Group 6. This group of amendments relates to the definition of looked-after children. Amendment 10 is the lead and only amendment in this group. I call on Darren Millar to move and speak to the amendment.

Amendment 10 (Darren Millar, supported by Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. The purpose of the very simple and straightforward amendment 10 is to change the definition of a looked-after child on the face of the Bill. Section 13 of the Bill currently defines a looked-after child for the purposes of additional learning provision as a child who is, and I quote, 'not over compulsory school age’.

But the Children's Commissioner for Wales has raised concerns that the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act has defined a looked-after child whom the local authorities have responsibilities for as a child up to the age of 18. She has argued that the difference between these two definitions could lead to some confusion, and could lead to looked-after children who should be benefiting from additional learning needs provisions finding themselves losing out when they reach their sixteenth birthday. I know that that's not the intention. I can see the Cabinet Secretary shaking her head, but I'm simply making the arguments that have been presented to the Children, Young People and Education Committee.

The commissioner was also concerned that duties to prepare and maintain plans for looked-after children could automatically end after compulsory school age, even when it wouldn't be appropriate. She's recommended that the definition be changed to make it consistent with the definition in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act, and that's why I've tabled the amendment today. I urge Members to support it.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the former Minister said, at Stage 2, this amendment is well-intended in its aims to address the children’s commissioner’s concerns, which Darren has just helpfully reiterated, but it is, nevertheless, misconceived.

The approach currently taken in the Bill is, I believe, the right one. The decision to define a looked-after child for the purposes of this Bill as a person not over compulsory school age was taken after very careful consideration. The age at which looked-after children cease to be looked after as part of the progression into adulthood can vary. It might occur at 16, or only when the child becomes an adult at 18, or somewhere in between. So, there is no clear dividing line in the social services system. By contrast, the cut-off line in the Bill aligns well with the education system, using the clear and fixed point of ceasing to be of compulsory school age.

As the dividing line is a known date that dovetails with the transition from compulsory schooling to post-16 education, it allows for better advance planning and avoids changes in the responsibility for the IDP occurring mid-way through a post-16 course. Although sometimes appropriate, generally such mid-course changes are undesirable. Furthermore, it means that the system is the same for all young persons, whether they are still looked after or care leavers or neither.

It’s also important to remember that the line we have drawn affects only the specific processes involved and not—and I repeat, Presiding Officer, not—the substance of the rights of young people who remain looked after. If they have an ALN and are in school or further education, they will be entitled to an IDP. 

The approach outlined in Darren Millar’s amendment, on the other hand, gives rise to an inherent difficulty. Many looked-after children—and, I hope, many, many more—will go on to attend FEIs after leaving school. So, changing the Bill’s definition of a looked-after child as proposed by the amendment would mean that local authorities would continue to be responsible for maintaining an IDP and securing provision for a looked-after person who is attending an FEI.

In the case of most looked-after children with lower level needs, the local authority would have to rely on the FEI to deliver the additional learning provision with only very limited means of making sure that happens or, indeed, monitoring if it does. This is because local authorities have no role in the governance or oversight of FEIs, no powers of intervention or direction in relation to FEIs and no role in funding them. This looser relationship, compared to maintained schools, makes it more complicated for a local authority to maintain an IDP for a young person if that person is at an FEI. As a result, such arrangements could actually risk the delivery of entitlements of looked-after young people being less effective in practice than those of other young persons, and I know that that's not what Darren Millar wants to happen.

I understand Darren Millar’s concerns about the front-line practitioner facing confusions around the definition of looked-after children, but, as I've said, the dividing line currently set out in the Bill is clear and it is unambiguous. If the looked-after person is of or below compulsory school age, the looking-after authority will usually be responsible for ALN matters under the specific provisions of the Bill for looked-after children. If the person is a young person, then the general duties apply. This will be clearer for those delivering post-16 education than the alternative proposed by Darren’s amendment, which would see responsibility for IDPs often transferring during the middle of a learner’s post-16 studies. As I've said, this is something that I am keen to avoid.

The code will be able to contain clear guidance to aid practitioners around the duties and provisions in the Bill for looked-after children and young persons. Indeed, practitioners and experts will have the opportunity to contribute to the development of the code, as I've said earlier in the debate, to ensure its effectiveness when it goes out for consultation next year. For all of these reasons, I consider the clear dividing line between pre- and post-16 arrangements set out in the Bill to be the correct one, and I would urge Members to oppose amendment No. 10.

Darren Millar to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. I've listened carefully to what the Minister's said, and it's certainly not my intention to cause confusion if somebody has gone off to college to do their post-16 studies. I think what we have to remember, though, is there's still a potential for confusion if that individual stays on at school to do post-16 education under the arrangements under the Bill, because, of course, the duty will transfer from local education authorities, potentially, to the governing body of a school, which still can potentially cause some conflict. So, you know, I think we both agree that neither of those things is satisfactory and that, clearly, there'll need to be some very clear statement in the code to be able to deal with these transitions, as it were, from becoming a looked-after child to becoming a young person when it comes to ensuring that there is additional needs provision in place.

Given the assurances that the Minister has given, I'm prepared to withdraw, with the permission of the Assembly, this particular amendment.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Amendment 10 is being withdrawn, and so, if Assembly Members are content, then that amendment will be withdrawn.

Amendment 10 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 58.

Amendment 58 (Llyr Gruffydd, supported by Darren Millar) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 58 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.