On your last point, there will of course be a need for training across the services and the system to make sure that people are used to the new system we're looking to introduce, and to be properly ready for it to deliver the benefit we want for both staff and people.

On your point about vice-chairs, I thought I heard you say that you wanted assurance that vice-chairs won't be political appointments but will be clinical appointments. Vice-chairs are not political appointments; they go through a proper public appointments process already, and that will be the same for NHS trust vice-chairs. And they are not clinical appointments either; there's a governance and leadership role that vice-chairs undertake, and we're looking to regularise that with health boards, as opposed to adding additional responsibilities on to current trust vice-chairs. That isn't a satisfactory way to move forward and, actually, there's been widespread support for wanting to do that.

On your point about service change: community health councils themselves and the national board of community health councils didn't argue for the retention of a power to refer in service change proposals. They're actually interested in the point about continuous engagement, to make sure this isn't suddenly something that is sprung on people with a few weeks' notice, but there is much deeper and broader engagement, through time, as proposals are developed. Because our health service and our social care system can't stand still; there has to be a constant evolution and reform that must take place. I'm expecting to revise the guidance on the service change, and I would still expect consultation and engagement with the new citizen voice body around service change proposals, and I hope that in revising that guidance we can reiterate that and make that clear, and I expect that I'll be asked a similar question through committee scrutiny, so I'll be happy to reiterate that broader point.

And just to go back again—the new citizen voice body is not going to be an inspectorate. Community health councils aren't looking to be an alternative to the inspectorate function. It's how we make sure that the voice of the citizen is properly given a platform, and how people are given support as part of that in terms of advocacy across our health and social care system, but it is more than advocacy. And in the Bill, you'll see duties where the citizen voice body requests information from a health or social care provider, then a reasonable request must be responded to by whoever the provider is across social care or health. So, there are powers in the Bill to ensure that the new body can undertake its functions, because I am genuinely looking at reform not annihilation.

I really do hope, as we go through this Bill, that Members, again, will look at what is being proposed and not simply default into, 'This must be a bad thing, and let's fight it tooth and nail', because, actually, we can't simply extend out the powers of community health councils. We do need to have a proper body across health and social care. We should take the opportunity to make sure it has a proper independent footing to allow it to do its job.

But I would gently say to the Member that in describing the current activities of community health councils in different parts of Wales, I don't know of a single one of them that would be happy to be described as a rubber stamp for the local health board. There are different relationships, and when they come to give evidence, I'd ask the Member to think again about—I think I understand some of the point she's trying to make—the manner in which that is actually done.