Well, Mark, I can only refer to what I said earlier. Our real-life evidence that is accumulating now is showing us examples of where people are making savings and increasing disposable income—as I mentioned earlier, up to £250 per week within some poorer households; so, real-life examples—but also where it's enabling them to make much better choices about when they work because there's more childcare offer available, or, alternatively, to work their childcare provision and their working hours around being able to spend more time with their children, which they currently can't do.
And I don't want to go back over Llyr's questions.
I understand. That's not my focus. I just wondered about the quality of this PPIW piece of work. They said if you had a work requirement, as you do, it would cost £61 million a year on their numbers, substantially less than you're saying, and then they said it would cost £144 million without a work requirement. Now, that implies to me that 57 per cent of the parents wouldn't be working and would continue not working even if there is this available with a work requirement. I mean, are those numbers really credible from PPIW?
It's not quite comparing like with like. Just to draw your attention, Mark, and the committee's attention to that the PPIW analysis was looking at a provision of 38 weeks. Ours is a 48-week option. And the fact that we are having parents already saying to us that their ability to actually extend that into the 48 weeks—beyond the term time and so on—carries advantages that are not picked up in that report.