This budget does see a loosening of purse strings, but there's no loosening of the apparent unwillingness of this Labour Government to think differently, to think innovatively about how today's budget decisions really impact on our tomorrows, and by that, I mean the medium to long term.

Now, recent announcements from UK Government have been hailed by some as the end of austerity. We've heard that claim again today, although, sadly, most assessments I've read suggest that this is more likely temporary relief. But if this is to be even a temporary step away from the kind of ideologically driven austerity, the deep cuts—let's give it its real name—of the past decade, then what we should be seeing with this budget is a pouncing on that opportunity to invest now for more sustainable services in future. I'll look principally at three areas: health, local government funding, and, in fact, the way health and local government funding should be interacting together better, and climate change.

For the life of me, I can't see in this budget a sign of a Government really tackling the climate crisis that it declared, and this Assembly declared—the first Parliament anywhere in the world to do so—with the real urgency it deserves. In fact, the signs were a bit worrying immediately after that Government declaration when the First Minister said, he doesn't believe that the declaration of climate emergency is a new policy for this Government or, indeed, for this National Assembly, because the environmental principles that have been important across this Chamber and across the period of devolution are summed up in that decision. But surely, such a momentous declaration, if it means anything, has to be seen as a significant turning point. And while later in the same session, I think the First Minister said he would support certain innovative responses to climate change—water quality and management, protection of biodiversity and unique local habitats and so on—the truth is, if we're serious about stepping up in our determination to address our environmental responsibilities, that should be seen running clearly right through this budget, and it isn't.

I've already mentioned that there are increases in departmental budgets across the board, but looking at the environment, energy and rural affairs budget, the increase in real terms is a measly 0.7 per cent—I think an issue that Mike Hedges from the Labour benches pursued the Minister on in a special meeting of the Finance Committee prior to Christmas. And looking at capital spending, committing just £140 million to environmental projects like the £29 million earmarked for electric buses, for example, is, whilst welcome in itself, clearly not going to drive the kind of wholesale change of direction that so many are looking to Government for leadership on at this point in time.

I'd ask the Minister: where is the evidence of a real step change? Do you have a formula, even, perhaps you could answer that, for working out the impact of spending decisions in the area of climate change? Do you even know what impact you will get from the elements of climate change prevention spend you do have in there? Where's the evidence of a culture change in Government that's running through, cross-departmentally, of climate change prevention measures? And whilst Government says the welfare of future generations Act is used as a guide in its budgeting process, since when has legislation been merely a guide? Preventing catastrophic climate change as much as we can, while playing Wales's part to its maximum in that job, is about as serious as it gets in terms of a need to focus on preventative measures rather than just short-term management spend. And just as this budget is lacking in its emphasis on the preventative in relation to the environment, I believe it's still woefully lacking when it comes to preventative spend in other areas too. I met members of the National Association of Head Teachers union this lunch time, as other Members did too, I know, highlighting an inadequate uplift, in their view, for education, and especially additional learning needs. I agree: funding special schools adequately, for example, has a huge preventative potential on wider education budgets, on social care, even on the health budget. I'll ask if I can, at this point, what assessment Welsh Government has made of consequentials that may be due to Wales from recent spending announcements for primary education in particular in England? That's a question coming directly from the NAHT representatives as they seek new funding for this sector.

But I'll turn to health now if I may.