The next group of amendments is group 8 and this group relates to statutory instruments and changes to procedures. Amendment 23 is the lead and the only amendment in this group, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the amendment.

Amendment 23 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Following on from Llyr Gruffydd's amendment in Stage 2 of the Bill, we believe that the superaffirmative procedure for the Bill should still be followed, hence the reason why amendment 23 has been tabled.

During the investigations of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee at Stage 1, it was clear that there are serious concerns about the nature of the Bill and the reliance of the Minister on future regulations to provide flexibility. We find that these concerns have been carried forward to both Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the Bill. Quite clearly, the Minister does not intend to routinely consult on the draft regulations, which include important policy directions, such as the offer itself and where it will be directed. Due to the dependence of the Bill on subordinate legislation, through regulations, it is critical that the National Assembly for Wales, and associated stakeholders, are provided with an opportunity to properly scrutinise legislation in this place. 

Both the Children, Young People and Education Committee and CLA committee were in favour of superaffirmative regulations, should less detail be published on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we believe that this should be an inherent part of regulation-making powers, at least from the very beginning of the Bill's application. Thank you.

The Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you, Janet.

From the very start, we've been entirely open about the eligibility criteria for this offer. They've been shared with the committee as part of the explanatory memorandum for the Bill. They are out there now and they provide the basis for, indeed, the live, early implementation of the offer. They're not hidden—they're very transparent. The detailed eligibility criteria for the offer will be set out in subordinate legislation, under the powers in section 1 of the Bill, and will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which I think is proportionate, given the engagement that we have already undertaken and which is ongoing.

So, how have we been open and engaging? I'll list some of the ways. The Welsh Government has made significant efforts to engage with parents and providers and local authorities about the offer. We're continually evaluating and ensuring that lessons learnt from early implementation pilot areas continue to influence and shape and inform aspects of the longer term policy. Indeed, the findings of the first year of implementation was published on 22 November. We've also heard directly from thousands of parents since we launched our #TalkChildcare campaign. And parents are telling us that finding affordable, available and accessible childcare is one of the biggest challenges facing families in Wales. They're also telling us that juggling work and the logistics of early education and childcare is far from easy, as we've heard.

We've also undertaken an extensive engagement process with childcare providers and the umbrella organisations that represent the sector. We are also in the early years of phase 2 of our #TalkChildcare campaign, which will focus on engaging with providers. We are also working with our early implementer local authorities, as they begin to deliver the offer, and they're fully engaged with local authorities who are yet to come on board.

So, I'm not convinced that we need to consult on subordinate legislation under section 1, given that we've placed more detail on the face of the Bill about what we mean by an 'eligible child', addressing one of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's fundamental concerns.

We are already into early implementation of the live offer. This is, in effect, a national consultation on, and a test of, the offer. We aren't embarking on something completely new and unknown here. We are taking reasonable steps to evaluate the offer, there is ongoing and constructive engagement with key stakeholders through our stakeholder reference groups, and we have also listened to what Members have been saying about the need for a review clause in the Bill.

Government amendment 2, which will be debated as part of a later group, group 12, proposes we build into the Bill a requirement to pause and review the effectiveness of the legislation. But can I remind Members again that this is a narrow technical Bill to facilitate the application and eligibility checking process?The regulations that will be made under section 1 of the Bill will detail the eligibility criteria, which will then form the basis for the eligibility checking system.

So, the procedure we are proposing for making these regulations, we would argue, is entirely proportionate, and I would urge fellow Members to join me in not supporting these amendments if they are pushed—this amendment, sorry.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond.

I will therefore move to the vote.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore, amendment 23 is not agreed.

Amendment 23: For: 18, Against: 25, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected