Thank you for the comments and points. There were essentially five points. The first on timing: of course, Business Committee have agreed to the timescale. I think there's going to be enough time for all the relevant stakeholders to get involved. They're pretty well informed of the policy intent, the purpose, and the scheme and the regulations. It's also helpful that it's a pretty short Bill. It's inserting an amendment onto the face of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006. So, we're not going to get knee deep into a long, technical, difficult Bill. But I think there will be adequate time for every stakeholder to have their say and for Members to ask questions and have answers. 

In terms of your point about the Bill and the time frame for it, it is important to have the regulations in place to allow the scheme to be in place for the start of April, to maintain continuity with England and make sure that we see cross-border activity being properly undertaken for both sides of the border, as well as making sure that Welsh GPs are not disadvantaged by having a scheme come into effect later than in England. 

In terms of your point about the negative as opposed to positive procedure, this is something we regularly go through with each and every Bill and I'm sure we'll be able to go through it in scrutiny in front of both the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, who regularly have comments, as indeed do the health committee. But we're talking about something to make changes to regulations that are largely going to be technical in nature, regardless of the impact of them. But I'm more than happy to engage with Members through the scrutiny process.

On that, that is part of the point, of course, of having scrutiny of the Bill. In terms of your point about post-scrutiny on the face of the Bill, I don't think that's appropriate, because we're talking about amending the face of a piece of primary legislation to insert an additional section to give Welsh Ministers regulation-making powers. It would be pretty unusual, on the face of the Bill, to also insert a requirement for post-legislative scrutiny, but I appreciate that Members will want additional assurances and comments made on the record by me to give some reassurance about that post-legislative scrutiny taking place. 

On the point about the costs, I don't really have anything to add to the costs paragraph—paragraph 3.7 of the explanatory memorandum. The £30,000 is simply about the costs in terms of the external legal support required to utilise the new indemnity scheme. And I think that is a fair and accurate assessment of the costs we've arrived at.