But preaching on the right thing to do often doesn't reach the people we want it to. So, we have to get alongside communities and individuals and help them to make their own choices. There's a role of leadership for people like me, of course, and for everyone else in the Chamber, including those who've departed, health and care professionals, but actually people within their communities, peers, and the way in which children are educated now, that should make a real difference in developing attitudes. That case for change, again, as I said, was articulated in the parliamentary review's outcome.

We then come back to community hospitals, and when people complain about the closure of community hospitals they almost always say that loved facilities that have provided a good service were removed. The accusation always is that nefarious NHS managers deliberately ran down the service, and it was all about cost. Money is always a factor in any service that we deliver. Ultimately we give services a finite amount of money to deliver a service, and particularly so—remember, we're in the eighth year of austerity here, and that has a very real impact on the services that we can deliver. But the case for change isn't really just about saying, 'We have to close services because of money.' The case for change is about: can we deliver a better service with a better experience and better outcomes for people? A number of the community hospitals have closed in recent years because they're no longer capable of providing the levels of care that each of us should expect and demand for our communities. I think that's what the challenge always is, if you are in a position like mine, otherwise you're saying to one local community, 'If you're really attached to that care then that's okay, that's good enough for you, but it wouldn't be acceptable for my constituency.' There's a challenge about getting around and through and understanding that debate, which in itself is not an easy one to have.

So, some did close due to safety concerns about staffing levels and the inability to recruit to older models of care, and that's a challenge in the mainstream hospital sector, actually, as well—about having models of care that will attract the right staff with the right experience to run and deliver effective care. And others were just about the physical state of buildings. If they're no longer able to comply with fire regulations, you shouldn't say to people, 'If you put up a big enough fight, then actually your health and safety doesn't matter anymore.' So, there are very practical reasons to want to do that as well.

But in redesigning services for this century, there has to be a combination of more nearby modern community facilities and enhanced care at home or in the community. So, the term 'community hospital' may no longer be appropriate. It usually brings up the image of a local hospital with beds, doctors and nurses, and we actually think that, in many cases, that isn't what the future's going to look like in every single instance. We'll look at that more dispersed view on community care. We'll still see smaller hospitals with doctors and nurses in them, and I'll go on to talk about some of those shortly, but I think we need to have our focus on creating the sort of integrated health and care service, the seamless care system, that the parliamentary review suggested should be our future vision.

If you think about those services, some of them will be physical, some of them will be virtual. Yesterday we had a debate about digital technology. We heard quite a lot about digitalisation and what that will do in sharing records, but also the ability to communicate remotely, and to deliver a service remotely, where someone either doesn't need to leave their own home or potentially goes to a local centre and not have to travel further, with the inconvenience that often produces for people, but to go to a very local facility to have access to different sorts of care. That will have an impact on people—not just our ability to stay healthy, but their physical and mental health, too.

An excellent example of the sort of thing I'm talking about is the Ystradgynlais Community Hospital, which has been reinvented, describing itself as a 'community hub'. It has in-patient care for older people's mental health, day care, therapy, including for dietary, occupational therapists and physiotherapist care. It also has x-ray and ultrasound services, minor injuries and a minor ailment service. There are also social care staff and third sector providers on site. That is not what you would think was a traditional community hospital, and that's the model I think we should be investing in in the future.

Another example is the Flint integrated health and social care centre due to open in the coming weeks—a matter of some controversy within Flint, about the plans for it to happen. And yet the centre is adjacent to a care home and it will provide accommodation for services transferred out of secondary care, with consulting and treatment rooms being supported by telemedicine. In addition there will be community, third sector, social care services and mental health care and support on site as well. So, we're able to do more in remodelling our service, and that's why we're going to direct our capital resources in that way in local healthcare.

I recently announced, in October, that I've earmarked £68 million for an initial pipeline of facilities for integrated health and care services right across the country—19 different projects in the north, south, east and west to try and do exactly what I've been describing and talking about. I think that's where the future is, because the advances in clinical and social care practice, together with advances in technology, should allow us to change the way, positively, that we plan and deliver more and better integrated care to support people in their own homes and communities. That's what we'll continue to do in working alongside our partners in health, social care and beyond to do just that.