Thank you for the questions and comments, and I think it's important—it's the point you were making, Joyce Watson, about making sure this is genuinely across health and social care. And it's interesting that we've worked together with the WLGA and voices across local government about the proposal, including the new citizen voice body, where, of course, there are elected representatives who do take up matters within local government for their constituents, and understanding how they'll work alongside each other in genuinely listening to and engaging with the voice of the citizen. But the duties imposed to supply information to the new citizen voice body, as I say, extend across health and local government. So, we're genuinely and deliberately drawing together the two sectors in the way that we're drawing together care across those two sectors as well.

It's worth also pointing out that the national board of the community health council have been broadly positive about the Bill that we're bringing. So, perhaps some members in this room who have been more critical should look at the way in which we have genuinely worked in advance of the statement, the way in which there will be conversations that are ongoing between officials in my department and the board of the community health council to make sure we do get the legislation right to meet the shared purpose we have, and that does include clarity between the role of inspectorates and the role of the citizen voice body. I don't think there is a desire within the community health council movement to have that sort of deliberate fuzzy overlap between inspectorates and community health councils. There's an opportunity to get that right not just within the legislation but within the guidance and what will understandably be built on in terms of the memorandum of understanding that already exists between community health councils and our inspectorates now.

But I think it's an important point that Joyce Watson made about the impact between litigation and the duty of candour, and the engagement of the duty of candour does not equal an admission of negligence. It's an acknowledgement that there is a need to have an open conversation with the citizen about what has happened in healthcare, and more than minimal harm can be caused in the normal risks that we all know take place within the delivery of health and care— but to be open about the fact that something has happened as opposed to saying, 'I can't talk to you because I'm worried that you'll go to a lawyer.' That's part of the challenge we have in a more closed culture that is more defensive. This is deliberately part of engagement to have a much more open culture that's focused on improvements, so candour and quality have to be seen together, and I hope that, as Members go through scrutiny, they'll see that it's not just an honest attempt, but, broadly, we've got the approach in the right place to deliver that in reality.