Yes, thank you for those questions. I'll deal with unpaid carers first. We published guidance last week on unpaid carers and I think that's brought a large amount of clarity, and the online form, which we have worked with national carers groups to agree, that should provide a more generous understanding of who an unpaid carer is than some of the initial guidance from the JCVI, which has subsequently been clarified, of course. We're not just dealing with people who have carer-related benefits, because, of course, unpaid carers aren't necessarily going to be in receipt of those benefits. We know that lots of unpaid carers don't want to make themselves known, despite the fact that, in the legislation we've passed, we've had a specific recommendation on carers' rights and their own right to an assessment. So, the information that local government will hold on who they've undertaken those carer assessments of gives us a good starting point, but, actually, in itself, wouldn't have been complete. We could have faced ourselves with the situation of having people already on a list and then excluding everyone else, and we know that that would have provided a significant injustice to a wide range of people. So, we've developed a process where people can go through that to then be placed on the list. Once they complete the online form, which will be available across Wales by Monday at the latest, that will then mean that their names will then go forward into the Welsh immunisation system and that will then generate appointments for them.

We have this challenge—. I understand the suggested point that asking people to opt in isn't the same as taking information from a list. Well, actually, part of our challenge is that the NHS doesn't know who every unpaid carer is. The NHS knows how old you are, but it tends not to know exactly what you do, whether for your paid employment or, indeed, for an unpaid caring activity. That's why we do need an opt-in process. And we are, of course, relying on people treating the process as they should do, with integrity. The form asks you to go through a series of questions about your caring role and responsibilities. It's possible that some people could try to navigate their way through that to push into priority. It would mean that they would have to be persistently dishonest in doing so. I think that the reality that some people may choose to do that should not mean that we take a more exclusionary approach that would otherwise exclude lots of unpaid carers from going into priority 6 to get their vaccines, and, as I say, we've worked through this with carers organisations.

On your point about the JCVI and the advice, we're doing what I think the public expects us to do, broadly, which is to follow the science and the evidence. And we've had this independent expert advice; we've followed it previously on all of our other immunisation and vaccination programmes, and it would be an odd thing to say that we've heard the science and the evidence, we've had the clear public health advice, but we decided not to follow it. Because the reality is that if we choose to prioritise different groups of workers, we have to deprioritise other people. So, it doesn't matter which group of workers you put to the top of the list for the next phase, you have to say to other people, 'Your turn is going to come later.' And the advice we have is very clearly based on how do we have the maximum impact on preventing significant ill health and potential mortality from COVID.

This isn't about saying that young people don't count, but it is about recognising the scale of the risk factors, which are set out very clearly in the scientific evidence and advice that we've had from the JCVI. And I guess it depends on whether you want to follow that evidence and advice or if you want to take an alternative approach. I'm very much committed to following the evidence and advice, and it is the case, as I said in my statement, that the JCVI did consider occupational exposure. That was considered and they still came out with what I think is very clear advice that we should take an age-based approach to roll-out, with the quickest way to protect people to complete the adult population programme. The danger, I think, is that if we chose, despite that advice, individual groups, it wouldn't just be throwing the science aside, we'd be making value judgments on which groups of essential workers are more important than others. Should we say that postal officers, postal workers, are not as important, or that retail workers aren't as important, when, actually, there isn't the evidence to say that those people shouldn't be prioritised? Should we take other key workers in but not take public-facing transport workers, who've had high levels of mortality from COVID? So, it's not as simple an issue as some of the campaigning suggests.

I understand why people campaign for people like them to have priority in the vaccination programme, but think of it this way: if you're a teacher and you're 25, and you're not in one of the groups with an underlying health condition that would put you into groups 4 or 6, then your risks are significantly less than a teacher who is 45 or a teacher who is 55. A 55-year-old teacher, and there are many of them, is already covered in groups 5 to 9. A 45-year-old teacher will come first in the next cohort, once we've completed groups 5 to 9. That doesn't mean that a 25-year-old doesn't matter, but it does mean their risks are less, and that's the point. On a population programme like this, we need to act on a basis that accounts for those risks across the population to reduce the amount of harm, to maximise the positive impact the vaccines will provide. That's what JCVI advice gives us the evidence for and that's the decision that I've made to help keep Wales safe.