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?