That brings us to the second group. The next group of amendments relates to parental eligibility. Amendment 6 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Siân Gwenllian to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Siân Gwenllian.

Amendment 6 (Siân Gwenllian) moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I would like to make it clear at the very outset that Plaid Cymru will be voting against the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill on the basis that we believe in the principle of free childcare. This is consistent with our approach at Stage 1, but we have introduced amendments in order to seek to strengthen the Bill in the hope that they can be agreed, even so late in the day.

Amendment 6 was tabled by Plaid Cymru in order to extend the right to parents in education or training to be included in the childcare offer, and amendments 5, 9 and 10 are supplementary to that. Our amendment 8 seeks to ensure that the right to free childcare for parents not in work is also included in the childcare Bill. We believe that 30 hours a week of early years education or free childcare should be offered to all children between three and four years of age, and that would ensure that children from all backgrounds would have the best start in life.

We have tabled these amendments in order to generate the far-reaching change that is required to the childcare offer, in line with our own vision, and in order to provide us all with an opportunity to vote to extend the scope of this Bill. Perhaps what is contained within the Bill was in the Labour manifesto, but our manifesto as Plaid Cymru went further, because our focus was on the interests of all children. It's appropriate, therefore, that we bring these amendments forward today in order to honour our manifesto commitments.

But even if you don't believe that universal free childcare is the way forward, we move amendment 6 in order to give you the opportunity to express the opinion that parents in education or training should be included in the Bill. We will be supporting amendment 11, although it doesn't go as far as we would like to see, because we believe that it still strengthens the Bill.

Our amendment 9 allows the restriction of the Bill to those who need the free provision, and stops the better off, or the most well off from, from taking advantage of the free offer when they have the means to pay. It isn't fair and it isn't just that this childcare offer doesn't provide for a child whose parents are not in work, whilst making the provision for a child where both parents are working and are earning £100,000 a year. In my view, this is erroneous, it's unjust, and it is wrong. The Welsh Government's childcare offer, as it currently stands, would actually exacerbate the attainment gap.

According to the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, on average, children from the poorest 20 per cent of our society are over 17 months behind a child from the highest income group in terms of language development at three years of age. This Bill does not tackle that issue, and indeed it is at risk of exacerbating the situation, because children where one or two parents are not in work will lose out. The children's commissioner endorses and echoes that view and states quite clearly that children who are not in employment will fall behind as compared to their peers—that's the children of parents who are not in employment, of course.

She supports a universal childcare offer for all three- to four-year-olds and says further that there is strong evidence that, if you invest in early years education and quality childcare, then you will make a substantial difference to the life chances of children from the poorest backgrounds. If you support our amendments today, you will improve this legislation and create that far-reaching change that is truly needed in the lives of children who need support.

Yes, there are other schemes available, and I'm sure that the Minister will refer to Working Wales, the FE financial contingency fund, the higher education childcare grant, and so on and so forth, but there is confusion. People don't know that they qualify for these various schemes. There are no assurances that these schemes will remain in place if the funding sources dry up. And, for me, it makes sense to bring everything together in one simple proposal where everyone who fits into the criteria clearly knows what their rights are rather than having the confusion that we have here. Thank you.

Amendments 11 and 19 have been re-tabled from Stage 2, as we are also disappointed with the Minister's responses about the exclusion of parents who are taking up training for employment from accessing the offer. During Stage 1 of the Bill, there was strong opposition to the limitation of the Bill to working parents only, including concerns about the lack of an evidence base to limit the offer, as well as the exacerbation of achievement gaps and of it lacking in its potential to help prevent children in poverty from falling behind their peers early.

Now, although Plaid Cymru have tabled a very similar amendment, we believe that by limiting this offer to parents who are undertaking training for at least 16 hours a week for at least 10 weeks in an academic year means that Chwarae Teg's concerns about extending it to a universal offer actually run the risk of spreading the offer too thin, and we need to see that addressed. Limiting the hours and weeks would further reduce administrative burdens. The processing of courses that last only several days or weeks would increase the burden of applications. The 10-week rule also allows for courses that run to an academic term to be used. However, we do support Siân Gwenllian's amendment 10, as we would also want to define 'prescribed'.

The Minister's responses so far have just been to repeat the huge array of projects to help parents back into work. However, we remain of the belief that the Welsh Government's insistence on limiting some of these existing projects to parents' postcodes is concerning. While the Minister committed to bring a piece of work to committee on these programmes of support, this does not address the significant gap already present in the provision of free childcare. For example, Flying Start has been criticised by the Children, Young People and Education Committee this year because it misses nearly two-thirds of children who do live in poverty. And how many times do we speak up on behalf of our children in poverty here in this institution? But they are outside very limited Flying Start areas. The Parents, Childcare and Employment programme is also set to end in 2020. Therefore, it will not cover parents seeking help with childcare before the national programme for free childcare is in place.

So, it seems that whilst both the Cabinet Secretary for Education and the Minister have indicated their support for extending the offer, they are not supporting the opportunity to do so through this amendment. Moreover, the early implementer evaluation has noted that 60 per cent of the parents they interviewed said that the offer had provided them with more opportunities for in-work training and learning opportunities. We, therefore, believe that this aspiration should be extended to parents who are actively looking for work through education and training, and I ask all Members to support this amendment.

Temporary exemption periods—amendment 17—again, we've had to retable amendment 17 to highlight our concerns about the reliance of the Minister on the non-statutory administrative scheme to deliver this part of the offer. The amendment covers parents who temporarily drop out of the current eligibility through providing a grace period. We are concerned that despite the calls of the CYPE committee, NASUWT and Chwarae Teg to include this within the Bill, the Minister's responses during Stages 1 and 2 have not been strong enough. By again relegating this incredibly important area to the non-statutory administrative scheme, the National Assembly for Wales does not have the opportunity to debate and discuss how it can operate smoothly on a national basis.

Furthermore, in order to ensure that the pilot areas' provisions are smoothly rolled out on a national basis, parents should be made aware of the Welsh Government's intentions on the face of the Bill. So, Members, please support this amendment.

Finally, on amendment 22—this requires a definition of 'care' to be included within regulations made under section 1. As Suzy Davies will provide more detail about, it is concerning that the Welsh Government has left so much detail outside of the Bill's application, to the extent that some of its sections are rendered actually meaningless. Therefore, we recommend that, at the very least, 'care' is defined clearly within secondary legislation made under the Bill so we know who will benefit from the offer. Thank you.

The Bill, of course, is aimed at getting parents of children of non-specified age into work or keeping them in work by introducing a non-specified period of funded childcare, and, naturally, it needs to be clear what constitutes a 'parent', which it does successfully in section 1(7)(a) by reference to parental responsibility as defined in the Children Act 1989, and then less successfully at 1(7)(b) by including, I quote,

'any individual who has care of the child'.

Now, what is 'care of a child'? I mean, however, in my view, incoherent the Government's definition of 'childcare' might be, 'care' clearly means something else here, as parents are the ones who benefit from others supplying childcare. Now, it doesn't include corporate parenting, as it refers to an individual having care of the child. Does it mean a foster parent, official or unofficial? What does an individual have to do to prove that they have care of the child? I think this subsection is pretty meaningless as it is, and this amendment allows the Minister a way to give it meaning, although I still think it should have been clear on the face of the Bill.

If he intends not to recommend support for this amendment, I just ask you, Minister, to explain how you intend to remedy this weakness, bearing in mind there's nothing in the Bill at the moment that obliges you to bring forward regulation in order to clarify the position. I don't think your simple assurance will be satisfactory, unless it's backed by a commitment and a timetable to fix this problem. When will you bring forward a regulation? Because I don't think an explanation of 'flexibility' is going to work on this one either, because we will all want to know who can claim that they exercise care. Thank you.

I call on the Minister. 

Diolch eto, Llywydd. Thank you very much. 

First of all, let me just begin by saying this childcare offer is very clear on what it's doing. I think some of the discussion here is what is set out on the face of the Bill in primary legislation and what is set out in regulations or in schemes of operation and so on. This Bill is actually very narrow. Just to repeat it: it's the mechanism that sets up the operation of the HMRC to discuss eligibility of parents to apply for the childcare offer. However, I would simply say—and in response to Siân's ambitions for what a childcare offer may look like, what an early years offer might be—there are always discussions around where we go in the future, but I would simply say: for want of the perfect, do not throw out what is the very good. Because the early implementer responses—the year 1 response to this—showed how successful this has been and how well it's been regarded, and the fact that it's putting £200 to £250 in households, some of whom are on the lowest wages as well—so this is working, it's effective. But I understand the aspirations to do more in future and so on, and many of us have articulated those aspirations for what we do in future, but this childcare offer is very clear, the Bill is very narrow. However, some of this discussion is around what's on the face of the Bill and so on. Let me just turn to this: the majority of the amendments in this group, particularly amendments 6, 11, 8 and 5 and consequential amendments 19 and 10, relate to the eligibility criteria for the offer and are closely aligned with some of the responsible committee’s recommendations about opening up the scope of the offer to parents in training and education. Now, we debated this at quite some length at Stage 2 proceedings, and very recently, in fact, I wrote to the Chair and members of the Children, Young People and Education Committee outlining the various schemes available to parents that are outside of the parameters of this offer.

So, let me just briefly remind all Members of that. There are a range of other programmes already in place to provide support to other categories of parent. This includes the parents, childcare and employment programme—PaCE—Flying Start, work-based learning support for non-employed learners, the financial contingency fund for individuals attending further education, and the childcare grant to students in higher education. PaCE is £13.5 million of Welsh Government and European social fund project funding. It targets its services to economically inactive parents right across Wales who consider childcare to be the main barrier for them accessing training or employment opportunities. And since July, it's worked with over 3,400 parents and it's helped 1,100 of those into work. Five hundred and ninety parents have received financial support through PaCE for their children to access registered childcare. This has enabled those parents to undertake training, work experience, volunteering, and to increase confidence and employability skills, which have improved their chances of moving into employment—[Interruption.]. I will in a moment, Siân. It has also paid over £400,000 in childcare costs, not only supporting parents to prepare for work, but helping them make the transition into employment for the first few weeks, and, as I outlined in the letter, discussions are ongoing with the Welsh European Funding Office regarding extending the PaCE project beyond 2020. And the evaluation findings we have as part of this childcare offer will form part of that consideration. Siân.

I just want to know how many of these schemes are statutory and how many are reliant on short-term funding sources?

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.

Siân Gwenllian to reply to the debate. 

Just to formally pursue the point about all of these other programmes—these create huge confusion for people, people aren’t aware of them, and, for me, it would make common sense to bring everything together so that everyone who has children of the ages of three or four does have that right, then, to free childcare.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed.

Amendment 6: For: 8, Against: 35, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 11. Janet Finch-Saunders—amendment 11? 

Amendment 11 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 11 is therefore not agreed.

Amendment 11: For: 18, Against: 25, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected