Thank you for the series of comments and questions. I’m pleased to hear you recognise we should get it right this year, and with sufficient ambition that is exactly what we’re attempting to deliver.

I just want to deal with your point about the end-of-life care and the link to that. In the previous statement, we did have a question from Julie Morgan about end-of-life care and the link in terms of the need to have improvement in end-of-life care for people living with dementia as well. And the points about advance care planning: you need to have that conversation at an early enough stage so that people make active choices, as opposed to having choices made for them, and people have to imagine what someone might have wanted or would have wanted. That’s a very difficult position for people to be placed into.

And I recognise the points you have made consistently about support workers, about understanding the need, about understanding the areas in which they can be used and about the resource. We’ve already committed a significant resource up to now, but the different choices that we will choose to make, having had a strategic decision about the action plan, then making sure resources accompany it to deliver on the aims and objectives.

Again, I recognise that you’ve been very consistent about diagnosis rates. It was a significant issue in the consultation. I tried to recognise that in my opening statement. It is important, again, that we have an ambitious and a stretching target, but one that is actually realistic. I want to see a real rate of improvement take place and I don’t want there to be excuses about not achieving a target. We have to have something that really can challenge, but really be delivered. It’s something that’s not just about the diagnosis taking place and the additional support and training that people need to make the diagnosis, but also about making sure that support is in place once that diagnosis has been made as well. I know that was an issue that was raised in the meeting with the cross-party group that I attended.

And finally, two points. I think the engagement with the Dementia Engagement and Empowerment Project has been a really important exercise, both before the consultation launch—the pre-consultation—and during the consultation as well. It’s really important, if we’re going to talk about co-production and the citizen being an equal partner in their healthcare, that that has meaning for the way we design policy as well. So, it isn’t just about having professional advocates speaking on behalf of people with dementia. People living directly with dementia themselves have been an important part of the design and delivery up to this point and they will be thereafter in the delivery of services.

And finally, I recognise the need to roll out good practice. That’s why we’ll have a compendium document to go with this to understand what is already taking place and where good practice exists, so that other people can look at how and why that’s being created. There is always a challenge in seeing whether good practice really does travel and can be introduced on a more system-wide basis. How often does good practice really relate to a set of circumstances in a locality and a group of inspiring individuals who coalesce by accident and by chance, rather than by actually designing the way the whole system should work? But to understand what that looks like so there’s a better prospect for that to actually take place.

Finally, to congratulate Big Pit on the dementia-friendly tour. I’d have loved to have been there with you this morning on the tour. I had one of my best days out at the national museum at Big Pit with my father-in-law. It’s a fantastic experience, and making sure that there is now a dementia-friendly tour is a big step forward.