Turning to your first point about spring, spring is the season and it's not a never-ending season. So, you won't have this sort of idea, as David Jones, when he was in the Welsh Office, suggested, that spring and summer actually then went on, at some point, into the autumn and the winter. The reason why we've given spring as an outline timescale is that that really is part of where we are with vaccine supply. If I had absolute certainty of vaccine supply through to the end of April, I could probably give you a much clearer timescale. But some of those are uncertainties. To be fair, I don't think the UK Government are going to be able to give me a cast-iron guarantee on all deliveries up to the end of April right now. We'll give more detail, as we review the plan, about when in the spring we think we'll be able to complete all of the phase 1 priorities. But, just to give some reassurance, by the end of spring is when we expect to do that.

If there is a challenge in vaccine supply, if there is a challenge in delivery, then we're completely upfront about that. You'll recall that we had a COVID outbreak in the Cardiff mass vaccination centre. We lost more than two days of delivery, because the outbreak had to be dealt with, the place had to be cleaned and staff who weren't contacts had to be brought in to continue running the centre. So, it is always possible that events will intervene, it is always possible that supply will intervene, but if there are any of those challenges, we'll be absolutely upfront about what the position is and, crucially, what we are still able to do to make sure the programme carries on. 

In terms of the significant detail that you're asking for in terms of daily figures, I just don't think that is the priority issue for us at this point in time on a daily basis. We'll have weekly detail that will give much greater colour about the delivery of the programme, and I am sure that, once people are used to that weekly set of data, people will be ready to ask questions and to look at what that data provides in detail. If I were to try to make a choice to say that I wanted that level of detail on a daily basis, we'd need to put more time, energy and effort into data entry and to analysis to get it right, and I think we'd end up having to give significant caveats about the information. There's a choice about whether that investment in data entry to meet with the Member's demands for individual daily accounting is the right choice, as opposed to wanting to have a greater focus and priority on the delivery end. But there will be regular information each week that we'll provide to Members and the wider public. 

On your point about prioritisation—I've been asked this question a couple of times—there appears to be a handful of examples that I think health boards have looked at to understand what's going on. I don't have any problem at all with end-of-day doses, to make sure they're not wasted, being offered to health or care staff who are nearby, or, indeed, to the public. I don't think that's the greatest policy question that I need to address as the Minister with the responsibility for vaccine delivery. My concern is that we adhere to the prioritisation list we've got, that we make sure that we don't have leaking of people coming into that group who are, somehow, gaming the system, which is a concern that I've had. Some people have expressed to me that, somehow, they've been able to jump the queue in a way that isn't simply about a handful of doses left at the end of the day that I don't think anyone has any particular concern about. I've checked again with health boards, and my understanding is that they are running through the prioritisation list properly. But it's up to all of us to do the right thing, and if you're offered a link to jump the queue over other people who are undertaking patient-facing work, there's a responsibility on you not to queue jump and put yourself ahead of other people who are putting themselves in harm's way each and every day on our behalf. 

When it comes to seven-day working, we are already seeing lots of working over the weekend, and I do expect that every health board will be undertaking some seven-day working in the vaccine delivery programme. I hope that's helpful, just to be straight about that. General practitioners are working with health boards on priority delivery. They're also working with local government. Every health board and set of local government partners are meeting over the coming days, if they haven't met already, to run through the detail of their programme. They'll be able to go through what they're able to do with primary care to make sure they have appropriate premises, because, as I said, many primary care premises will be fit-for-purpose premises to run a vaccination centre from—a local one. Some of them, though—and we'll all be aware of those general practitioners who are working from, essentially, converted terraced houses—may not be  appropriate in terms of a venue for vaccination. But this is about how we have appropriate venues within local communities that are in much easier reach for people to allow access and an increase in volume and pace. 

When it comes to the question about occupational groups and the priority list, I think I've been very clear about this and I'm happy to reiterate the position. We have from the JCVI an endorsed list of priority groups that will help us to avoid 99 per cent of avoidable mortality—that's phase 1. If we add into that groups who are outside that, then what we will do is we will deprioritise people who are in the most vulnerable group. Whether it's teachers, police officers or any other group, if they come into phase 1, then someone else will be deprioritised who is of greater need. Think about it this way: if you're thirteenth in a queue, and you move up to tenth place, then you can't say, 'I'm not asking for anyone to be deprioritised, I just want to go to tenth.' The people who are ahead of you are now behind you. And the very clear advice we have had is that if we were to do that, for whichever the group of front-line workers it is, then that would mean that we would knowingly be making a choice that would put other people at risk, and that would cause avoidable hospitalisation and mortality.

I'm grateful to the Member for raising the point, and I would reiterate that that's why we have this approach. It's not a finger in the wind list, it really is about protecting the public and about saving lives. I know that the Member understands that and will support that approach; other voices, of course, have taken a different view and have demanded that we take an entirely different approach. I hope Members across the political spectrum understand that's the choice we're making. That's the decision that I have made here in Wales, and I'm not going to make an alternative choice that may keep an individual group of stakeholders happy for a few minutes, but what I'm sure will cause much greater concern and consternation and, frankly, to avoidable mortality.