Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, although I note that, once again, you press-released your key announcement before announcing it to us. Since you're able to issue a press release on the matter, you're clearly in a position to issue the statement to AMs, but you didn't. I do find it rather disappointing that you released it to the press first before making the announcement here. 

But, turning to your statement, I'm sure teachers and schools will be deeply, deeply grateful for the funds that you're announcing today—or rather that you pre-announced. I just wonder: is this an admission that you're seeking to change too much too quickly? Have you had to pledge this amount of funding because of the cost of supply teachers because you haven't sorted out an alternative to using agencies, which charge a fortune to schools? Was it always the plan to spend the huge sum of £24 million in this way? If so, why haven't you said so before—that is, when you announced the new curriculum?

You say it's to ensure that changes are made in a way that will prioritise the well-being of teachers and minimise disruption to pupils' learning. I don't object in principle to the allocation of the money. I think I've always said that, any measure that you introduce, whether it's the additional learning needs Bill or whatever, unless the resources are there to enable those changes to take place, it's not worth the paper it's written on. I'm just questioning why this is now coming up and why it hasn't been considered before, because surely you should have considered this when you first announced your plans to introduce all these curriculum changes, and surely you should have done an impact assessment on how much these changes were likely to cost the teaching profession to implement them.

In the Government written press release, you're quoted as saying that the money shows how highly we value teachers and professional learning, yet earlier it says it's to make the transition to the new curriculum as smooth as possible. But which is it? It seemed a little bit contradictory there. Is this a new opportunity for professional learning, as your quote suggests, or is it a response to panic that teachers will need hitherto unforeseen help in adapting to all the changes, as the rest of the article suggests? Is this new money, or is this money that will have to be found from the existing dwindling education budget that the Labour Government you're propping up has cut in real terms? If it's not new money, do you feel embarrassed that your changes are requiring money to be taken from other parts of the education system in order to help smooth the transition to the new curriculum because you're trying to make too many changes too quickly? Twenty-four million pounds is a lot of new teachers, a lot of new books—a few rural schools and local schools could avoid closure. So, I think we and the taxpayers deserve to know what is having less spent money—sorry, I'll start again—what is having less money spent on it in order to fund your latest announcement. And can you give us an itemised list of what will be getting less funding than anticipated as a result of this and what assessments you and the rest of the members of the Cabinet have made of the implications of those reductions? Thank you.