I fear that I will also have to start by echoing the comments of the previous speaker on the timing of this statement. I do feel that it does show a little disrespect to the work of the committee, because we’re a matter of weeks away from publishing the report on school support grants, which will, of course, have a strong focus on the PDG, and here we are hearing a statement from the Government that suggests that you’re not willing to wait to see what our committee report will have to say on some of these issues. So, that is a cause of disappointment, and, okay, you can announce it to your party conference if you want, but it’s this Parliament that sets your budget and it’s to this Parliament that you should be accountable and making statements in the first place.

Of course, one welcomes any additional funding, particularly for the early years PDG. We’ve always said that that investment is needed in the early years, because that is when it will have the greatest impact, and that is a positive step, as well as moving to a two-year funding cycle. There are questions remaining, I fear, as to whether this is the best use of that funding. It’s an old argument that’s been ongoing for many years, as to what kind of return one could get for almost £400 million by using it in different ways. We must bear in mind that the trend of closing this gap between the attainment of those eligible for free school meals and those who aren’t had started before the introduction of the PDG, so there’s more work to be done, and I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary would recognise that there’s always more work to be done, to prove that this investment is actually delivering results in terms of the Government’s policies in this area.

There’s no questioning the value that schools place on this investment, of course. I wouldn’t argue about that for one moment, but, in the evidence that we’ve received as a committee, and in the visits that I’ve undertaken to a number of schools, it’s not always appreciated as funding to deliver the purpose for which it’s given, but more to subsidise cuts in core funding of schools. Of course, that is done in various different ways that tick the Government’s boxes, but, perhaps, to use a term that has been used in a conversation with me by someone from the sector, it’s 'papering over many of the cracks'. So, there are questions to be asked as to whether the Government is confident that the money is being used on all occasions for its intended purpose.

Has consideration been given—? Perhaps we do need to have a debate on shifting this funding into schools’ core funding through the revenue support grant, because you are talking more and more about providing flexibility to schools to use it in the way that they feel is appropriate in terms of delivering its purpose, but I just see some inconsistency here in terms of policy, because I'm sure you would—and I see from your face that you would—argue that it’s important to protect this as a specific grant that has particular criteria that you would expect schools to deliver against, but, of course, you are abolishing other grants and putting them into the RSG, and when we then express concern that there is some loss of focus, you say, 'Well, no—there will be an additional focus on outcomes and outputs, and ensuring that we can track the use of the funding.'

So, there is some inconsistency, I think, in the way in which the Government is approaching the various means of providing funding to schools, and I think we need a debate. I'm not sure myself what the answer is, but I do see that there's an inconsistency, never mind some of the funding going to schools, some to local authorities, and some grants coming through the consortia. The feedback I get from schools suggests that perhaps there may be a piece of work that needs to be done around those issues.

May I also ask—? In light of the point that I made on the need to monitor the impact of the PDG, you mentioned providing an enhanced focus on progress and adding value. Can you tell us a little more as to which indicators you will be considering and what you will be seeking to measure? Because it's a very difficult thing to measure in that context. Some clarity on that would be welcome.

May I welcome the fact that you are moving to a two-year funding cycle for the PDG? Because the feedback as to how difficult it is to go on a year-to-year basis has come through very clearly from a number of different directions. May I say that Gwynedd Council has been guaranteeing funding for their schools over a longer period than just 12 months already? So, it's clear that the need to move in that direction on the ground is clear, and I'm pleased to see that reflected in your decision, although you are framing it in the context of universal credit, and that's quite reasonable, but I would say that it's not only because of universal credit—I would hope that this is a decision that goes over and above that. We are short of the situation in England, as we heard, with the Ever 6, but certainly it is a step in the right direction, and I do welcome that.

You've referred to the Estyn comments on PDG, but Estyn also say that only two thirds of schools use the PDG effectively, and that leaves a third of schools that aren't doing so, and I'd like to hear what steps the Government will take to ensure that the potential of this income is being maximised in every school, particularly in that third of schools that Estyn feels that perhaps aren't making the best possible use or making effective use of the PDG.

And finally from me, we had a few questions earlier on scrapping the school uniforms grant. In his response, the First Minister said that it would be turned into a more flexible fund—something that could provide additional support for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, something that may pay for school trips or specific experiences. It sounds very similar to the PDG, so perhaps you could tell us a little more about how it will differ. Thank you.