We now move on to item 8, which is a debate on the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report, 'Flying Start: Outreach'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Lynne Neagle.

Motion NDM6729 Lynne Neagle

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the Children, Young People and Education Committee Report on Flying Start: Outreach which was laid in the Table Office on 23 February 2018.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to open this debate today on the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s report on the outreach elements of the Flying Start programme.

Flying Start was introduced 11 years ago and is regarded as one of the Welsh Government’s flagship early years programmes. It is delivered by local authorities within defined geographical areas and is considered one of the Welsh Government’s top priorities for tackling poverty. The programme has four key elements: free part-time childcare for two to three-year olds, an enhanced health visiting service, access to parenting support and access to early language development support. The programme targets areas according to measures of relative disadvantage, including the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, free school meals and the proportion of children under four in households receiving income-related benefits. Flying Start therefore seeks to support the most disadvantaged families, communities and young children. Its services are universally available to all children under the age of four in the areas in which it runs.

In 2014, outreach arrangements were introduced in response to concerns that basing entitlement to the service on a family’s postcode was resulting in the exclusion of many children who were in greatest need of support. The outreach aspect of the programme was created to enable local authorities to deliver the four core elements of Flying Start to a small percentage of their population living outside designated Flying Start areas.

We chose to undertake a focused inquiry on the outreach element of Flying Start last year because respondents to our 2016 consultation on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life highlighted concerns about the programme’s reach. Whilst they supported the aims of Flying Start, they were concerned that the geographical targeting of the programme had the potential to create further inequality, by excluding a significant number of children living in poverty. In light of this, we agreed to take evidence on how effective the existing outreach work is and whether the programme should be developed to increase its reach. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to all those who contributed written and oral evidence to this important piece of work, and to recognise the hard work of all the dedicated staff delivering Flying Start services across Wales.

So, turning to the detail of our report, we wanted to establish to what extent local authorities were using the outreach option to support children outside Flying Start areas who would benefit from its services. While we found that local authorities were making use of this flexibility to reach children outside the areas, we were disappointed to discover how limited capacity was. Betsi Cadwaladr health board highlighted that, in some counties, as few as five children would be in receipt of these outreach services due to financial constraints.

We were pleased that the light we shone on the issue of limited outreach capacity led to an increase in the flexibility to allocate funding to outreach services. During the course of our inquiry, the Minister announced that local government would be able to spend up to an additional £2.84 million on outreach with immediate effect, the equivalent of 5 per cent of the annual Flying Start budget. Nevertheless, as a committee, we remain to be convinced that 5 per cent flexibility is sufficient. With the majority of children living in poverty falling outside defined Flying Start areas, we recommended that the Minister consider extending the outreach funding flexibility beyond the 5 per cent to allow the programme to reach those most in need.

We welcome the Welsh Government’s confirmation in its response to our report that it will explore with local authorities the full implications of any further funding flexibility. We also recognise the benefits associated with geographically based programmes, not least reduction of stigma, increased socialisation and the creation of a sense of community among participants. However, it remains a matter of concern to us that, according to Public Health Wales, nearly two thirds of people who are income deprived live outside geographical areas that are defined as deprived. As such, I would welcome further detail from the Minister on the nature of the work being undertaken to assess the suitability of the 5 per cent cap in advance of the next draft budget. I would also welcome more information about the consideration he is giving to the rights of those children unable to access either Flying Start or the childcare offer if they live outside the relevant postcode area and have parents who do not work.

As a committee, we recognise that good scrutiny involves not only considering how much resource is available for a piece of work, but what effect that resource has once it is in place. To that end, we considered the work undertaken to assess the impact of the £600 million invested in Flying Start since 2007. What we found can be summarised in three key points. First, there has been extensive evaluation of Flying Start, but not specifically in relation to the outreach element. Secondly, there is a lack of data about take-up of each of the services within the Flying Start programme. Thirdly, the nature of outcomes expected from a programme like Flying Start is not easily quantifiable. They are, by their nature, longer term and difficult to isolate from other services and support provided.

The evidence we received suggested to us that more needs to be done to demonstrate the benefits of the programme. While we acknowledge information provided by stakeholders about the progress made by children who've received Flying Start support, and the fact that the programme is valued by those who are able to access it, many Government-commissioned evaluations struggle to provide empirical evidence of impact. With such a significant amount of investment made in Flying Start, we are keen to see clear evidence of its effect. While we welcome the Welsh Government’s assurances that it is looking at different ways to show the direct improvements Flying Start is making, we are keen to ensure that this work is monitored closely. We believe that this is particularly important given the large amount of money invested in this annually, with just under £80 million allocated in this financial year alone.

We are pleased that the Welsh Government has now asked local authorities to develop and collect, as part of a pilot, a consistent set of data about Flying Start children. Furthermore, we are pleased that this pilot will include the collection of data about whether children are receiving support via outreach Flying Start services or within a postcode area. We also welcome the Government’s acceptance of our request for regular updates to be provided on the data and evaluation strengthening work currently under way. We are, however, disappointed by the rejection of recommendation 6, and remain concerned that data on outreach is not collected at an all-Wales level. We believe this needs to be addressed if value for money and impact are to be comprehensively assessed, and urge the Welsh Government to reconsider this.

We welcome the Welsh Government’s agreement to provide the update requested in recommendation 7. We believe it is important for the Welsh Government to illustrate how it has monitored and reviewed the effectiveness of front-line Flying Start services, the reach of the outreach element of those services, and the availability of staff to support the programme. The last of these points is particularly important given the evidence we received about difficulties recruiting health visitors into the Flying Start scheme. We were told that this is particularly acute due to grant-based—and therefore short-term—Flying Start contracts struggling to compete with the more stable contracts offered by programmes such as Healthy Start Wales.

As with a number of the other inquiries we have undertaken during this Assembly, we are committed to returning to our findings before the next election. In our report, we commit to revisiting our inquiry in a year’s time. Our aim in undertaking this follow-up work is: to consider the evaluation and data collection processes emerging from the Welsh Government’s work in this area; to assess whether the recent revisions to outreach funding allocation are being used, where they are being used, and whether they are having a positive effect on front-line services and their reach; to reflect on whether the programme as currently structured remains appropriate in terms of overall funding allocation, services provided and criteria for entitlements; and to consider the outlook for health visitor recruitment, given concerns about capacity.

I look forward to hearing the Minister and other Members’ views on this important topic, and would like to close my opening remarks by thanking committee members for their contribution to this inquiry and their commitment to following up on the implementation of our recommendations. Thank you.

I congratulate the Chair on her exemplary introduction to the report, making clear what the policy background is to the area before moving too quickly to the areas of controversy and recommendation. Thank you.

I would like to initially say that the trade-off between a universal programme and a targeted programme is one that the Assembly has discussed in many other areas—quite recently, in our committee, on free schools meals and the targeted grants. I understand the Welsh Government's position that it is easier to deliver a programme in a targeted geographical area where the recipients can easily get to where the service is being provided, and that the universal nature reduces stigma and encourages more people to join and benefit without feeling they're being singled out. 

The 2.5 per cent for outreach has now gone up to 5 per cent. I think that's sensible and agree with the committee's conclusions. I think we were unanimous that the Welsh Government should consider expanding that further, but some of that money is being spent on kids who've been in the area, are midway through a programme, benefiting from it, and their parents move outside. It would seem extraordinary just to cut off the programme at that moment of the address change when the children may be benefiting from it.

I would ask the Minister to look at one other area, perhaps, to recommend to local authorities, but also to facilitate: allowing spending on out-of-area outreach programmes to be done on a basis so that we can judge whether the programme is working. And, yes, you can look at areas where it's available compared to areas where it's not, you can look at kids who are part of it compared to those who are not, but often you will find that the characteristics of families who engage are different to those who do not, so it will not necessarily be reliable.

Within the area, people have a right to benefit from it. Outside, it's a much smaller sum; many more people who want the programme can benefit from it. Will the Minister look at actually facilitating randomised controlled trials that will actually give us good evidence as to whether the interventions work? For instance, a number of people come forward who would like to benefit if they can and the sum that's available in the new budget, if it does go up, can then be allocated—. Are you seeking to intervene, Minister? Wonderful.

Thank you for giving way. Within the flexibility that's currently there, it's interesting to note that there are places like Swansea that are targeting it on particular groups outside of the Flying Start areas, such as the Traveller community and so on. The difficulty with monitoring the effectiveness is that the longitudinal data that you look for to see the lifelong outcomes—how do you do that? How do we come back in six months or 12 months? But it is an interesting area, because some of the benefits of these early interventions, wraparound interventions with families that most need it, may not be seen until they're in their teenage years, in their 20s and their life opportunities have been opened up there. That's the challenge, and I know he understands that.

But some of the benefits are likely to be seen in the early years at school if there are reliable benefits, and I think getting it into the SAIL system will improve the opportunities for researchers very clearly. But Welsh Government has spent £600 million on this in the last 11 years and describes it as a flagship programme. Given that scale of investment, the level of assessment and understanding as to how anything really works is not, if I may say so, good enough. The evidence from Government describes the 'robust' evaluation, but I think on page 6 it's more accurately described as the 'Evaluation evidence suggests' rather than 'shows'. It accepts that the evidence is qualitative. And, actually, can't we do better than just qualitative evidence when we've spent £600 million? The fact that children are getting better in their communication, reading and counting—well, you would expect that at that age in any event. The question is: is that pace greater than that of children who are outside the programme? The fact that almost all parents interviewed 'felt' that it had a positive impact is not a sufficient evidence base if you are spending that sum of money.

I'd like to look particularly at the parenting aspect, because Welsh Government has 100 pages of guidance to local authorities on that, and it includes an appendix B: approved list of evidence-based structured group parenting programmes. There is evidence for some parenting programmes that they do work, really good academically robust evidence, but this list of 20 different programmes: three of them haven't been evaluated at all; three of them have got the top four-star rating from the National Academy of Parenting Practitioners, now the National Academy for Parenting Research, and are very good, but five of them have only the two-star rating, and what that means is that the programme is not especially good. And if Welsh Government is putting this amount of money into a programme like this, surely we want to be putting it into areas that have been evaluated and shown to work.

I ask the Minister to have a closer look at this list of parenting programmes in particular but also to work with the Early Intervention Foundation set up by Graham Allen MP and to look at their February of this year 'Evaluating early intervention programmes—Six common pitfalls, and how to avoid them'. There is really good advice there as to how Welsh Government could improve what it's spending in this area and make sure that it's being spent as well as it could be.

I’m going to pursue a similar course in terms of this tension, and that was essentially what we were dealing with in this report—this tension between how you focus resources in order to have the best possible impact. We’re seeing this not only in Flying Start, but in other programmes. Do you restrict support to certain geographical areas or do you target a certain demographic or a group of people wherever they live? Essentially—and that’s reflected in the debate so far, I think—that was the tension that we were grappling with. And I have to say, and agree with what the Chair said at the outset—that the greatest disappointment for me was how few did benefit from the outreach in some local authorities. I refer to one local authority where only five children benefited from the outreach aspect. If you're going to try and do it both ways, and have some sort of balance, then I would expect a better balance to be struck as a result of that, because the outreach element is supposed to be a way of shifting that balance and addressing that lack of balance, and, clearly, in some areas that isn't happening as we would like to see it happening. And as we've heard, two thirds of the people with income problems live outwith the Flying Start areas, so there is a clear problem in that regard.

It's a fact that the Government, of course, has increased the cap on outreach expenditure, up to 50 per cent of the budget, during the inquiry, and that, in and of itself, has been an admission from the Minister and the Government that the balance wasn't as it should have been—that it wasn't appropriate and that it wasn't sufficient. And the committee's first recommendation asks that question as to the rationale underpinning that. Okay, if you accept that there's a need for a change to that balance, why 5 per cent? Why not 7 per cent or 10 per cent? And I know that you made reference, if I remember rightly, to the fact that that is the figure that can be vired from one programme to another, but I do think we need a better rationale that is based, perhaps, on the suggestion of piloting, trialling or trying different models in different areas, so that we can have confidence that that model or that figure is appropriate and robust.

On occasion, we have to accept, despite how crude geographical boundaries can be, with a few methods to ameliorate some of those crudities, I think we have to accept that it isn't perfect but that it's the best we may have. I certainly think that's the consensus with something like the PDG, the pupil development grant. Some have said that basing that on who qualifies for free school meals is a crude approach, and isn't sufficiently smart, but when you ask what could come in its place—well, everyone looks at each and say, 'Well, yes, that's maybe the best approach we have', and on occasion, we may have to accept that. But without that rationale underpinning the 5 per cent, I still struggle to feel that it's not a figure that's just been plucked out of the air. And I certainly want to see more impact than we have seen to date.

Now, I am encouraged by some aspects of the Government's response to these recommendations, particularly the talk of a commitment in the national strategy to creating a more interlinked and responsive system that will give a central role to the unique needs of all children. So, there is something there, I think. I'd like to hear the Minister expanding on what he means when he talks about creating one early years system that is local and national, but also that every service would collaborate and pull in the same direction. We would all support that, and it's possible, in getting that right, that that in and of itself can give us more flexibility in terms of how these services are disseminated to wider areas. If everyone is pulling in the same direction, then people may have more confidence to push those boundaries, rather than relying simply on geographical boundaries.

You also talk of an intensive building project with two public services boards that are going to look at the options. Well, that sounds to me as an opportunity to pilot various approaches. So, I'll restrict my comments to those, I think, given that the clock is against me. But I would return to this point that, at the heart of this report, there is this argument as to where we strike that balance. There wasn't a desire to go back to the geographical boundaries in the report. There wasn't a desire, truth be told, given the issues surrounding stigma and so on, to go entirely in the other direction. The question for me is: where should that balance be struck? 

I want to raise a particular matter, Dirprwy Lywydd, which I've raised before as part of this work, that relates to my constituency of Newport East, where the postcode element of eligibility for provision, notwithstanding the outreach element that partly addresses that limitation, has still resulted in two communities that are very similar—social housing in Moorland Park and Broadmead Park in Newport—having very different access to the Flying Start programme.

So, there is a Flying Start base in Moorland Park—in the Moorland Park community centre, in Newport East—and the Moorland Park social housing area has access to the provision. But Broadmead Park, which is alongside, doesn't have that access because of the postcode eligibility criterion. Although there is that outreach element, it isn't sufficient to enable that disparity to be sufficiently addressed. So, I do ask Welsh Government to look again at that element of the programme because what we discovered was that there was spare capacity in the facility in Moorland Park community centre, so the staff were in place, the facilities were there, which would enable them to help more children and more families, but they weren't able to do that because of that postcode limitation. So, I think it's a stark illustration of not the best use of capacity and resource, and it does need to be addressed.

I'd like first to thank all the people and organisations who gave evidence to the committee as part of our inquiry, and also to the committee clerks who do such a sterling job of supporting the committee's work. 

In the opening of its response, the Government says:

'We want children from all backgrounds to have the best start in life.'

We do all want that, but the question is whether Flying Start, despite the flexibility that the Minister has tried to introduce, is the best way to provide that support. There are some children in non-Flying Start areas who do need this help, but are not getting it because they happen to live in the wrong postcode. Even the most affluent areas have pockets of poverty, and the children living in them are having their needs ignored. So, it seems to me that using geography as the criteria to offer this support does seem to be rather a crude tool to use.

Replying to recommendation 2, the Minister says that there are ongoing considerations of the additional flexibility for outreach given to local authorities, and I would really, really be interested to see the Minister come back and report on that investigation to the Assembly. I think its findings may well be very interesting. I'd also be very interested to hear the Minister's view of the relative pros and cons of geographic targeting versus other ways of targeting the funding to achieve the desired outcomes of Flying Start.

Of course, Flying Start may well be effective in making a positive difference to some people's lives, but without proper evaluation of both the need for the initiative, the level of outreach and its outcomes, we can't be certain if we're reaching everyone who needs the help, and if we are, how effective that help actually is.

I get the point about reducing the amount of reporting that local authorities have to do, but if Welsh Government is giving flexibility to local authorities, why not collect the data to assess whether the strategy of offering flexibility instead of reforming Flying Start is an effective one? In his response to recommendation 1, the Minister seems to have fulfilled the recommendations by giving an explanation of the process, but the processes described seem a little bit 'guesstimate-y' of the necessary percentage of the flexibility, following discussions with some, but not all, local authorities.

I'm concerned that that process doesn't seem to have been based on a solid evidence base, and so there's the concern that the chosen percentage will still not be sufficient. The Minister says in the response that there will be further discussions with local authorities, but which local authorities will those be, if not all of them, and what will the process be for adjusting the percentage? I would hope that it would be quite a logical evidence-based process. I'd be interested to hear what the Minister sees as the benefits and disadvantages of the method he's using for assessing whether the current percentage of flexibility and funding for outreach is sufficient.

It's all very well asking for feedback from the people who are taking part—it's a very worthy exercise and you're going to get some good information from that—but we really need a proper evaluation of the needs of those who aren't able to take part, to see if they should be able to take part in Flying Start, and what the costs and logistical implications are going to be. And to that end, it's regrettable that the Minister has rejected recommendation 6. Not gathering Wales-wide data isn't really an excuse not to monitor whether there's too much regional divergence. Surely Welsh Government's role is to oversee the system and reduce unnecessary divergence between regions. How else can you monitor regional divergence and make sure everyone who needs Flying Start is able to access it, and that no family's falling through the net, as is probably happening at the the moment?

Many people will be concerned that cash-strapped local authorities are unlikely to perform many functions or offer services that they're not even measured against or monitored on. So, surely, by rejecting the idea that local authorities should report any changes to service provision may well be a signal to them that Welsh Government are not fully committed to Flying Start and it's okay for local authorities to take their eye off the ball on this initiative. I'm really, really sure that that's not your intention, Minister, but how are you going to prevent local authorities from taking the excuse to give themselves a little bit of leeway? We deserve to know that the project's being effective, but more importantly, Welsh families who need help, regardless of the geographical area they live in, deserve the best that you can do for them.

So, finally, without proper monitoring and evaluation, we can't be certain that people are getting the help they need, and I would urge the Minister to accept the recommendations he has rejected and fully accept, not just in principle, all the other recommendations of the report. Thank you.

I read your report with interest, as I'm not a member of the committee, but I used to manage a Sure Start programme, so I have a particular interest in the importance of outreach. I was a bit disappointed, then, when I read it that you didn't focus on the effectiveness of outreach within the geographical borders of Flying Start, as that, to me, is one of the most significant issues when assessing whether or not Flying Start is reaching those in greatest need.

I appreciate that both midwives and health visitors have statutory duties and, indeed, powers to engage with pregnant women and babies and toddlers, and therefore some universal contact has to be assumed with all mothers and babies in the area; however, the most marginalised families will be unlikely to engage with Stay and Play, parenting skills workshops and the like unless there is deliberate effort made to bring them along. And I don't know, from reading this report, whether this is happening.

But, we know that there is a wealth of research that families suffering from ante and postnatal depression, mothers who’ve had previous adverse childhood experiences and those who are in an abusive relationship are far less likely to engage in services designed to break down the isolation and loneliness that can go with being a parent. It is much easier for those without additional challenges involved who are more likely to engage. So, this remains a question in my mind and I'd like to hear from the Chair, in their summing up, what emphasis is being placed on this, because I think this remains a big question mark in my mind.

The emphasis you put on outreach to those who're outside the Flying Start area, while laudable in some respects, is in danger of diluting the service that is being delivered to people in the most deprived areas that Flying Start is targeting. Yes, lower super-output areas are a very crude way of doing things; it's a planner's delight because it gives you equal portions, but it doesn't respect the nuances of individual estates. In my own Flying Start areas, I've got half an estate, quite an impoverished estate, that's not in Flying Start and the other half is. I've got a new private housing development, in the main, in the Flying Start area and very deprived communities outside it. So, it's not a perfect way of devising things. Nevertheless, it's what we've got and I strongly support the Government's targeting of support to the most deprived communities.

I think it's perfectly sensible to provide some continuity of support to children who have to move out of Flying Start areas, because one of the aspects of being deprived is that you move more often; you are more mobile; you are likely to be going to several schools rather than just one. And I would expect a child with enduring needs, whether they're in a Flying Start area or not, if they're moving from south Wales to north Wales, that they will be referred on to the relevant professionals who're going to understand the support that this family needs if they have to move.

I think, also, allowing Flying Start teams to target particular communities of interest, such as refuges, homeless hostels, Traveller communities, asylum seeker children—in my area—would all benefit from Flying Start support, and that, I think, is sensible—to have that level of flexibility in the programme. And I think, clearly, the points made by John Griffiths about Moorland Park and an adjacent area, if it's within walking distance for these other families to go to the Moorland Park area, I don't understand why that isn't happening now, given the increased flexibility has been in place since last year. But, for my mind, the Peckham principle still has to apply, which is that there is no point having a service that is not within pram-pushing distance of a family who don't have access to a car, and often don't even have the bus fare to travel beyond that.

I particularly look forward to recommendation 7, to allow us to have more information about the benefits that have been got from this £600 million investment. Because we still don't have an answer. I agree with Mark, in that it is very tentative, the educational evaluation that was done. We still don't know whether there is a measurable and beneficial outcome in educational attainment, and we need to. Is Flying Start defying the Education Policy Institute evidence that says that poor bright kids do worse than dim rich kids unless we have the appropriate interventions—mainly around high-quality integrated early education? So, I look forward to the outcome of the rapid review and will keep an eye on this in the future.

I have Flying Start areas in my constituency, areas such as Churchill Park, Graig-y-Rhacca, Lansbury Park, the Park estate in Bargoed, Senghenydd and the Trecenydd estate, and I've seen those benefits—what the Chamber might have described today as 'anecdotally'. I've seen the benefits of Flying Start.

My only contribution to the debate over recommendation 6 would be that understanding an impact of a programme makes it easier in the long term to defend, and therefore having that understanding and building that understanding makes it easier for those who believe in the programme to defend it at a later date. I think at the back of my mind is Communities First, and some of the debate that happened over that. So I think it's important that the Minister's able to provide as much evidence as possible, whether that's longitudinal data or all-Wales feedback. I would like a bit more discussion, I think, in the Minister's response, on recommendation 6, and I think Members around this Chamber have reflected that today.

Also, in response to recommendation 7, the Minister's reaffirmed the Welsh Government's commitment to an update to the committee in October with reservations, but I think that again demonstrates the committee's desire to continually pursue this quest for information about this programme, and those of us who believe in it strongly feel that it will actively protect the programme.

Flying Start outreach has a particularly important role to play as the Welsh Government rolls out its manifesto pledge of free childcare for three and four-year-olds for working parents across Wales. I note the children's commissioner called for the childcare offer to be extended to non-working parents, which, if you turn that on its head, would mean effectively extending Flying Start to working parents as well, and extending Flying Start universally, which would be, again, notwithstanding the information issue, a wonderful thing to do in my view, but it was a very specific manifesto pledge that was offered, and the funding constraints are far too severe to do this, and therefore I think the report is working within those constraints of outreach. If we had more money, we wouldn't do this, but the constraints of outreach mean that we have to do it this way.

What will be crucial is that we ensure that Flying Start is provided to all those who are eligible and all those who need support get it and don't miss out.

I'd like to thank the Chair, Lynne Neagle, and the Children, Young People and Education Committee for undertaking a valuable piece of work and shining a light on this aspect of the Flying Start programme. I also note with interest the response from the Welsh Government. One of the driving forces for being in politics, I would hope, for everybody in this room, is to help in whatever way to eradicate poverty within our communities, however much worsened this has been through the ongoing UK austerity agenda. We know that Flying Start and its groundbreaking outreach programme makes a vital contribution to the Welsh Labour Government's national strategy 'Prosperity for All', which strongly identifies the early years as a priority area. I do wholeheartedly welcome the internationally recognised good practice of Flying Start, both in Islwyn, where I've seen the difference on the ground in the council estate that I live in, and throughout Wales, and I welcome the specific work of the committee on this aspect of the programme. 

Flying Start, as we know, is currently being delivered to over 37,000 children under four years of age living in some of the most deprived areas of Wales via a place-based mechanism. That equates to around 25 per cent of all children under the age of four in Wales. It is right that a place-based approach, with flexibility around lower super-output areas, which does take into account sub-ward level data, is used around the WIMD data. So, will the Cabinet Secretary expand on how Welsh Government can effectively offer a sensible level of monitoring of the programme, without adding burdensome bureaucracy? Because this programme has had clear discernable outcomes for families in poverty, and there is often an inclination to seek immediate hard outcomes with such programmes, and it's always difficult to measure the softer outcomes of self-esteem and confidence—often not in place for many years to come. 

So, I do believe, to speak across the Chamber, if I may, that it is right to ask the parents, and also to write to the Welsh Government seeking to reduce the reporting burden on local authorities, and that Welsh Government has reduced and streamlined, as has been asked for many times with this programme, and that—[Interruption.] I haven't got time, unfortunately. This was widely welcomed and called for during this programme roll-out. So, finally, can the Cabinet Secretary then outline how we can work smarter to achieve even more in this groundbreaking measure, alongside our partners in local government, without adding to their already data-heavy workload, but better targeting all those in need across Wales?

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care, Huw Irranca-Davies? 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you very much indeed. Can I thank, first of all, all those who have contributed to the debate today, those on the committee and those who weren't, but also to committee members and the Chair as well for turning a forensic light onto this? This is a flagship programme. It is, as I think has just been remarked, remarked upon internationally as evidence of good practice in family and early years intervention, and I have to say that the Government stands four-square behind it. But the committee has allowed us an opportunity, I have to say, to look at it, particularly on the outreach element, and see, 'Well, could we do things differently? Could we evaluate it differently? Could we do things better?' But let me just put the context of this—Llyr and others turned to this—the context of what we're doing in Wales, compared to what's happening over the border—. No, I'm not doing this for a political reason, but I notice that the Pre-school Learning Alliance, the Sutton Trust and Action for Children have looked at what's happened with the closure of around about 1,000 Sure Start centres, which are a similar model over there, which at one time themselves were groundbreaking and landmarking. The founder of the Sutton Trust, Sir Peter Lampl, said:

'Good quality early years provision makes a substantial difference in the development of children especially those who come from the poorest homes. It is a serious issue that the services that Sure Start centres offer are much more thinly spread than they were'. 

So, it comes to this question of the balance between focusing down on to targeted groups, recognising that there will be some outside, and then: can you make the funding that is currently available—because there is no magic money tree—stretch a little bit further, along with the other programmes that the Welsh Government supports and provides as well, including Families First, team around the family, et cetera, et cetera? Can we also pull those into the support as well?

The programme is based on sound evidence that shows that investment in the early years of children from disadvantaged areas will have an improved impact on their health and their educational outcomes, and longer term, this investment improves the life skills and ultimately narrows that gaps in outcomes for those living in poverty. Hefin, you were absolutely right in saying, where these have been established for a long time—it isn't only anecdotal; I've got one in my patch that's been 13 years going—we know that for the children and the families who benefit from Flying Start we have tangible outcomes, such as the narrowing in the educational attainment gap between those and families of more affluence living outside. So, it's not only anecdotal, but we do need to do more, and I'll turn to that in a moment.

Evaluating evidence already suggests the programme is making a real difference. In the recent qualitative evaluation—and qualitative is good, by the way; it's not weak, it's good research—parents identified a range of improvements in the children's development, and that included talking, reading, counting, as well as improved behaviour and attitudes. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists in Wales concurred with my view, and they said that when considering the impact of Flying Start on educational outcomes, those children supported by the programme being able to achieve the same outcomes as children outside of areas of high deprivation can itself be deemed a measure of success. And I agree with that.

Whilst Flying Start is indeed the Welsh Government's flagship early years programme, it's not the only intervention. The support targeted at improving children's early years outcomes comes from other interventions as well—so, that whole family approach through Families First, which focuses on early intervention, prevention, providing tailored multi-agency support to families with children of all ages. This programme is making a real difference itself, improving those life chances, helping families become more confident, more resilient, more independent.

The Healthy Child Wales universal scheduled health visiting and school nursing contacts, for every child from nought to seven, will be available across all health boards by October, with enhanced intensive interventions delivered to those families and children with increased levels of need. And, of course, as we know, all children in Wales have access to the foundation phase, and our enhanced childcare offer for working parents of three to four-year-olds is currently being rolled out. All—all—of our early years programmes are intended to support children and their families to bring about the best long-term outcomes, but we do want to go further.

Now, reflecting the commitment in the national strategy, an extensive programme of work is under way to explore how we can create that co-ordinated single early years system at the local and the national level. So, we are working, via an intensive co-constructed project with Cwm Taf Public Services Board, to explore options to reconfigure the system for the early years. We'll learn from this, and we'll develop and share the ideas around this more widely in due course.

As I've said, Flying Start is a key component in delivering this vision. I therefore very much welcome the decision by the Children, Young People and Education Committee to hold the inquiry into Flying Start outreach. My written response to the committee's report I can't go through in the time available, but it sets out my detailed reply to the report's seven recommendations, and, as you know, I've fully accepted or partially accepted all but one of them.

Let me turn to that, because a few people mentioned it, and, actually, with different views on it, curiously. Because recommendation 6 was requesting additional monitoring—regular monitoring reports—detailing any revisions to service provision by local authorities. We couldn't agree to this—we did consider it, but couldn't agree to it—for increased monitoring reports on potential regional diversion in approaches to intervention resulting from the additional flexibility that we're now giving, because that additional flexibility has been requested from local authorities. They've also requested at the same time, 'Can you please not increase the burden on it while you're doing it? Can we have the flexibility and let us get on with it?' So, our commitment is to reduce rather than increase the reporting burden on local authorities. Over the last 12 to 18 months, we've been working with those local authorities to reduce and streamline the amount of data to lessen the burden, focusing on what data is considered necessary to produce the annual Flying Start statistical bulletin. But I have instead agreed to address this as part of our next evaluation update to the committee, okay, so we will come back to that.

Now, Flying Start is over a decade old. In some places, like my own, there are examples of where it's 13 years old, going on 14 years old. It is, therefore, an opportune time to reflect on its many successes as well as to review the current early years landscape, in which the programme is a key player. Indeed, at the end of 2017, I agreed that my officials should undertake a review of Flying Start to ensure it remains fit for purpose as we move forward into its second decade.

We want to build on the considerable achievements of the programme and learn from what works, not least how we can deepen the partnership, the collaboration and the multi-agency working across sectors in support of young children and their families. Fundamental to this is the need to work with those on the ground delivering Flying Start to ensure that their expertise, their experience, is brought to bear as part of this review. It is vital that any changes are fully and thoroughly considered and well managed, so we learn from where this is working well and we develop models of good practice to share more widely. Work is progressing well on this, and I anticipate being able to update Members on the progress of this review later this year.

The committee's inquiry and report are, therefore, very timely and a helpful contributor to this wider review. Your findings have provided a helpful insight into the specific element of outreach, which is an important part of what makes Flying Start the vital programme it has proven to be. Just on that outreach element, whilst the upgrade—the extension—to 5 per cent happened during the committee process, I think we'll have to look at how well different areas are using that, and whether they're fully using it as well. John, your point is interesting—I think it's worth going back, looking at individual areas, and Members should go back and say, 'How are we using this locally? How are we doing that flexibility that the Minister has given?'

But the outreach element does provide a degree of flexibility for local authorities to provide support to children and their families and targeted groups with identified need living outside designated Flying Start areas. And it also provides continuity of support to children and families moving out of those areas, or to bridge the gap to receiving other services provision.

So, in conclusion, Dirprwy Lywydd—diolch yn fawr—we will use the review of Flying Start and the work to reconfigure the early years system to explore options available around outreach. The committee's recommendations will form part of this work, and our review, including any further flexibility around outreach, must be underpinned by this deep collaboration with local authorities, learning from good practice and ensuring there are no unintended consequences regarding the overall integrity of this landmark programme that is so well regarded internationally. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Chair of the committee, Lynne Neagle, to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate? It's been an excellent and very useful debate, much of which has reflected some of the tensions that are apparent in the report, really. Mark Reckless began by talking about the trade-off between universal and targeted provision, and that is something that is very much at the heart of this report.

Mark, along with a number of other Members, expressed concern at the rejection of recommendation 6, as did Michelle Brown and Hefin David. I think the Minister will have heard today that there is clearly a view that, although we don't want to increase the burden on local authorities, we do need to get more information on how this money is being spent.

Llyr Gruffydd highlighted that friction, again, but also the committee wanting to know more, really, about how the 5 per cent has come about, and that is one of the issues that is the heart of this really—around how we're actually evaluating what the need is and what we're doing with the very significant spend that is involved here.

John Griffiths referred to an example that he used during the inquiry around the fact that Moorland Park families do benefit from Flying Start while Broadmead families, just across the road, can't. Jenny was frustrated about why they couldn't just walk across the road to use them, but the fact is that they're not funded to have that provision, so that's why they can't. But it's a very graphic example of where the system is falling down and what we need to try to address.

Michelle Brown spoke about the geographical tensions again, but also the issue of evaluation, which has been really key to our consideration of this report. It is undoubtedly the case that there have been lots of evaluations, but we still don't really know as much information as we need to know, and that's why the initiatives that the Minister has announced, which will, hopefully, refine some of that information, will be really valuable.

Jenny Rathbone talked about the importance of the outreach element of Flying Start within the Flying Start designated areas. Well, the committee inquiry wasn't intended to look at that. It was a very focused inquiry on what we are doing outside the geographical areas, but what I would say is what you've highlighted about midwives and health visitors is very important, because because the programme only measures the number of people who have contact with health visitors, and everybody already has a health visitor if you've got a child, we are not getting to the heart of the data, so we don't know how many other families have taken up the speech and language assistance, how many have taken up parenting, and that is the kind of information that we need to get to find out how many families are benefiting from this programme in the round. 

Thank you, Hefin, for adding to the concerns about recommendation 6, which the committee has been clear we'd like to see the Minister look at again. 

Rhianon Passmore spoke very positively about her experience of Flying Start in her area, and I have also seen that in my own patch, and I feel as conflicted as many other people, really, because you know that so little of our money is targeted geographically in Wales, and that's important, but you also recognise that we need to make sure that those families who really need it can benefit as well.

Can I thank the Minister for his response and for his engagement with the committee and his ongoing commitment to do that? We will be returning to this, and we are optimistic that some of the measures that he's announced will, hopefully, get us the information that we are looking for, bearing in mind that these aren't easy things to actually evaluate. How can you also evaluate what it would be like if Flying Start wasn't there? So, we've got families that are doing as well as families in more affluent areas and that is, undoubtedly, in some part down to Flying Start.

Can I just close, then, by thanking all the Members of the committee for their continued support and engagement on this and also by thanking our excellent clerking and research team, who, as always, have been absolutely brilliant? It's been an excellent debate, and I'm sure the whole committee is looking forward to returning to this and to ensuring that that very significant spend is delivering for all our children in Wales. Thank you.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, that motion is agreed.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.