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.