Obviously, you made references—repeated to death—on austerity. What concerns did you raise when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development issued a warning about the rise in the UK budget deficit in January 2004? Keynesian economics is often presented as an alternative to austerity. I don't know where your personal economics lie, but certainly your colleagues have quoted Keynes on a number of occasions. Of course, Keynes stated that deficit spending during a downturn as a tool of economic policy requires deficits outside a downturn to be avoided or at least kept low, to a percentage of GDP lower than the nominal growth rate, thereby enabling the debt-to-GDP ratio to fall. What concern, therefore, did you express when, instead, by delivering a policy then called 'an end to boom and bust', and increasing the deficit faster than the growth rate of the economy outside a downturn, the pre-2010 UK Government broke the economic cycle and handed a poisoned chalice to successor UK Governments? As every debtor knows, you can't start reducing debt until you’ve brought your expenditure below your income. Essentially if post-2010 UK Governments had reduced the deficit more quickly, there would have been bigger cuts, wouldn't there? But if they reduced it more slowly, exposing us to economic shocks, we'd have risked bigger cuts being imposed by the UK's creditors. Instead, Welsh Government budgets have been rising in real terms since 2016-17 by nearly £1 billion.

In your statement you refer to an additional £287 million for the health and social care system. Could you clarify the interaction between that and the breakdown, given the statement by local government in Wales that many of the services they provide, particularly social services, are preventative services that reduce pressures on the NHS? So, what consideration have you given to the financial benefit of thinking of those budgets in a preventative interrelationship?

Of course, spending public money is not just about how much is spent, but also how well it's spent. What consideration have you given, or are you giving, to the amount of spending per head available to the 22 local authorities? As I understand it, currently Monmouthshire is lowest, receiving £585 less per head than the highest, but even if you look to north Wales: Wrexham, eighteenth with £339 less; Flintshire, nineteenth, with £368 less per head than the best funded. We need to be looking at this, do we not, in the context of impact, because this funding formula has existed for almost two decades? I think it was 2000-01 when it was introduced to tackle inequalities, to tackle prosperity gaps, and yet those same inequalities and prosperity gaps still exist in the same areas. So, should we not be targeting this a little bit smarter in terms of budget decisions?

How do you respond to the voluntary sector leaders who told me last Friday that we now need preventative budgets that deliver real change? They asked, 'Why not invest in what works rather than always looking to do something differently, in real co-design and co-delivery, rather than consultation after design from above, which is still the norm, and commissioning to deliver top-down programmes, which, again, is still the norm?' How do you respond to the Auditor General for Wales who, in July's report, 'Guide to Welsh Public Finances', said:

'Co-production involves a recognition of the positive assets that individuals and communities offer public services. These can dwarf the limited financial resources available to the public sector. There is a challenge for public services to understand and work with those resources alongside the financial resources that are typically included in budgets'?

Now, you've personally made many statements showing your own commitment to that agenda, but it ain't happening, finance Secretary. Out there still is too much top-down decision making and protection of internal budgets at the cost of front-line services, with a consequent extra cost to statutory front-line services. How, therefore, are you ensuring delivery of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 Part 2 code of practice, which puts in place a system where people are full partners in the design and operation of care and support, giving people clear and unambiguous rights and responsibilities? That is what the legislation says, but still it isn't happening, and the consequence of that is that millions are being spent poorly rather than engaging with the body public in Wales and delivering smart.

Finally, on the reference you made to the early intervention, prevention and support programme, and the separation that we know the Housing Matters Wales campaigners have been calling for, but they've been calling for more than that, haven't they, Cabinet Secretary? They've been calling for ring-fencing, and they've been calling for the separated grant to specially protect Supporting People. So will the ring fence now be restored, and will the Supporting People budget be specifically protected as the campaign calls for? Thank you.