Well, I just mentioned in terms of PaCE, we've gone actually beyond where we might be reasonably expected to go, because we're actually looking at extending now beyond 2020, beyond the current tranche of funding, and we're actively engaged in that. But that, of course, is not the only one. We also have Flying Start, for example, that provides quality childcare to parents of eligible two and three-year-olds for two and a half hours a day, five days a week for 39 weeks. And there is work ongoing within Government to look at, beyond the 10 per cent that we actually modified this year to extend on the flexibility with Flying Start, what we can do beyond that as well. So, those discussions are ongoing. 

The financial contingency fund provides help to students in further education who need help with childcare costs. In 2016-17, 901 awards were made to student parents in FE to help with childcare costs, amounting to £2.7 million, and there are others that I laid out in the letter as well. But we will need to keep this provision firmly in our sights to make sure that it is in place alongside this offer, not as part of this offer.

So, whilst I'm very sympathetic to all the challenges that all parents, whatever their circumstances, face in accessing affordable childcare when they need it, I have said all along that this offer—this offer—is specifically targeted at the working parents of three and four-year-old children.

Now, the purpose of amendment 9 is to ensure the inclusion of the upper earnings cap within the regulations, detailing the conditions parents must meet to be considered eligible for the offer. I shall not be supporting this amendment, because this amendment makes no difference in terms of practical effect from what we have in the Bill already, and I don't, therefore, consider it necessary. The upper earnings threshold is a fundamental part of the eligibility criteria and, as such, details of the cap will have to be specified in regulations under section 1—this is rehearsing the same debate we had before—in order for the eligibility checks to be made. And in response to the actual cap, we can in future, Siân, actually amend the cap if we wanted to, but there are genuine questions here on the commitment to roll this offer out by 2020 in full across Wales, and the demand that there is to do that, I have to say, as well.

Aligning this with the current HMRC offer that is currently there makes us able to deliver it with less risk on time, in cost, and to get it up and running. In future, we can indeed, based on the evaluation findings, come back and look at this again, and if we decide as Assembly Members that we want to drop it to 80 or 60—and by the way, we've done some of this initial analysis and scoping and there are issues of cost-benefit analysis, how much it would cost to do that, and how much you save by doing it—let me just remind you, as I've said before in committee, over 60 per cent of those who are receiving this childcare in its early implementer phases are below the median wage. This is not leading to the sort of abuse that we've heard talked about of the system, where people are living in their swimming pool mansions and so on and are using this. It is people who are on low earnings who are accessing this, and it's helping them actually extend their hours in work and so on. 

Now, the purpose of amendment 17 is to ensure the inclusion of details regarding temporary exemption periods within the regulations under section 1(2). A temporary exemption period is that period of time a person would continue to benefit from the offer despite falling out of eligibility. Now, I provided a note and I've spoken with the committee on this before as well. I provided a note to the responsible committee during Stage 1. I've had further discussions with Suzy and Janet on this, and I'm disappointed I haven't been able to assure them, despite the fact that we have that period already in place with the offer that deals with that very issue. I still think that the administrative scheme is the best place for administrative matters such as this. That isn't to say I don't want Assembly Members to have any say on these issues, and I've actually offered to bring the scheme forward to the CYPE committee in the spring so we can discuss it further. So, on this basis, we will not be supporting amendment 17.

Amendment 22 seeks to define what's meant by 'care' in regulations. We've just touched on this. We debated this at Stage 2, and, as I said at the time, I don't see what's to be gained by defining under regulations under this Bill what's meant by 'care'. Subordinate legislation under section 1 will detail very clearly the conditions a parent or a partner of a parent will need to meet in order to qualify for funding under this offer—and this covers parents and guardians who are acting in loco parentis such as kinship carers or foster carers. 

I would urge Assembly Members not to support amendments 6, 11, 8, 19 and 10, which are around widening the scope of this Bill to include parents in training and education. It's absolutely right that we have that in place, but it's outwith this offer. In addition to writing to the responsible committee about the range of schemes I've described already in place to support different categories of parents, I have also asked my officials to look at how best we can draw all of this together and improve the communication around it so that it is clearer to people, whatever their circumstances, what help they can access to support their childcare needs. So, I won't be supporting amendment 9, as it is, we deem, unnecessary. 

I think that concludes, Llywydd. Diolch yn fawr.