I think that you should've announced this in the Chamber, not to your party members, and I, frankly, am appalled, because this is the sort of behaviour that you would have been the first to shout up and criticise when you were on the opposition benches before you joined this shambolic Government, so I'm very disappointed that you have made the announcement in this way, and I think it shows very much a significant lack of respect for the children and young people's committee in particular, particularly given that we are in the middle of an inquiry into targeted funding for children and young people in our schools. And you know that, within the purview of that inquiry, we are looking very much at the pupil development grant and the efficacy of it and we're going to be making, probably, a good number of recommendations about the shape of that grant in the future. So, frankly, why you've done this at the moment I do not know. You should have been waiting for the receipt of that report, rather than pre-empting it with a pre-emptive strike today. So, very, very disappointed indeed, and I'm very disappointed that you've laid aside the morals that you seemed to have when you were in opposition with regard to these sorts of announcements.

Now, that said, I do have a number of questions, as you might imagine, on your announcement. You've indicated that you've given some security to local education authorities in terms of the funding that you've provided through to the end of the Assembly term, but, as I understand it, you've based the allocations on the school census data in 2016. Why have you chosen to base the allocations on the school census data in 2016 and not 2017, which is available to you? Is it fixed, now, on the 2016 data, even though you know that the numbers of children and young people who might be eligible for the pupil deprivation grant will change from year to year in our schools? I've been contacted by schools in my own constituency saying, 'We haven't had a penny of pupil deprivation grant this year, even though we've got pupils who ought to be entitled to the grant, given the Welsh Government's criteria, simply because they've used the old data from the previous year'. Why have you chosen to do that? That certainly doesn't seem fair at all. So, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why you've done that.

I'm pleased to hear you recognise that it's very important that all learners who are entitled to this grant are afforded the opportunity to develop to their full potential, including those who are more able and talented. One thing that has been very clear from the evidence that has been coming in to the committee is that they have been largely overlooked to date in terms of the efforts that have been made, and I think it's very important not only that you send a clear message by saying a few words in this Chamber, but that there's some clear and practical guidance that is issued to our local education authorities, to the regional consortia and our schools. So, I ask you: will you issue such guidance in the future on things that are there, available for people to use, which are in accordance with best practice to achieve the best possible outcomes for those learners?

You made reference to the fact that the aim of this fund is to close the educational attainment gap. We know that that gap opened up significantly in 2017. Now, I appreciate that you say you can't necessarily directly compare to the previous year because you've changed the measures; it's the form of every Government to change measures where they don't like the measures that are in place, but the reality is that, even if you take into account those changes in the measures, the gap still grew. So, in spite of the fact that you're increasing the pupil development grant, we seem to have this reduction in its effectiveness in terms of being able to close that gap. So, I wonder what work you are doing to identify precisely why that gap is widening in spite of the extra resources that you are putting in.

Just finally, if I may, one question that many people ask me is why there isn't some sort of recognition for those individuals who may not be eligible for free school meals, but whose funding in the schools has declined significantly as a result of the ever-increasing push to increase this grant at the expense of the overall funding pot for our schools. You and I both know that, where you increase a specific grant, you've got to reduce the overall spending allocation that schools are getting. There are many parents who are just about getting by in those schools, where you've got young people who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, and, frankly, the measure that we have of free school meals isn't necessarily the best one, and, again, this has been coming through sharply in some of the evidence. Now, one of the things that has been suggested is the use of the Ever 6 measure, which looks at those individuals who have been eligible for free school meals over the period of the past six years, rather than taking a single snapshot in any one particular year. I wonder what consideration you've given to the use of the Ever 6 measure in terms of eligibility, rather than the current eligibility criteria that you are using. Thank you.