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.