If money was absolutely no object, then I think you'd be looking at quite a different offer, but it has to be affordable within what we've got as well. The fact that parents, including those who are on lower incomes, are used to currently discriminating between providers, not only with childcare settings but also within school settings as well, where very often schools now will say, 'We're doing something extra'—
That may be the case, but it's not fair, is it?
In a pure argument about equity, and if funding was no object and if the burdens of austerity were released and we were told we had money—'You can do what you want'—I think you'd be looking at a very different approach. But within what we have, I think this works very, very well indeed, because it's very transparent for parents who are used to making these decisions. It says, 'Here you have 10 hours of the foundation education offer. You have the additional hours here provided with the childcare offer. But within those additional hours, you may be with a local provider in the middle of Powys that actually says, "Within that we provide everything"; you may be with a provider that says, "Well, actually, we do a whistles and bells thing and we take them out on trips, but it's up to you if you want to come, and here's the additional cost—".' Parents are used to making that decision and realistically, in terms of what we can do with this offer, this is actually—the arguments around this have been well rehearsed both with providers and with parents and we're not getting any concerns that this is going to unnecessarily disadvantage. In a total fairness argument, would you make it universal and with no additional charges? Well, possibly you would. But we work within the realistic—
Or have a lower top-end income limit.