First of all, I'd like to thank the Minister for her statement. Secondly, I would like to thank the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, for confirming what I've been saying since being elected in 2011: austerity is a political not an economic policy. The national debt has gone up from £1.78 trillion to £1.82 trillion in the last year, so it's not that we've got less debt as a country. And I don't believe that too many teachers, too many librarians and too many doctors caused the recession. I believe it was caused by bankers engaging in casino capitalism.

The UK Government have still not engaged the OBR on preparations for an autumn budget, despite the memorandum of understanding stipulation that they ought to provide the office with 10 weeks' notice. The letter from the OBR to the UK Government makes clear that the OBR would need to know which Brexit scenario their update should be based on: deal or no deal—it sounds like a television programme—before explaining that late notice means Her Majesty's Treasury relying on a rough-and-ready forecast from the OBR or none whatsoever.

I will welcome the extra money; real-terms increases of 2.3 and 2.4 per cent in revenue and capital are obviously beneficial to the Welsh economy. It's very disappointing it was not a three-year settlement based on exactly the same 2.3 and 2.4 real-terms increases.

I have three questions for the Minister. We've seen what we've had from Westminster: has the Westminster Government shown the workings they used to calculate Wales's share and is an appeals mechanism, independent of the Treasury, in existence? We've talked about that for some time—the ability to appeal against what the Treasury said. We can't have the Treasury making a decision and, when you're not happy, the Treasury telling you, 'Well, we've now re-looked at it again and this is what you're getting.' And the last thing is—and this really follows on from what Rhun ap Iorwerth said, and people will know that I'm a great supporter of Welsh local government, no matter which party runs the council, or none at all—does the Minister accept the need for additional money for local government services such as social care and education? And if we're having a real-terms increase, why can't we say now that no local authorities will have a real-terms decrease?