Diolch, Lywydd. [Interruption.] No jokes from me today, I’m afraid. I do appreciate that a draft budget isn’t the place for detailed spending plans. The sort of high-level, top-line figures are more of an opportunity, really, for the Welsh Government to throw a few coloured lights around those areas of generosity that it would like us to notice. As my party’s spokesperson on culture and Welsh language, I’m happy to welcome the additional £5 million into these very modest portfolio areas, but I also look forward to following up some of the evidence given to the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee. Because there is a difficulty, isn’t there, of examining a draft budget in isolation from the outcomes that the anticipated spending or saving is intended to achieve? It’s exactly what Adam Price said, and actually what Mark Reckless alluded to as well. What impact will this year’s spending or saving have on medium and longer term plans for improving the lives of people in Wales? I’m very happy to see that extra money for culture and heritage, but I’m also keen to see whether the loss of 25 per cent of Cadw’s capital budget will be made up by capitalised income earned at Cadw sites. I’ll also be keen to see what that money actually gets us, because I am pretty sure that Neath Abbey, in my region, could easily eat up every penny of that capital budget, even if it’s topped up, which doesn’t really leave very much for the rest of the Cadw estate, looking forward.

An additional £25 million for social services sounds like a decent sum of money to invest, but what will that £25 million actually get? And, Lynne Neagle, I’m sure you’ll be interested to know this as well, as you actually mentioned it in your contribution. The Minister, on 9 November, confirmed that the extra £25 million for social services was, quote,

‘in respect and in understanding of the severe pressures that the social services sector are under at the moment. Pressures include, for example, the national living wage’.

And I agree entirely with her that, thanks to the UK Government, it is great, to further quote the Minister, that low-paid workers will be getting that increase in pay. However, earlier this year, the Association of Directors of Social Services claimed that, without increased funding combined with innovative solutions, the only way councils in Wales will be able to cope with the increased costs from the national living wage is by commissioning fewer services.

Now, I would be the first to recommend that all public services look for innovative solutions, but what I’m not sure about is how much of that extra £25 million will be spent on the difference between the old minimum wage and next year’s living wage. Will that £25 million see off the threat of a reduction in commissioned services? And we also need to know, if there is any money left over after the wages bill, whether the Government expects any of that £25 million to supplement the £4.5 million being allocated towards—and ‘towards’ is the word—meeting the costs to local authorities of the new savings threshold for those in care homes. The words suggest that £4.5 million won’t meet that total cost. In short, we need to know how much of that £25 million is left over to address the other severe pressures.

The reason we need to know that is that this £25 million is not ring-fenced; it is entirely vulnerable to competing demands for money within every single council in Wales, yet the Minister gave evidence to the Finance Committee that she did not want to direct councils’ spending other than on ensuring that we have strong, sustainable social services for the future. Well, we all want to see that, but if you have no idea what £25 million could and should pay for above paying better wages, where has the figure of £25 million come from? Why isn’t it being used to ease the pressure on children’s social services and work on partnership and integration—a core principle of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 as well, as Mark Isherwood mentioned, and indeed the parliamentary review into health and social care—instead of being moved into some other part of the main expenditure group?

Why aren’t you easing pressure on social services by at least retaining your level of support for the Family Fund? Don’t you think that the impact that this will have on the carers of severely disabled and seriously ill children—primarily women, of course, talking of gender impacts—let alone the children themselves, is likely to increase their assessed needs? More work for social services. And what are your grounds for limiting payments from the third sector grant scheme? Have you done an impact assessment on what is likely to happen to social services, which will be required to take on more work directly as a result of such a decision? The transfers within the MEG for communities and children—how are we supposed to follow the money there to ensure that social services won’t be having to meet even greater pressures? If we are to be—and this is all of us—positive contributors and critical friends on the Government’s health and social care integration agenda, then don’t dazzle us with the coloured lights, just make it easier to see what’s not actually being illuminated.