Thank you for the series of questions. Perhaps I can start with the end, just to deal with that quickly. It is £1 million for each of the major condition plans, and how that money is used is decided by the implementation group. So, there’s a range of people from the health service who are involved. It’s often a medical director or chief executive of a local health board or trust who is involved in chairing those bodies, but they involve a range of different people from different parts of the health service and the third sector, which, as I said earlier, is an important strength. They will then decide on a set number of priorities and what to put into each area. So, the Government doesn’t tell them, ‘This is what you must now do with the money.’ It is for that group to decide, ‘What can we do with this sum of money to improve this service area, and what do we think are the real priorities within that?’ That’s actually been really welcomed by people from the service and outside—the lobby, the interest and the third sector groups: having a sum of money to make a real difference.

As I said earlier, in my statement, about those plans, this goes back to your point about how much is shared, because I’m actually really encouraged in the read-across about the amount of joint work that has taken place quite quickly since the money was there—so, the points that I made about the areas of joint work between neurological conditions and stroke, and the point about cardiovascular risk assessment on shared work there as well. So, we’ve actually seen people coming together to talk to each other about how to use their money in a joined-up manner, and that’s actually really encouraging. It’s also brought together a range of different people in the third sector in new alliances as well. For example, there is a new cardiovascular alliance between a range of different charities involved and engaged in the same sort of area of work, and that’s really encouraging for us. It probably means that they’ve got a bigger voice as a result, but it’s also more useful for the Government to engage them as a group, coming together with unified priorities. So, I think that’s been really encouraging too.

But the work is still relatively new, so the point about understanding what they want to do, how they inform themselves about priorities, getting on and doing, and being able to evaluate that, is actually still in train, so it will be somewhere into the next part of the year when we’ll be able to evaluate what impact that has had. But, in allocating that money, we have to accept that, in doing that, the money may not always produce the desired outcomes that we want it to. But, I think that in a range of those we’ll see real gains being made, and I think perhaps the best example of that is the community cardiology, rolled out initially in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, in the Swansea area, and now being rolled out across the country. Because there’s real evidence that if you shift services into the community, it provides a real benefit to the patient, to the citizen as well, and it’s actually investing in primary care in that sense too. Secondary care for this has been very positive about it in the Swansea area, because they recognise that it really has shifted people in their area to where they could be seen, it’s released pressure on them, the waiting times are now reducing in secondary care as a result, and they’re seeing people as consultants that they recognise they really need to see. So, it’s a really good example of the progress we want to make.

And I guess I’ll try to deal with your points now about co-production and integration, because it isn’t just about the third sector, it is about the citizen, which is part of the ambition for the future of healthcare in Wales, not just in the delivery plans. It’s about making sure there’s a changed relationship between the citizen and the health professional, about making sure that that conversation is also matched up by a broader integration of services as well—so, the shift between primary and secondary care that we have talked about since the start of this place—and about making sure there’s more evidence that that happens, with community cardiology being one example where it has happened. But, equally, that integration with other areas of service as well, so not just primary and secondary care, not just social services, but with colleagues in education and housing too, and recognising the role this has to play in improving a range of different areas. And I think perhaps, on rehabilitation, there’s a really good example where the role of housing is really important too, about getting people into their own home more quickly, and what that means then for the joining up of different services, and actually the different professionals that need to be engaged with that. That’s really important, for example, with stroke care, moving forward, in the next iteration of the plan, and understanding the updated advice and guidance that the Royal College of Physicians has produced, with a heavy emphasis on getting people into their own home more quickly for the rehabilitation to commence. So, there are really important drivers that take place that each implementation group needs to take account of.

So, I want to finish by saying that, on the points you make about outcomes, recruitment and workforce issues, we certainly recognise that each of the delivery plans have been helpful in this way, in highlighting areas where we need to do better, where there’s a real deficit, where there’s evidence about what that means, but also what improvement can look like. So, this lunch time I was able to point out that having a multidisciplinary team approach for interstitial lung disease had been really positive in reducing waiting times for people, from something like 18 weeks down to two weeks. That’s been driven by the way that the implementation group has worked together, so there is a better experience, and there are now better outcomes for people as well. So, there are good reasons to be positive, as well as to say that we should not be complacent. Actually, this approach means that we should not be complacent because we have a range of different people who are involved and engaged in the work that we’re doing.