Thank you, Deputy Minister. I think, before I ask my question, I should pay tribute to the work you've done as a backbencher, before you entered Government, as chair of the cross-party group on contaminated blood and the work you did forcing the UK Government into the inquiry. That is certainly recognised. But I do have some questions about where we are today.

On 9 January, I wrote to the health Minister on behalf of my constituent Kirk Ellis, who was affected by the contaminated blood scandal. He's unwell and is increasingly anxious that his family are unable to provide financially for him, should anything happen to him. I'd also say there are members of the public who are members of the cross-party group on contaminated blood in the public gallery today, and they've come in to specifically hear this question.

Kirk has found out—Kirk Ellis has found out—that he is financially worse off than he initially thought, as victims in England receive payments for their children at a rate of £3,000 a year for the first child and then £1,200 for each other child. So, therefore, with a three-year-old, Kirk is £9,000 worse off than if he lived in England. There's a clear case to answer here, and it is, of course, incumbent on the UK Government to take the lead and to provide the funding. But also there is a differential in England, Scotland and Wales as to what people receive. In Scotland, the widows and widowers of people who have died will receive financial compensation. That is not the case in England or Wales. But the key issue—the key issue—until the inquiry has published its findings, there is a discrepancy across the United Kingdom.

Victims in Wales are asking the simple question: why can't we just pay them what they are rightfully owed? Minister, can you just answer that question? And also, please would you attend a future meeting of the cross-party group to talk to victims about this particular issue?