Yes, absolutely. So, that would include remote counselling as in a fashion that we're doing now, but also, as and when some of the restrictions are perhaps removed, looking at an enhanced family therapy, or a therapy approach. So, when we talk about counselling, I think it's important to recognise that there will be some flexibility around this money and it does not necessarily mean that local authorities have to use it on a one-to-one basis. That might not be appropriate for some children, especially our younger children and their families, and they can use that money to provide counselling or therapy—in the widest possible terms—that is the best method to support individual children and their families. But, clearly, we're having to do that in the confines of lockdown and social distancing at the moment. Some of that money can also be used to support the professional learning and the professional development of counsellors, because, of course, they may be being asked to work in a different way and we need to make sure that they have the appropriate skills and abilities to do that.
Thank you. Thank you, Minister.
Dawn, before you ask your final question, I've got a couple of supplementaries—firstly from Suzy, and then from Hefin.
Oh, thank you. My question goes back to the comment you made earlier, Minister, about the number of children doubling—sorry, vulnerable children doubling—after the Easter break, if we can call it that. So, what I'm after is a sense of churn in these establishments. So, was that figure a recovery of a number of children that had been there before the Easter break, and are the people who are there still the same people as were there right at the beginning of the crisis and the lockdown?