I'd like to thank Janet Finch-Saunders for her interesting contribution. There were a range of assertions made that were non factual. I won't go through all of them. But let's deal with the three supposed questions.

Money for companies to help them with stockpiling: we expect to have the same financial arrangements in paying for equipment and medicines for use in the health service. There may however be additional costs that would be passed on. For example, if radioisotopes are flown into the United Kingdom because the customs arrangements after a 'no deal' arrangement mean that you can't actually bring radioisotopes in via the usual route of ports, there would be a cost that would almost certainly be passed on to the health service, and that would have an impact on budgets in every single nation of the United Kingdom. 

On settled status, it was a positive step that the Prime Minister finally saw sense and agreed that there would not be an application fee for people to apply for settled status. There is still the challenge about not understanding how the process will work for potentially vulnerable citizens who have lived in this country for a significant period of time and are already accessing health and care. People, understandably, across all parties in Parliament have concerns about a process run by the Home Office, in particular in light of its recent track record over Windrush citizens, some of whom were, of course, deported from the United Kingdom, some of whom were denied essential health and care treatment. There is still much more to do before people have full reassurance about settled status, and, of course, in the event of a 'no deal', that will have to be in place for a process to be run within just a few short weeks.

And there was the non-factual statement about health and social care funding. We regularly go around this in this Chamber. This Government funds health and social care services by a significant amount more—at least 8 per cent—than the United Kingdom Government does for England. The relative cuts in social care are significant. Don't take my word for it: look at the Conservative leadership of the Local Government Association in England and they will tell you how bad a deal social care has had within England. Also look to colleagues in the national health service in England and they will also tell you about the deal that they have had. We do much better by health and social care here in Wales, and there's simply no argument with the facts on the matter.

On your broader assertions about a lack of preparedness and causing mayhem, at some point you might want to turn on the television news. I don't know if you're aware of this particular phenomenon—there's something called Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, where people talk about Brexit on a regular basis. Ministers regularly resign from the Government because they can't agree with Government policy. Government Ministers regularly brief the media about disagreeing with Government policy. The Chancellor last week, actually, in a telephone call to a range of businesses, said that 'no deal' would be taken off the table, and the Prime Minister insists that isn't going to happen. So, Philip Hammond is brilliant for suggesting 'no deal' will not happen, but the pointy bearded Marxist Jeremy Corbyn is evil for suggesting 'no deal' has to come off the table. If you want to see mayhem, look at the United Kingdom Parliament, look at the United Kingdom Government. The shower of Brexit directly runs to the door of the United Kingdom Government. Theresa May is responsible for our position, after, of course, David Cameron, who started this all off in the first place. 

And on your point, your assertion, that the UK Government have guaranteed that—in the event of a 'no deal', that they have guaranteed the status of NHS staff, that is simply not true. At some point, I'd welcome Janet Finch-Saunders joining the rest of us on planet Earth and taking 'no deal' Brexit seriously.