The next item, therefore, is a debate on the general principles of the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care, Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Motion NDM6777 Huw Irranca-Davies

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with Standing Order 26.11:

Agrees to the general principles of the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd, and I move the motion.

I'm very pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill. I would like to begin by thanking the three committees involved in the scrutiny of this Bill for their time and their hard work. It is in recognition of their efforts that I wrote to all three committees, in advance of today's debate, setting out in some detail my thoughts in response to their recommendations and conclusions, and I hope that the committee Chairs and Members have had a little time—albeit a little time—to reflect on the detailed responses.

I'd also like to thank all the stakeholders who provided written and oral evidence. I want particularly to highlight the work of the Children, Young People and Education Committee for its diligent and detailed scrutiny of both this Bill and also the underlying policy. I want to say at the start of this debate that I very much value the evidence the committee took during Stage 1 and the amount of work it has put into its report and its recommendations, and I look forward to the opportunity of working with the committee further on its wider recommendations about childcare and the sector in general, and those specific areas where it is highlighted that we as a Government need to do more to make it clear what support is available to help parents while working or training, for example.

Now, the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill in front of us is a short and technical Bill that we introduced to support the roll-out of a single, national application and eligibility checking system for our childcare offer for Wales, and, of course, the childcare offer is a key commitment for this Government. It was first set out in the Welsh Labour manifesto, and it was restated in our programme for government, 'Taking Wales Forward'.

So, we are committed to providing 30 hours of Government-funded early education and childcare a week to working parents of three and four-year-olds in Wales for up to 48 weeks a year. We made this commitment because parents told us that they needed help with the costs of childcare, particularly those families on lower incomes where the costs of childcare make up a larger proportion of the weekly budget. But to be absolutely clear, we do not need to bring forward legislation to deliver the offer. We are already delivering it in parts of Wales, testing how it works for parents, for providers and for children. But this Bill will create a simple, 'once for Wales' process to check a person's eligibility, enabling them to access the childcare they need, simply.

Local authorities involved in the first year of the childcare pilots are doing a great job delivering the offer, but they tell us that the administrative burden is much larger than anticipated, and at a time when public services are stretched as a result of ongoing austerity pursued by the UK Government, I cannot—simply cannot—ask the local authorities to maintain such a paper-based, non-standardised, burdensome approach to checking eligibility for childcare. So, it is right and proper that we seek to take advantage of digital technology by developing this single 'once for Wales' system to process applications and to make eligibility checks, and this Bill will do just that.

I would like to thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for their support in developing this Bill. The intention is to appoint Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to carry out the eligibility checks for the offer, enabling us to use the same system as the one being used to carry out such checks in England currently. It will mean parents in Wales will be able to apply for support with childcare costs under the tax-free childcare scheme at the same time as they apply for this offer, but working with HMRC now does not mean we could not look at a bespoke, Welsh solution in the future, if and when public finances allow. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, the three committees made a number of recommendations about the Bill, and I'll attempt to respond to many of these in the time I have. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Children, Young People and Education Committee both raised the matter of consents. I can confirm consents for the Bill are in place and that I wrote to the Llywydd to confirm this on 9 July. Copies of the letters are available on the National Assembly website. Members will be aware that some of the regulations to be passed under the Bill also require the consent of relevant UK Government Ministers, so I'd like to reassure this Assembly that we are indeed working closely with the relevant UK departments, and I'm confident that the necessary consents to the regulations under the Bill will indeed be secured.

As you might expect, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee asked that I review the balance between the provisions on the face of the Bill and those left to regulations. Now, I understand the reasons for this, and a number of its recommendations touched on areas where more detail on the face of the Bill would be helpful. In fact, these comments were echoed in some of the recommendations from the Children, Young People and Education Committee as well. So, I can confirm that I will bring forward Government amendments during Stage 2 of the Bill to provide more detail on the definition of a 'qualifying child' in line with the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's recommendation 5. However, I am continuing to explore further how to address the various calls for the childcare offer to be included on the face of the Bill, and I will write to both the Children, Young People and Education Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee with further proposals as we develop these.

Now, many recommendations addressed operational details such as the hourly rate payable to providers, the split between childcare and education, the arrangements in school holidays and who can deliver this offer, calling for these details to be brought within the scope of the Bill. I remain of the view that such details would be better dealt with in the administrative scheme, rather than in the Bill itself, and I have explained the reasons why in my letters to the three committees. I have nonetheless committed to making an initial framework administrative scheme available to the Children, Young People and Education Committee ahead of Stage 3, and would welcome the opportunity to return to the committee in the spring to discuss the scheme in more detail.

Turning to the Finance Committee's report, I have accepted its recommendation that an update on the costs of working with HMRC be provided. The development of the application system will take place over the next 18 months, with regular review points. The appropriate governance and arrangements have been put in place and we're using the expertise of the Welsh Revenue Authority in this regard. I can also confirm to Members that HMRC is committed to providing a truly bilingual service and we are committed to taking every possible step to bring these jobs to Wales.

Dirprwy Lywydd, at the start of this debate, I mentioned that we have just started testing our childcare offer. In May, we extended the offer into seven more areas of Wales; it is now available in 14 areas in Wales. We are committed to learning from this phased roll-out and an independent evaluation of the first year of the programme will be published in November. I have agreed to make arrangements for members of the Children, Young People and Education Committee to have early sight of the evaluation findings to help its ongoing scrutiny of this Bill. I have also agreed to provide the committee with information about the take-up of the offer in the first year of delivery, and to keep the matter of additional charges under review.

Following issues raised by the Children, Young People and Education Committee, I will also be reviewing the Child Minding and Day Care Exceptions (Wales) Order 2010, which includes provisions setting out who can and cannot provide childcare, and I will share the findings with the committee.

I was pleased that, with the exception of one Member, the Children, Young People and Education Committee has recommended support of the general principles of the Bill, and clearly I'd urge the one Member to reconsider on this Stage 1 general principles debate. It is a recommendation I wholeheartedly support and one I commend to all Members, and I look forward, genuinely, to continuing to debate the Bill and hope the Assembly will today support its general principles. Thank you, Dirprwy Lywyddd.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, Lynne Neagle?

Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to contribute to this Stage 1 debate to outline the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s main conclusions and recommendations in relation to the childcare funding Bill.

You will see from our report that seven of our eight members support the general principles of this Bill. As you've heard, Llyr Gruffydd did not support the Bill progressing beyond Stage 1, and I’m sure he’ll outline the reasons for this shortly.

It is fair to say that a number of us shared some of Llyr’s concerns about the childcare offer as it’s currently shaped. I’ll expand on some of those areas a little later. However, on balance, we didn’t feel that these concerns warranted the committee recommending the Bill should fall at this stage. We came to this conclusion based on our belief that the Bill is necessary to enable data held by UK Government departments, including HMRC, to be used to assess eligibility for the offer. Evidence presented to us indicated overwhelming support for this approach.

This support was based on one main argument. Everyone recognised the childcare offer could be rolled out nationally by asking parents to prove their eligibility by providing relevant paperwork to local authorities. However, there was a broad consensus, based on experience in the current pilot areas, that this has been burdensome for parents, providers and local government alike. Many also argued that roll-out on the basis of manual checks could increase the potential for inconsistency and abuse of the system.

So, it’s on that basis that the majority of our committee supported the general principles of this Bill. Nevertheless, we identified a number of areas where we believe improvements should be made. This afternoon, I’ll outline some of the steps we think the Minister should take to improve the Bill. 

Before I do that, I should be clear that we made our recommendations based on the firm belief that it is not possible to separate the Bill’s provisions from the detail of the childcare offer itself. This Bill provides broad powers to Welsh Ministers to make secondary legislation to specify the detail of their childcare offer. While we may not doubt the stated intentions of this Government, it is incumbent on us to remember that if this Bill is passed, the powers are there for any future Government to do with them as they see fit. It is our responsibility to make sure that we’re clear about what we’re legislating to allow, and whether there's sufficient detail on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Assembly’s intentions are clearly defined in the legislation it passes.

Moving now to the detail of our recommendations, first of all, we're keen to ensure that the lessons learned from the evaluation of the current pilot offer inform this legislation. While we recognise that achieving national roll-out involving the data held by UK departments requires the Assembly to move with pace to legislate, we remain disappointed that the evaluation of the pilot offer was not completed before this legislation was brought forward. We are concerned that the main reason cited by stakeholders for leaving much of the detail underpinning the Bill’s provisions to regulations was the need to remain flexible while we await the results of the evaluation. Both the Minister and stakeholders have attached significant weight to the learning that will emerge from it.

In light of this, we believe the evaluation’s findings should be available for our consideration before the start of Stage 3. This is to afford sufficient opportunity for all Members to propose and consider any amendments to the Bill that may be required as a consequence of the evaluation. We welcome the Minister’s indication in his written response and his assurances today that efforts will be made to share the findings before Stage 3 begins.

Another of our key recommendations relates to whether the Bill’s provisions should be restricted to the children of working parents only. In the evidence we received, some significant concerns were expressed that restricting the Bill to this group only could increase inequality between the children of non-working and working parents, particularly in relation to the school readiness gap and educational attainment.

To mitigate the impact on some of Wales’s poorest families, we recommended the Minister extend the Bill’s provisions beyond working parents, particularly to those undertaking education and training linked to securing employment.

We are disappointed that the Minister has not accepted this recommendation. We recognise that other programmes exist to support non-working parents, including Parents Childcare and Employability and Flying Start, and welcome the Minister’s commitment to making clear what support is available and to whom. However, we remain concerned that such programmes do not currently reach all who need support. After all, our recent inquiry into Flying Start showed the majority of children living in poverty fall outside defined Flying Start areas. I urge the Minister to reconsider this recommendation.

During the course of our scrutiny we learned that important matters such as what funded childcare an eligible child will be able to receive, where the childcare will be provided, by whom it will be delivered, and at what hourly rate, will be specified in an administrative scheme. Under current plans, the administrative scheme has no legal status. We believe this needs to be addressed.

Recommendation 6 called on the Minister to amend the Bill to require the administrative scheme to be made by subordinate legislation so that it is on a statutory footing. I would invite the Minister to reconsider his response to this recommendation. We did not specify that this detail should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations. We simply want to make sure that there is a legal duty to create this administrative scheme if such important detail is to be provided by this document.

More generally, we agree with the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that the balance between what is on the face of the Bill, what is left to regulations, and what is contained in the admin scheme requires further work. We have called on Welsh Government to put more of the detail of its planned offer on the face of the Bill, with a power for Ministers to amend details in future by regulations subject to the superaffirmative procedure.

We welcome the Minister’s indication that he is exploring the options available to him. But, we maintain the view that if such steps are not taken, the regulations made under section 1 of the Bill should be subject to a superaffirmative procedure given their significance.

With the time I've got left I would like to concentrate on two issues that caused us particular concern during our scrutiny and on which I would welcome further clarification. Firstly, can the Minister assure me that he will undertake a revised children’s rights impact assessment that considers the impact of the Bill on those children who are not eligible under its provisions? As a committee, we believe this is just as important as assessing the impact on eligible children, and the written response did not clarify this. Secondly, I urge the Minister to reconsider carefully the ability of providers to apply additional charges to parents. We are really concerned that being faced with a bill of up to £162 per month could render the childcare offer unaffordable for the lowest paid working parents. We believe this requires reconsideration.

In closing, I'd like to thank the Minister for his engagement with our report. While some of our recommendations have not been accepted, I recognise that the majority have, and I look forward to the committee continuing to engage constructively with the Minister to try to find some solutions to the most pressing issues we identified. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I call on Jane Hutt to speak on behalf of the Finance Committee?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to speak in this debate today on behalf of the Finance Committee on the financial implications of the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill. Firstly, it's worth noting that our scrutiny of the Bill has been limited to the financial information provided in the regulatory impact assessment, which sets out the costings for administering the scheme, and not the cost of delivering the childcare offer itself.

The RIA includes four options for administering a national system for processing applications and making eligibility checks, with the Welsh Government's preferred option being to adapt HMRC's current English service to meet Welsh needs. The RIA explains that this requirement is not clearly defined. The figures provided are early-stage general approximations, rather than detailed cost estimates. We therefore welcome the Minister's commitment to regularly review and update costs as the financial impacts are established further, and acknowledge the Welsh Government's engagement with HMRC and the work undertaken by the early implementer local authorities in developing these costs. In his formal response, the Minister has indicated a change to the delivery arrangements for the second year of early implementation, with one local authority accepting and processing applications, and making relevant payments on behalf of other authorities. We welcome this approach and the Minister's assurance that this will be reflected as a new option in the RIA during Stage 2.

The main area of concern highlighted in our report relates to the high-level estimates provided by HMRC. We accept that the Welsh Government has applied an optimism bias uplift to these estimates, to account for the relative level of uncertainty associated with outsourcing the system. However, we have recently seen HMRC costs escalate in relation to the implementation of devolved taxes, and we are concerned this may happen again.

Indeed, the letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, shared with the committee on 9 July, makes it clear that estimates are subject to change once delivery begins, and that

'any changes to the operation of the 30 hours childcare scheme or eligibility criteria would generate further costs and will affect the timelines for delivery.'

Therefore we have recommended that the Welsh Government provides an update on the costs of developing and delivering the Welsh childcare offer within HMRC's existing platform as the proposal moves forward, which the Minister has accepted.

The Minister's response to recommendation 29 of the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report, which signals that a change to the proposed earnings threshold could attract an initial one-off cost in the region of £1 million, and a delay of between 12 to 18 months, clearly demonstrates the volatility of both the costs and timescales. Whilst acknowledging the Welsh Government's rationale for using HMRC as the delivery agent, we did question whether HMRC staff in Wales would carry out the service. We were told that it had not yet been discussed in any detail, and we concluded that the Welsh Government, as part of its negotiations with HMRC, should demand that the Welsh service operates in Wales in order to secure Welsh jobs and support Welsh-language standards. We are pleased that the Minister agrees with this conclusion and will be encouraging HMRC to operate aspects of the Welsh childcare offer from one of its offices in Wales.

In the same vein, we welcome the potential that the Bill provides for developing a bespoke Welsh service as this would ensure that Welsh Ministers have control over service delivery and the creation and retention of Welsh jobs. With this in mind, we concluded that the Welsh Revenue Authority should have oversight of the HMRC-operated model in order to build expertise and experience in the Welsh context, should the Welsh Government decide to develop its own system in the future. The Minister has provided assurances that close working between officials and the WRA is in place, such as involvement in the testing of the application and eligibility checking system, and representation on the official-level project board. The Minister's response also explains that new legislation would be required to enable the WRA to administer Wales's childcare offer. However, during evidence to both the Finance Committee and the Children, Young People and Education Committee, he indicated that there is scope within the Bill to develop a bespoke model. We would be grateful for clarification on this point. Diolch.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee reported on the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill on 28 June and it made 12 recommendations. As an aside, we have received yesterday the response to a number of those recommendations from the Minister, for which I'm grateful, and for the positive response to many of them. So, this report is very much on the Bill as it stands, and I will make comments in respect of some of the Minister's responses as best I can as we go through it.

It's not generally our role to comment on the general principles of a Bill. That's not the function of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. However, the need for legislation is a consideration of the committee. The Bill is a skeleton Bill. It contains seven powers for the Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation, and in a 13-section Bill, this is extensive. In our view it lacks clarity and a clear statement of purpose. With so little detail on its face we believe the Bill does not satisfy the key principles of legislation. Primary legislation should not be framed so broadly with the intention of using it as a vehicle to introduce subordinate legislation to deal with what may happen in the future. This approach limits the ability of the National Assembly as a legislature to scrutinise and to debate suggested improvements to significant policy matters in a democratic forum.

We're not alone in expressing such concerns about legislation. Our counterpart committee in the House of Lords, the Constitution Committee, has recently similarly criticised the UK Government, and we agree with its comments that Bills that grant broad powers to Ministers are difficult for Parliament to scrutinise, and present a fundamental challenge to the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. We have concerns that the National Assembly is being asked to grant wide regulation-making powers to Welsh Ministers that could be used to make provisions not anticipated by the National Assembly during its consideration of the Bill, and we're also concerned that the approach adopted in this Bill is not consistent with the Welsh Government's objective of making the law in Wales more accessible.

As we set out in our report, an alternative approach would be to include the necessary detail on the face of the Bill and also to include a provision that permits that detail to be amended by subordinate legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. Including such a Henry VIII power is not an ideal approach to law making, but it may be a reasonable compromise if the Welsh Government considers such flexibility to be necessary. Adding more detail to the face of the Bill would strengthen it considerably and would provide a clearer foundation for the policy that it seeks to deliver.

Our second recommendation suggested that the Minister undertake a fundamental review of the balance between what is on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation. And I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his formal response to our report, which I've already referred to. I welcome the fact he has listened to the concerns of the committee and has undertaken a review of the balance of power. I look forward to seeing the amendments the Minister intends to bring forward at Stage 2 in this respect.

Moving on to the childcare offer, the Welsh Government is legislating for its offer before the conclusion of the relevant pilot programmes and the consequent appraisal of the effectiveness of the policy. For that reason, we believe there is merit in considering whether a review requirement and a sunset provision should be built into the Bill. Such provisions would follow an approach already adopted by the Welsh Government in the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill.

Recommendation 3 of our report highlighted these issues and asked the Minister to update the Assembly on his consideration of these issues during this afternoon's debate. I welcome the Minister's commitment to explore the options available in respect of this recommendation and I look forward to receiving the update in due course from the Minister as proposals are developed.

Now, during our scrutiny of the Bill, it was not clear to us why issues of principle relating to the Welsh Government’s childcare offer cannot appear on the face of the Bill. As such, we recommended that the Bill should, on its face, commit the Welsh Government to providing its childcare offer, whatever that may be. 

Recommendation 4—again, I welcome the Minister's commitment to exploring the options available in respect of this recommendation and look forward to receiving an update from the Minister in due course.

Recommendation 5 of our report further recommended that the core eligibility criteria concerning who is a qualifying child or a working parent should appear on the face of the Bill, accompanied by a provision enabling these criteria to be amended in the future by regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure. We disagree with the Minister that the eligibility criteria will be technical in nature and therefore consultation on draft regulations concerning the criteria may not be suitable. We believe that failing to consult on such substantive matters would be contrary to public law principles. I am pleased to see that the Minister has accepted our recommendation and will be bringing forward amendments at Stage 2 to provide clarity in relation to who is a qualifying child.

Moving on to the administrative scheme, the scheme will have no legal status and yet will detail very important matters. We are concerned that these important issues will be left to a document that is not subject to any requirement of scrutiny by the National Assembly. We do not consider that either the hourly rate payable for the childcare or who can provide such care are matters that should be decided without scrutiny by the National Assembly. We recommended that amendments should be brought forward at Stage 2 to ensure that such provisions will be made in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That was recommendation 7. The Minister hasn't accepted this recommendation. However, I do note that he has offered to provide the Children, Young People and Education Committee with an initial draft of the scheme ahead of the Stage 3 proceedings.

And, finally, I will briefly mention recommendation 12, that the Bill should be amended so that any commencement Order made under section 12(1) of the Bill is subject to Assembly scrutiny and the negative procedure. The Minister has not accepted this recommendation, on the grounds that the making of the commencement Orders is not normally subject to any procedure in the Assembly. In response, I would just reiterate the conclusions made in our report. For commencement Orders that will derive from a Bill that contains such little detail on its face, it is important that the primary legislation empowers the National Assembly with a right to scrutinise those Orders. We consider that a skeleton Bill should not make use of a procedure that inhibits future scrutiny by the legislature.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I'm pleased to take part in this debate on the childcare funding Bill this afternoon in my new capacity as the shadow Cabinet Secretary for social care, children, young people and older people and I'd like to place on record my thanks to our new leader, Paul Davies, Assembly Member, for his confidence in me in appointing me to this important role. I would like to thank all the other AMs sitting on the committee and the clerks who've assisted in the legislative process thus far. We as Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the motion today and accepting the key principles of the Bill. However, I do urge the Government to be mindful of the administrative cost to implement this legislation and to be mindful also of any potential for the offer to be exploited at the cost of parents. Helping parents of young children who may find going back to work after having a child a financial impossibility is a worthy goal. However, it is not a given that that goal will be met without due consideration on how we go about that. 

We do have to make sure that the Bill does in fact make it easier for mothers to get back into the workforce and does not provide too little too late. I believe that the recommendations outlined in the Stage 1 CYPE committee report are vital to ensure those positive long-term outcomes for our parents in Wales. I was disappointed to see that the Minister rejected recommendation 7 in his response to the report on this Bill. To exclude and to disadvantage parents in education or those looking for work flies in the face of the rhetoric that we hear so often from this Government on a daily basis on equality and fairness. The Minister points out in his response that there are alternatives for parents in education in the form of PaCE, which expires in 2020, or Flying Start, which we know the vast majority of children living in poverty are ineligible for due to a postcode lottery. 

The Government has an opportunity to encourage the aspirations of those people who choose education as a path to upward social mobility—an opportunity they simply have not taken. Having an array of programmes will only lead to further confusion among parents, especially for those transitioning from education or unemployment into full-time employment. We should be mindful of the stress that can be caused due to unnecessary inefficiency and complexity of multiple, disjoined systems. Would it not be more practical to give this offer to parents regardless of whether they are in employment or education and take away any barrier to entering the workforce? I fear that limiting this offer to parents in employment does risk disadvantaging children with unemployed parents before they have even stepped foot into a classroom. 

I also have concerns in regard to the effectiveness of the legislation once implemented and whether it achieves its goal. Despite this legislation being well intended, we do have genuine concerns that the offer in its current form closes the stable door long after the horse has bolted, offering support to parents too late and long after decisions have been made on the future career plans of one or both parents. I am sure everyone, myself included, who has had young children will all be aware of this reality. I understand that the Minister has agreed to keep under review the age of the qualifying child, and that I do welcome. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister in relation to a change to the qualifying age.

Finally, I would like to bring the issue of additional charges in relation to the childcare offer. Without restricting additional costs, there is a possibility for childcare providers to charge an additional £162.50 per month per child, and that cost will certainly be passed down to those who can least afford it. Allowing additional charges risks pricing out the lowest income families from accessing this offer and returning to work as the Bill intends. A free childcare offer should not disadvantage those it is actually designed to help. I don't think we can be shocked if nurseries do decide to go ahead with implementing additional charges. Between rising business costs and Welsh nurseries already having the lowest hourly rates in the United Kingdom, they do face real challenge. A survey conducted by National Day Nurseries Association Wales found that 41 per cent of nurseries said that the £4.50 figure was lower than their usual fee. There is a clear incentive for the nurseries to make up the shortfall by passing additional costs on to parents, and this Government is not taking action to prevent that.

In conclusion, I am pleased to see that the Minister has accepted the majority of the recommendations made in this report by the committee. I look forward to actually taking part now in the Children, Young People and Education Committee, which I know that Lynne Neagle AM so admirably chairs. Thank you.

I will start by disappointing the Minister in saying that I won’t be changing my view on my intentions, and Plaid Cymru’s intentions, in relation to opposing this Bill. He referred to the fact that the Bill is brief and technical, and that’s quite right, and there is some disconnect between the Bill and the Government’s policy. But, of course, whilst the words in the first clause of the first section talk about restricting this offer to working parents, I have a fundamental problem with the Bill.

Plaid Cymru doesn’t oppose offering free childcare—indeed, one of the cornerstones of the Plaid Cymru manifesto was to offer this free childcare universally to three and four-year-old children. My problem is that the Labour Government is restricting that offer.

It's not right that families earning up to £200,000 a year can get free childcare when, of course, the poorest children from workless households are excluded from enjoying those very same benefits. We know that the poorest children, by the time they're three years old, are already 10 months behind their better-off peers in terms of vocabulary, literacy and speech development. Indeed, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists tells us that the poorest 20 per cent are, in fact, 17 months behind the highest income group by the time they're three years old.

Not giving those poorest children access to high-quality childcare entrenches inter-generational poverty. It doesn't break the cycle; it makes it worse. That's not a sentiment that just I and others hold here in this Chamber—the children's commissioner shares those concerns. She's described the policy as a 'large subsidy for some of Wales's highest-earning families' that is 'likely to reinforce inequalities in outcomes for different social groups'. Save the Children and other children's organisations have expressed concerns, as have, in fact, some of the teaching unions as well.

Now, we've heard it said a number of times that Flying Start is there for the poorest areas to support them, and the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee has already reminded us that the majority of poor children in Wales live outside of the Flying Start areas. That's a huge cohort of young people—or children, I should say—who fall through the gaps in this Government's policies, and that isn't acceptable to me or my party.

There have been references to the evaluation of the pilots that will be available this autumn, and I'm grateful that the Minister is saying that he will give us early sight of the evaluation. But, of course, he's already tabled the Bill, so we don't really have the evidence to back up the anecdotal stuff that we're being told in committee and in this Chamber that it is the right policy and that it does work. I want to see the evidence before we approve this piece of legislation. In fact, another committee in this Assembly has—and we have, as a committee, as well—heard that targeting three- to four-year-olds isn't necessarily the right place to target this investment, that we need, maybe, to look at doing it before and that, actually, from one year old onward is where the greatest need is in terms of investing in allowing those parents to get back to work. That's a challenge back to us a party, as well, to look at our policy, but that's something that we're willing to do, and not just plough on regardless with our eyes closed and our heads down.

I have to say, as laudable as the Minister's pitch to lead his party was, he made it clear that his big ambition was universal preschool provision. Well, we have an opportunity to do that, and you were perfectly right to say that that provision would address the impacts of poverty. You were perfectly right to say that it would narrow the attainment gap when children start school and that it would transform the life chances of those children. Well, do you know what? Had you voted for Plaid Cymru in the last Assembly election, we may already have started delivering that.

Providing state-subsidised childcare in appropriate circumstances may be a good idea in principle, provided it's targeted in the correct way. It may support parents in employment and may go some way to helping many working parents into work, especially women. But it remains to be seen how this particular childcare scheme will work and how successful it'll be. 

I think what the people of Wales really need to understand is that the Welsh Government is effectively buying votes with taxpayers' money on this one. It exposes the foolishness of giving the Labour Party spending powers without them being forced to accept the accountability that comes with having to raise the taxes to pay for their plans. It's like giving a child the keys to the local sweetie shop in the knowledge that the child will make itself sick.

When it comes to the childcare offer itself, where are your priorities? There are parents who need the help that state-subsidised childcare gives, such as the unemployed. These parents are absent from this Bill. There's no help for parents needing childcare to cover training to help them back into work either. That's a glaring omission and one that the Minister has repeatedly refused to address. In rejecting recommendations 7 and 8, the Minister says that there are other schemes to give support, and I'm sure that's true, but the fact that the committee has called for such parents to be included in the childcare provision is an indication that those schemes aren't addressing the specific problem. But for the sake of so-called universality, parents in the 40 per cent tax bracket and substantially wealthier than that will receive free childcare. Is this really about universality though? Welsh Labour have no problems in other areas discriminating against those they regard as rich, so is it really because Welsh Labour don't have the imagination to differentiate between parents who need help and those who don't? The Minister has missed an opportunity to rationalise and streamline the schemes he has in place to help parents trying to get back into work.

Another serious omission in the Bill is the failure to include schools. Why? I just don't understand it. Children spend a major part of their lives in school, and it makes no sense whatsoever to prevent schools from providing childcare. Indeed, it's entirely logical that they should. So, perhaps the Minister in his response to this debate will explain the reason for this without referring to a technical difficulty that could have been addressed in the Bill. The Minister seemed to have an odd response as well to recommendation 17 of the CYPE committee's report into the Bill. The committee recommended that the Minister conduct a children's rights impact assessment that covers all children, not just those eligible under the childcare scheme. the Minister has accepted this recommendation in principle, but what exactly do you mean by that, Minister? Because there's no sign in your response to recommendation 17 that any future impact assessment will consider the impact on all children and not just those eligible under the Bill. Surely, you understand that the children's commissioner is very, very concerned that the way this childcare offer is being targeted is going to disadvantage those very children who need the help most. Please, please, please explain. If you're going to consider the impact on all children anyway, why not say that in your response? 

Turning to the actual form of the Bill, I would describe this as an enabling Bill on steroids. Rather than setting restrictions and limitations on the powers and setting the parameters of the childcare offer—rather than setting out the parameters and setting out some detail and some guidance about what Welsh Government are being authorised to do here, so that the scheme can be judged in this place on its merits, they've produced a Bill that allows them to make it up as they go along. It gives Welsh Labour carte blanche to introduce whatever scheme they choose with minimal scrutiny from the Assembly. Consequently, we'll be voting against this Bill because it's too wide, it gives the Welsh Government a carte blanche to do whatever they like and to make it up as they go along, and it's badly targeted. So, we will be voting against it. Thank you. 

I'm slightly puzzled by the conclusion to Michelle Brown's speech. I had understood that she supported the general principles of the Bill at the committee, but clearly has given it more and more thought or perhaps consulted with colleagues over the summer and will now be voting against them.

However, it's equally if not even more difficult to understand where the Minister is on this. I was looking forward to hearing him today juggling between his two hats, (1) as the Minister who supports limiting this to working parents, and (2) as the leadership contender whose main policy was to open this up to everyone and to ensure that the poorest families would benefit. However, he's resolved the situation by having ended his leadership campaign prior to coming here. In many ways, that's a shame. But I think there is a puzzle to this Bill, because it seems to me that Labour members are keen in general that the children's commissioner, what she says—that the benefit should go to the lowest earning families, yet they have a Bill that specifically excludes them from it—or large numbers of them from it—by saying, 'This help can only go to working parents.'

The Minister says in his report on page 5:

'Welsh Ministers already have the necessary powers to bring forward additional programmes of support as required'.

But I don't believe that that is the case, at least with what we're trying to do with this Bill, which is to have a system where HMRC efficiently, because they've got the systems in place already, checks eligibility. And what we're doing is having a piece of legislation that, whatever Ministers want to do in future, however much money they have, whatever their priorities, whatever the Minister says he believes as a leadership contender—that the legislation will prevent them being able to extend the scheme to non-working parents.

Now, I understand that resources are tight, and I support having this for working parents because I think it will allow more parents, particularly women, after having children disproportionately, to get back into the workforce if that is what they want to do. And I also think that, when we have income tax devolution from next April, there may be some benefit to other spending programmes or even potentially for tax relief, although I doubt that with this Government in charge, because if it does help more people get into the workplace, that will lead to a higher tax yield, potentially, which in turn can fund other programmes. But what I don't understand is why Labour Members and Ministers at least when they have one hat on tell us that they don't support this programme and yet, when they come to this house to argue for it, it's essential that it's working parents only. All the committee is saying is: why not give yourself flexibility if, at some point in the future, you decide that resources allow and you want to extend this to other groups—why not give yourself that flexibility? Yet you come and say that no, you won't do that. [Interruption.] I give way.

Thank you for giving way. I just wonder whether the committee have analysed how many children we're actually talking about, given that only 3.8 per cent of the working population is unemployed. How many children are we talking about?

I'm afraid I don't have that number immediately to hand, but I think that 3.8 per cent unemployment rate will understate the eligible numbers, because to be unemployed on that definition you have to be actively seeking work, and the committee was looking to extend the definition somewhat to include those doing that and having education or training aimed at getting back into work, but I think that there are substantially more who are not seeking work because they're looking after young children, and, well, that choice—that is as it is. But I'm just perplexed by the attitude of the Government on this and the different hats people seem to be wearing.

However, can I just set out a couple of other points on the consents? It was slightly frustrating that we didn't know the basis on which the consents had been awarded. I was saying at committee that perhaps it would be difficult administratively to change the eligibility criteria from that which HMRC operates for the UK-wide tax-free childcare, and that proved to be the case, but we spent quite a lot of time debating this issue when, if only that consent matter sent several months before had been shared with the committee, we would have known that HMRC was not going to allow that or the whole thing would have had to have been reopened or be very expensive and administratively difficult.

I'd also just like to put a final plea in, and the Minister has been listening to this and has made progress, but the UK tax-free childcare scheme is out there and open, and parents in Wales can have childcare and then claim 20 per cent of the cost back from HMRC. It's very good that, when they apply under this scheme, they'll be told about that, but in the meantime when they hear about what Ministers and Government are doing on this Welsh scheme they don't hear about that UK tax-free childcare. Please take the opportunity to promote it, because what that will do is bring more revenue and money into the Welsh economy, help nurseries and help parents.

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

Diolch Dirprwy Lywydd, and I just begin by thanking all the Members for their contributions today, not least the Chairs of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, the Finance Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, but also my congratulations go to Janet on taking on her new role, but also to all other Members who've taken part as well and spoken in real detail about the Bill in front of us. I will try in what I think is just over five minutes to respond to many of the points, but I think you'll appreciate that, in a Stage 1 debate, I may not be able to cover all of them.

If I could first of all turn to the Chair of the CYPE Committee, first of all to thank you, Lynne, again, for the work that the committee has done. I'm pleased that you support the involvement of HMRC within this in the best interests of local authorities and parents in a streamlined approach to the application and eligibility check in the system. This will make it easier for the local authority and parents. I'll reiterate once again that I'm committed to sharing the findings of the evaluation with the committee as soon as is practically possible, and my officials are indeed speaking, I understand, to the committee team at the moment about how we can best make this happen. 

One aspect that's been touched on by a number of people, including the Chair of the CYPE committee, is the aspect of non-working parents, and I just want to make one thing very, very clear, because it would seem sometimes as if there's no provision out there at all for children of non-working parents, but, of course, children of non-working parents will still be able to access the universal early education provision in the foundation phase, and I will also be looking forward to mapping out more clearly the menu of programmes available to different categories of parents, including, I have to say, within the highly regarded Flying Start programme as well. This doesn't exist in isolation. 

Will the Minister take an intervention? 

If I do, it's going to eat into time, but I'm happy to take one. 

Just very briefly, I wonder, Minister, if you can respond a little bit more to what both the Chair of the committee and others have said about the restrictions on Flying Start and the fact that so many of our children who are growing up in poverty are not in those areas. This isn't new. 

I think, curiously, in respect of Mark's comments there, in an ideal world, if we had unlimited budgets, if austerity was lifted, I think we know what we'd do, and I think I know where the evidence takes us, but, unfortunately, we're not in that situation. So, some of our challenge here as responsible Assembly Members is to decide how we can make best use of the resource we have to change the lives of young people, but we have wider debates on that issue as well. But thank you for that comment.

In terms of the balance between what's on the face of the Bill and particularly our belief that operational details are best actually belonging in an administrative scheme, this is partly because the pilots are still ongoing, we're still learning from them, we're still adjusting the scheme as we go and we will continue doing this. It is our belief that, different from the setting up of the legal mechanism and the consents required to set up the HMRC mechanism, the operation of the scheme itself is best described—with the exceptions that I've sent out in letters to the committee Chairs—actually within an administrative scheme. But I will go into this more in subsequent sections of this debate, I'm sure.

And that takes us to the balance between what is on the face and in the regs, and I have already explained that I'm exploring the possibility of placing some more on the face of the Bill, but that is in light of some committees who have said, 'Can you retain the flexibility to make sure that we can change and mutate this as we go forward?' But I am exploring that possibility. And in response to the calls for a child's rights impact assessment, it is being developed for the offer as a whole and we will share that when it's ready and as appropriate—and I'm keeping my eye on the time there as well as we go through this. 

Jane, thank you very much for your contribution and, again, the broad support for the mechanism described in this Bill of working with HMRC. We will continue to work closely with HMRC on our requirements and on the estimated costs for delivery of the system as well, and I'm committed to sharing the updated costs with the committee as these are refined. We had an independent consultancy invovled in developing the RIA for the Bill, and I believe that our high-level estimates of the costs are, indeed, as robust as can possibly be, as I explained originally to the committee. The preferred option for delivery of the application and eligibility checking system for the childcare offer has been tested with Welsh Revenue Authority colleagues, and officials have discussed the lessons learned and experiences from the establishment of the WRA and the working arrangements that were in place with HMRC at that time. So, the WRA will continue to be involved in a quality assurance capacity as we move forward. 

If I can turn to the comments from my colleague Mick Antoniw, Chair of CLAC, I have listened, indeed, with genuine concern as a former Chair of the CLA committee as well about the balance between what is on the face and what is left to regulations, and this is why I have, indeed, set out bringing forward some amendments during Stage 2, to provide more detail on the face of the Bill, especially around who is an eligible child, and I'll write to the committee to explain my thinking. But I do have to balance my response to this with calls from CYPE sitting to my right here for some flexibility in the future. I'm also exploring what might be possible in response to the recommendation of requiring WMs to provide the childcare, and I will be writing to the committees once we've had an opportunity to consider in further detail.

Now, there continues to be considerable engagement with key stakeholders on the childcare offer. We are testing the offer on the ground as we speak, and an evaluation is being undertaken, and we have undertaken to share in an interim form the findings of that as soon as we possibly can, and before we get to Stage 3. So, I hope that gives some assurances, including to some of the more technical recommendations. Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm keeping an eye on the time—

You carry on; I wouldn't want you to stop.

Thank you very much. If I could turn to the comments about parents and education and training, I'm very aware of and very sympathetic to the challenges all parents face in accessing affordable childcare when they need it, but this offer is aimed at the working parents of three and four-year-olds. And, actually, colleagues around the Chamber, if they go back and look, with one exception, at the manifesto's offers—they were not, in some ways, dissimilar; they cover the same ground: three and four-year-olds, limited hours et cetera. Now, Welsh Ministers, I have to say, do have the powers to bring forward additional programmes of support, as required, subject, again, to the relevant funding being available.

Now, I do appreciate, however, that the different support available may be confusing for people to understand and I have commissioned a piece of internal work to look at this further and to look at options to reduce confusion and reduce complexity. So, the sort of work Helen Mary and Llyr were talking about—we're on the case with that; we're looking at how we resolve these issues and bring together a more cohesive system, but it's different from this Bill and the delivery mechanism of the HMRC.

Dirprwy Lywydd, are you looking at me asking me to—? You want me to wind up.

Please.

Okay.

You had time for the intervention; I've been generous. [Laughter.]

Indeed. Thank you so much. Just one final point, then. I can't cover all bases, but additional charges were raised, and I do appreciate the concerns around additional charges, not least as a parent of three children myself, having brought them up when I was a humble sports centre manager on £6,400—how much was it—£6,430 a year there. It's a challenge. However, there is a range and diversity of providers out there within childcare, slightly different from other sectors, and providers must retain the right to make additional charges to parents accessing the offer, but not for the offer itself. The childcare sector is disparate, but it is worth noting that we have been clear that parents cannot charge top-up rates to parents accessing the offer. However, they can charge—as many of them have done historically—for additional items such as transport or food where they would normally do so, and inform the parents. But we'll keep this matter under review and we'll look at this again as part of the review of the rate ahead of the national roll out.

Dirprwy Lywydd, thank you for giving me a bit of additional time. I've tried to respond to as many as possible. I'd urge Members to look at the responses that we've sent to all three committees, and I look forward to working with the committees and with other Members in subsequent stages if this is passed today.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we move voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.