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.
And what is your early assessment of the income levels of families who are finding this offer most attractive?
I think, from recollection, we're one term in, so we're one term into the assessment, and I mentioned earlier that the majority of parents are below the average income of £26,000 in Wales— it's around about 60 per cent of families are those. We're finding very few families are those who are on higher incomes. It's disproportionately towards those below the average income, and many of them amongst the most disadvantaged families are opting in to this offer where it is being offered. So, clearly, they're seeing the benefits of it.