I think there are two points that I would make in response. The first is to recognise that, in making sure that the current performance of people being seen within a reasonable time continues, it is important to continue to look at how the service is organised. And there are times we underplay the efficiency or inefficiency that we build into the healthcare system by continuing to run a system in the way it always has been run. For example, the place an appointment takes place—is it easier and more convenient to see people in community settings? What do we need to do to make sure those settings are appropriate for people to have appropriate assessments made, rather than potentially asking people to travel to hospital-based services? So, there is something about the community footprint as well. Your point, really—in terms of the focus of the constituency issues that I understand you've been dealing with, I'm not aware of all of the details, so I won't claim to be, but I know you say there's been an independent investigation. I don't think I can give commitments to publish an independent investigation that I'm not sighted on—I believe it's the health board that have agreed to appoint someone to undertake an independent investigation—but I'd want it to be properly transparent and also to make sure people do want to work together to try and improve the service. So, perhaps you'll want to write to me or talk to me afterwards. I want to make sure there's a maximum amount of transparency to help further improve the service.FootnoteLink