Okay. So, moving on, then, to the impact on the child and this whole question around school readiness, of course, which is an important one to address. Clearly, one of the main outcomes of this policy will be the academic performance of children, hopefully, later on in life. I want to come back to this point that the Children's Commissioner for Wales and others have raised: the concern that, actually, the most disadvantaged—those from workless households—are being excluded from this policy. Isn't there therefore a risk that they'll be left even further behind?

I've had long, detailed and positive discussions with the children's commissioner on this, and I know the children's commissioner would want a more universal offer, but I make two points on that: one is, that was not what the commitment in the manifesto was, and it's not the offer that's being taken forward now. It is a different thing, a universal offer, and there are issues around that with complexity, and also affordability. But it isn't the offer that we took forward into Government; this is what we're taking forward. But it is interesting in terms of that aspect of families then who lose out. I'd say two significant things on it: one is, this doesn't stand alone purely as 30 hours of childcare. Within this, there are 10 hours of the foundation years, educational input, which is there for everybody. But before that, particularly for those disadvantaged families, before we even get to that stage, you have schemes such as Flying Start, and I know this committee has looked in detail at Flying Start and has said that it would like to see it rolled out everywhere. If I had all the money under the sun, I would really do that, Chair; I would really do it. But I don't have all the money under the sun.

But you do have the ability to target the money.

Yes, but the fact that Flying Start, we know, is leading to those outcomes where those children, in quite challenged circumstances very often, are more ready to step up to the foundation year, are more ready, then, to step through into mainstream education in later years—those things tie together. So, there are the 10 hours of education provision that sits here for every family, by the way, within this offer, let alone the childcare. That doesn't mean that everybody's excluded, but it does mean, yes, that this offer is focused on working parents. And we don't think that that's a bad thing. In fact, it does overlap with other offers that other political parties were taking forward into the last election, which was focusing on how we support the biggest thing that we often have in our constituency mailbags, which is, 'I can't afford to go back to work because I can't afford the childcare. Don't tell me to go back to work, I can't afford it.'


I've had long, detailed and positive discussions with the children's commissioner on this, and I know the children's commissioner would want a more universal offer, but I make two points on that: one is, that was not what the commitment in the manifesto was, and it's not the offer that's being taken forward now. It is a different thing, a universal offer, and there are issues around that with complexity, and also affordability. But it isn't the offer that we took forward into Government; this is what we're taking forward. But it is interesting in terms of that aspect of families then who lose out. I'd say two significant things on it: one is, this doesn't stand alone purely as 30 hours of childcare. Within this, there are 10 hours of the foundation years, educational input, which is there for everybody. But before that, particularly for those disadvantaged families, before we even get to that stage, you have schemes such as Flying Start, and I know this committee has looked in detail at Flying Start and has said that it would like to see it rolled out everywhere. If I had all the money under the sun, I would really do that, Chair; I would really do it. But I don't have all the money under the sun.

But you do have the ability to target the money.

Yes, but the fact that Flying Start, we know, is leading to those outcomes where those children, in quite challenged circumstances very often, are more ready to step up to the foundation year, are more ready, then, to step through into mainstream education in later years—those things tie together. So, there are the 10 hours of education provision that sits here for every family, by the way, within this offer, let alone the childcare. That doesn't mean that everybody's excluded, but it does mean, yes, that this offer is focused on working parents. And we don't think that that's a bad thing. In fact, it does overlap with other offers that other political parties were taking forward into the last election, which was focusing on how we support the biggest thing that we often have in our constituency mailbags, which is, 'I can't afford to go back to work because I can't afford the childcare. Don't tell me to go back to work, I can't afford it.'

The majority of disadvantaged children don't live in Flying Start areas, do they?


But you do have the ability to target the money.

Yes, but the fact that Flying Start, we know, is leading to those outcomes where those children, in quite challenged circumstances very often, are more ready to step up to the foundation year, are more ready, then, to step through into mainstream education in later years—those things tie together. So, there are the 10 hours of education provision that sits here for every family, by the way, within this offer, let alone the childcare. That doesn't mean that everybody's excluded, but it does mean, yes, that this offer is focused on working parents. And we don't think that that's a bad thing. In fact, it does overlap with other offers that other political parties were taking forward into the last election, which was focusing on how we support the biggest thing that we often have in our constituency mailbags, which is, 'I can't afford to go back to work because I can't afford the childcare. Don't tell me to go back to work, I can't afford it.'

The majority of disadvantaged children don't live in Flying Start areas, do they?


Yes, but the fact that Flying Start, we know, is leading to those outcomes where those children, in quite challenged circumstances very often, are more ready to step up to the foundation year, are more ready, then, to step through into mainstream education in later years—those things tie together. So, there are the 10 hours of education provision that sits here for every family, by the way, within this offer, let alone the childcare. That doesn't mean that everybody's excluded, but it does mean, yes, that this offer is focused on working parents. And we don't think that that's a bad thing. In fact, it does overlap with other offers that other political parties were taking forward into the last election, which was focusing on how we support the biggest thing that we often have in our constituency mailbags, which is, 'I can't afford to go back to work because I can't afford the childcare. Don't tell me to go back to work, I can't afford it.'

The majority of disadvantaged children don't live in Flying Start areas, do they?

So, there's a missing cohort there that can't access one or the other, and the school readiness gap is growing, and, really, are we focusing our resources in the right place here?


The majority of disadvantaged children don't live in Flying Start areas, do they?

So, there's a missing cohort there that can't access one or the other, and the school readiness gap is growing, and, really, are we focusing our resources in the right place here?

Well, yes, in terms of this scheme, but it doesn't sit alone as this scheme—it's the wider plethora of, I have to say, progressive and advanced initiatives that we have in Wales that take different forms. It's not only Flying Start that provides that other support for parents, and readiness not only for the parents and for their children, but also the support into work. So, if, for example, you look at the Parents, Childcare and Employment programme, which is separate from this, there is support there for every parent in terms of helping them get supported into work from disadvantaged families. If you look at the support for the children, we've got the 10 hours that sits within the sphere of the education, but we've also got all the other family intervention programmes that help with socialisation, education and so on and so forth. If you look at this solely on its own and say, 'Well, there is nothing else there; the rest of Wales is a desert and there's no support for parents, for getting parents back into work or for those parents who are not seeking to go back into work but also need the support and for their children in education', I'd be worried. But, actually, this fits as part of the jigsaw that we have in Wales, where I think we are well ahead of the other nations. Yes, we could do more, and I always say, Llyr; I always say, Chair, that if I had—I don't have a chequebook at all, because it's not in my gift—if I had a blank cheque I'd do a lot more, but we don't. But what we can do is get the right schemes in place, and if this helps drive more choices for working parents, including, by the way—. There are niceties within this as well; it doesn't have to be that both parents are working. You could have a parent who is on incapacity benefit. You could have a parent who is a registered carer. They would qualify for the scheme. Those will be some of those most disadvantaged families that we both have those concerns about. So, there is some flexibility within this scheme as well to deal with some of those disadvantaged families.


So, there's a missing cohort there that can't access one or the other, and the school readiness gap is growing, and, really, are we focusing our resources in the right place here?

Well, yes, in terms of this scheme, but it doesn't sit alone as this scheme—it's the wider plethora of, I have to say, progressive and advanced initiatives that we have in Wales that take different forms. It's not only Flying Start that provides that other support for parents, and readiness not only for the parents and for their children, but also the support into work. So, if, for example, you look at the Parents, Childcare and Employment programme, which is separate from this, there is support there for every parent in terms of helping them get supported into work from disadvantaged families. If you look at the support for the children, we've got the 10 hours that sits within the sphere of the education, but we've also got all the other family intervention programmes that help with socialisation, education and so on and so forth. If you look at this solely on its own and say, 'Well, there is nothing else there; the rest of Wales is a desert and there's no support for parents, for getting parents back into work or for those parents who are not seeking to go back into work but also need the support and for their children in education', I'd be worried. But, actually, this fits as part of the jigsaw that we have in Wales, where I think we are well ahead of the other nations. Yes, we could do more, and I always say, Llyr; I always say, Chair, that if I had—I don't have a chequebook at all, because it's not in my gift—if I had a blank cheque I'd do a lot more, but we don't. But what we can do is get the right schemes in place, and if this helps drive more choices for working parents, including, by the way—. There are niceties within this as well; it doesn't have to be that both parents are working. You could have a parent who is on incapacity benefit. You could have a parent who is a registered carer. They would qualify for the scheme. Those will be some of those most disadvantaged families that we both have those concerns about. So, there is some flexibility within this scheme as well to deal with some of those disadvantaged families.


So, there's a missing cohort there that can't access one or the other, and the school readiness gap is growing, and, really, are we focusing our resources in the right place here?

Well, yes, in terms of this scheme, but it doesn't sit alone as this scheme—it's the wider plethora of, I have to say, progressive and advanced initiatives that we have in Wales that take different forms. It's not only Flying Start that provides that other support for parents, and readiness not only for the parents and for their children, but also the support into work. So, if, for example, you look at the Parents, Childcare and Employment programme, which is separate from this, there is support there for every parent in terms of helping them get supported into work from disadvantaged families. If you look at the support for the children, we've got the 10 hours that sits within the sphere of the education, but we've also got all the other family intervention programmes that help with socialisation, education and so on and so forth. If you look at this solely on its own and say, 'Well, there is nothing else there; the rest of Wales is a desert and there's no support for parents, for getting parents back into work or for those parents who are not seeking to go back into work but also need the support and for their children in education', I'd be worried. But, actually, this fits as part of the jigsaw that we have in Wales, where I think we are well ahead of the other nations. Yes, we could do more, and I always say, Llyr; I always say, Chair, that if I had—I don't have a chequebook at all, because it's not in my gift—if I had a blank cheque I'd do a lot more, but we don't. But what we can do is get the right schemes in place, and if this helps drive more choices for working parents, including, by the way—. There are niceties within this as well; it doesn't have to be that both parents are working. You could have a parent who is on incapacity benefit. You could have a parent who is a registered carer. They would qualify for the scheme. Those will be some of those most disadvantaged families that we both have those concerns about. So, there is some flexibility within this scheme as well to deal with some of those disadvantaged families.

I am surprised by the answer there, particularly given that one of the ambitions of the Government is to close this attainment gap later in life when schoolchildren get to their examinations, when they're 16 years old. Yet this appears to be driving a bigger wedge in terms of development, which could, of course, lead to a perverse outcome later on in life, but I don't want to ask you about that. If I can just very quickly ask you: has consideration been given to making free childcare available to parents where they're in 16 hours or more of education each week? So, they may not be entering the labour market, but, of course, one of those barriers to them getting back into the labour market could well be their education, so what arrangements are in place there?


Well, yes, in terms of this scheme, but it doesn't sit alone as this scheme—it's the wider plethora of, I have to say, progressive and advanced initiatives that we have in Wales that take different forms. It's not only Flying Start that provides that other support for parents, and readiness not only for the parents and for their children, but also the support into work. So, if, for example, you look at the Parents, Childcare and Employment programme, which is separate from this, there is support there for every parent in terms of helping them get supported into work from disadvantaged families. If you look at the support for the children, we've got the 10 hours that sits within the sphere of the education, but we've also got all the other family intervention programmes that help with socialisation, education and so on and so forth. If you look at this solely on its own and say, 'Well, there is nothing else there; the rest of Wales is a desert and there's no support for parents, for getting parents back into work or for those parents who are not seeking to go back into work but also need the support and for their children in education', I'd be worried. But, actually, this fits as part of the jigsaw that we have in Wales, where I think we are well ahead of the other nations. Yes, we could do more, and I always say, Llyr; I always say, Chair, that if I had—I don't have a chequebook at all, because it's not in my gift—if I had a blank cheque I'd do a lot more, but we don't. But what we can do is get the right schemes in place, and if this helps drive more choices for working parents, including, by the way—. There are niceties within this as well; it doesn't have to be that both parents are working. You could have a parent who is on incapacity benefit. You could have a parent who is a registered carer. They would qualify for the scheme. Those will be some of those most disadvantaged families that we both have those concerns about. So, there is some flexibility within this scheme as well to deal with some of those disadvantaged families.

I am surprised by the answer there, particularly given that one of the ambitions of the Government is to close this attainment gap later in life when schoolchildren get to their examinations, when they're 16 years old. Yet this appears to be driving a bigger wedge in terms of development, which could, of course, lead to a perverse outcome later on in life, but I don't want to ask you about that. If I can just very quickly ask you: has consideration been given to making free childcare available to parents where they're in 16 hours or more of education each week? So, they may not be entering the labour market, but, of course, one of those barriers to them getting back into the labour market could well be their education, so what arrangements are in place there?

Darren, we have considered it, and we haven't included it within the scheme because this is designed to enable parents to go into work, not into training to enable them to get into work. There are other forms of support available for parents in terms of college and so on and so forth, but it's not this scheme.


I am surprised by the answer there, particularly given that one of the ambitions of the Government is to close this attainment gap later in life when schoolchildren get to their examinations, when they're 16 years old. Yet this appears to be driving a bigger wedge in terms of development, which could, of course, lead to a perverse outcome later on in life, but I don't want to ask you about that. If I can just very quickly ask you: has consideration been given to making free childcare available to parents where they're in 16 hours or more of education each week? So, they may not be entering the labour market, but, of course, one of those barriers to them getting back into the labour market could well be their education, so what arrangements are in place there?

Darren, we have considered it, and we haven't included it within the scheme because this is designed to enable parents to go into work, not into training to enable them to get into work. There are other forms of support available for parents in terms of college and so on and so forth, but it's not this scheme.

But it's not prescribed support, is it? You know, it's not universally available to people who might be wanting to get back into the labour market over that barrier. You must have done some costings, then, if you've considered it, and you must have tried to identify numbers.


Darren, we have considered it, and we haven't included it within the scheme because this is designed to enable parents to go into work, not into training to enable them to get into work. There are other forms of support available for parents in terms of college and so on and so forth, but it's not this scheme.

But it's not prescribed support, is it? You know, it's not universally available to people who might be wanting to get back into the labour market over that barrier. You must have done some costings, then, if you've considered it, and you must have tried to identify numbers.


But it's not prescribed support, is it? You know, it's not universally available to people who might be wanting to get back into the labour market over that barrier. You must have done some costings, then, if you've considered it, and you must have tried to identify numbers.


So, you haven't considered it that much, have you?


So, you haven't considered it that much, have you?

We have actually considered—. We consider it from the point of, 'What is this scheme set up to do?' It's very clear. When we ran, in the manifesto on this point—


So, you haven't considered it that much, have you?

We have actually considered—. We consider it from the point of, 'What is this scheme set up to do?' It's very clear. When we ran, in the manifesto on this point—

I understand that. I don't want you to repeat yourself because I know we are against the clock. But, very specifically, when you say you've considered it, what you mean is you thought about it but you've not costed it, you've not identified the numbers that might be involved—


We have actually considered—. We consider it from the point of, 'What is this scheme set up to do?' It's very clear. When we ran, in the manifesto on this point—

I understand that. I don't want you to repeat yourself because I know we are against the clock. But, very specifically, when you say you've considered it, what you mean is you thought about it but you've not costed it, you've not identified the numbers that might be involved—

And therefore you've not considered whether it might be affordable in addition to the policy objective that this is trying to meet.


I understand that. I don't want you to repeat yourself because I know we are against the clock. But, very specifically, when you say you've considered it, what you mean is you thought about it but you've not costed it, you've not identified the numbers that might be involved—

And therefore you've not considered whether it might be affordable in addition to the policy objective that this is trying to meet.

No, Darren, you're right: we haven't considered affordability because we've considered it on first principles to do with what this offer is trying to do. It doesn't fit within the offer so, as such, why would we do the costings?


And therefore you've not considered whether it might be affordable in addition to the policy objective that this is trying to meet.

No, Darren, you're right: we haven't considered affordability because we've considered it on first principles to do with what this offer is trying to do. It doesn't fit within the offer so, as such, why would we do the costings?

Perhaps I can frame my question in another way. Are you prepared to consider it if you're able to identify the numbers and potential cost?


And therefore you've not considered whether it might be affordable in addition to the policy objective that this is trying to meet.

No, Darren, you're right: we haven't considered affordability because we've considered it on first principles to do with what this offer is trying to do. It doesn't fit within the offer so, as such, why would we do the costings?

Perhaps I can frame my question in another way. Are you prepared to consider it if you're able to identify the numbers and potential cost?

Ah, right, okay. We'd be interested in your thoughts as a committee, but it doesn't actually fit within the first principles of what the scheme is designed to do. Darren, can I just pick up on your point, in case you misinterpreted what I was saying to Llyr? I drew attention in my answer to Llyr to schemes such as the PaCE scheme. In Gwynedd, one of our pilot areas, they are combining the Team Around the Family with this childcare offer. So, what they are doing is wrapping the support around. It is not the case, as you've suggested then, that there is somehow more disadvantage being heaped on other families. What this does is tie in in those pilot areas with the existing provision, and that's the way we want to see it work. So, I wouldn't want you to be under any misapprehension that this makes conditions worse for families. Those families who have a registered carer in them where one parent works, and those families who have somebody on incapacity benefit will qualify for the scheme. All families will qualify for the 10 hours of education. In Gwynedd, they're wrapping the Team Around the Family with this offer—


No, Darren, you're right: we haven't considered affordability because we've considered it on first principles to do with what this offer is trying to do. It doesn't fit within the offer so, as such, why would we do the costings?

Perhaps I can frame my question in another way. Are you prepared to consider it if you're able to identify the numbers and potential cost?

Ah, right, okay. We'd be interested in your thoughts as a committee, but it doesn't actually fit within the first principles of what the scheme is designed to do. Darren, can I just pick up on your point, in case you misinterpreted what I was saying to Llyr? I drew attention in my answer to Llyr to schemes such as the PaCE scheme. In Gwynedd, one of our pilot areas, they are combining the Team Around the Family with this childcare offer. So, what they are doing is wrapping the support around. It is not the case, as you've suggested then, that there is somehow more disadvantage being heaped on other families. What this does is tie in in those pilot areas with the existing provision, and that's the way we want to see it work. So, I wouldn't want you to be under any misapprehension that this makes conditions worse for families. Those families who have a registered carer in them where one parent works, and those families who have somebody on incapacity benefit will qualify for the scheme. All families will qualify for the 10 hours of education. In Gwynedd, they're wrapping the Team Around the Family with this offer—

But on the other hand, Minister, you've also suggested that this will accelerate child development for those kids who are able to access it, and yet not all kids will be able to access it, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Perhaps I can frame my question in another way. Are you prepared to consider it if you're able to identify the numbers and potential cost?

Ah, right, okay. We'd be interested in your thoughts as a committee, but it doesn't actually fit within the first principles of what the scheme is designed to do. Darren, can I just pick up on your point, in case you misinterpreted what I was saying to Llyr? I drew attention in my answer to Llyr to schemes such as the PaCE scheme. In Gwynedd, one of our pilot areas, they are combining the Team Around the Family with this childcare offer. So, what they are doing is wrapping the support around. It is not the case, as you've suggested then, that there is somehow more disadvantage being heaped on other families. What this does is tie in in those pilot areas with the existing provision, and that's the way we want to see it work. So, I wouldn't want you to be under any misapprehension that this makes conditions worse for families. Those families who have a registered carer in them where one parent works, and those families who have somebody on incapacity benefit will qualify for the scheme. All families will qualify for the 10 hours of education. In Gwynedd, they're wrapping the Team Around the Family with this offer—

But on the other hand, Minister, you've also suggested that this will accelerate child development for those kids who are able to access it, and yet not all kids will be able to access it, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But all children can access the 10 hours, and they can access Flying Start—


Ah, right, okay. We'd be interested in your thoughts as a committee, but it doesn't actually fit within the first principles of what the scheme is designed to do. Darren, can I just pick up on your point, in case you misinterpreted what I was saying to Llyr? I drew attention in my answer to Llyr to schemes such as the PaCE scheme. In Gwynedd, one of our pilot areas, they are combining the Team Around the Family with this childcare offer. So, what they are doing is wrapping the support around. It is not the case, as you've suggested then, that there is somehow more disadvantage being heaped on other families. What this does is tie in in those pilot areas with the existing provision, and that's the way we want to see it work. So, I wouldn't want you to be under any misapprehension that this makes conditions worse for families. Those families who have a registered carer in them where one parent works, and those families who have somebody on incapacity benefit will qualify for the scheme. All families will qualify for the 10 hours of education. In Gwynedd, they're wrapping the Team Around the Family with this offer—

But on the other hand, Minister, you've also suggested that this will accelerate child development for those kids who are able to access it, and yet not all kids will be able to access it, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But all children can access the 10 hours, and they can access Flying Start—

But 10 hours is very different to 30 hours, is it not?


But on the other hand, Minister, you've also suggested that this will accelerate child development for those kids who are able to access it, and yet not all kids will be able to access it, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But all children can access the 10 hours, and they can access Flying Start—

But 10 hours is very different to 30 hours, is it not?

Yes, but they can access Flying Start or they can access the Team Around the Family—


But all children can access the 10 hours, and they can access Flying Start—

But 10 hours is very different to 30 hours, is it not?

Yes, but they can access Flying Start or they can access the Team Around the Family—


But 10 hours is very different to 30 hours, is it not?

Yes, but they can access Flying Start or they can access the Team Around the Family—

—or they can be in a children's zone area or they can—


Yes, but they can access Flying Start or they can access the Team Around the Family—

—or they can be in a children's zone area or they can—


—or they can be in a children's zone area or they can—

Right, I've got John and then David, and the questions and answers are going to have to be brief, please.


—or they can be in a children's zone area or they can—

Right, I've got John and then David, and the questions and answers are going to have to be brief, please.

Yes, certainly, Chair. In terms of child development and how this fits with wider Welsh Government strategy, Huw, I'd be interested in what you'd have to say about the quality of childcare. We're talking a lot about quantity, but obviously we want to up quality, and that's recognised by Welsh Government. They've talked about increasing the qualifications within the workforce, and the quality. I just wonder how that sits within the £4.50, because there could be pressures in the opposite direction there, and some tension between wanting to up the qualifications and quality of workforce whilst keeping affordability in place.


Right, I've got John and then David, and the questions and answers are going to have to be brief, please.

Yes, certainly, Chair. In terms of child development and how this fits with wider Welsh Government strategy, Huw, I'd be interested in what you'd have to say about the quality of childcare. We're talking a lot about quantity, but obviously we want to up quality, and that's recognised by Welsh Government. They've talked about increasing the qualifications within the workforce, and the quality. I just wonder how that sits within the £4.50, because there could be pressures in the opposite direction there, and some tension between wanting to up the qualifications and quality of workforce whilst keeping affordability in place.

John, you're absolutely right, and two things on that: I visited one of the facilities in the Valleys the other day that was taking this forward—a very good independent sector-run childcare provision, with Welsh language and English language running alongside each other, and I asked the point about the integration, curiously, but what they were doing was—. Their standard of staff was an exemplar of what we'd want to see: not only very well-qualified childcare staff who were qualified within not simply the child-minding but the wider child development aspects—. So, it was hard to differentiate, in some ways, what was happening there from what would be happening in a child development educational surrounding, and including the nutritional stuff and all of that. Now, that is the model we need to see, and the £4.50 seems to work, at the moment, for that. It'll be interesting, as we discussed previously, as it goes forward—. We need to look at whether that works, going forward. But the quality, I think, is key, and that's why we're focused very much on registered inspected providers, as opposed to every Tom, Dick and Harriet.


Right, I've got John and then David, and the questions and answers are going to have to be brief, please.

Yes, certainly, Chair. In terms of child development and how this fits with wider Welsh Government strategy, Huw, I'd be interested in what you'd have to say about the quality of childcare. We're talking a lot about quantity, but obviously we want to up quality, and that's recognised by Welsh Government. They've talked about increasing the qualifications within the workforce, and the quality. I just wonder how that sits within the £4.50, because there could be pressures in the opposite direction there, and some tension between wanting to up the qualifications and quality of workforce whilst keeping affordability in place.

John, you're absolutely right, and two things on that: I visited one of the facilities in the Valleys the other day that was taking this forward—a very good independent sector-run childcare provision, with Welsh language and English language running alongside each other, and I asked the point about the integration, curiously, but what they were doing was—. Their standard of staff was an exemplar of what we'd want to see: not only very well-qualified childcare staff who were qualified within not simply the child-minding but the wider child development aspects—. So, it was hard to differentiate, in some ways, what was happening there from what would be happening in a child development educational surrounding, and including the nutritional stuff and all of that. Now, that is the model we need to see, and the £4.50 seems to work, at the moment, for that. It'll be interesting, as we discussed previously, as it goes forward—. We need to look at whether that works, going forward. But the quality, I think, is key, and that's why we're focused very much on registered inspected providers, as opposed to every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

If we want to increase salary levels, though, which I think is a necessary part of this picture of improving quality, then obviously that might impact on the £4.50 rate.


Yes, certainly, Chair. In terms of child development and how this fits with wider Welsh Government strategy, Huw, I'd be interested in what you'd have to say about the quality of childcare. We're talking a lot about quantity, but obviously we want to up quality, and that's recognised by Welsh Government. They've talked about increasing the qualifications within the workforce, and the quality. I just wonder how that sits within the £4.50, because there could be pressures in the opposite direction there, and some tension between wanting to up the qualifications and quality of workforce whilst keeping affordability in place.

John, you're absolutely right, and two things on that: I visited one of the facilities in the Valleys the other day that was taking this forward—a very good independent sector-run childcare provision, with Welsh language and English language running alongside each other, and I asked the point about the integration, curiously, but what they were doing was—. Their standard of staff was an exemplar of what we'd want to see: not only very well-qualified childcare staff who were qualified within not simply the child-minding but the wider child development aspects—. So, it was hard to differentiate, in some ways, what was happening there from what would be happening in a child development educational surrounding, and including the nutritional stuff and all of that. Now, that is the model we need to see, and the £4.50 seems to work, at the moment, for that. It'll be interesting, as we discussed previously, as it goes forward—. We need to look at whether that works, going forward. But the quality, I think, is key, and that's why we're focused very much on registered inspected providers, as opposed to every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

If we want to increase salary levels, though, which I think is a necessary part of this picture of improving quality, then obviously that might impact on the £4.50 rate.

Yes, indeed, and we are cognisant—. It's interesting that we focus on whether the £4.50 is affordable, but the £4.50—you know, we're having an interesting discussion internally about how that £4.50 offer per hour sits alongside others, such as the foundation phase offer, and it's more generous. So, I think it's: how do we align, as time goes by, the child development aspects of the whole early years stuff? Now, we're doing some fascinating work that I think I've referred to on this committee before about aligning the early years development entirely. Now, this is an evolving piece of work, but I think the childcare offer should ultimately fit within that. How do you make sure that every offer that is Government-funded works on child development? It's not simply childcare.


John, you're absolutely right, and two things on that: I visited one of the facilities in the Valleys the other day that was taking this forward—a very good independent sector-run childcare provision, with Welsh language and English language running alongside each other, and I asked the point about the integration, curiously, but what they were doing was—. Their standard of staff was an exemplar of what we'd want to see: not only very well-qualified childcare staff who were qualified within not simply the child-minding but the wider child development aspects—. So, it was hard to differentiate, in some ways, what was happening there from what would be happening in a child development educational surrounding, and including the nutritional stuff and all of that. Now, that is the model we need to see, and the £4.50 seems to work, at the moment, for that. It'll be interesting, as we discussed previously, as it goes forward—. We need to look at whether that works, going forward. But the quality, I think, is key, and that's why we're focused very much on registered inspected providers, as opposed to every Tom, Dick and Harriet.

If we want to increase salary levels, though, which I think is a necessary part of this picture of improving quality, then obviously that might impact on the £4.50 rate.

Yes, indeed, and we are cognisant—. It's interesting that we focus on whether the £4.50 is affordable, but the £4.50—you know, we're having an interesting discussion internally about how that £4.50 offer per hour sits alongside others, such as the foundation phase offer, and it's more generous. So, I think it's: how do we align, as time goes by, the child development aspects of the whole early years stuff? Now, we're doing some fascinating work that I think I've referred to on this committee before about aligning the early years development entirely. Now, this is an evolving piece of work, but I think the childcare offer should ultimately fit within that. How do you make sure that every offer that is Government-funded works on child development? It's not simply childcare.

Okay. Thank you. Right. The next questions are from Mark.


If we want to increase salary levels, though, which I think is a necessary part of this picture of improving quality, then obviously that might impact on the £4.50 rate.

Yes, indeed, and we are cognisant—. It's interesting that we focus on whether the £4.50 is affordable, but the £4.50—you know, we're having an interesting discussion internally about how that £4.50 offer per hour sits alongside others, such as the foundation phase offer, and it's more generous. So, I think it's: how do we align, as time goes by, the child development aspects of the whole early years stuff? Now, we're doing some fascinating work that I think I've referred to on this committee before about aligning the early years development entirely. Now, this is an evolving piece of work, but I think the childcare offer should ultimately fit within that. How do you make sure that every offer that is Government-funded works on child development? It's not simply childcare.

Okay. Thank you. Right. The next questions are from Mark.

In terms of child development and not accentuating disadvantage, another area where this may apply is the kids who are born in the summer term, compared to those who are born in Michaelmas. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that they start with a disadvantage at school and often don't make that up, even as they go through school. What is the rationale for providing the older children with five terms of this, compared to three terms for the younger children who already have the relative disadvantage?


Yes, indeed, and we are cognisant—. It's interesting that we focus on whether the £4.50 is affordable, but the £4.50—you know, we're having an interesting discussion internally about how that £4.50 offer per hour sits alongside others, such as the foundation phase offer, and it's more generous. So, I think it's: how do we align, as time goes by, the child development aspects of the whole early years stuff? Now, we're doing some fascinating work that I think I've referred to on this committee before about aligning the early years development entirely. Now, this is an evolving piece of work, but I think the childcare offer should ultimately fit within that. How do you make sure that every offer that is Government-funded works on child development? It's not simply childcare.

Okay. Thank you. Right. The next questions are from Mark.

In terms of child development and not accentuating disadvantage, another area where this may apply is the kids who are born in the summer term, compared to those who are born in Michaelmas. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that they start with a disadvantage at school and often don't make that up, even as they go through school. What is the rationale for providing the older children with five terms of this, compared to three terms for the younger children who already have the relative disadvantage?


Okay. Thank you. Right. The next questions are from Mark.

In terms of child development and not accentuating disadvantage, another area where this may apply is the kids who are born in the summer term, compared to those who are born in Michaelmas. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that they start with a disadvantage at school and often don't make that up, even as they go through school. What is the rationale for providing the older children with five terms of this, compared to three terms for the younger children who already have the relative disadvantage?

Well, the criteria for eligibility for the offer are the term after the child's third birthday, which is equivalent to the eligibility criteria for the foundation phase early education offer. Clearly, then, the number of terms that a child is able to, or parents are able to, access the childcare offer will be influenced by when the child is born, but I think you may be referring to a sort of parallel question, which is about whether—. There have been questions raised about whether children who are summer-born should, in fact, start school in the term after they turn four, or whether actually they should be allowed the flexibility to start school at a later age, which I know is something that has been tested in England, and there is some mixed evidence about school starting age and the birth month of children.


In terms of child development and not accentuating disadvantage, another area where this may apply is the kids who are born in the summer term, compared to those who are born in Michaelmas. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that they start with a disadvantage at school and often don't make that up, even as they go through school. What is the rationale for providing the older children with five terms of this, compared to three terms for the younger children who already have the relative disadvantage?

Well, the criteria for eligibility for the offer are the term after the child's third birthday, which is equivalent to the eligibility criteria for the foundation phase early education offer. Clearly, then, the number of terms that a child is able to, or parents are able to, access the childcare offer will be influenced by when the child is born, but I think you may be referring to a sort of parallel question, which is about whether—. There have been questions raised about whether children who are summer-born should, in fact, start school in the term after they turn four, or whether actually they should be allowed the flexibility to start school at a later age, which I know is something that has been tested in England, and there is some mixed evidence about school starting age and the birth month of children.

Well, they do have flexibility. You don't have to start your kids until the term following when they're five. That's the compulsory school—


Well, the criteria for eligibility for the offer are the term after the child's third birthday, which is equivalent to the eligibility criteria for the foundation phase early education offer. Clearly, then, the number of terms that a child is able to, or parents are able to, access the childcare offer will be influenced by when the child is born, but I think you may be referring to a sort of parallel question, which is about whether—. There have been questions raised about whether children who are summer-born should, in fact, start school in the term after they turn four, or whether actually they should be allowed the flexibility to start school at a later age, which I know is something that has been tested in England, and there is some mixed evidence about school starting age and the birth month of children.

Well, they do have flexibility. You don't have to start your kids until the term following when they're five. That's the compulsory school—

Well, that's the legal position, but, obviously, in practice, most children will start school in the term after they're four.


Well, the criteria for eligibility for the offer are the term after the child's third birthday, which is equivalent to the eligibility criteria for the foundation phase early education offer. Clearly, then, the number of terms that a child is able to, or parents are able to, access the childcare offer will be influenced by when the child is born, but I think you may be referring to a sort of parallel question, which is about whether—. There have been questions raised about whether children who are summer-born should, in fact, start school in the term after they turn four, or whether actually they should be allowed the flexibility to start school at a later age, which I know is something that has been tested in England, and there is some mixed evidence about school starting age and the birth month of children.

Well, they do have flexibility. You don't have to start your kids until the term following when they're five. That's the compulsory school—

Well, that's the legal position, but, obviously, in practice, most children will start school in the term after they're four.

So, given the disadvantage we know that the younger children born in the summer have, relative to the older ones, why accentuate that by giving the older kids five terms of this project, which you tell us will have such positive effects on their child development, but the summer kids only get three? Doesn't that make the situation worse?


Well, they do have flexibility. You don't have to start your kids until the term following when they're five. That's the compulsory school—

Well, that's the legal position, but, obviously, in practice, most children will start school in the term after they're four.

So, given the disadvantage we know that the younger children born in the summer have, relative to the older ones, why accentuate that by giving the older kids five terms of this project, which you tell us will have such positive effects on their child development, but the summer kids only get three? Doesn't that make the situation worse?

I'm not 100 per cent sure I understand the question. So, children will stop being in receipt of the childcare offer once they become eligible for a full-time school place, and most children will become eligible for a full-time school place in the term after their fourth birthday.


Well, that's the legal position, but, obviously, in practice, most children will start school in the term after they're four.

So, given the disadvantage we know that the younger children born in the summer have, relative to the older ones, why accentuate that by giving the older kids five terms of this project, which you tell us will have such positive effects on their child development, but the summer kids only get three? Doesn't that make the situation worse?

I'm not 100 per cent sure I understand the question. So, children will stop being in receipt of the childcare offer once they become eligible for a full-time school place, and most children will become eligible for a full-time school place in the term after their fourth birthday.

But the older kids become eligible for this five terms before they start school, where the younger kids, who're already disadvantaged, become eligible for it only three terms before, accentuating the problem, surely. Could more thought be given to this issue?


So, given the disadvantage we know that the younger children born in the summer have, relative to the older ones, why accentuate that by giving the older kids five terms of this project, which you tell us will have such positive effects on their child development, but the summer kids only get three? Doesn't that make the situation worse?

I'm not 100 per cent sure I understand the question. So, children will stop being in receipt of the childcare offer once they become eligible for a full-time school place, and most children will become eligible for a full-time school place in the term after their fourth birthday.

But the older kids become eligible for this five terms before they start school, where the younger kids, who're already disadvantaged, become eligible for it only three terms before, accentuating the problem, surely. Could more thought be given to this issue?

We'll take that away. It's confused us a little bit, but we'll take that away. We might need to come back to you and—. Yes.


I'm not 100 per cent sure I understand the question. So, children will stop being in receipt of the childcare offer once they become eligible for a full-time school place, and most children will become eligible for a full-time school place in the term after their fourth birthday.

But the older kids become eligible for this five terms before they start school, where the younger kids, who're already disadvantaged, become eligible for it only three terms before, accentuating the problem, surely. Could more thought be given to this issue?

We'll take that away. It's confused us a little bit, but we'll take that away. We might need to come back to you and—. Yes.

If you could write to us about that, that would be helpful.


But the older kids become eligible for this five terms before they start school, where the younger kids, who're already disadvantaged, become eligible for it only three terms before, accentuating the problem, surely. Could more thought be given to this issue?

We'll take that away. It's confused us a little bit, but we'll take that away. We might need to come back to you and—. Yes.

If you could write to us about that, that would be helpful.


We'll take that away. It's confused us a little bit, but we'll take that away. We might need to come back to you and—. Yes.

If you could write to us about that, that would be helpful.

Thank you. Minister, you got, or Welsh Government, really, got the Public Policy Institute for Wales to study this proposed policy and they concluded that it would have no substantial impacts on net income, poverty or work behaviour for families with children, and that the impact on work participation and work hours for mothers and families with a child of target age is extremely small. What do you say to that?


If you could write to us about that, that would be helpful.

Thank you. Minister, you got, or Welsh Government, really, got the Public Policy Institute for Wales to study this proposed policy and they concluded that it would have no substantial impacts on net income, poverty or work behaviour for families with children, and that the impact on work participation and work hours for mothers and families with a child of target age is extremely small. What do you say to that?

Well, Mark, I can only refer to what I said earlier. Our real-life evidence that is accumulating now is showing us examples of where people are making savings and increasing disposable income—as I mentioned earlier, up to £250 per week within some poorer households; so, real-life examples—but also where it's enabling them to make much better choices about when they work because there's more childcare offer available, or, alternatively, to work their childcare provision and their working hours around being able to spend more time with their children, which they currently can't do.


Thank you. Minister, you got, or Welsh Government, really, got the Public Policy Institute for Wales to study this proposed policy and they concluded that it would have no substantial impacts on net income, poverty or work behaviour for families with children, and that the impact on work participation and work hours for mothers and families with a child of target age is extremely small. What do you say to that?

Well, Mark, I can only refer to what I said earlier. Our real-life evidence that is accumulating now is showing us examples of where people are making savings and increasing disposable income—as I mentioned earlier, up to £250 per week within some poorer households; so, real-life examples—but also where it's enabling them to make much better choices about when they work because there's more childcare offer available, or, alternatively, to work their childcare provision and their working hours around being able to spend more time with their children, which they currently can't do.

And I don't want to go back over Llyr's questions.


Thank you. Minister, you got, or Welsh Government, really, got the Public Policy Institute for Wales to study this proposed policy and they concluded that it would have no substantial impacts on net income, poverty or work behaviour for families with children, and that the impact on work participation and work hours for mothers and families with a child of target age is extremely small. What do you say to that?

Well, Mark, I can only refer to what I said earlier. Our real-life evidence that is accumulating now is showing us examples of where people are making savings and increasing disposable income—as I mentioned earlier, up to £250 per week within some poorer households; so, real-life examples—but also where it's enabling them to make much better choices about when they work because there's more childcare offer available, or, alternatively, to work their childcare provision and their working hours around being able to spend more time with their children, which they currently can't do.

And I don't want to go back over Llyr's questions.

I understand. That's not my focus. I just wondered about the quality of this PPIW piece of work. They said if you had a work requirement, as you do, it would cost £61 million a year on their numbers, substantially less than you're saying, and then they said it would cost £144 million without a work requirement. Now, that implies to me that 57 per cent of the parents wouldn't be working and would continue not working even if there is this available with a work requirement. I mean, are those numbers really credible from PPIW?


Well, Mark, I can only refer to what I said earlier. Our real-life evidence that is accumulating now is showing us examples of where people are making savings and increasing disposable income—as I mentioned earlier, up to £250 per week within some poorer households; so, real-life examples—but also where it's enabling them to make much better choices about when they work because there's more childcare offer available, or, alternatively, to work their childcare provision and their working hours around being able to spend more time with their children, which they currently can't do.

And I don't want to go back over Llyr's questions.

I understand. That's not my focus. I just wondered about the quality of this PPIW piece of work. They said if you had a work requirement, as you do, it would cost £61 million a year on their numbers, substantially less than you're saying, and then they said it would cost £144 million without a work requirement. Now, that implies to me that 57 per cent of the parents wouldn't be working and would continue not working even if there is this available with a work requirement. I mean, are those numbers really credible from PPIW?

It's not quite comparing like with like. Just to draw your attention, Mark, and the committee's attention to that the PPIW analysis was looking at a provision of 38 weeks. Ours is a 48-week option. And the fact that we are having parents already saying to us that their ability to actually extend that into the 48 weeks—beyond the term time and so on—carries advantages that are not picked up in that report.


And I don't want to go back over Llyr's questions.

I understand. That's not my focus. I just wondered about the quality of this PPIW piece of work. They said if you had a work requirement, as you do, it would cost £61 million a year on their numbers, substantially less than you're saying, and then they said it would cost £144 million without a work requirement. Now, that implies to me that 57 per cent of the parents wouldn't be working and would continue not working even if there is this available with a work requirement. I mean, are those numbers really credible from PPIW?

It's not quite comparing like with like. Just to draw your attention, Mark, and the committee's attention to that the PPIW analysis was looking at a provision of 38 weeks. Ours is a 48-week option. And the fact that we are having parents already saying to us that their ability to actually extend that into the 48 weeks—beyond the term time and so on—carries advantages that are not picked up in that report.

And what is your early assessment of the income levels of families who are finding this offer most attractive?


I understand. That's not my focus. I just wondered about the quality of this PPIW piece of work. They said if you had a work requirement, as you do, it would cost £61 million a year on their numbers, substantially less than you're saying, and then they said it would cost £144 million without a work requirement. Now, that implies to me that 57 per cent of the parents wouldn't be working and would continue not working even if there is this available with a work requirement. I mean, are those numbers really credible from PPIW?

It's not quite comparing like with like. Just to draw your attention, Mark, and the committee's attention to that the PPIW analysis was looking at a provision of 38 weeks. Ours is a 48-week option. And the fact that we are having parents already saying to us that their ability to actually extend that into the 48 weeks—beyond the term time and so on—carries advantages that are not picked up in that report.

And what is your early assessment of the income levels of families who are finding this offer most attractive?

I think, from recollection, we're one term in, so we're one term into the assessment, and I mentioned earlier that the majority of parents are below the average income of £26,000 in Wales— it's around about 60 per cent of families are those. We're finding very few families are those who are on higher incomes. It's disproportionately towards those below the average income, and many of them amongst the most disadvantaged families are opting in to this offer where it is being offered. So, clearly, they're seeing the benefits of it.


It's not quite comparing like with like. Just to draw your attention, Mark, and the committee's attention to that the PPIW analysis was looking at a provision of 38 weeks. Ours is a 48-week option. And the fact that we are having parents already saying to us that their ability to actually extend that into the 48 weeks—beyond the term time and so on—carries advantages that are not picked up in that report.

And what is your early assessment of the income levels of families who are finding this offer most attractive?

I think, from recollection, we're one term in, so we're one term into the assessment, and I mentioned earlier that the majority of parents are below the average income of £26,000 in Wales— it's around about 60 per cent of families are those. We're finding very few families are those who are on higher incomes. It's disproportionately towards those below the average income, and many of them amongst the most disadvantaged families are opting in to this offer where it is being offered. So, clearly, they're seeing the benefits of it.

And what consideration have you given to integrating this Welsh Government offer with the UK Government offer of tax-free childcare that's applicable across the UK?


And what is your early assessment of the income levels of families who are finding this offer most attractive?

I think, from recollection, we're one term in, so we're one term into the assessment, and I mentioned earlier that the majority of parents are below the average income of £26,000 in Wales— it's around about 60 per cent of families are those. We're finding very few families are those who are on higher incomes. It's disproportionately towards those below the average income, and many of them amongst the most disadvantaged families are opting in to this offer where it is being offered. So, clearly, they're seeing the benefits of it.

And what consideration have you given to integrating this Welsh Government offer with the UK Government offer of tax-free childcare that's applicable across the UK?

Well, that offer, as you rightly say, is available across the UK and still is. The fact that it's more integrated within their scheme within England—the tax offer is more integrated—has caused them some problems in complexity and in the administration of this and the digital platforms that they've had. That offer is still available in Wales and it might well be that parents who opt in to that say, 'Well, we do want to buy additional hours beyond the 30 hours', but this 30 hours is there for every—


I think, from recollection, we're one term in, so we're one term into the assessment, and I mentioned earlier that the majority of parents are below the average income of £26,000 in Wales— it's around about 60 per cent of families are those. We're finding very few families are those who are on higher incomes. It's disproportionately towards those below the average income, and many of them amongst the most disadvantaged families are opting in to this offer where it is being offered. So, clearly, they're seeing the benefits of it.

And what consideration have you given to integrating this Welsh Government offer with the UK Government offer of tax-free childcare that's applicable across the UK?

Well, that offer, as you rightly say, is available across the UK and still is. The fact that it's more integrated within their scheme within England—the tax offer is more integrated—has caused them some problems in complexity and in the administration of this and the digital platforms that they've had. That offer is still available in Wales and it might well be that parents who opt in to that say, 'Well, we do want to buy additional hours beyond the 30 hours', but this 30 hours is there for every—

I wonder, Minister, whether what you're doing, in a very good way, to promote your project—people will see that as the childcare offer and, at least in my experience, very few parents are aware of the tax-free childcare on a UK basis.


And what consideration have you given to integrating this Welsh Government offer with the UK Government offer of tax-free childcare that's applicable across the UK?

Well, that offer, as you rightly say, is available across the UK and still is. The fact that it's more integrated within their scheme within England—the tax offer is more integrated—has caused them some problems in complexity and in the administration of this and the digital platforms that they've had. That offer is still available in Wales and it might well be that parents who opt in to that say, 'Well, we do want to buy additional hours beyond the 30 hours', but this 30 hours is there for every—

I wonder, Minister, whether what you're doing, in a very good way, to promote your project—people will see that as the childcare offer and, at least in my experience, very few parents are aware of the tax-free childcare on a UK basis.

You're right—sorry. That's absolutely one of the lessons we've learnt from even this early stage of the early implementers, because there are elements of a childcare offer within the tax offer, within universal credit, within working tax credit. There are little bits of different ones and it does cause confusion. So, one of the lessons that we've learnt from the Talk Childcare communication strategy alongside this is the importance of communicating to parents and providers who the parents go to what is best for them to access, how they access it easily, and we'll learn more as these pilots roll by.


Well, that offer, as you rightly say, is available across the UK and still is. The fact that it's more integrated within their scheme within England—the tax offer is more integrated—has caused them some problems in complexity and in the administration of this and the digital platforms that they've had. That offer is still available in Wales and it might well be that parents who opt in to that say, 'Well, we do want to buy additional hours beyond the 30 hours', but this 30 hours is there for every—

I wonder, Minister, whether what you're doing, in a very good way, to promote your project—people will see that as the childcare offer and, at least in my experience, very few parents are aware of the tax-free childcare on a UK basis.

You're right—sorry. That's absolutely one of the lessons we've learnt from even this early stage of the early implementers, because there are elements of a childcare offer within the tax offer, within universal credit, within working tax credit. There are little bits of different ones and it does cause confusion. So, one of the lessons that we've learnt from the Talk Childcare communication strategy alongside this is the importance of communicating to parents and providers who the parents go to what is best for them to access, how they access it easily, and we'll learn more as these pilots roll by.

So, as you go into the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs criteria—you have a £100,000 cap, as well as the £6,000 minimum wage cap, and you're getting HMRC to say whether people are eligible, which requires them to set up that account with HMRC—will you assure this committee that you will make sure that parents who are doing that are aware of the UK tax-free childcare offer, and that their providers also are? Because we've been looking, say, at the £7.50 extra per day, but, if someone's eligible for this offer, they should also be eligible for the UK tax-free childcare offer and have set up the account to do that. So, will you make sure that those parents know to pay their provider out of tax-free funds, rather than paying them the fully taxed amounts, which might otherwise happen?


I wonder, Minister, whether what you're doing, in a very good way, to promote your project—people will see that as the childcare offer and, at least in my experience, very few parents are aware of the tax-free childcare on a UK basis.

You're right—sorry. That's absolutely one of the lessons we've learnt from even this early stage of the early implementers, because there are elements of a childcare offer within the tax offer, within universal credit, within working tax credit. There are little bits of different ones and it does cause confusion. So, one of the lessons that we've learnt from the Talk Childcare communication strategy alongside this is the importance of communicating to parents and providers who the parents go to what is best for them to access, how they access it easily, and we'll learn more as these pilots roll by.

So, as you go into the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs criteria—you have a £100,000 cap, as well as the £6,000 minimum wage cap, and you're getting HMRC to say whether people are eligible, which requires them to set up that account with HMRC—will you assure this committee that you will make sure that parents who are doing that are aware of the UK tax-free childcare offer, and that their providers also are? Because we've been looking, say, at the £7.50 extra per day, but, if someone's eligible for this offer, they should also be eligible for the UK tax-free childcare offer and have set up the account to do that. So, will you make sure that those parents know to pay their provider out of tax-free funds, rather than paying them the fully taxed amounts, which might otherwise happen?

Yes, absolutely. And I think, if it's okay, Owain would like to add something as well.


You're right—sorry. That's absolutely one of the lessons we've learnt from even this early stage of the early implementers, because there are elements of a childcare offer within the tax offer, within universal credit, within working tax credit. There are little bits of different ones and it does cause confusion. So, one of the lessons that we've learnt from the Talk Childcare communication strategy alongside this is the importance of communicating to parents and providers who the parents go to what is best for them to access, how they access it easily, and we'll learn more as these pilots roll by.

So, as you go into the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs criteria—you have a £100,000 cap, as well as the £6,000 minimum wage cap, and you're getting HMRC to say whether people are eligible, which requires them to set up that account with HMRC—will you assure this committee that you will make sure that parents who are doing that are aware of the UK tax-free childcare offer, and that their providers also are? Because we've been looking, say, at the £7.50 extra per day, but, if someone's eligible for this offer, they should also be eligible for the UK tax-free childcare offer and have set up the account to do that. So, will you make sure that those parents know to pay their provider out of tax-free funds, rather than paying them the fully taxed amounts, which might otherwise happen?

Yes, absolutely. And I think, if it's okay, Owain would like to add something as well.

Yes, just to say, as I understand how things currently work with the English offer and TFC, when a parent applies, that automatically happens in terms of, on the one hand, they're given a 'yes' or 'no' in terms of their eligibility for the 30-hours offer in England, but they will also be told in terms of the parental account that's set up under TFC. So, that is integrated in the offer, and we'll be looking to do the same in terms of the Welsh offer. But, obviously, what we're not looking at doing in terms of the 30-hours offer is the setting up of the parental account to make the payment; the payment currently is very much between local government and the provider directly, rather than the TFC model, where the parent pays the provider.


So, as you go into the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs criteria—you have a £100,000 cap, as well as the £6,000 minimum wage cap, and you're getting HMRC to say whether people are eligible, which requires them to set up that account with HMRC—will you assure this committee that you will make sure that parents who are doing that are aware of the UK tax-free childcare offer, and that their providers also are? Because we've been looking, say, at the £7.50 extra per day, but, if someone's eligible for this offer, they should also be eligible for the UK tax-free childcare offer and have set up the account to do that. So, will you make sure that those parents know to pay their provider out of tax-free funds, rather than paying them the fully taxed amounts, which might otherwise happen?

Yes, absolutely. And I think, if it's okay, Owain would like to add something as well.

Yes, just to say, as I understand how things currently work with the English offer and TFC, when a parent applies, that automatically happens in terms of, on the one hand, they're given a 'yes' or 'no' in terms of their eligibility for the 30-hours offer in England, but they will also be told in terms of the parental account that's set up under TFC. So, that is integrated in the offer, and we'll be looking to do the same in terms of the Welsh offer. But, obviously, what we're not looking at doing in terms of the 30-hours offer is the setting up of the parental account to make the payment; the payment currently is very much between local government and the provider directly, rather than the TFC model, where the parent pays the provider.


Yes, absolutely. And I think, if it's okay, Owain would like to add something as well.

Yes, just to say, as I understand how things currently work with the English offer and TFC, when a parent applies, that automatically happens in terms of, on the one hand, they're given a 'yes' or 'no' in terms of their eligibility for the 30-hours offer in England, but they will also be told in terms of the parental account that's set up under TFC. So, that is integrated in the offer, and we'll be looking to do the same in terms of the Welsh offer. But, obviously, what we're not looking at doing in terms of the 30-hours offer is the setting up of the parental account to make the payment; the payment currently is very much between local government and the provider directly, rather than the TFC model, where the parent pays the provider.

Thank you. Okay. Well, we have come to—well, we've run over, actually. So, we've come to the end of our time. Can I thank the Minister and the officials for attending? You are, of course, back with us on 16 May for Stage 1 of the Bill, so we will look forward to seeing you then. You will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy, as is usual practice. But thank you again, all of you.


Yes, just to say, as I understand how things currently work with the English offer and TFC, when a parent applies, that automatically happens in terms of, on the one hand, they're given a 'yes' or 'no' in terms of their eligibility for the 30-hours offer in England, but they will also be told in terms of the parental account that's set up under TFC. So, that is integrated in the offer, and we'll be looking to do the same in terms of the Welsh offer. But, obviously, what we're not looking at doing in terms of the 30-hours offer is the setting up of the parental account to make the payment; the payment currently is very much between local government and the provider directly, rather than the TFC model, where the parent pays the provider.

Thank you. Okay. Well, we have come to—well, we've run over, actually. So, we've come to the end of our time. Can I thank the Minister and the officials for attending? You are, of course, back with us on 16 May for Stage 1 of the Bill, so we will look forward to seeing you then. You will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy, as is usual practice. But thank you again, all of you.


Thank you. Okay. Well, we have come to—well, we've run over, actually. So, we've come to the end of our time. Can I thank the Minister and the officials for attending? You are, of course, back with us on 16 May for Stage 1 of the Bill, so we will look forward to seeing you then. You will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy, as is usual practice. But thank you again, all of you.

Okay, item 3 then is papers to note. As Members can see, there are 11 papers to note. So, if Members are content, I'd suggest that we note all of them in a block, if that's okay. Yes, okay. Thank you. Item 4, then. Can I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42, that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting? Are Members content? Okay. Thank you.


So. OK. Doesn't look like it crashed. That 's great.

So I think maybe what 's causing it to crash is I keep starting it and then stopping it to see if it 's working. And so I think starting it and then stopping it and starting it again causes it to crash. So , I won't do that anymore.

And it looks like you 've found a way of uh mapping the location to the  without having people have to give their names each time ?


So I think maybe what 's causing it to crash is I keep starting it and then stopping it to see if it 's working. And so I think starting it and then stopping it and starting it again causes it to crash. So , I won't do that anymore.

And it looks like you 've found a way of uh mapping the location to the  without having people have to give their names each time ?


So I think maybe what 's causing it to crash is I keep starting it and then stopping it to see if it 's working. And so I think starting it and then stopping it and starting it again causes it to crash. So , I won't do that anymore.

And it looks like you 've found a way of uh mapping the location to the  without having people have to give their names each time ?

I mean it 's like you have the  So you know that


And it looks like you 've found a way of uh mapping the location to the  without having people have to give their names each time ?

I mean it 's like you have the  So you know that


I mean it 's like you have the  So you know that

I mean , are you going to write down  that I sat here ?


I mean it 's like you have the  So you know that

I mean , are you going to write down  that I sat here ?

I 'm gonna collect the digit forms and write it down.


I mean , are you going to write down  that I sat here ?

I 'm gonna collect the digit forms and write it down.


I 'm gonna collect the digit forms and write it down.

So  So they should be right with what 's on the digit forms. OK , so I 'll go ahead and start with digits. u And I should say that uh , you just pau you just read each line an and then pause briefly.


So  So they should be right with what 's on the digit forms. OK , so I 'll go ahead and start with digits. u And I should say that uh , you just pau you just read each line an and then pause briefly.

And start by giving the transcript number.


And start by giving the transcript number.


So uh , you see , Don , the unbridled excitement of the work that we have on this project.


Uh , you know , it doesn't seem like a bad idea to have  that information.


Uh , you know , it doesn't seem like a bad idea to have  that information.

And I 'm surprised I sort of  I 'm surprised I forgot that ,


Uh , you know , it doesn't seem like a bad idea to have  that information.

And I 'm surprised I sort of  I 'm surprised I forgot that ,

but uh I think that would be a good thing to add. After I just printed out a zillion of them.


And I 'm surprised I sort of  I 'm surprised I forgot that ,

but uh I think that would be a good thing to add. After I just printed out a zillion of them.

Yeah , well , that 's  Um , so I  I do have a  a an agenda suggestion. Uh , we  I think the things that we talk about in this meeting uh tend to be a mixture of uh procedural uh mundane things and uh research points and um I was thinking I think it was a meeting a couple of weeks ago that we  we spent much of the time talking about the mundane stuff cuz that 's easier to get out of the way and then we sort of drifted into the research and maybe five minutes into that Andreas had to leave. So  uh I 'm suggesting we turn it around and  and uh sort of we have  anybody has some mundane points that we could send an email later , uh hold them for a bit , and let 's talk about the  the research - y kind of things. Um , so um the one th one thing I know that we have on that is uh we had talked a  a couple weeks before um uh about the uh  the stuff you were doing with  with uh um uh l l attempting to locate events , we had a little go around trying to figure out what you meant by " events " but I think , you know , what we had meant by " events " I guess was uh points of overlap between speakers. But I th I gather from our discussion a little earlier today that you also mean uh interruptions with something else


but uh I think that would be a good thing to add. After I just printed out a zillion of them.

Yeah , well , that 's  Um , so I  I do have a  a an agenda suggestion. Uh , we  I think the things that we talk about in this meeting uh tend to be a mixture of uh procedural uh mundane things and uh research points and um I was thinking I think it was a meeting a couple of weeks ago that we  we spent much of the time talking about the mundane stuff cuz that 's easier to get out of the way and then we sort of drifted into the research and maybe five minutes into that Andreas had to leave. So  uh I 'm suggesting we turn it around and  and uh sort of we have  anybody has some mundane points that we could send an email later , uh hold them for a bit , and let 's talk about the  the research - y kind of things. Um , so um the one th one thing I know that we have on that is uh we had talked a  a couple weeks before um uh about the uh  the stuff you were doing with  with uh um uh l l attempting to locate events , we had a little go around trying to figure out what you meant by " events " but I think , you know , what we had meant by " events " I guess was uh points of overlap between speakers. But I th I gather from our discussion a little earlier today that you also mean uh interruptions with something else


Yeah , well , that 's  Um , so I  I do have a  a an agenda suggestion. Uh , we  I think the things that we talk about in this meeting uh tend to be a mixture of uh procedural uh mundane things and uh research points and um I was thinking I think it was a meeting a couple of weeks ago that we  we spent much of the time talking about the mundane stuff cuz that 's easier to get out of the way and then we sort of drifted into the research and maybe five minutes into that Andreas had to leave. So  uh I 'm suggesting we turn it around and  and uh sort of we have  anybody has some mundane points that we could send an email later , uh hold them for a bit , and let 's talk about the  the research - y kind of things. Um , so um the one th one thing I know that we have on that is uh we had talked a  a couple weeks before um uh about the uh  the stuff you were doing with  with uh um uh l l attempting to locate events , we had a little go around trying to figure out what you meant by " events " but I think , you know , what we had meant by " events " I guess was uh points of overlap between speakers. But I th I gather from our discussion a little earlier today that you also mean uh interruptions with something else


So at any rate you were  you 've  you 've done some work on that


So at any rate you were  you 've  you 've done some work on that

and um then the other thing would be it might be nice to have a preliminary discussion of some of the other uh research uh areas that uh we 're thinking about doing. Um , I think especially since you  you haven't been in  in these meetings for a little bit , maybe you have some discussion of some of the p the plausible things to look at now that we 're starting to get data , uh and one of the things I know that also came up uh is some discussions that  that uh  that uh Jane had with Lokendra uh about some  some  some um uh work about I  I  I d I  I don't want to try to say cuz I  I 'll say it wrong , but anyway some  some potential collaboration there about  about the  about the  working with these data.


and um then the other thing would be it might be nice to have a preliminary discussion of some of the other uh research uh areas that uh we 're thinking about doing. Um , I think especially since you  you haven't been in  in these meetings for a little bit , maybe you have some discussion of some of the p the plausible things to look at now that we 're starting to get data , uh and one of the things I know that also came up uh is some discussions that  that uh  that uh Jane had with Lokendra uh about some  some  some um uh work about I  I  I d I  I don't want to try to say cuz I  I 'll say it wrong , but anyway some  some potential collaboration there about  about the  about the  working with these data.


Uh.  Well , I don't know if we  if this is sort of like everybody has something to contribute sort of thing , I think there 's just just a couple  a couple people primarily um but um Uh , wh why don't  Actually I think that  that last one I just said we could do fairly quickly so why don't you  you start with that.


Uh.  Well , I don't know if we  if this is sort of like everybody has something to contribute sort of thing , I think there 's just just a couple  a couple people primarily um but um Uh , wh why don't  Actually I think that  that last one I just said we could do fairly quickly so why don't you  you start with that.

Um , so , uh , he was interested in the question of  you know , relating to his  to the research he presented recently , um of inference structures , and uh , the need to build in , um , this  this sort of uh mechanism for understanding of language. And he gave the example in his talk about how  um , e a I 'm remembering it just off the top of my head right now , but it 's something about how um , i " Joe slipped " you know , " John had washed the floor " or something like that. And I don't have it quite right , but that kind of thing , where you have to draw the inference that , OK , there 's this time sequence , but also the  the  the causal aspects of the uh floor and  and how it might have been the cause of the fall and that um it was the other person who fell than the one who cleaned it and it   These sorts of things. So , I looked through the transcript that we have so far ,  and um , fou identified a couple different types of things of that type and um , one of them was something like uh , during the course of the transcript , um um , w we had gone through the part where everyone said which channel they were on and which device they were on , and um , the question was raised " Well , should we restart the recording at this point ? " And  and Dan Ellis said , " Well , we 're just so far ahead of the game right now  we really don't need to ". Now , how would you interpret that without a lot of inference ? So , the inferences that are involved are things like , OK , so , how do you interpret " ahead of the game " ? You know. So it 's the  it 's  i What you  what you int what you draw  you know , the conclusions that you need to draw are that space is involved in recording ,


Um , so , uh , he was interested in the question of  you know , relating to his  to the research he presented recently , um of inference structures , and uh , the need to build in , um , this  this sort of uh mechanism for understanding of language. And he gave the example in his talk about how  um , e a I 'm remembering it just off the top of my head right now , but it 's something about how um , i " Joe slipped " you know , " John had washed the floor " or something like that. And I don't have it quite right , but that kind of thing , where you have to draw the inference that , OK , there 's this time sequence , but also the  the  the causal aspects of the uh floor and  and how it might have been the cause of the fall and that um it was the other person who fell than the one who cleaned it and it   These sorts of things. So , I looked through the transcript that we have so far ,  and um , fou identified a couple different types of things of that type and um , one of them was something like uh , during the course of the transcript , um um , w we had gone through the part where everyone said which channel they were on and which device they were on , and um , the question was raised " Well , should we restart the recording at this point ? " And  and Dan Ellis said , " Well , we 're just so far ahead of the game right now  we really don't need to ". Now , how would you interpret that without a lot of inference ? So , the inferences that are involved are things like , OK , so , how do you interpret " ahead of the game " ? You know. So it 's the  it 's  i What you  what you int what you draw  you know , the conclusions that you need to draw are that space is involved in recording ,


Um , so , uh , he was interested in the question of  you know , relating to his  to the research he presented recently , um of inference structures , and uh , the need to build in , um , this  this sort of uh mechanism for understanding of language. And he gave the example in his talk about how  um , e a I 'm remembering it just off the top of my head right now , but it 's something about how um , i " Joe slipped " you know , " John had washed the floor " or something like that. And I don't have it quite right , but that kind of thing , where you have to draw the inference that , OK , there 's this time sequence , but also the  the  the causal aspects of the uh floor and  and how it might have been the cause of the fall and that um it was the other person who fell than the one who cleaned it and it   These sorts of things. So , I looked through the transcript that we have so far ,  and um , fou identified a couple different types of things of that type and um , one of them was something like uh , during the course of the transcript , um um , w we had gone through the part where everyone said which channel they were on and which device they were on , and um , the question was raised " Well , should we restart the recording at this point ? " And  and Dan Ellis said , " Well , we 're just so far ahead of the game right now  we really don't need to ". Now , how would you interpret that without a lot of inference ? So , the inferences that are involved are things like , OK , so , how do you interpret " ahead of the game " ? You know. So it 's the  it 's  i What you  what you int what you draw  you know , the conclusions that you need to draw are that space is involved in recording ,

that um , i that  i we have enough space , and he continues , like " we 're so ahead of the game cuz now we have built - in downsampling ". So you have to sort of get the idea that um , " ahead of the game " is sp speaking with respect to space limitations , that um that in fact downsampling is gaining us enough space , and that therefore we can keep the recording we 've done so far. But there are a lot of different things like that.


Um , so , uh , he was interested in the question of  you know , relating to his  to the research he presented recently , um of inference structures , and uh , the need to build in , um , this  this sort of uh mechanism for understanding of language. And he gave the example in his talk about how  um , e a I 'm remembering it just off the top of my head right now , but it 's something about how um , i " Joe slipped " you know , " John had washed the floor " or something like that. And I don't have it quite right , but that kind of thing , where you have to draw the inference that , OK , there 's this time sequence , but also the  the  the causal aspects of the uh floor and  and how it might have been the cause of the fall and that um it was the other person who fell than the one who cleaned it and it   These sorts of things. So , I looked through the transcript that we have so far ,  and um , fou identified a couple different types of things of that type and um , one of them was something like uh , during the course of the transcript , um um , w we had gone through the part where everyone said which channel they were on and which device they were on , and um , the question was raised " Well , should we restart the recording at this point ? " And  and Dan Ellis said , " Well , we 're just so far ahead of the game right now  we really don't need to ". Now , how would you interpret that without a lot of inference ? So , the inferences that are involved are things like , OK , so , how do you interpret " ahead of the game " ? You know. So it 's the  it 's  i What you  what you int what you draw  you know , the conclusions that you need to draw are that space is involved in recording ,

that um , i that  i we have enough space , and he continues , like " we 're so ahead of the game cuz now we have built - in downsampling ". So you have to sort of get the idea that um , " ahead of the game " is sp speaking with respect to space limitations , that um that in fact downsampling is gaining us enough space , and that therefore we can keep the recording we 've done so far. But there are a lot of different things like that.

So , do you think his interest is in using this as  a data source , or  training material , or what ?


that um , i that  i we have enough space , and he continues , like " we 're so ahead of the game cuz now we have built - in downsampling ". So you have to sort of get the idea that um , " ahead of the game " is sp speaking with respect to space limitations , that um that in fact downsampling is gaining us enough space , and that therefore we can keep the recording we 've done so far. But there are a lot of different things like that.

So , do you think his interest is in using this as  a data source , or  training material , or what ?

Well , I  I should maybe interject to say this started off with a discussion that I had with him , so um we were trying to think of ways that his interests could interact with ours


So , do you think his interest is in using this as  a data source , or  training material , or what ?

Well , I  I should maybe interject to say this started off with a discussion that I had with him , so um we were trying to think of ways that his interests could interact with ours

and um uh I thought that if we were going to project into the future when we had a lot of data , uh and um such things might be useful for that in or before we invested too much uh effort into that he should uh , with Jane 's help , look into some of the data that we 're  already have and see , is there anything to this at all ?


Well , I  I should maybe interject to say this started off with a discussion that I had with him , so um we were trying to think of ways that his interests could interact with ours

and um uh I thought that if we were going to project into the future when we had a lot of data , uh and um such things might be useful for that in or before we invested too much uh effort into that he should uh , with Jane 's help , look into some of the data that we 're  already have and see , is there anything to this at all ?


and um uh I thought that if we were going to project into the future when we had a lot of data , uh and um such things might be useful for that in or before we invested too much uh effort into that he should uh , with Jane 's help , look into some of the data that we 're  already have and see , is there anything to this at all ?

Is there any point which you think that , you know , you could gain some advantage and some potential use for it. Cuz it could be that you 'd look through it and you say " well , this is just the wrong  task for  for him to pursue his  "


Is there any point which you think that , you know , you could gain some advantage and some potential use for it. Cuz it could be that you 'd look through it and you say " well , this is just the wrong  task for  for him to pursue his  "

And  and uh I got the impression from your mail that in fact there was enough things like this just in the little sample that  that you looked at that  that it 's plausible at least.


Is there any point which you think that , you know , you could gain some advantage and some potential use for it. Cuz it could be that you 'd look through it and you say " well , this is just the wrong  task for  for him to pursue his  "

And  and uh I got the impression from your mail that in fact there was enough things like this just in the little sample that  that you looked at that  that it 's plausible at least.

It 's possible. Uh , he was  he  he  you know  We met and he was gonna go and uh you know , y look through them more systematically


And  and uh I got the impression from your mail that in fact there was enough things like this just in the little sample that  that you looked at that  that it 's plausible at least.

It 's possible. Uh , he was  he  he  you know  We met and he was gonna go and uh you know , y look through them more systematically


It 's possible. Uh , he was  he  he  you know  We met and he was gonna go and uh you know , y look through them more systematically


But , yeah , I think  I think it was optimistic.


But , yeah , I think  I think it was optimistic.

So anyway , that 's  that 's e a quite different thing from anything we 've talked about that , you know , might  might  might come out from some of this.


But , yeah , I think  I think it was optimistic.

So anyway , that 's  that 's e a quite different thing from anything we 've talked about that , you know , might  might  might come out from some of this.

But he can use text , basically. I mean , he 's talking about just using text


But , yeah , I think  I think it was optimistic.

So anyway , that 's  that 's e a quite different thing from anything we 've talked about that , you know , might  might  might come out from some of this.

But he can use text , basically. I mean , he 's talking about just using text

That 's his major  I mentioned several that w had to do with implications drawn from intonational contours


So anyway , that 's  that 's e a quite different thing from anything we 've talked about that , you know , might  might  might come out from some of this.

But he can use text , basically. I mean , he 's talking about just using text

That 's his major  I mentioned several that w had to do with implications drawn from intonational contours


But he can use text , basically. I mean , he 's talking about just using text

That 's his major  I mentioned several that w had to do with implications drawn from intonational contours

and  that wasn't as directly relevant to what he 's doing. He 's interested in these  these knowledge structures ,


That 's his major  I mentioned several that w had to do with implications drawn from intonational contours

and  that wasn't as directly relevant to what he 's doing. He 's interested in these  these knowledge structures ,