And it  and as you can see from those pictures , you do get something  that shows some periodicity , uh , in frequency ,


So you don't have one for unvoiced  picture ?


But presumably you 'll see something that won't have this kind of , uh , uh , uh , regularity in frequency , uh , in the


But presumably you 'll see something that won't have this kind of , uh , uh , uh , regularity in frequency , uh , in the

I would li I would like to see those  pictures.


I would li I would like to see those  pictures.


And so you said this is pretty  doing this kind of thing is pretty robust to noise ?


And so you said this is pretty  doing this kind of thing is pretty robust to noise ?

Pfft. Oops. The mean is different  with it , because the   the histogram for the   the classifica


Pfft. Oops. The mean is different  with it , because the   the histogram for the   the classifica

No , no , no. But th the kind of robustness to noise


Pfft. Oops. The mean is different  with it , because the   the histogram for the   the classifica

No , no , no. But th the kind of robustness to noise

So if  if you take this frame ,  uh , from the noisy utterance and the same frame from the clean utterance


No , no , no. But th the kind of robustness to noise

So if  if you take this frame ,  uh , from the noisy utterance and the same frame from the clean utterance


So if  if you take this frame ,  uh , from the noisy utterance and the same frame from the clean utterance


I have here the same frame for the  clean speech


Because here the FFT is only with  two hundred fifty - six point


Because here the FFT is only with  two hundred fifty - six point

Yeah. This is kind of inter interesting also


Yeah. This is kind of inter interesting also


Yeah. This is kind of inter interesting also

because if we use the standard ,  uh , frame length of  of , like , twenty - five milliseconds ,  um ,  what happens is that for low - pitched voiced , because of the frame length , y you don't really have   you don't clearly see this periodic structure ,


because if we use the standard ,  uh , frame length of  of , like , twenty - five milliseconds ,  um ,  what happens is that for low - pitched voiced , because of the frame length , y you don't really have   you don't clearly see this periodic structure ,

because of the first lobe of  of each  each of the harmonics.


because of the first lobe of  of each  each of the harmonics.

So , this is like  yeah , fifty milliseconds or something like that.


So , this is like  yeah , fifty milliseconds or something like that.


So , this is like  yeah , fifty milliseconds or something like that.

Oh , it 's that time - frequency trade - off thing.


Oh , it 's that time - frequency trade - off thing.


Oh. Oh , so this i is this the difference here , for that ?


Oh. Oh , so this i is this the difference here , for that ?

No. This is the signal. This is the signal.


No. This is the signal. This is the signal.


So with a short frame basically you have only two periods


So with a short frame basically you have only two periods

and it 's not  not enough to  to have this kind of neat things.


and it 's not  not enough to  to have this kind of neat things.


Yeah. So probably we 'll have to use ,  like , long f long frames. Mm - hmm.


Yeah , maybe. Well , I mean it looks better , but , I mean , the thing is if  if , uh  if you 're actually asking  you know , if you actually j uh , need to do  place along an FFT , it may be  it may be pushing things.


Yeah , maybe. Well , I mean it looks better , but , I mean , the thing is if  if , uh  if you 're actually asking  you know , if you actually j uh , need to do  place along an FFT , it may be  it may be pushing things.

Would you  would you wanna do this kind of , uh , difference thing  after you do spectral subtraction ?


Would you  would you wanna do this kind of , uh , difference thing  after you do spectral subtraction ?


Hmm. The spectral subtraction is being done at what level ? Is it being done at the level of FFT bins or at the level of , uh , mel spectrum or something ?


Hmm. The spectral subtraction is being done at what level ? Is it being done at the level of FFT bins or at the level of , uh , mel spectrum or something ?

How they 're doing it ? Yeah. Um , I guess Ericsson is on the , um , filter bank ,


How they 're doing it ? Yeah. Um , I guess Ericsson is on the , um , filter bank ,


So in that case , it might not make much difference at all.


So in that case , it might not make much difference at all.

Seems like you 'd wanna do it on the FFT bins.


So in that case , it might not make much difference at all.

Seems like you 'd wanna do it on the FFT bins.

Maybe. I mean , certainly it 'd be better.


So in that case , it might not make much difference at all.

Seems like you 'd wanna do it on the FFT bins.

Maybe. I mean , certainly it 'd be better.

I I mean , if you were gonna  uh , for  for this purpose , that is.


Seems like you 'd wanna do it on the FFT bins.

Maybe. I mean , certainly it 'd be better.

I I mean , if you were gonna  uh , for  for this purpose , that is.


Maybe. I mean , certainly it 'd be better.

I I mean , if you were gonna  uh , for  for this purpose , that is.


I I mean , if you were gonna  uh , for  for this purpose , that is.


Uh.  Yeah , that 's all. So we 'll perhaps    try to convince OGI people to use the new   the new filters and  Yeah.


Uh.  Yeah , that 's all. So we 'll perhaps    try to convince OGI people to use the new   the new filters and  Yeah.

OK. Uh , has  has anything happened yet on this business of having some sort of standard , uh , source ,


OK. Uh , has  has anything happened yet on this business of having some sort of standard , uh , source ,


now they are  I think they have more time because they have this  well , Eurospeech deadline is  over


now they are  I think they have more time because they have this  well , Eurospeech deadline is  over

When is the next , um , Aurora  deadline ?


When is the next , um , Aurora  deadline ?


OK. Um , and  he 's been doing all the talking but  but  these   he 's  he 's , uh


OK. Um , and  he 's been doing all the talking but  but  these   he 's  he 's , uh

This is  this by the way a bad thing. We 're trying to get , um , m more female voices in this record as well. So. Make sur make sure Carmen  talks as well. Uh , but has he pretty much been talking about what you 're doing also , and  ?


This is  this by the way a bad thing. We 're trying to get , um , m more female voices in this record as well. So. Make sur make sure Carmen  talks as well. Uh , but has he pretty much been talking about what you 're doing also , and  ?


This is  this by the way a bad thing. We 're trying to get , um , m more female voices in this record as well. So. Make sur make sure Carmen  talks as well. Uh , but has he pretty much been talking about what you 're doing also , and  ?

Yeah , yeah. I don't know. I 'm sorry , but I think that for the recognizer for the meeting recorder that it 's better that I don't speak.


Yeah , yeah. I don't know. I 'm sorry , but I think that for the recognizer for the meeting recorder that it 's better that I don't speak.


Yeah , yeah. I don't know. I 'm sorry , but I think that for the recognizer for the meeting recorder that it 's better that I don't speak.

You know , uh , we 'll get  we 'll get to , uh , Spanish voices sometime , and  we do  we want to recognize ,  uh , you too.


You know , uh , we 'll get  we 'll get to , uh , Spanish voices sometime , and  we do  we want to recognize ,  uh , you too.

After the  after , uh , the result for the TI - digits  on the meeting record there will be foreigns people.


After the  after , uh , the result for the TI - digits  on the meeting record there will be foreigns people.

We like  we  we 're  we 're  w we are  we 're in the , uh , Bourlard - Hermansky - Morgan , uh , frame of mind. Yeah , we like high error rates. It 's


We like  we  we 're  we 're  w we are  we 're in the , uh , Bourlard - Hermansky - Morgan , uh , frame of mind. Yeah , we like high error rates. It 's


We like  we  we 're  we 're  w we are  we 're in the , uh , Bourlard - Hermansky - Morgan , uh , frame of mind. Yeah , we like high error rates. It 's

That way there 's lots of work to do. So it 's  Uh , anything to talk about ?


We like  we  we 're  we 're  w we are  we 're in the , uh , Bourlard - Hermansky - Morgan , uh , frame of mind. Yeah , we like high error rates. It 's

That way there 's lots of work to do. So it 's  Uh , anything to talk about ?

N um , not not not much is new. So when I talked about what I 'm planning to do last time ,  I said I was , um , going to use Avendano 's method of , um ,  using a transformation , um ,  to map from long analysis frames which are used for removing reverberation to short analysis frames for feature calculation. He has a trick for doing that  involving viewing the DFT as a matrix. Um , but , uh , um , I decided  not to do that after all because I  I realized to use it I 'd need to have these short analysis frames get plugged directly into the feature computation somehow


That way there 's lots of work to do. So it 's  Uh , anything to talk about ?

N um , not not not much is new. So when I talked about what I 'm planning to do last time ,  I said I was , um , going to use Avendano 's method of , um ,  using a transformation , um ,  to map from long analysis frames which are used for removing reverberation to short analysis frames for feature calculation. He has a trick for doing that  involving viewing the DFT as a matrix. Um , but , uh , um , I decided  not to do that after all because I  I realized to use it I 'd need to have these short analysis frames get plugged directly into the feature computation somehow


That way there 's lots of work to do. So it 's  Uh , anything to talk about ?

N um , not not not much is new. So when I talked about what I 'm planning to do last time ,  I said I was , um , going to use Avendano 's method of , um ,  using a transformation , um ,  to map from long analysis frames which are used for removing reverberation to short analysis frames for feature calculation. He has a trick for doing that  involving viewing the DFT as a matrix. Um , but , uh , um , I decided  not to do that after all because I  I realized to use it I 'd need to have these short analysis frames get plugged directly into the feature computation somehow

and right now I think our feature computation is set to up to , um ,  take , um , audio as input , in general. So I decided that I  I 'll do the reverberation removal on the long analysis windows and then just re - synthesize audio and then send that.


N um , not not not much is new. So when I talked about what I 'm planning to do last time ,  I said I was , um , going to use Avendano 's method of , um ,  using a transformation , um ,  to map from long analysis frames which are used for removing reverberation to short analysis frames for feature calculation. He has a trick for doing that  involving viewing the DFT as a matrix. Um , but , uh , um , I decided  not to do that after all because I  I realized to use it I 'd need to have these short analysis frames get plugged directly into the feature computation somehow

and right now I think our feature computation is set to up to , um ,  take , um , audio as input , in general. So I decided that I  I 'll do the reverberation removal on the long analysis windows and then just re - synthesize audio and then send that.

This is in order to use the SRI system or something. Right ?


and right now I think our feature computation is set to up to , um ,  take , um , audio as input , in general. So I decided that I  I 'll do the reverberation removal on the long analysis windows and then just re - synthesize audio and then send that.

This is in order to use the SRI system or something. Right ?

Um , or  or even if I 'm using our system , I was thinking it might be easier to just re - synthesize the audio ,


This is in order to use the SRI system or something. Right ?

Um , or  or even if I 'm using our system , I was thinking it might be easier to just re - synthesize the audio ,

because then I could just feacalc as is and I wouldn't have to change the code.


Um , or  or even if I 'm using our system , I was thinking it might be easier to just re - synthesize the audio ,

because then I could just feacalc as is and I wouldn't have to change the code.

Oh , OK. Yeah. I mean , it 's  um , certainly in a short  short - term this just sounds easier.


because then I could just feacalc as is and I wouldn't have to change the code.

Oh , OK. Yeah. I mean , it 's  um , certainly in a short  short - term this just sounds easier.


because then I could just feacalc as is and I wouldn't have to change the code.

Oh , OK. Yeah. I mean , it 's  um , certainly in a short  short - term this just sounds easier.

Yeah. I mean , longer - term if it 's   if it turns out to be useful , one  one might want to do something else ,


Oh , OK. Yeah. I mean , it 's  um , certainly in a short  short - term this just sounds easier.

Yeah. I mean , longer - term if it 's   if it turns out to be useful , one  one might want to do something else ,


Yeah. I mean , longer - term if it 's   if it turns out to be useful , one  one might want to do something else ,

but  Uh , uh , I mean , in  in other words , you  you may be putting other kinds of errors in  from the re - synthesis process.


but  Uh , uh , I mean , in  in other words , you  you may be putting other kinds of errors in  from the re - synthesis process.


but  Uh , uh , I mean , in  in other words , you  you may be putting other kinds of errors in  from the re - synthesis process.

O - OK. I don't know anything about re - synthesis. Uh , how likely do you think that is ?


O - OK. I don't know anything about re - synthesis. Uh , how likely do you think that is ?

Uh , it depends what you  what you do. I mean , it 's  it 's  it 's , uh , um  Don't know. But anyway it sounds like a reasonable way to go for a  for an initial thing , and we can look at   at exactly what you end up doing and  and then figure out if there 's some   something that could be  be hurt by the end part of the process.


Uh , it depends what you  what you do. I mean , it 's  it 's  it 's , uh , um  Don't know. But anyway it sounds like a reasonable way to go for a  for an initial thing , and we can look at   at exactly what you end up doing and  and then figure out if there 's some   something that could be  be hurt by the end part of the process.


Um. Well , I 've been continuing reading. I went off on a little tangent this past week , um , looking at , uh ,  uh , modulation s spectrum stuff , um , and  and learning a bit about what  what , um  what it is , and , uh , the importance of it in speech recognition. And I found some   some , uh , neat papers ,  um , historical papers from ,  um ,  Kanedera , Hermansky , and Arai.


Um. Well , I 've been continuing reading. I went off on a little tangent this past week , um , looking at , uh ,  uh , modulation s spectrum stuff , um , and  and learning a bit about what  what , um  what it is , and , uh , the importance of it in speech recognition. And I found some   some , uh , neat papers ,  um , historical papers from ,  um ,  Kanedera , Hermansky , and Arai.

And they  they did a lot of experiments where th where ,  um , they take speech  and , um , e they modify  the , uh  they  they  they measure the relative importance of having different , um , portions of the modulation spectrum intact.


And they  they did a lot of experiments where th where ,  um , they take speech  and , um , e they modify  the , uh  they  they  they measure the relative importance of having different , um , portions of the modulation spectrum intact.

And they find that the  the spectrum between one and sixteen hertz in the modulation  is , uh  is im important for speech recognition.


And they  they did a lot of experiments where th where ,  um , they take speech  and , um , e they modify  the , uh  they  they  they measure the relative importance of having different , um , portions of the modulation spectrum intact.

And they find that the  the spectrum between one and sixteen hertz in the modulation  is , uh  is im important for speech recognition.

Sure. I mean , this sort of goes back to earlier stuff by Drullman.


And they find that the  the spectrum between one and sixteen hertz in the modulation  is , uh  is im important for speech recognition.

Sure. I mean , this sort of goes back to earlier stuff by Drullman.


And they find that the  the spectrum between one and sixteen hertz in the modulation  is , uh  is im important for speech recognition.

Sure. I mean , this sort of goes back to earlier stuff by Drullman.

And  and , uh , the  the MSG features were sort of built up  with this notion


Sure. I mean , this sort of goes back to earlier stuff by Drullman.

And  and , uh , the  the MSG features were sort of built up  with this notion


And  and , uh , the  the MSG features were sort of built up  with this notion

But , I guess , I thought you had brought this up in the context of , um , targets somehow.


But , I guess , I thought you had brought this up in the context of , um , targets somehow.


i it 's not  I mean , they 're sort of not in the same kind of category as , say , a phonetic target or a syllabic target


i it 's not  I mean , they 're sort of not in the same kind of category as , say , a phonetic target or a syllabic target

Um , I was thinking more like using them as  as the inputs to  to the detectors.


Um , I was thinking more like using them as  as the inputs to  to the detectors.

or a feature or something. Oh , I see. Well , that 's sort of what MSG does.


or a feature or something. Oh , I see. Well , that 's sort of what MSG does.


Anyway , we 'll talk more about it later.


Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Children, Young People and Education Committee. We've received apologies for absence from Julie Morgan, and I'm very pleased to welcome David Rees, who is substituting for her today. Can I ask Members whether there are any declarations of interest, please? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Item 2 this morning, then, is a session with the Minister for Children and Social Care on the Welsh Government's childcare offer. So, I'm very pleased to welcome Huw Irranca-Davies, Minister for Children and Social Care, also Jo-Anne Daniels, director for communities and tackling poverty, and Owain Lloyd, deputy director for childcare, play and early years. So, thank you, all, for your attendance. If you're happy, we'll go straight into questions from Members, and the first questions come from Hefin David.

Good morning, Minister. How has it gone in the early implementer local authority areas, and is it something of a mixed bag?

It's gone well, but I'm glad we've done it through this process of early implementer, actually piloting it, because we're learning lessons as we go along. It has gone well. It's been encouraging, to the extent that we're at the point where we're expanding—we've made announcements on expanding some of the early implementer areas so we can learn more lessons. But, in terms of what we're learning, one is the bureaucracy around the current approach that we're taking, because it's being done on the seven early implementers. So, we're asking parents to come in, provide their wage slips, provide the birth certificates, and so on. You're dealing sometimes with parents and families with complex issues and complex backgrounds, so it's difficult. And the burden of administration on that is falling to each pilot area. In one case, it's a whole authority, but it's only one—that's in Blaenau Gwent. In others, it's smaller areas. So, we're also hitting those—. The other big challenge we're hitting is communication. So, we're having parents, generally, who are outside the areas entirely saying, 'Why haven't we got this yet? Can we please get into it?', which is encouraging. But the other thing we're having is people who are within pilot authorities, where it doesn't extend to the whole authority, saying, 'Well, hold on now, we think we qualify for something under universal care, we think we qualify for something on tax credits. Why don't we qualify for this?' 'Well, you're not in the pilot area.' So, we're learning about these things, but the biggest one, I have to say, is the administrative burden, and I think that's interesting in how we take this forward for a wider roll-out.


Good morning, Minister. How has it gone in the early implementer local authority areas, and is it something of a mixed bag?

It's gone well, but I'm glad we've done it through this process of early implementer, actually piloting it, because we're learning lessons as we go along. It has gone well. It's been encouraging, to the extent that we're at the point where we're expanding—we've made announcements on expanding some of the early implementer areas so we can learn more lessons. But, in terms of what we're learning, one is the bureaucracy around the current approach that we're taking, because it's being done on the seven early implementers. So, we're asking parents to come in, provide their wage slips, provide the birth certificates, and so on. You're dealing sometimes with parents and families with complex issues and complex backgrounds, so it's difficult. And the burden of administration on that is falling to each pilot area. In one case, it's a whole authority, but it's only one—that's in Blaenau Gwent. In others, it's smaller areas. So, we're also hitting those—. The other big challenge we're hitting is communication. So, we're having parents, generally, who are outside the areas entirely saying, 'Why haven't we got this yet? Can we please get into it?', which is encouraging. But the other thing we're having is people who are within pilot authorities, where it doesn't extend to the whole authority, saying, 'Well, hold on now, we think we qualify for something under universal care, we think we qualify for something on tax credits. Why don't we qualify for this?' 'Well, you're not in the pilot area.' So, we're learning about these things, but the biggest one, I have to say, is the administrative burden, and I think that's interesting in how we take this forward for a wider roll-out.

What is the administrative burden? What specifically is that?


Good morning, Minister. How has it gone in the early implementer local authority areas, and is it something of a mixed bag?

It's gone well, but I'm glad we've done it through this process of early implementer, actually piloting it, because we're learning lessons as we go along. It has gone well. It's been encouraging, to the extent that we're at the point where we're expanding—we've made announcements on expanding some of the early implementer areas so we can learn more lessons. But, in terms of what we're learning, one is the bureaucracy around the current approach that we're taking, because it's being done on the seven early implementers. So, we're asking parents to come in, provide their wage slips, provide the birth certificates, and so on. You're dealing sometimes with parents and families with complex issues and complex backgrounds, so it's difficult. And the burden of administration on that is falling to each pilot area. In one case, it's a whole authority, but it's only one—that's in Blaenau Gwent. In others, it's smaller areas. So, we're also hitting those—. The other big challenge we're hitting is communication. So, we're having parents, generally, who are outside the areas entirely saying, 'Why haven't we got this yet? Can we please get into it?', which is encouraging. But the other thing we're having is people who are within pilot authorities, where it doesn't extend to the whole authority, saying, 'Well, hold on now, we think we qualify for something under universal care, we think we qualify for something on tax credits. Why don't we qualify for this?' 'Well, you're not in the pilot area.' So, we're learning about these things, but the biggest one, I have to say, is the administrative burden, and I think that's interesting in how we take this forward for a wider roll-out.

What is the administrative burden? What specifically is that?

It is that sheer burden on each local authority, and each pilot area, to administer a scheme where we are asking parents to prove eligibility, to bring in documents to prove their eligibility, to make adjustments as it goes forward based on what their changing work patterns are, what their salary slips say. It's incredibly bureaucratic. So, yesterday, when we made the statement following the announcement of the introduction of the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill, we made clear that our preferred option, as put within that framework Bill, is actually to build on, and to learn from the lessons as well, the model of the HM Revenue and Customs type of model, where you actually have—and this, by the way, is supported by local authority providers out there—one system that is a centralised system, where there is clarity, that is handled, that has elements of information sharing between Government departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on, so that the work is done for the parents, and the work is done for the local authorities; much cleaner, much simpler.


It's gone well, but I'm glad we've done it through this process of early implementer, actually piloting it, because we're learning lessons as we go along. It has gone well. It's been encouraging, to the extent that we're at the point where we're expanding—we've made announcements on expanding some of the early implementer areas so we can learn more lessons. But, in terms of what we're learning, one is the bureaucracy around the current approach that we're taking, because it's being done on the seven early implementers. So, we're asking parents to come in, provide their wage slips, provide the birth certificates, and so on. You're dealing sometimes with parents and families with complex issues and complex backgrounds, so it's difficult. And the burden of administration on that is falling to each pilot area. In one case, it's a whole authority, but it's only one—that's in Blaenau Gwent. In others, it's smaller areas. So, we're also hitting those—. The other big challenge we're hitting is communication. So, we're having parents, generally, who are outside the areas entirely saying, 'Why haven't we got this yet? Can we please get into it?', which is encouraging. But the other thing we're having is people who are within pilot authorities, where it doesn't extend to the whole authority, saying, 'Well, hold on now, we think we qualify for something under universal care, we think we qualify for something on tax credits. Why don't we qualify for this?' 'Well, you're not in the pilot area.' So, we're learning about these things, but the biggest one, I have to say, is the administrative burden, and I think that's interesting in how we take this forward for a wider roll-out.

What is the administrative burden? What specifically is that?

It is that sheer burden on each local authority, and each pilot area, to administer a scheme where we are asking parents to prove eligibility, to bring in documents to prove their eligibility, to make adjustments as it goes forward based on what their changing work patterns are, what their salary slips say. It's incredibly bureaucratic. So, yesterday, when we made the statement following the announcement of the introduction of the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill, we made clear that our preferred option, as put within that framework Bill, is actually to build on, and to learn from the lessons as well, the model of the HM Revenue and Customs type of model, where you actually have—and this, by the way, is supported by local authority providers out there—one system that is a centralised system, where there is clarity, that is handled, that has elements of information sharing between Government departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on, so that the work is done for the parents, and the work is done for the local authorities; much cleaner, much simpler.

How confident are you that you can achieve that by 2020?


What is the administrative burden? What specifically is that?

It is that sheer burden on each local authority, and each pilot area, to administer a scheme where we are asking parents to prove eligibility, to bring in documents to prove their eligibility, to make adjustments as it goes forward based on what their changing work patterns are, what their salary slips say. It's incredibly bureaucratic. So, yesterday, when we made the statement following the announcement of the introduction of the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill, we made clear that our preferred option, as put within that framework Bill, is actually to build on, and to learn from the lessons as well, the model of the HM Revenue and Customs type of model, where you actually have—and this, by the way, is supported by local authority providers out there—one system that is a centralised system, where there is clarity, that is handled, that has elements of information sharing between Government departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on, so that the work is done for the parents, and the work is done for the local authorities; much cleaner, much simpler.

How confident are you that you can achieve that by 2020?

We are very confident. But, as I say, I'm more confident in the fact that we're actually piloting it, and phasing this in, because I think we've learned from some of the experiences elsewhere, including just over the border in England, where they have a different version of a childcare offer, but they've gone for it in a big-bang approach. And it has led to technical issues, it's led to volume issues, where their anticipation of how many people would buy into it was overwhelmed by the numbers who actually then came forward for it, and the complexity, I have to say, of individual family situations, whereas what we are doing, Hefin, is taking this forward very, very carefully. Each roll-out, each expansion that we're doing of the pilot is not—and I know this has caused some people to come back and say, 'Why can't we all have it now?' It's because we're only rolling out to areas where we now need to learn a lesson about whether it's rurality or, as it will be within densely urban areas, where the cost might be slightly higher, and that's allowing us to have the confidence that we'll have it. We've expanded the whole offer across Gwynedd—the whole of Gwynedd, Anglesey and Caerphilly. Flintshire now have a cross-authority offer. Rhondda Cynon Taf is anticipating doing this by September. Swansea is planning to do it, they tell us, in due course—in short order—as well. So, we have the confidence now that, with that learning going on from different pilot areas, we'll have the full roll-out by 2020.


It is that sheer burden on each local authority, and each pilot area, to administer a scheme where we are asking parents to prove eligibility, to bring in documents to prove their eligibility, to make adjustments as it goes forward based on what their changing work patterns are, what their salary slips say. It's incredibly bureaucratic. So, yesterday, when we made the statement following the announcement of the introduction of the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill, we made clear that our preferred option, as put within that framework Bill, is actually to build on, and to learn from the lessons as well, the model of the HM Revenue and Customs type of model, where you actually have—and this, by the way, is supported by local authority providers out there—one system that is a centralised system, where there is clarity, that is handled, that has elements of information sharing between Government departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, and so on, so that the work is done for the parents, and the work is done for the local authorities; much cleaner, much simpler.

How confident are you that you can achieve that by 2020?

We are very confident. But, as I say, I'm more confident in the fact that we're actually piloting it, and phasing this in, because I think we've learned from some of the experiences elsewhere, including just over the border in England, where they have a different version of a childcare offer, but they've gone for it in a big-bang approach. And it has led to technical issues, it's led to volume issues, where their anticipation of how many people would buy into it was overwhelmed by the numbers who actually then came forward for it, and the complexity, I have to say, of individual family situations, whereas what we are doing, Hefin, is taking this forward very, very carefully. Each roll-out, each expansion that we're doing of the pilot is not—and I know this has caused some people to come back and say, 'Why can't we all have it now?' It's because we're only rolling out to areas where we now need to learn a lesson about whether it's rurality or, as it will be within densely urban areas, where the cost might be slightly higher, and that's allowing us to have the confidence that we'll have it. We've expanded the whole offer across Gwynedd—the whole of Gwynedd, Anglesey and Caerphilly. Flintshire now have a cross-authority offer. Rhondda Cynon Taf is anticipating doing this by September. Swansea is planning to do it, they tell us, in due course—in short order—as well. So, we have the confidence now that, with that learning going on from different pilot areas, we'll have the full roll-out by 2020.

Is it true to say that, in the early adopter areas, the intensity of demand for the services is not spread evenly across?


How confident are you that you can achieve that by 2020?

We are very confident. But, as I say, I'm more confident in the fact that we're actually piloting it, and phasing this in, because I think we've learned from some of the experiences elsewhere, including just over the border in England, where they have a different version of a childcare offer, but they've gone for it in a big-bang approach. And it has led to technical issues, it's led to volume issues, where their anticipation of how many people would buy into it was overwhelmed by the numbers who actually then came forward for it, and the complexity, I have to say, of individual family situations, whereas what we are doing, Hefin, is taking this forward very, very carefully. Each roll-out, each expansion that we're doing of the pilot is not—and I know this has caused some people to come back and say, 'Why can't we all have it now?' It's because we're only rolling out to areas where we now need to learn a lesson about whether it's rurality or, as it will be within densely urban areas, where the cost might be slightly higher, and that's allowing us to have the confidence that we'll have it. We've expanded the whole offer across Gwynedd—the whole of Gwynedd, Anglesey and Caerphilly. Flintshire now have a cross-authority offer. Rhondda Cynon Taf is anticipating doing this by September. Swansea is planning to do it, they tell us, in due course—in short order—as well. So, we have the confidence now that, with that learning going on from different pilot areas, we'll have the full roll-out by 2020.

Is it true to say that, in the early adopter areas, the intensity of demand for the services is not spread evenly across?


We are very confident. But, as I say, I'm more confident in the fact that we're actually piloting it, and phasing this in, because I think we've learned from some of the experiences elsewhere, including just over the border in England, where they have a different version of a childcare offer, but they've gone for it in a big-bang approach. And it has led to technical issues, it's led to volume issues, where their anticipation of how many people would buy into it was overwhelmed by the numbers who actually then came forward for it, and the complexity, I have to say, of individual family situations, whereas what we are doing, Hefin, is taking this forward very, very carefully. Each roll-out, each expansion that we're doing of the pilot is not—and I know this has caused some people to come back and say, 'Why can't we all have it now?' It's because we're only rolling out to areas where we now need to learn a lesson about whether it's rurality or, as it will be within densely urban areas, where the cost might be slightly higher, and that's allowing us to have the confidence that we'll have it. We've expanded the whole offer across Gwynedd—the whole of Gwynedd, Anglesey and Caerphilly. Flintshire now have a cross-authority offer. Rhondda Cynon Taf is anticipating doing this by September. Swansea is planning to do it, they tell us, in due course—in short order—as well. So, we have the confidence now that, with that learning going on from different pilot areas, we'll have the full roll-out by 2020.

Is it true to say that, in the early adopter areas, the intensity of demand for the services is not spread evenly across?

And why is that? Is that going to cause a problem across Wales?


Is it true to say that, in the early adopter areas, the intensity of demand for the services is not spread evenly across?

And why is that? Is that going to cause a problem across Wales?

No, it won't cause a problem. If we were doing this tomorrow, it would cause a problem, but what we're learning is that there are some economic issues and then there are some cultural issues. So ,there are issues to do with—. It's not capacity, by the way. We're not finding a problem here with capacity, whether it's in English language provision or whether it's in Welsh language provision, whether it's in children with complex needs, we're not finding that as an issue. But what we are finding is, for example, one of the well-known ones—and I've spoken about this before—is that, in some of the south Wales Valleys constituencies, there is a family tradition of doing childcare within the families. I've done it myself. Grandparents, aunts, uncles and so on provide free, unregistered, unlicensed childcare of a sort. Now that isn't what the scheme is about, by the way, I have to say. So, some of the aspects are cultural, but what we're also doing alongside this, whilst looking at the capacity and looking at how we learnt from the pilot roll-out, is that communication with parents and providers and local authorities as well. So, we have a whole programme running alongside it. It's about communicating what the offer is, how simple it is to get invovled in this and where they go to, and, critically, I think, how we do that national roll-out would be important as well.


And why is that? Is that going to cause a problem across Wales?

No, it won't cause a problem. If we were doing this tomorrow, it would cause a problem, but what we're learning is that there are some economic issues and then there are some cultural issues. So ,there are issues to do with—. It's not capacity, by the way. We're not finding a problem here with capacity, whether it's in English language provision or whether it's in Welsh language provision, whether it's in children with complex needs, we're not finding that as an issue. But what we are finding is, for example, one of the well-known ones—and I've spoken about this before—is that, in some of the south Wales Valleys constituencies, there is a family tradition of doing childcare within the families. I've done it myself. Grandparents, aunts, uncles and so on provide free, unregistered, unlicensed childcare of a sort. Now that isn't what the scheme is about, by the way, I have to say. So, some of the aspects are cultural, but what we're also doing alongside this, whilst looking at the capacity and looking at how we learnt from the pilot roll-out, is that communication with parents and providers and local authorities as well. So, we have a whole programme running alongside it. It's about communicating what the offer is, how simple it is to get invovled in this and where they go to, and, critically, I think, how we do that national roll-out would be important as well.

So, given the point you've made about grandparents and family, wouldn't it be sensible, then, to offer a subsidy to grandparents to provide this kind of care?


No, it won't cause a problem. If we were doing this tomorrow, it would cause a problem, but what we're learning is that there are some economic issues and then there are some cultural issues. So ,there are issues to do with—. It's not capacity, by the way. We're not finding a problem here with capacity, whether it's in English language provision or whether it's in Welsh language provision, whether it's in children with complex needs, we're not finding that as an issue. But what we are finding is, for example, one of the well-known ones—and I've spoken about this before—is that, in some of the south Wales Valleys constituencies, there is a family tradition of doing childcare within the families. I've done it myself. Grandparents, aunts, uncles and so on provide free, unregistered, unlicensed childcare of a sort. Now that isn't what the scheme is about, by the way, I have to say. So, some of the aspects are cultural, but what we're also doing alongside this, whilst looking at the capacity and looking at how we learnt from the pilot roll-out, is that communication with parents and providers and local authorities as well. So, we have a whole programme running alongside it. It's about communicating what the offer is, how simple it is to get invovled in this and where they go to, and, critically, I think, how we do that national roll-out would be important as well.

So, given the point you've made about grandparents and family, wouldn't it be sensible, then, to offer a subsidy to grandparents to provide this kind of care?

Well, through some kind of analysis of that.


So, given the point you've made about grandparents and family, wouldn't it be sensible, then, to offer a subsidy to grandparents to provide this kind of care?

Well, through some kind of analysis of that.

Well, we don't think so and there are good reasons behind this.


Well, through some kind of analysis of that.

Well, we don't think so and there are good reasons behind this.

Is it because you say that they wouldn't be registered as carers for their own family member?


Well, through some kind of analysis of that.

Well, we don't think so and there are good reasons behind this.

Is it because you say that they wouldn't be registered as carers for their own family member?

Yes, but there's a deeper reason behind that registration as well. The childcare offer isn't only to just provide childcare; it's the wider aspects that come with this. This childcare offer ties into the foundation years offer. There's an element of education linked to the childcare offer—there's that 10 hours of the early education foundation years as well. The two tie together. So, there's an issue here with quality, about socialisation and how children learn in an environment, as opposed to purely—as great as all our grandparents and aunts and uncles are—simply child-minding. That's one important distinction. So, the focus of this scheme is very much on registered licensed providers, which could be, by the way—because we do have them, and we're discussing this at the moment internally and with the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and others—grandparents who are actually registered and inspected by the care inspectorate? We're having those discussions.


Well, we don't think so and there are good reasons behind this.

Is it because you say that they wouldn't be registered as carers for their own family member?

Yes, but there's a deeper reason behind that registration as well. The childcare offer isn't only to just provide childcare; it's the wider aspects that come with this. This childcare offer ties into the foundation years offer. There's an element of education linked to the childcare offer—there's that 10 hours of the early education foundation years as well. The two tie together. So, there's an issue here with quality, about socialisation and how children learn in an environment, as opposed to purely—as great as all our grandparents and aunts and uncles are—simply child-minding. That's one important distinction. So, the focus of this scheme is very much on registered licensed providers, which could be, by the way—because we do have them, and we're discussing this at the moment internally and with the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and others—grandparents who are actually registered and inspected by the care inspectorate? We're having those discussions.


Is it because you say that they wouldn't be registered as carers for their own family member?

Yes, but there's a deeper reason behind that registration as well. The childcare offer isn't only to just provide childcare; it's the wider aspects that come with this. This childcare offer ties into the foundation years offer. There's an element of education linked to the childcare offer—there's that 10 hours of the early education foundation years as well. The two tie together. So, there's an issue here with quality, about socialisation and how children learn in an environment, as opposed to purely—as great as all our grandparents and aunts and uncles are—simply child-minding. That's one important distinction. So, the focus of this scheme is very much on registered licensed providers, which could be, by the way—because we do have them, and we're discussing this at the moment internally and with the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and others—grandparents who are actually registered and inspected by the care inspectorate? We're having those discussions.

We don't think there is a huge number, but we're trying to bottom this out at the moment. We haven't got the exact number, but we don't think they are huge numbers, but there are, in our constituencies, registered, licensed, inspected grandparents who look after other people's children in a little group of four or five or six or seven, but also their own grandchildren.


Yes, but there's a deeper reason behind that registration as well. The childcare offer isn't only to just provide childcare; it's the wider aspects that come with this. This childcare offer ties into the foundation years offer. There's an element of education linked to the childcare offer—there's that 10 hours of the early education foundation years as well. The two tie together. So, there's an issue here with quality, about socialisation and how children learn in an environment, as opposed to purely—as great as all our grandparents and aunts and uncles are—simply child-minding. That's one important distinction. So, the focus of this scheme is very much on registered licensed providers, which could be, by the way—because we do have them, and we're discussing this at the moment internally and with the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and others—grandparents who are actually registered and inspected by the care inspectorate? We're having those discussions.

We don't think there is a huge number, but we're trying to bottom this out at the moment. We haven't got the exact number, but we don't think they are huge numbers, but there are, in our constituencies, registered, licensed, inspected grandparents who look after other people's children in a little group of four or five or six or seven, but also their own grandchildren.

So, they're a kind of grandparents club.


We don't think there is a huge number, but we're trying to bottom this out at the moment. We haven't got the exact number, but we don't think they are huge numbers, but there are, in our constituencies, registered, licensed, inspected grandparents who look after other people's children in a little group of four or five or six or seven, but also their own grandchildren.

So, they're a kind of grandparents club.

Yes. Now that, I would say to you—and I know that Darren raised this on the floor yesterday as well—is markedly different in the nature of it, because it's registered and licensed, than simply informal grandparents or aunts or uncles. I say that as well because we also get people who will say to us, 'I don't want to be paid for looking after my grandchildren; I look after my grandchildren because I look after them'.


We don't think there is a huge number, but we're trying to bottom this out at the moment. We haven't got the exact number, but we don't think they are huge numbers, but there are, in our constituencies, registered, licensed, inspected grandparents who look after other people's children in a little group of four or five or six or seven, but also their own grandchildren.

So, they're a kind of grandparents club.

Yes. Now that, I would say to you—and I know that Darren raised this on the floor yesterday as well—is markedly different in the nature of it, because it's registered and licensed, than simply informal grandparents or aunts or uncles. I say that as well because we also get people who will say to us, 'I don't want to be paid for looking after my grandchildren; I look after my grandchildren because I look after them'.

And what about the view, given that you said that capacity wasn't an issue, of the National Day Nurseries Association, which says that Wales has the most fragile childcare sector in Great Britain?


So, they're a kind of grandparents club.

Yes. Now that, I would say to you—and I know that Darren raised this on the floor yesterday as well—is markedly different in the nature of it, because it's registered and licensed, than simply informal grandparents or aunts or uncles. I say that as well because we also get people who will say to us, 'I don't want to be paid for looking after my grandchildren; I look after my grandchildren because I look after them'.

And what about the view, given that you said that capacity wasn't an issue, of the National Day Nurseries Association, which says that Wales has the most fragile childcare sector in Great Britain?

I don't agree we have the most fragile, but the childcare offer gives us an opportunity to make it more resilient and more robust. We know from the early piloting, and as we roll it out, that there is the immense diversity within the childcare sector, and we're talking about everything from those very small terraced homes that have been licensed and registered to take six or seven children, to large, complex environments that perhaps are on maintained premises within school premises, provided by a voluntary or third sector organisation. So, there's immense complexity and we know that that differs across Wales, and we also know there's immense regional variation in the scale and the type of childcare offer. What the roll-out allows us to do, backed by £60 million of capital money behind it, in terms of capital development of childcare facilities, backed by a 10-year workforce development plan for childcare—and bear in mind this is bolted in as part of our foundational economy approach as well—that means, by 2020, we get to the point where we're putting the money into the capital development but also to the workforce development, because in some areas we're finding it's not to do with lack of provision and facilities, it's to do with lack of staff. In other areas, we're finding there are plenty of staff but not the adequate facilities. We've got to get it right.


Yes. Now that, I would say to you—and I know that Darren raised this on the floor yesterday as well—is markedly different in the nature of it, because it's registered and licensed, than simply informal grandparents or aunts or uncles. I say that as well because we also get people who will say to us, 'I don't want to be paid for looking after my grandchildren; I look after my grandchildren because I look after them'.

And what about the view, given that you said that capacity wasn't an issue, of the National Day Nurseries Association, which says that Wales has the most fragile childcare sector in Great Britain?

I don't agree we have the most fragile, but the childcare offer gives us an opportunity to make it more resilient and more robust. We know from the early piloting, and as we roll it out, that there is the immense diversity within the childcare sector, and we're talking about everything from those very small terraced homes that have been licensed and registered to take six or seven children, to large, complex environments that perhaps are on maintained premises within school premises, provided by a voluntary or third sector organisation. So, there's immense complexity and we know that that differs across Wales, and we also know there's immense regional variation in the scale and the type of childcare offer. What the roll-out allows us to do, backed by £60 million of capital money behind it, in terms of capital development of childcare facilities, backed by a 10-year workforce development plan for childcare—and bear in mind this is bolted in as part of our foundational economy approach as well—that means, by 2020, we get to the point where we're putting the money into the capital development but also to the workforce development, because in some areas we're finding it's not to do with lack of provision and facilities, it's to do with lack of staff. In other areas, we're finding there are plenty of staff but not the adequate facilities. We've got to get it right.

That's fair enough, but is it realistic to think that there's going to be capacity growth in the next two to three years to deliver the product? Is that realistic to think that that foundational sector can provide that level of staffing?


And what about the view, given that you said that capacity wasn't an issue, of the National Day Nurseries Association, which says that Wales has the most fragile childcare sector in Great Britain?

I don't agree we have the most fragile, but the childcare offer gives us an opportunity to make it more resilient and more robust. We know from the early piloting, and as we roll it out, that there is the immense diversity within the childcare sector, and we're talking about everything from those very small terraced homes that have been licensed and registered to take six or seven children, to large, complex environments that perhaps are on maintained premises within school premises, provided by a voluntary or third sector organisation. So, there's immense complexity and we know that that differs across Wales, and we also know there's immense regional variation in the scale and the type of childcare offer. What the roll-out allows us to do, backed by £60 million of capital money behind it, in terms of capital development of childcare facilities, backed by a 10-year workforce development plan for childcare—and bear in mind this is bolted in as part of our foundational economy approach as well—that means, by 2020, we get to the point where we're putting the money into the capital development but also to the workforce development, because in some areas we're finding it's not to do with lack of provision and facilities, it's to do with lack of staff. In other areas, we're finding there are plenty of staff but not the adequate facilities. We've got to get it right.

That's fair enough, but is it realistic to think that there's going to be capacity growth in the next two to three years to deliver the product? Is that realistic to think that that foundational sector can provide that level of staffing?

Yes, I think it is, absolutely, because, again, what we're finding is we've got several things going on at once in terms of how we monitor and assess the development of this roll-out. One is the work that we're doing on the ground with the phased roll-out, so we're literally learning live time, and I have pretty much weekly or fortnightly updates on how things are going, but also there is a termly update as well. We've also commissioned additional work from Arad to look at this first phase of the roll-out that we've done to see what that tells us as well. But the feedback that we're getting from the childcare providers themselves, on the basis that we're now identifying where either the gaps in the workforce or the physical facilities are, is that, 'Yes, we can do this', because we're putting the money in, we have the strategy for the workforce development, and it's not going to be the same in all parts of Wales. It's not as if what we're saying is, 'Here's what we're going to do all of a sudden—flick a switch and we have a universality of the same type of provision everywhere.' So, let me give you one key example. Alongside this, alongside the £60 million capital fund, alongside the workforce development, we've also identified a separate strain of money into cylch meithrin. We know that there is a shortage in parts of Wales for Welsh language childcare development. We're specifically putting money into developing that, and, in fact, the first one of those will be, from that new tranche of money, opening up, I think, in September. They anticipate, as part of our big strategy with Welsh language development, we'll have an additional 40 of those by—


I don't agree we have the most fragile, but the childcare offer gives us an opportunity to make it more resilient and more robust. We know from the early piloting, and as we roll it out, that there is the immense diversity within the childcare sector, and we're talking about everything from those very small terraced homes that have been licensed and registered to take six or seven children, to large, complex environments that perhaps are on maintained premises within school premises, provided by a voluntary or third sector organisation. So, there's immense complexity and we know that that differs across Wales, and we also know there's immense regional variation in the scale and the type of childcare offer. What the roll-out allows us to do, backed by £60 million of capital money behind it, in terms of capital development of childcare facilities, backed by a 10-year workforce development plan for childcare—and bear in mind this is bolted in as part of our foundational economy approach as well—that means, by 2020, we get to the point where we're putting the money into the capital development but also to the workforce development, because in some areas we're finding it's not to do with lack of provision and facilities, it's to do with lack of staff. In other areas, we're finding there are plenty of staff but not the adequate facilities. We've got to get it right.

That's fair enough, but is it realistic to think that there's going to be capacity growth in the next two to three years to deliver the product? Is that realistic to think that that foundational sector can provide that level of staffing?

Yes, I think it is, absolutely, because, again, what we're finding is we've got several things going on at once in terms of how we monitor and assess the development of this roll-out. One is the work that we're doing on the ground with the phased roll-out, so we're literally learning live time, and I have pretty much weekly or fortnightly updates on how things are going, but also there is a termly update as well. We've also commissioned additional work from Arad to look at this first phase of the roll-out that we've done to see what that tells us as well. But the feedback that we're getting from the childcare providers themselves, on the basis that we're now identifying where either the gaps in the workforce or the physical facilities are, is that, 'Yes, we can do this', because we're putting the money in, we have the strategy for the workforce development, and it's not going to be the same in all parts of Wales. It's not as if what we're saying is, 'Here's what we're going to do all of a sudden—flick a switch and we have a universality of the same type of provision everywhere.' So, let me give you one key example. Alongside this, alongside the £60 million capital fund, alongside the workforce development, we've also identified a separate strain of money into cylch meithrin. We know that there is a shortage in parts of Wales for Welsh language childcare development. We're specifically putting money into developing that, and, in fact, the first one of those will be, from that new tranche of money, opening up, I think, in September. They anticipate, as part of our big strategy with Welsh language development, we'll have an additional 40 of those by—


That's fair enough, but is it realistic to think that there's going to be capacity growth in the next two to three years to deliver the product? Is that realistic to think that that foundational sector can provide that level of staffing?

Yes, I think it is, absolutely, because, again, what we're finding is we've got several things going on at once in terms of how we monitor and assess the development of this roll-out. One is the work that we're doing on the ground with the phased roll-out, so we're literally learning live time, and I have pretty much weekly or fortnightly updates on how things are going, but also there is a termly update as well. We've also commissioned additional work from Arad to look at this first phase of the roll-out that we've done to see what that tells us as well. But the feedback that we're getting from the childcare providers themselves, on the basis that we're now identifying where either the gaps in the workforce or the physical facilities are, is that, 'Yes, we can do this', because we're putting the money in, we have the strategy for the workforce development, and it's not going to be the same in all parts of Wales. It's not as if what we're saying is, 'Here's what we're going to do all of a sudden—flick a switch and we have a universality of the same type of provision everywhere.' So, let me give you one key example. Alongside this, alongside the £60 million capital fund, alongside the workforce development, we've also identified a separate strain of money into cylch meithrin. We know that there is a shortage in parts of Wales for Welsh language childcare development. We're specifically putting money into developing that, and, in fact, the first one of those will be, from that new tranche of money, opening up, I think, in September. They anticipate, as part of our big strategy with Welsh language development, we'll have an additional 40 of those by—

It's an additional 30 by 2020, and an additional doubling of that in the 10 years after that. We can't take this for granted, Hefin. This is difficult. This is hard work, but we have everything in place to make it happen.


Yes, I think it is, absolutely, because, again, what we're finding is we've got several things going on at once in terms of how we monitor and assess the development of this roll-out. One is the work that we're doing on the ground with the phased roll-out, so we're literally learning live time, and I have pretty much weekly or fortnightly updates on how things are going, but also there is a termly update as well. We've also commissioned additional work from Arad to look at this first phase of the roll-out that we've done to see what that tells us as well. But the feedback that we're getting from the childcare providers themselves, on the basis that we're now identifying where either the gaps in the workforce or the physical facilities are, is that, 'Yes, we can do this', because we're putting the money in, we have the strategy for the workforce development, and it's not going to be the same in all parts of Wales. It's not as if what we're saying is, 'Here's what we're going to do all of a sudden—flick a switch and we have a universality of the same type of provision everywhere.' So, let me give you one key example. Alongside this, alongside the £60 million capital fund, alongside the workforce development, we've also identified a separate strain of money into cylch meithrin. We know that there is a shortage in parts of Wales for Welsh language childcare development. We're specifically putting money into developing that, and, in fact, the first one of those will be, from that new tranche of money, opening up, I think, in September. They anticipate, as part of our big strategy with Welsh language development, we'll have an additional 40 of those by—

It's an additional 30 by 2020, and an additional doubling of that in the 10 years after that. We can't take this for granted, Hefin. This is difficult. This is hard work, but we have everything in place to make it happen.

The last thing from me: the £4.50 single national rate—is there a danger that we might be creating a kind of EasyJet-style nursery provision where you get the basics but the wealthier parents are going to be able to pay for better care within those settings because of the add-ons?


It's an additional 30 by 2020, and an additional doubling of that in the 10 years after that. We can't take this for granted, Hefin. This is difficult. This is hard work, but we have everything in place to make it happen.

The last thing from me: the £4.50 single national rate—is there a danger that we might be creating a kind of EasyJet-style nursery provision where you get the basics but the wealthier parents are going to be able to pay for better care within those settings because of the add-ons?

We really mulled over this a lot and discussed it, I have to say, not only internally but with childcare providers out there and with parents as well and with local authorities. The first thing to say is the £4.50 rate that we've set has been welcomed, and it's been welcomed because it's unlike the much more complex offer that's in England, where there's a variable rate and there are lots of determining factors on it and it's added complexity and confusion.


It's an additional 30 by 2020, and an additional doubling of that in the 10 years after that. We can't take this for granted, Hefin. This is difficult. This is hard work, but we have everything in place to make it happen.

The last thing from me: the £4.50 single national rate—is there a danger that we might be creating a kind of EasyJet-style nursery provision where you get the basics but the wealthier parents are going to be able to pay for better care within those settings because of the add-ons?

We really mulled over this a lot and discussed it, I have to say, not only internally but with childcare providers out there and with parents as well and with local authorities. The first thing to say is the £4.50 rate that we've set has been welcomed, and it's been welcomed because it's unlike the much more complex offer that's in England, where there's a variable rate and there are lots of determining factors on it and it's added complexity and confusion.

Can I just ask there, it's been welcomed perhaps in Blaenau Gwent, but has it been equally welcomed in Cardiff?


The last thing from me: the £4.50 single national rate—is there a danger that we might be creating a kind of EasyJet-style nursery provision where you get the basics but the wealthier parents are going to be able to pay for better care within those settings because of the add-ons?

We really mulled over this a lot and discussed it, I have to say, not only internally but with childcare providers out there and with parents as well and with local authorities. The first thing to say is the £4.50 rate that we've set has been welcomed, and it's been welcomed because it's unlike the much more complex offer that's in England, where there's a variable rate and there are lots of determining factors on it and it's added complexity and confusion.

Can I just ask there, it's been welcomed perhaps in Blaenau Gwent, but has it been equally welcomed in Cardiff?

No, because we haven't rolled it out in Cardiff yet, and that is a salient point.


We really mulled over this a lot and discussed it, I have to say, not only internally but with childcare providers out there and with parents as well and with local authorities. The first thing to say is the £4.50 rate that we've set has been welcomed, and it's been welcomed because it's unlike the much more complex offer that's in England, where there's a variable rate and there are lots of determining factors on it and it's added complexity and confusion.

Can I just ask there, it's been welcomed perhaps in Blaenau Gwent, but has it been equally welcomed in Cardiff?

No, because we haven't rolled it out in Cardiff yet, and that is a salient point.

Okay, fair enough. But will it be, then?


Can I just ask there, it's been welcomed perhaps in Blaenau Gwent, but has it been equally welcomed in Cardiff?

No, because we haven't rolled it out in Cardiff yet, and that is a salient point.

Okay, fair enough. But will it be, then?

Yes, it will be. Some of the more expensive areas like Cardiff and Newport are knocking on our door saying, 'Please can we have this offer?', and we are keen to give it to them. But, as I say—


No, because we haven't rolled it out in Cardiff yet, and that is a salient point.

Okay, fair enough. But will it be, then?

Yes, it will be. Some of the more expensive areas like Cardiff and Newport are knocking on our door saying, 'Please can we have this offer?', and we are keen to give it to them. But, as I say—

But do you anticipate a capacity problem with the £4.50 in those areas, compared to, say, the Cynon valley?


Okay, fair enough. But will it be, then?

Yes, it will be. Some of the more expensive areas like Cardiff and Newport are knocking on our door saying, 'Please can we have this offer?', and we are keen to give it to them. But, as I say—

But do you anticipate a capacity problem with the £4.50 in those areas, compared to, say, the Cynon valley?

We can't anticipate it yet, Hefin, but that's exactly the reason for going into that area and then assessing how it works. We're reasonably confident that the £4.50—. We're reasonably assured by the feedback that we're having that the £4.50 might work as a universal amount. But if we learn, when we roll it out in Cardiff and Newport, that there needs to be some variation, we can look at that, because we're not doing a big-bang approach. So, that is part of why we will move to roll it out within Cardiff and Newport and other more expensive areas and learn from it, but at the moment, I have to say, the £4.50 amount has been welcomed—it's appropriate. You touched on the other aspect, though, of the wider aspects of beyond the £4.50, because the £4.50 doesn't cover everything. The £4.50 is a contribution towards the wraparound childcare element but it doesn't cover—and we agonised over this—the issues of things like transport out on trips or food or snacks and things like this. Now, we did agonise a number of things that brought us to the conclusion where we are. I have to say, this hasn't been ivory-tower stuff; it's been in discussion with the providers but also parents. One: parents are quite used to—with childcare settings and play care settings and so on—the idea that providers are quite different. Some providers charge a fee that does everything in one; others provide simply the childcare element but they tell the parents—and I'm used to this as a parent myself, although mine are older now—'Mr Irranca-Davies, when you sign on, just to be aware, if we do take your kids down to St Fagans, there's going to be a little bit of a charge for that' and so on.


Yes, it will be. Some of the more expensive areas like Cardiff and Newport are knocking on our door saying, 'Please can we have this offer?', and we are keen to give it to them. But, as I say—

But do you anticipate a capacity problem with the £4.50 in those areas, compared to, say, the Cynon valley?

We can't anticipate it yet, Hefin, but that's exactly the reason for going into that area and then assessing how it works. We're reasonably confident that the £4.50—. We're reasonably assured by the feedback that we're having that the £4.50 might work as a universal amount. But if we learn, when we roll it out in Cardiff and Newport, that there needs to be some variation, we can look at that, because we're not doing a big-bang approach. So, that is part of why we will move to roll it out within Cardiff and Newport and other more expensive areas and learn from it, but at the moment, I have to say, the £4.50 amount has been welcomed—it's appropriate. You touched on the other aspect, though, of the wider aspects of beyond the £4.50, because the £4.50 doesn't cover everything. The £4.50 is a contribution towards the wraparound childcare element but it doesn't cover—and we agonised over this—the issues of things like transport out on trips or food or snacks and things like this. Now, we did agonise a number of things that brought us to the conclusion where we are. I have to say, this hasn't been ivory-tower stuff; it's been in discussion with the providers but also parents. One: parents are quite used to—with childcare settings and play care settings and so on—the idea that providers are quite different. Some providers charge a fee that does everything in one; others provide simply the childcare element but they tell the parents—and I'm used to this as a parent myself, although mine are older now—'Mr Irranca-Davies, when you sign on, just to be aware, if we do take your kids down to St Fagans, there's going to be a little bit of a charge for that' and so on.

That's fair enough, but it would be the lowest-income working families who would be most unduly affected by that, because the higher income families would be able to afford those add-ons, the lower income ones won't. Isn't that a concern?


But do you anticipate a capacity problem with the £4.50 in those areas, compared to, say, the Cynon valley?

We can't anticipate it yet, Hefin, but that's exactly the reason for going into that area and then assessing how it works. We're reasonably confident that the £4.50—. We're reasonably assured by the feedback that we're having that the £4.50 might work as a universal amount. But if we learn, when we roll it out in Cardiff and Newport, that there needs to be some variation, we can look at that, because we're not doing a big-bang approach. So, that is part of why we will move to roll it out within Cardiff and Newport and other more expensive areas and learn from it, but at the moment, I have to say, the £4.50 amount has been welcomed—it's appropriate. You touched on the other aspect, though, of the wider aspects of beyond the £4.50, because the £4.50 doesn't cover everything. The £4.50 is a contribution towards the wraparound childcare element but it doesn't cover—and we agonised over this—the issues of things like transport out on trips or food or snacks and things like this. Now, we did agonise a number of things that brought us to the conclusion where we are. I have to say, this hasn't been ivory-tower stuff; it's been in discussion with the providers but also parents. One: parents are quite used to—with childcare settings and play care settings and so on—the idea that providers are quite different. Some providers charge a fee that does everything in one; others provide simply the childcare element but they tell the parents—and I'm used to this as a parent myself, although mine are older now—'Mr Irranca-Davies, when you sign on, just to be aware, if we do take your kids down to St Fagans, there's going to be a little bit of a charge for that' and so on.

That's fair enough, but it would be the lowest-income working families who would be most unduly affected by that, because the higher income families would be able to afford those add-ons, the lower income ones won't. Isn't that a concern?

If money was absolutely no object, then I think you'd be looking at quite a different offer, but it has to be affordable within what we've got as well. The fact that parents, including those who are on lower incomes, are used to currently discriminating between providers, not only with childcare settings but also within school settings as well, where very often schools now will say, 'We're doing something extra'—


We can't anticipate it yet, Hefin, but that's exactly the reason for going into that area and then assessing how it works. We're reasonably confident that the £4.50—. We're reasonably assured by the feedback that we're having that the £4.50 might work as a universal amount. But if we learn, when we roll it out in Cardiff and Newport, that there needs to be some variation, we can look at that, because we're not doing a big-bang approach. So, that is part of why we will move to roll it out within Cardiff and Newport and other more expensive areas and learn from it, but at the moment, I have to say, the £4.50 amount has been welcomed—it's appropriate. You touched on the other aspect, though, of the wider aspects of beyond the £4.50, because the £4.50 doesn't cover everything. The £4.50 is a contribution towards the wraparound childcare element but it doesn't cover—and we agonised over this—the issues of things like transport out on trips or food or snacks and things like this. Now, we did agonise a number of things that brought us to the conclusion where we are. I have to say, this hasn't been ivory-tower stuff; it's been in discussion with the providers but also parents. One: parents are quite used to—with childcare settings and play care settings and so on—the idea that providers are quite different. Some providers charge a fee that does everything in one; others provide simply the childcare element but they tell the parents—and I'm used to this as a parent myself, although mine are older now—'Mr Irranca-Davies, when you sign on, just to be aware, if we do take your kids down to St Fagans, there's going to be a little bit of a charge for that' and so on.

That's fair enough, but it would be the lowest-income working families who would be most unduly affected by that, because the higher income families would be able to afford those add-ons, the lower income ones won't. Isn't that a concern?

If money was absolutely no object, then I think you'd be looking at quite a different offer, but it has to be affordable within what we've got as well. The fact that parents, including those who are on lower incomes, are used to currently discriminating between providers, not only with childcare settings but also within school settings as well, where very often schools now will say, 'We're doing something extra'—

That may be the case, but it's not fair, is it?


That's fair enough, but it would be the lowest-income working families who would be most unduly affected by that, because the higher income families would be able to afford those add-ons, the lower income ones won't. Isn't that a concern?

If money was absolutely no object, then I think you'd be looking at quite a different offer, but it has to be affordable within what we've got as well. The fact that parents, including those who are on lower incomes, are used to currently discriminating between providers, not only with childcare settings but also within school settings as well, where very often schools now will say, 'We're doing something extra'—

That may be the case, but it's not fair, is it?

In a pure argument about equity, and if funding was no object and if the burdens of austerity were released and we were told we had money—'You can do what you want'—I think you'd be looking at a very different approach. But within what we have, I think this works very, very well indeed, because it's very transparent for parents who are used to making these decisions. It says, 'Here you have 10 hours of the foundation education offer. You have the additional hours here provided with the childcare offer. But within those additional hours, you may be with a local provider in the middle of Powys that actually says, "Within that we provide everything"; you may be with a provider that says, "Well, actually, we do a whistles and bells thing and we take them out on trips, but it's up to you if you want to come, and here's the additional cost—".' Parents are used to making that decision and realistically, in terms of what we can do with this offer, this is actually—the arguments around this have been well rehearsed both with providers and with parents and we're not getting any concerns that this is going to unnecessarily disadvantage. In a total fairness argument, would you make it universal and with no additional charges? Well, possibly you would. But we work within the realistic—


If money was absolutely no object, then I think you'd be looking at quite a different offer, but it has to be affordable within what we've got as well. The fact that parents, including those who are on lower incomes, are used to currently discriminating between providers, not only with childcare settings but also within school settings as well, where very often schools now will say, 'We're doing something extra'—

That may be the case, but it's not fair, is it?

In a pure argument about equity, and if funding was no object and if the burdens of austerity were released and we were told we had money—'You can do what you want'—I think you'd be looking at a very different approach. But within what we have, I think this works very, very well indeed, because it's very transparent for parents who are used to making these decisions. It says, 'Here you have 10 hours of the foundation education offer. You have the additional hours here provided with the childcare offer. But within those additional hours, you may be with a local provider in the middle of Powys that actually says, "Within that we provide everything"; you may be with a provider that says, "Well, actually, we do a whistles and bells thing and we take them out on trips, but it's up to you if you want to come, and here's the additional cost—".' Parents are used to making that decision and realistically, in terms of what we can do with this offer, this is actually—the arguments around this have been well rehearsed both with providers and with parents and we're not getting any concerns that this is going to unnecessarily disadvantage. In a total fairness argument, would you make it universal and with no additional charges? Well, possibly you would. But we work within the realistic—


That may be the case, but it's not fair, is it?

In a pure argument about equity, and if funding was no object and if the burdens of austerity were released and we were told we had money—'You can do what you want'—I think you'd be looking at a very different approach. But within what we have, I think this works very, very well indeed, because it's very transparent for parents who are used to making these decisions. It says, 'Here you have 10 hours of the foundation education offer. You have the additional hours here provided with the childcare offer. But within those additional hours, you may be with a local provider in the middle of Powys that actually says, "Within that we provide everything"; you may be with a provider that says, "Well, actually, we do a whistles and bells thing and we take them out on trips, but it's up to you if you want to come, and here's the additional cost—".' Parents are used to making that decision and realistically, in terms of what we can do with this offer, this is actually—the arguments around this have been well rehearsed both with providers and with parents and we're not getting any concerns that this is going to unnecessarily disadvantage. In a total fairness argument, would you make it universal and with no additional charges? Well, possibly you would. But we work within the realistic—

Depending on how the Bill progresses in the main Chamber and when it goes through committee, there's that flexibility built into the Bill that those things can be looked at over time and adjusted. For the moment, I think there is an attraction, in terms of the upper limit, of saying: one—'Let's try not to add additional complexity, let's go with a scheme that's already working its way through the system, which is, if you like, what they're doing in England, and not add additional complexity. But, secondly, there is an appeal to universality, curiously, in saying to all parents—and I say this regardless of political hues across the committee here—there's an attraction when you say, 'Let's make an offer focused on working parents as it is', as universal to those working parents as possible, and avoid the administrative costs of saying, 'Well, let's take the upper limit down to £80 or £60 or £55.' There's always the question of how much additional cost is incurred in actually doing that tweak of complexity. We have looked at it.


In a pure argument about equity, and if funding was no object and if the burdens of austerity were released and we were told we had money—'You can do what you want'—I think you'd be looking at a very different approach. But within what we have, I think this works very, very well indeed, because it's very transparent for parents who are used to making these decisions. It says, 'Here you have 10 hours of the foundation education offer. You have the additional hours here provided with the childcare offer. But within those additional hours, you may be with a local provider in the middle of Powys that actually says, "Within that we provide everything"; you may be with a provider that says, "Well, actually, we do a whistles and bells thing and we take them out on trips, but it's up to you if you want to come, and here's the additional cost—".' Parents are used to making that decision and realistically, in terms of what we can do with this offer, this is actually—the arguments around this have been well rehearsed both with providers and with parents and we're not getting any concerns that this is going to unnecessarily disadvantage. In a total fairness argument, would you make it universal and with no additional charges? Well, possibly you would. But we work within the realistic—

Depending on how the Bill progresses in the main Chamber and when it goes through committee, there's that flexibility built into the Bill that those things can be looked at over time and adjusted. For the moment, I think there is an attraction, in terms of the upper limit, of saying: one—'Let's try not to add additional complexity, let's go with a scheme that's already working its way through the system, which is, if you like, what they're doing in England, and not add additional complexity. But, secondly, there is an appeal to universality, curiously, in saying to all parents—and I say this regardless of political hues across the committee here—there's an attraction when you say, 'Let's make an offer focused on working parents as it is', as universal to those working parents as possible, and avoid the administrative costs of saying, 'Well, let's take the upper limit down to £80 or £60 or £55.' There's always the question of how much additional cost is incurred in actually doing that tweak of complexity. We have looked at it.


Depending on how the Bill progresses in the main Chamber and when it goes through committee, there's that flexibility built into the Bill that those things can be looked at over time and adjusted. For the moment, I think there is an attraction, in terms of the upper limit, of saying: one—'Let's try not to add additional complexity, let's go with a scheme that's already working its way through the system, which is, if you like, what they're doing in England, and not add additional complexity. But, secondly, there is an appeal to universality, curiously, in saying to all parents—and I say this regardless of political hues across the committee here—there's an attraction when you say, 'Let's make an offer focused on working parents as it is', as universal to those working parents as possible, and avoid the administrative costs of saying, 'Well, let's take the upper limit down to £80 or £60 or £55.' There's always the question of how much additional cost is incurred in actually doing that tweak of complexity. We have looked at it.

Just to ask, I mean, the labour market costs are changing, aren't they? You've got the national living wage increasing—[Inaudible.]—that's going to have a bearing, isn't it, on the affordability of this project in terms of the childcare offer and the suitability of the £4.50 per hour regime? By the time it's fully rolled out, of course, that £4.50 rate is going to be a number of years old, for example. Do you have plans to review that? Where is it headed? Because it's certainly not going to be enough in the future.


Depending on how the Bill progresses in the main Chamber and when it goes through committee, there's that flexibility built into the Bill that those things can be looked at over time and adjusted. For the moment, I think there is an attraction, in terms of the upper limit, of saying: one—'Let's try not to add additional complexity, let's go with a scheme that's already working its way through the system, which is, if you like, what they're doing in England, and not add additional complexity. But, secondly, there is an appeal to universality, curiously, in saying to all parents—and I say this regardless of political hues across the committee here—there's an attraction when you say, 'Let's make an offer focused on working parents as it is', as universal to those working parents as possible, and avoid the administrative costs of saying, 'Well, let's take the upper limit down to £80 or £60 or £55.' There's always the question of how much additional cost is incurred in actually doing that tweak of complexity. We have looked at it.

Just to ask, I mean, the labour market costs are changing, aren't they? You've got the national living wage increasing—[Inaudible.]—that's going to have a bearing, isn't it, on the affordability of this project in terms of the childcare offer and the suitability of the £4.50 per hour regime? By the time it's fully rolled out, of course, that £4.50 rate is going to be a number of years old, for example. Do you have plans to review that? Where is it headed? Because it's certainly not going to be enough in the future.

It depends how far in the future you're looking. I have to say, the feedback that we're having at the moment from organisations like the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and from the National Day Nurseries Association Wales and others is that this is the right rate and it's suitable not only today but for the foreseeable future of rolling this out.


Just to ask, I mean, the labour market costs are changing, aren't they? You've got the national living wage increasing—[Inaudible.]—that's going to have a bearing, isn't it, on the affordability of this project in terms of the childcare offer and the suitability of the £4.50 per hour regime? By the time it's fully rolled out, of course, that £4.50 rate is going to be a number of years old, for example. Do you have plans to review that? Where is it headed? Because it's certainly not going to be enough in the future.

It depends how far in the future you're looking. I have to say, the feedback that we're having at the moment from organisations like the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and from the National Day Nurseries Association Wales and others is that this is the right rate and it's suitable not only today but for the foreseeable future of rolling this out.

But they've raised concerns about the national living wage implications, haven't they, as well?


Just to ask, I mean, the labour market costs are changing, aren't they? You've got the national living wage increasing—[Inaudible.]—that's going to have a bearing, isn't it, on the affordability of this project in terms of the childcare offer and the suitability of the £4.50 per hour regime? By the time it's fully rolled out, of course, that £4.50 rate is going to be a number of years old, for example. Do you have plans to review that? Where is it headed? Because it's certainly not going to be enough in the future.

It depends how far in the future you're looking. I have to say, the feedback that we're having at the moment from organisations like the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and from the National Day Nurseries Association Wales and others is that this is the right rate and it's suitable not only today but for the foreseeable future of rolling this out.

But they've raised concerns about the national living wage implications, haven't they, as well?

Of course, and I think it's incumbent on us as well to not—


It depends how far in the future you're looking. I have to say, the feedback that we're having at the moment from organisations like the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and from the National Day Nurseries Association Wales and others is that this is the right rate and it's suitable not only today but for the foreseeable future of rolling this out.

But they've raised concerns about the national living wage implications, haven't they, as well?

Of course, and I think it's incumbent on us as well to not—

So, it's not fair to say that they haven't raised concerns about the rate.


But they've raised concerns about the national living wage implications, haven't they, as well?

Of course, and I think it's incumbent on us as well to not—

So, it's not fair to say that they haven't raised concerns about the rate.

Yes, but what they're not arguing for at the moment is for this rate to be raised.


Of course, and I think it's incumbent on us as well to not—

So, it's not fair to say that they haven't raised concerns about the rate.

Yes, but what they're not arguing for at the moment is for this rate to be raised.

But they have suggested that in meetings—


So, it's not fair to say that they haven't raised concerns about the rate.

Yes, but what they're not arguing for at the moment is for this rate to be raised.

But they have suggested that in meetings—


Yes, but what they're not arguing for at the moment is for this rate to be raised.

But they have suggested that in meetings—


But they have suggested that in meetings—

Well, of course, in future, any Minister, any committee, will want to come back and look at—is the hourly rate, as one element of the scheme, appropriate to the current financial challenges for the sector, and not least, by the way, as we try not only to develop the workforce, but to develop the career pathways through this as well? And I think that's the right discussion to be had, live time, as this is taken forward. But at this moment in time, we're not getting people saying within this part of the roll-out that we need to adjust this amount.


Well, of course, in future, any Minister, any committee, will want to come back and look at—is the hourly rate, as one element of the scheme, appropriate to the current financial challenges for the sector, and not least, by the way, as we try not only to develop the workforce, but to develop the career pathways through this as well? And I think that's the right discussion to be had, live time, as this is taken forward. But at this moment in time, we're not getting people saying within this part of the roll-out that we need to adjust this amount.

So, have you forecasted for any adjustment in the rate going forward in terms of affordability of the project? Because you've still got this £100 million price tag on it, haven't you?


Well, of course, in future, any Minister, any committee, will want to come back and look at—is the hourly rate, as one element of the scheme, appropriate to the current financial challenges for the sector, and not least, by the way, as we try not only to develop the workforce, but to develop the career pathways through this as well? And I think that's the right discussion to be had, live time, as this is taken forward. But at this moment in time, we're not getting people saying within this part of the roll-out that we need to adjust this amount.

So, have you forecasted for any adjustment in the rate going forward in terms of affordability of the project? Because you've still got this £100 million price tag on it, haven't you?

Similar to the point that was raised with Hefin about Cardiff and Newport, if we identify that the rate is not appropriate, if it's—. I don't think anybody's going to come back to us and say that it's too little. But do bear in mind that it's above where the average England rate is, even though there's this complex variability within the English rate that has caused some confusion there, which is why the universal rate with us has been welcomed. If we find, as we pilot it, or if we find because there are more expensive areas for it to be delivered in, there needs to be adjustment, then we'll be back in front of the committee arguing why that needs to be the case.


Well, of course, in future, any Minister, any committee, will want to come back and look at—is the hourly rate, as one element of the scheme, appropriate to the current financial challenges for the sector, and not least, by the way, as we try not only to develop the workforce, but to develop the career pathways through this as well? And I think that's the right discussion to be had, live time, as this is taken forward. But at this moment in time, we're not getting people saying within this part of the roll-out that we need to adjust this amount.

So, have you forecasted for any adjustment in the rate going forward in terms of affordability of the project? Because you've still got this £100 million price tag on it, haven't you?

Similar to the point that was raised with Hefin about Cardiff and Newport, if we identify that the rate is not appropriate, if it's—. I don't think anybody's going to come back to us and say that it's too little. But do bear in mind that it's above where the average England rate is, even though there's this complex variability within the English rate that has caused some confusion there, which is why the universal rate with us has been welcomed. If we find, as we pilot it, or if we find because there are more expensive areas for it to be delivered in, there needs to be adjustment, then we'll be back in front of the committee arguing why that needs to be the case.

But that won't put the project at risk in terms of its finances?