So, we note that a number of these amendments, or similar ones, were tabled during Stage 2. Amendment 13 and consequential amendment 21 relate to excluding the parents of children who could potentially be eligible for free school meals from paying additional charges. I think we already have sufficient measures in place to safeguard parents against being unreasonably charged, and I would say this is very different from what is happening within the England offer. So, we've issued very clear guidance to providers about additional charges, which Janet referred to. We've published guidance to local authorities as well on what the upper charging limit should be. This will help ensure that any charges being made are within a reasonable range, and it's very different to that position in England, where there's no upper limit.

We will publish revised guidance to strengthen our position, learning from the early implementing period on additional charges ahead of national roll-out of the offer. So, we will learn, we will discuss it with the committee, with the Assembly, learning from the findings of the evaluation. Here, in our offers, providers must take account—must take account—of our guidelines on additional charges. We've said, for example, that parents must have the option of providing a packed meal rather than pay for a meal provided by the provider, and bear in mind some providers do not provide food or do not cook food on their premises, and so on. It varies from provider to provider.

Parents should also be able to opt their child out of paid-for off-site activities and participation in such activities. They cannot be compelled to take part and charged for it. Providers have also been told very clearly that they are not to charge parents any hourly top-up fees for three and four-year-olds who are accessing the services under the terms of offer. This is very different and much clearer in the guidance than in England. If a provider is found to be in breach of this agreement and is charging hourly top-up rates, we will take action. They could ultimately be removed from delivering the childcare offer. And we've also said to providers, Janet, that they should not be treating parents who are receiving childcare under this offer any differently from other parents accessing their services. Providers should not charge parents who access this offer more for any additional elements than they charge parents who are not accessing the offer.

Now, I should say as well we should be careful now not to jump to conclusions at this very early stage in the offer's implementation. In reality, the number of hours of childcare from which a child will be benefiting under the offer is likely to range between 15 and 20 hours per week. In the worst-case scenario, where a child is benefiting from the full 20 hours of childcare per week, a parent should not be required to pay more than £15 per week in additional charges if providers are operating in line with the guidance from Welsh Government. It's likely to be much less, actually, and that's what we're hearing. That's what the first-year evaluation suggested—the majority of providers are not making charges at all there. Now, bear in mind this stands against parents who are telling us first hand, face to face, that they are saving because of the government-funded nature of this childcare—£200 to £250 a week they are better off because of the government-funded childcare.

Now, we will of course keep the issue of additional charges under review—regular review. But, from an evaluation of the early implementation, we know it's only a small percentage of providers who are charging for extras. If we listen to the sector itself—for example, what Cwlwm said in the response to the Stage 1 recommendation—we should not be telling providers what they can and cannot do in terms of additional charges. So, there is a fine balance to be struck here. Our guidance is very strong and explicit, but saying to them 'no charges', well, that has implications, and they wouldn't go with that.

Now, in response to amendment 32, I can give assurances we will be publishing the hourly rate paid to providers in the administrative scheme, so we have every intention of being open and transparent about that. Amendment 33 would require the Welsh Ministers to publish an annual report on the additional fees charged to parents under the offer. Now, look, I've said I'm keen to monitor additional charges as we move forward, and I think this is something we can test sufficiently through our evaluation exercises. In this regard, I'd be very reluctant to support an amendment that places onerous, bureaucratic requirements on the Welsh Ministers where there is no benefit to the people that we serve within this offer. To produce annual reports on additional charges, for example, would be heavily reliant on third sector and third parties to provide the information to inform the reports, putting the bureaucracy on them as well as us, and we'd have no way of guaranteeing the accuracy or the reliability of the data.

So, I'm not prepared to support this group of amendments, on the basis that we are already taking all necessary action—very different from the England offer—to manage and monitor the issue of additional charges. We're already planning to publish the hourly rate in the administrative scheme. The evaluation of the first year of implementation has recommended further guidance to providers to ensure a consistent approach to charging for additional hours across all childcare settings, and this is something we'll do. And we'll also be reviewing our charging structure for the offer before full roll-out in 2020. So, on that basis, we may have a point of disagreement here, but I would urge Members therefore to resist this group of amendments.