The next group of amendments is group 10. This group relates to administrative arrangements for the provision of funded childcare. The lead amendment is amendment 26. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the lead amendment and to speak to it and the other amendments. Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Amendment 26 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. We have retabled amendment 26 as this is to help clarify who will be responsible for delivering the childcare offer at the point of national roll-out. The Bill is currently silent on whether it will be the Welsh Government at a central level or our local authorities. While the Bill's regulatory impact assessment mentions that, without the need for legislation, the implementation model delivered by local authorities at the pilot stage could be rolled out nationally. The explanatory memorandum states legislation is needed to create one national application and an eligibility checking system avoiding any differences. Furthermore, the Welsh Government has indicated that its preferred option is to use HMRC as a vehicle to receive and check applications. At Stage 2, I felt that the Minister's response slightly missed the point of this amendment. The Minister noted that there was no gain in restating a duty that local authorities already have, and stated that this existing duty was broader, as it included duties for disabled children and the Welsh language. Whilst I do recognise that, the Bill is still silent about who is responsible for delivering the offer at the national roll-out stage. As a result, the Minister must provide clarity on this matter, as the Bill is meant to be the mechanism by which applications to the childcare offer will be assessed. Currently, HMRC will be responsible for that side of delivering the offer. Therefore, the Minister must confirm whether the Welsh Government or local authorities are to be held ultimately responsible for the administration of this offer.

I also cannot stress enough how concerned we are that the vast majority of the childcare offer will be left to the administrative scheme and is not on the face of the Bill. To do so excludes key details, including ages, hours of the offer, how parents can access the childcare offer, and conditions that providers need to meet. Of grave concern is that the administrative scheme outlined by the Minister will have no legal status and no scrutiny procedure for the National Assembly for Wales.

Both retabled amendments, 27 and 28, cover conditions providers must meet—amendment 28—and how they are to be funded—amendment 27—which are currently left to be determined under the administrative scheme. Some stakeholders who gave evidence to the CYPE committee expressed concern about who would be able to provide the childcare, how payments will be made, and at what hourly rate. The Welsh Local Government Association stated it was necessary to ensure that the roles of local authorities and HMRC are clearly defined in determining post-eligibility arrangements for childcare, so the practical applications of the Bill and the childcare offer are not affected specifically. It was raised that, in England, inconsistencies actually arose after HMRC had checked the eligibility criteria.

Contradictory evidence has been given by the Minister and his officials during Stage 1. While the Minister has asserted that the payment system would be developed separately to the eligibility checking system in the Bill, his own officials stated that Welsh Government would have to work out when local authorities need to know information about eligibility to make their decisions on place allocation for early years education. This suggests that eligibility and post-eligibility arrangements are already being linked. During every stage of this Bill the Minister has repeatedly said that he wants flexibility. However, this need for flexibility, by putting much of the offer's eligibility criteria under the administrative scheme, comes at the cost of fundamental scrutiny powers of the National Assembly for Wales. 

Therefore, it is again welcome that some concessions have been made, but placing the administrative scheme before the CYPE committee in the spring does not mean the same scrutiny processes will be undertaken as it would if it was placed on the face of the Bill. Therefore, more clarity is needed for post-eligibility arrangements to ensure that the new childcare system will operate smoothly. It is clear from the evidence the CYPE committee heard that arranging to pay childcare providers is just as important as ensuring that the application system for the offer is correctly administered. So, I therefore ask Members to support this amendment. Diolch.  

The Minister to contribute—Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I think that helps explain something for me. I think we genuinely have a misunderstanding. What this Bill is about is the checking of eligibility and the application, through the mechanism of HMRC, of eligibility for parents to access the childcare offer. What you were talking about, Janet, then was the aspect of actually delivering the offer. I will be back in front of Assembly Members—well, if I'm still in this post—some time in the future when we come to the full roll-out to do what local authorities have asked us to do, which is then to put in place the structure of how we actually co-ordinate delivery across the whole of Wales. It's separate. 

So, let me just turn to the amendments here. You rightly restate what I've said previously in terms of amendment 26—I don't see what's to be gained by restating a duty that local authorities already have in respect of ensuring sufficient childcare is available within their areas. The existing duty, as you said, is also broader than what is proposed, as it requires local authorities to have regard to the need for childcare suitable for disabled children, and for childcare using the Welsh language.

Amendment 27 seems to be seeking to bring within the scope of subordinate legislation much of the operational detail we're planning to include in the administrative scheme. We're going to learn, we're going to continue to learn, from experience with this offer, and the administrative scheme is exactly the mechanism that gives us the important flexibility to adjust and review those administrative, operational, front-end arrangements as we go. The administrative scheme is not some excuse to hide issues from Assembly Members. I've already brought it forward in framework form to share with Members, and I would genuinely welcome further scrutiny of the scheme in the spring.

In terms of amendment 28, I'd like to reiterate what I've said previously about the need for providers to be registered and inspected to take part in the offer. We've always been clear about that and our reasons for this.

And simply to refer to the remarks you made in closing a moment ago on the previous bunch of amendments: if there are relatives, grandparents and others out there who want to actually make use of this scheme—including in provision for their own children as well as others, because I've seen some very good provision of people operating in houses with six children, two of which are maybe their own grandchildren and so on—they can do that. They just need to register as well. And there are grandparents who do that, I have to say. 

Now, I think we should also keep in mind that there are already a suite of standards that childcare providers are required to comply with. They're fully detailed in our national minimum standards, and they were only revised, in fact, in April 2016.

So, on this basis, with those explanations, I hope that's explained why we can't support amendments 26, 27 or 28.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond. 

I'll therefore move to the vote, please. 

The question is that amendment 26 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 26 is not agreed.  

Amendment 26: For: 18, Against: 25, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 27—Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Amendment 27 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Move. 

The question is that amendment 27 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 27 is not agreed.  

Amendment 27: For: 18, Against: 25, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 28—Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Amendment 28 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 28 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 28 is not agreed.  

Amendment 28: For: 18, Against: 25, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected