to understand how to balance those is to listen to the people directly affected, and if they would rather have a longer, more thorough inquiry, then that is what I believe we should be asking for. If their view is, though—and there will be variance in this view, as I've said earlier; you can't expect everyone to agree on all aspects of the terms and the length of time. If the alternative view from the majority of our stakeholders here in Wales, the directly affected families, is that they would rather have a sharp, focused inquiry that will take place over a briefer period of time, highlighting a smaller number of issues, clearly that's what we should ask for. But my own fear is that we are likely to have a community that will want to understand the truth. Having fought so long to get to this point, I think they are more likely to ask us to go and ask for a fuller inquiry rather than a shorter and sharper one. And I think that is an entirely reasonable choice to make.

Again, when I say the role of actors here in Wales will be part of this inquiry, we will make available the information that we have and can make available to the inquiry. Part of what the consultation asks—it does ask about the potential risk of commercial conflict in the decision making that took place in the past. So, those areas of inquiry have already been seized on, and the challenge is how those get written into terms of reference in a way where they're meaningful and the inquiry can then pursue, because, of course, anything that isn't within the terms of reference can't then be easily pursued. We'll have to amend the terms by agreeing again with the Minister at a later date, and I think that's difficult. So, we do need to take some care about it.

Again, I'd reiterate to people that the consultation on the terms of reference is something that I would certainly expect the cross-party group to be engaged with, and to provide a submission on. The Government will make a submission to the inquiry as well. The cross-party group you're holding on 24 April—of course, the terms of reference consultation closes on 26 April, so it may be that the cross-party group is able agree a consultation response at its meeting on 24 April. That would appear to be appropriate to do with a full number of people around a table from parties and external stakeholders too.

I reiterate my commitment to continue to be as helpful and positive, from the Government's point of view, to continue to provide information on a regular basis to Members, but in particular, as you've said, Julie Morgan, to make sure that we work alongside people who have done so much to make sure that the inquiry we are now going to have actually took place in the first place.