I heard one of the Labour Members referring to this motion proposing to remove a Minister because of failures of delivery as vindictive. Well, if the removal of a Minister for reasons of failure of delivery is vindictive, how would you describe the removal of an entire independent board? I wouldn't use the word 'vindictive', actually, but I would say it is troubling, and I think it should trouble all of us. There are concerns at the heart of what has happened here that, actually, we all of us, collectively, both Government Members and opposition Members, I think, need to address. 

It's certainly the case that the Minister and the Government, having received the auditor general's report—a damning and sobering report—had to do something. Indeed, I'm sure that we would have criticised the Minister had they not taken action. What is extremely perplexing and problematic is that it's a response that, while not wholly uncritical of independent board members, does point to the majority of the failings being on the side of the executive team, but then the Minister decides to leave them in place and sack the entire non-executive membership of the board. It just seems to me to run counter to natural justice to sack the non-executive board in its entirety when it's those board members, as Mark Polin pointed out in his piece today, who had commissioned the external reviews in a range of areas, like urology, vascular services, finance, which had corroborated what they were saying and actually proved that they were in receipt of inaccurate information. [Interruption.] And yet it was—