Thank you for that series of questions. I recognise what you had to say at the start about new technology, but I don’t think the better treatment that you refer to is a simple matter of accident, or that it’s inevitable. Those are deliberate choices that our clinicians are making. And actually, bringing together the stroke delivery plan and the implementation group has actually helped to advance those choices. There’s much greater conversation across Wales and helpful peer support and challenge about what are better models of care—both at the immediate point, but also in the sense of what rehabilitation could and should look like. That is also having to drive the conversation about reconfiguration of stroke services. I want to see more pace injected in that conversation and reaching a conclusion, because if we’re able to do that, then the points you make about better treatment at the outset—we’re more likely to deliver better treatment across the country if we do that, and if we have an agreed model for the future as well.

So, this really does matter, because if we do that, we’re more likely to save more lives and prevent avoidable long-term disability as well. So, there is a real price to pay in not doing this, as well as a real gain to be made if we can do it. In terms of your point—there were a number of points you made about rehabilitation and about, if you like, a person’s general well-being and not just their physical well-being as well. I recognise the points you’re making because, of course, that’s why I think the PROMs and PREMs measures matter. So, for that person, what matters to them in terms of, if you like, their clinical outcomes, but what matters for them in terms of their experience, and what, for them, matters and what is important. For some people, they may want to undertake rehabilitation so they can walk to the end of their street or walk to a local cafe or walk to a local social centre. And that isn’t just the physical part of actually recovering and being able to do that; it’s actually about being able to have that wider social interaction as well, and the points about their general well-being. In each of these, there is a danger that we only see the condition rather than seeing the whole person and what it is that makes them someone who actually has a life they enjoy leading and living. And on your broader point about the team who are supposed to provide this care, that’s one of the points I was trying to make. Having the right people available to deliver that improved rehab: that’s part of the reason why I announced that £95 million investment in the future of healthcare professionals in recent weeks, because we know we will need more healthcare professionals to deliver the quality of care that all of us would wish to see.

I was grateful to you for actually raising the issues in your own constituency—the numbers of people who have survived stroke, the numbers of people living with increased risk factors already, but also the particularly stark figures of people living with higher blood pressure and the significant additional risk they face from a number of conditions. That’s something that’s particularly personal for me given my own family history, because I understand what that really can mean and the range of risks that exist as well. That’s why I made the point, quite unashamedly, and why we will all need to return to this time and time again, as you did as well—. What it is—it’s to actually make healthier choices and the reduction in risk that that will deliver, and, actually, what that then means in terms of people having not just a longer life but a longer, healthier life. We haven’t been successful enough as a country in having that debate and in changing attitudes to the choices that each of us make and that we see made in each of our communities.

The third sector are an important part of that as well. I’m happy to say that when you look at the deliberate choice we’ve made in how to construct our implementation groups, the third sector are important partners within that, because of the expertise they bring, either in being champions in the service or for patients, and many of them are service providers as well. So, they are part of the architecture that we have deliberately designed, and there’s certainly no intention and no desire from this Government to unpick their role in helping to deliver those health and care services. The challenge will always be how we use our limited resources, and, unfortunately, tomorrow I’m not expecting there to be good news in the way that funding is distributed around the United Kingdom. What I couldn’t tell you or anyone else in the statutory sector or the third sector is that there’ll be a sudden tidal wave of money coming in to these services—regardless of how important they are, we will all have incredibly difficult choices to make on where that money is distributed and prioritised and used for the best possible impact for each of our citizens.

And finally, dealing with your point about inequalities—we have taken this on board seriously about how we understand risk. That’s why the Living Well, Living Longer programme in Aneurin Bevan, and the similar programme in Cwm Taf are being rolled out, because we’re getting to people who are not interacting with the health service but are carrying significant increased risk. Because I recognise we do still see far too high a level of inequality within socioeconomic groups and that is not something that this Government finds acceptable.