Item 5 is a statement by the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services on improving outcomes for looked-after children, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Our vision for children's services is clearly set out in our programme for government, 'Taking Wales Forward', and our national strategy, 'Prosperity for All'. I believe there is a strong cross-party consensus amongst Members of this Chamber that we all have collective responsibility to ensure that care-experienced children are provided with the best care and support available to allow them to flourish in a safe environment and to enjoy the same opportunities as any other child would expect. 

I think there is also consensus that, where possible, children should be supported to stay with their birth families. Our First Minister has highlighted the increasing numbers of looked-after children in Wales as a priority area for preventative action. The First Minister has asked for clear reduction expectations to be set to reduce the numbers of children in care, reduce the number of children placed out of county, reduce the number of children placed out of Wales, and reduce the number of children removed from parents with a learning disability.

Latest statistics show that, at 31 March 2018, there were 6,405 looked-after children in Wales. Over the last 15 years, we've seen the number of looked-after children in Wales increase by 34 per cent. A recent report from the Wales Centre for Public Policy notes that this rise cannot be attributed to austerity alone. The rate of looked-after children per 10,000 population in Wales is 102. However, there is significant variation across Welsh authorities, ranging from 50 per 10,000 population at the lowest, to 191 per 10,000 population at the highest, and, although deprivation is an important factor in this variation, there are also variations in practice. This variation between areas and the general upward trajectory is unsustainable, and local authorities themselves have acknowledged the pressure being placed on children's services and the family courts.

Almost 25 per cent of looked-after children are placed out of county and 5 per cent are placed outside Wales. While there'll often be good reasons for them to be placed out of the area—for example, the need for specialist placements or with wider families and friends—we want to explore as to whether a proportion of these children could be placed more appropriately closer to home. Proposed reduction expectations will span the course of three years, with regular evaluation and monitoring, both quarterly and at the end of each year.

I acknowledge that this is a challenging agenda. However, given the pressures being placed on local authorities and the family courts in an era of dwindling resources, we must take action that will help safely reduce the number of looked-after children in Wales, enabling resources to be re-invested in prevention and in supporting positive outcomes for care-experienced children in Wales. I've been absolutely clear that, if we take a safety-first approach here in Wales, nothing overrides the need to protect children from abuse or neglect. And I've committed to work co-productively with local authorities to develop reduction expectations that are bespoke to each local authority, tailored to their populations and demography.

This approach has been welcomed by the Wales Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services Cymru, who have committed to work with us on this agenda. Working co-productively, a technical group was established, with senior representatives from local government and the third sector. A conversation framework and reporting template was developed ahead of a visit by a small looked-after children engagement team to each of the 22 local authorities in Wales. The framework helped set the agenda and ensure a consistent discussion was had in each local authority, focusing on how they manage their service, their approach to risk, and management of entrance and exits from care. All 22 visits were completed in April and May. The engagement team were very impressed by the scale of work being undertaken throughout Wales to support children and families and to avoid the need for statutory intervention, and discussions held with local authorities were well received.

Conversations focused on the need for collective responsibility for children’s services at a corporate level to support improved outcomes for children. Local authorities were encouraged to demonstrate how they manage the business of children’s services, including information about the practice framework they operate, data about the services provided to children and families, performance monitoring and tracking. Local authorities were encouraged to be aspirational and ambitious in developing their reduction expectation plans. A clear message was given of the need for action to rebalance the system, focusing on prevention and early intervention to support the best interests of children and families. As the officials went around Wales, concerns were raised about potential consequences of not meeting expectations. Local authorities were reassured that penalties were not being considered.

There are clear consequences of not taking action, however. Whilst official statistics on the numbers of looked-after children will not be available for 2018-19 until November, local authorities reported early figures, as of March 2019, which show another potential increase in the number of looked-after children of around 470, leading to a rate of 109 per 10,000 population. To compare this with other UK nations, in Northern Ireland, for example, the rate is much lower, at 71 per 10,000, despite it being more deprived overall than Wales. Based on existing trends, if we were not to take any action, numbers will continue to increase by an average of 6 per cent per year.

Following the visits, all local authorities returned reduction expectation plans by 31 May. Sixteen local authorities have set targets to reduce their looked-after population, representing an average reduction of 4 per cent in each of the next three years. Conversations are under way with those authorities that have yet to commit to reductions. Further visits were being planned to support those authorities in the development of their reduction expectations. Clarification is also required on the plans submitted for out of county, out of Wales and children removed from parents with a learning disability. Whilst local authorities have told us that children are being appropriately placed, authorities are being encouraged to demonstrate their plans for bringing children closer to home.   

Local authorities have consistently highlighted that the judiciary, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service Cymru and health boards also have a key role in supporting reduction expectation plans. We are concerned, for example, that the number of children placed with parents under a care order has increased significantly over the last three years. Further work will be undertaken with the judiciary and CAFCASS Cymru to understand a perceived reluctance in the use of supervision orders, section 76 and the application of the no order principle.

Local authorities and key partners will be invited to a national learning and peer support event in October to learn about the key messages from this work. Local authorities will be encouraged to work together and share best practice that will help reduce the variance in numbers across Wales. This exercise is aligned with the activity continuing under the Improving Outcomes for Children programme and its ministerial advisory group, ably and successfully chaired by David Melding AM, particularly the focus of work stream 1, around prevention and early intervention and safely reducing the need for care. Together, this demonstrates our firm commitment to rebalancing the looked-after children system so that the right support can be provided to enable families to support their own children, and outcomes for those children in care are maximised.

I thank the Deputy Minister for the statement, and also to confirm belief that, you're quite right, there is strong cross-party consensus amongst Members of this Chamber that we all have a collective responsibility to ensure that care that children experience is actually of the best quality. However, you have the levers of power, so it was with significant interest that I read your statement. Urgent measures are needed, because Wales has seen a 34 per cent increase in the number of looked-after children over the past 15 years. In 2017, 23 care and support plans were put in place by children's services every single day. On average, a child or a young person was brought into the care system in Wales every four hours. So, as I'm sure you will agree, it is alarming that the number of looked-after children in Wales has reached a rate of 109 per 10,000 population here, falling behind other UK nations.

So, question 1. Twenty-five per cent of children are placed out of county, and 5 per cent outside of Wales. Now, you have stated that you want to explore whether a proportion of these could be placed closer to home. So, therefore, will you clarify what steps you are taking to achieve this, and will you set a target and a time frame, so that we see a reduction in numbers?

Question 2. You have committed to working with local authorities to develop reduction expectations, tailored to their populations and demography. However, only 16 authorities out of the 22 have set targets to reduce their looked-after population. So, I suppose the question is: why is this, and when should we expect to see targets set for the other six local authorities? As I hope you will agree, we need to see all councils working towards reduction, and if there is no target, I am left wondering how successful the reduction expectation plans will be.

And my final question, Deputy Minister. We know that local authorities are key to addressing the looked-after-child crisis here in Wales. Social services departments are under huge financial pressures. For example, last week, it was reported that Ynys Môn council children's services department overspent its 2018-19 budget by £1.83 million, largely because of a spike in the number of children taken into care, and then expensive out-of-county placements. Therefore, will you commit to providing extra financial support to our local authorities, who report finance issues being the barrier to reducing the number of looked-after children? And would you clarify to me how many additional children you do expect to come under the remit of the already struggling care system? And also, at a time when we see such a crisis in our looked-after children, and lots of pressures on our social care departments, is there really a case for the defence of reasonable chastisement to be removed?

I thank Janet Finch-Saunders for those questions. We are bringing this statement here to this Chamber today because we are very concerned about the rise in the number of children in care, and I think I've gone through the ways that we hope to address it. She is right; there's been a 34 per cent increase over the last 15 years, and we just cannot let this go on. We can't let it go on for the sake of the children, and that is the whole reason that we are doing this—we are putting the children first. And we know that, wherever possible, we want the children to remain in their own homes. So that is the reason behind us doing this.

In terms of 25 per cent being out of county, and some of them being out of country as well, it obviously is much better for children if they can be placed nearer their families, and near their network of local services. The contact that I've had with children who are in care—one of the main things that they say is that they want to keep contact, particularly with their siblings. They just want to see their brothers and sisters. And if you put them a long way away, that is very difficult. So, we are encouraging local authorities to develop facilities within their own areas, on a regional basis, so some of these children who go outside Wales, with very expensive placements, are able to be placed within the country—this country, within Wales. There have been some very good developments on that. The regional partnership boards are actually doing that at the moment, and we have provided them with particular sums of money to do that. So, we are moving in that direction.

Why only 16 authorities? Twenty-two authorities have agreed with our aims. Twenty-two authorities are supportive of the agenda that we have set, but only 16 authorities have actually come up with the reduction that they'd like to bring about. And we're very pleased that those authorities have responded in the way that they have with very sensible well-thought-out ways of preventing children coming into care and rehabilitating children in a very, very positive way. As for the ones that haven't done that, we're still in conversation with them. So, that discussion is still going on.

I think there is an understandable nervousness amongst local authorities about putting forward the numbers that they would be able to reduce, because I think we can all understand that there is a nervousness about putting targets, and so I absolutely understand how the local authorities feel. But we are working with them, and we hope that the other six will be able to come forward, and we can work with them to support a stabilisation of the number of children that are coming into care. Because we have to take some action, and one of the best ways of doing it is for us to work with the local authorities to bring those numbers down. So, we're continuing to work with the six local authorities that, as yet, haven't actually given any numbers.

Absolutely, local authorities are under great financial pressure, and one of the huge pressures, which I think Janet Finch-Saunders referred to, is the huge amount of money they have to pay for some of these out of county placements. So, one of the ways of bringing down the impact on them is to help them to keep the children at home, nearer home, and that is one of the reasons why we've obviously given particular sums of money for the edge of care services. So, every local authority now in Wales has an edge of care service. So, I can assure her that we are very aware of the austerity programme. We've had a big debate about that in First Minister's questions today, and we know that there's a great deal of hardship being caused by some of the welfare reforms that have been brought in. But I really think that we cannot leave this situation to continue. So, we are working very hard at it for the sake of the children. 

I'd like to thank the Minister very much for her statement. As Janet Finch-Saunders has said, I'd just like to reassure her that the cross-party consensus around putting our children first, around these looked-after children being, in a sense, our children as a National Assembly and a national Parliament—that we feel an individual responsibility for them in line with the local corporate parenting agenda. But the Deputy Minister will also be aware that there are some of us who are concerned about playing a numbers game with this particular issue. 

I'd like to begin by asking the Deputy Minister a little bit more about preventative services. You described the way the engagement team went out and have been impressed by what they've seen, but the comments that I'm receiving from the sector and from children and young people themselves suggest that some of those preventative services are very variable. There is an edge of care service in every local authority now, which is obviously to be welcomed, but I'd like to hear a bit more today, Deputy Minister, about what the Government is doing to ensure consistency in those services, how families get access to those services, the kinds of support that they need. I'm not suggesting you need to impose some sort of national model, because what's appropriate in Gwynedd might not be appropriate in Blaenau Gwent, but we do need to have that consistency. 

Because I would put it to you, Deputy Minister, that, in a sense, there's a risk of putting the cart before the horse here; that you're wanting local authorities to agree targets for reducing numbers, but without necessarily having national expectations around the kinds of preventative services, the amount of preventative services that are needed to make that reduction meaningful. Because while I am hugely reassured to hear you say that the Government is taking a safety-first approach, I take that to mean—and perhaps you can confirm that to us—that you would never expect a local authority not to take a child into care simply because they were going to spoil their targets if they did such a thing. But I wonder if you'd acknowledge, Deputy Minister, that there's a risk of putting perverse incentives into the system. We know that people do what is counted, do we not? And if numbers of children or percentage against the population—or however it's measured—is what's being counted, and not the number of children that get effective access to edge of care services, then surely the risk is that there will be people who will do what is counted, and if only the numbers of children—. 

I am worried about those marginal cases, if I'm honest, Deputy Minister. I am worried that there may be pressure on front-line social workers. We've both worked in the field, we both know what it can be like when you've got managers saying to you, 'Well, you know, is it really that serious?' because this service is full, or 'We haven't got an allocation for this.' So, I'd seek some reassurance—and this is your opportunity to repeat, perhaps, what you've already said—that you would never expect a local authority not to protect an individual child because it was going to mess up the figures. I'm sure that that isn't your expectation at all, but I hope you'll acknowledge that there's that pressure.

I was pleased to hear you say in your statement that you would be taking into account the county's population and demography. For example, I'm not sure—and it would be interesting to know—do counties that are smaller geographically end up with more out-of-county placements? It may be easier to find an in-county placement if you're a social worker in Rhondda Cynon Taf than it is if you're a social worker in Merthyr Tydfil, just because of the size of the population that you're dealing with. So, I'm relieved to hear you say that consideration will be given to the different challenges the different local authorities face. You will be aware, through those conversations, and, I'm sure, through direct representations, that some of the local authorities in the north, for example, have real issues with transitory populations—that families will turn up who are already in really serious trouble, and they may not have time to give them the opportunity to have the preventative work in time. So, I'd just like you to reassure us that those kinds of individual issues for local authorities will be taken into account, if you are set on following these targets.

I'd also like to ask what additional resources might be available to local authorities, particularly for preventative services. It is incredibly hard times, and somebody once said to me—and I wish it were not true—there are few votes in looked-after children. There are not many people, when they're making their decision of who to vote for in a local authority election, who are thinking first and foremost about how much the authority is spending on preventative services for children. So, I wonder if you could give some consideration, longer term in the budgeting process, to perhaps some protected resources for this particular area of work—for the preventative, the edge of care, and one step back.

I'm very grateful to the Deputy Presiding Officer for her indulgence. I just want to raise a couple of points really briefly. She's looking at me over her glasses in that way, and we all know we're in trouble when that happens to us.

Yes. Just get on with it. 

I would like to hear the Minister's views today about how we can ensure that the broader public services, not just social services, take their responsibility to looked-after children seriously. I'm thinking of the health service, education services—we know there are still some real issues with looked-after children being discriminated against in schools—and housing. Does the Minister feel that it may be a time to look at legislating around the corporate parenting agenda? I'm aware this is something that is being considered by the Ministerial advisory group, but sometimes we do need to be really firm with organisations around what we expect. 

I have a concern, and I'm sure you do too, Deputy Minister, about children who are in care in Wales from outside Wales, in a very large and increasing number of private children's homes. Now, obviously, those children are not our children in the way that our own looked-after children are, but while they're with us they're our responsibility. I have a real worry about the quality of services provided in some of those homes, and I wonder if the Minister would agree with me that it might be worth considering making the provision of a visiting advocacy service to each one of those homes a condition of those homes being registered, so that we could have some reassurance that an independent individual was going into those homes, seeing how the children were getting on, and being there to be a voice for those children if need be—a proactive advocacy offer. And finally, can the Minister assure us that throughout all of this work she will be paying very careful attention to young people currently in the system and to care-experienced voices? Thank you again, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I thank Helen Mary Jones for that extensive list of questions. I'll try and cover some of them at least. I just want to come up with the most important one, which is that of course we do not expect any child not to be taken into care if they are at risk of neglect or abuse. We want to do this safely, and we want to do it, as I've said already, for the benefit of the children, and that is the reason behind this statement today.

The other point is that no-one is imposing any targets. The local authorities will come up with their own targets. So, if they come up with the targets, they will consider the geography, the size, and will come forward with targets. And as I say, those that have come forward with targets have come forward with very well-thought-out ways that they can actually reduce the numbers, and have got planning for preventing a certain number of children coming in, and reunification for other children where they see it may be possible. I think 16 out of 22 is quite a good number, actually, for those that have come forward with these very well-thought-out targets. But it won't be us imposing it or giving penalties; it's just trying to put some overall structure in trying to stop this escalation of children coming into care, which I'm sure we all agree cannot be the right way to go. So we've got to do something to try to stop it, and trying to do this in a way that is working in co-production, working with the local authorities in order to give what help we can to help them achieve—that is the reason we're doing it.

So I don't think the Member should worry about the use of figures, because it's not a way of forcing local authorities to come up with a number of figures. That's not the way we're doing it. It's giving them the opportunity to come forward with the figures that they think they could safely reduce, and working with them and trying to help them achieve it. So I think that's the most important thing out of all that she's said, because I understand, because as she said, I worked in the field as well, and so I know what pressures there are on local authorities. But there is certainly no possible way that any child should be left not in safety for this reason. So I think that was the main point, so I want to reassure and try and convince her on that.

On the other points, just very swiftly, in terms of the variation around the country, yes, I think that is something that we need to look at, because as I say, the edge of care services, we've given £5 million recurrent investment to the edge of care services, and so far over 3,600 children have been supported to remain within the family unit. Those were the figures for 2017-18. So that is good progress, and obviously there are many other ways that we are giving support, through Families First, through Flying Start, but of course that is only to a limited number of areas, and we certainly see this as a priority area. This is what the First Minister has put as one of his main priorities, and I think it's really commendable that the First Minister has put this at the top of his agenda: let's try and reduce the number of children in care, and let's give them the opportunity to live with their families, if we can put in that extra bit of help. So this is all geared towards that in order to improve the chances of children's lives.

Then I'll just pick up the last point you made, about the worry about a private establishment where there are a lot of children from outside Wales placed. Again, I think that's a huge matter of concern, because although we're responsible for our children who live in Wales, those children are placed a long way away from their families, so they don't have those sort of checks on what's happening. So I certainly think we could have a further discussion about what we could do to try to look at those establishments.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Last week I visited, along with the rest of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the young offenders unit at Parc prison, and to be told that 40 per cent of the young people there were formerly looked after was a salutary reminder, if ever one was needed, of the way that we have to go to improve the outcomes for looked-after children. So, I'm sure that is something that we all very much buy into in this Chamber.

I have to say, though, that I am deeply uneasy with the idea of setting targets or expectations of reduction, or whatever you want to call them, in this field, for the reasons that Helen Mary Jones has just said, really. I think there is always a risk of perverse incentives and of measuring what is being counted. The 2018 UK-wide care crisis review found that there was no simple explanation for the rising numbers of looked-after children, so I think it is fair to say that I and the committee are also concerned that there is unlikely to be any simple answer either, and that's why the committee has written to the First Minister, to ADSS and to the children's commissioner expressing some concerns and probing this issue further.

I do have some specific questions that I would like to ask you. The first is to ask about the recently published Care Inspectorate Wales thematic report on looked-after children, which did not find evidence of children becoming looked after who should not have done so. So, I'd be interested to know what account you have taken of that work in taking this forward. The committee has written to you, as I said, and I won't ask all the questions that were in the letter, because we'll await a written response from the First Minister. But I would ask again the question about who is actually responsible for risk assessing these targets. The onus is being put on local authorities, who also have the statutory duty to keep children safe, and I don't think there's a head of children's services in the country that gets up in the morning and thinks, 'Let’s bring more children into care.' So, I'd like to ask you, specifically, about that and what the role of Welsh Government will be in monitoring those targets or whatever they are to be called.

I welcome what you've said about co-production, although what I would say is, from what I've seen so far, the approach in this does not smack of co-production in the dealings of some of the authorities, and that is a concern and something that I will be wanting to follow. You referred to this being a prime commitment of the First Minister. I'd like to ask whether there’s been a child rights impact assessment done on this commitment, and if so, whether that will be published.

And just finally, on the out-of-county, out-of-country placements, again, nobody wants to see children placed far away from their homes and their communities, but as far as I understand the situation, we just don't have the alternative placements for some of these children. We don't have enough secure placements, we don't have enough low-secure, or enough support for children and young people with emotional problems. And this cannot just be an issue for local authorities; this is something that has to be led by Government, because they cannot plan this on their own. So, I would like to know what the Welsh Government is doing. And we questioned the health Minister on this last week in the Children, Young People and Education Committee. What is Welsh Government doing to make sure that those places are available, to avoid children having to be sent so far from their homes? Thank you.

I thank Lynne Neagle for those questions. I've also visited the young offenders unit at Parc prison, and I think the fact that 40 per cent of those young people placed there have been formerly looked after is an absolute reason why we have to do something about this. And that’s why we're taking action, for that very sort of reason, because that is the consequence of the care system as we've been running it so far. So, I feel deeply committed to trying to stop that sort of thing happening. And, really, that’s why we're doing what we're doing.

I know Lynne Neagle says that she’s uneasy about the setting of targets or expectation of reductions—whatever expression we use. And again, as I did with Helen Mary Jones, I'd like to reassure her that this setting of targets is being done by the local authorities—they are setting their own targets. We are going along to support them and discuss it with them. And the whole purpose of doing it is to do it in a co-productive way. I think further along in her statement she said she felt that it hadn't been done in a co-productive way, so I'd be really interested if she could perhaps explain that to me in more detail, because, certainly, the intention has been for the officials from Welsh Government to work with the local authorities in a co-productive way to come forward with something that is jointly accepted. And with the majority of local authorities, that has happened. So, I'd be grateful if she would discuss that with me.

In the care crisis report, yes, absolutely, I know that there is no one simple explanation as to why there had been this big rise in children coming into care. And I think we'd all agree that it’s a whole mass of reasons, including austerity and poverty and many, many things that you can't pin down to one thing. There isn't, as she says, a simple answer. So, what we can do is do our best to prevent that happening by doing what we can to prevent those children coming into care, stop them coming in, and to help some of the other children to be reunited with their families, to prevent the re-entering of care. For example, in terms of extra resources—which I think she mentioned further on—we have put this £2.3 million into the adoption services, which is tremendously important and has been so welcomed by the sector, acknowledging the huge need there is for support to be given after adoption actually takes place in order to prevent re-entry into the care system, which does sometimes happen when adoptive parents take on very difficult, damaged children. So, I think that's a huge step that this has finally been acknowledged and money has gone in and that money is to support the adoption services.

To go on further with her questions, who was responsible for the risk assessing, well, the local authorities are risk assessing while they're doing things all the time. We are not trying to take away anything from local authorities; we want to help support them to achieve the Wales-wide aim of trying to reduce the number of children who are coming in. We have agreed that there would be regular visits and regular monitoring by the Welsh Government. I repeat the co-production. Perhaps I could have a discussion with her about how she would see children’s rights impact assessments and how she would see those operating in these sorts of circumstances.

And, absolutely, local authorities are placing children out of county and out of country because the places are absolutely not available in Wales. One of the things that we are doing is trying to get the children's agenda on the agenda for the regional partnership boards in order to develop facilities within Wales, and also the ICF fund, which is also being used to develop facilities. Some regions have got plans that have been agreed in order to try to fill in the gaps that undoubtedly exist. She's absolutely right: we have to put more resources in. We are providing resources via those boards. Some regions have already started them.

So, I don't think we should get really too hung up on the numbers thing. It's an overall effort that we want to try to reduce the numbers of children in care and I think what we must do is look at it in an overall way in terms of trying to get a movement in this field, which as I say is rapidly escalating.

We welcome this statement made here today. Things clearly need to change. As said in previous other statements, the number of children under the supervision of local authorities seems to rise every year, and I am interested to know what you think the reasons are for this worrying increase. You've already cited austerity and poverty, but there are many, many other questions that need to be asked. Is it a sign, for instance, of a lack of parenting skills? Are parents getting younger and can't cope? Or is it that we expect higher standards of parents than we did, say, 15 to 20 years ago? My understanding is that this increase is evident across the UK and not just here in Wales. I would welcome your thoughts on that point.

We are where we are, and in terms of those children already being looked after, they will have suffered abuse or neglect and will probably have particular needs that need to be addressed in terms of education, development and emotional support. And they may also possibly have further to go and more to do to get to the same place as their peers from traditional family backgrounds. Any foster parents or prospective adoptive parents will also need a lot of support to make the placement a success. Is that support in place and does it work? It must be heartbreaking for the child and the family if a placement breaks down. Are there any figures available on children returning to a care setting after a placement with a family?

I completely agree that the focus must now be on prevention and local authorities must move from reacting to prevention and early intervention. I congratulate you and our social services on this change of approach. However, every week in this Chamber we hear how hard-pressed, underfunded and under-resourced our local authorities are. Are you confident that the professional staff have the capacity and support that they need to make this change happen, and the numbers of staff, support staff and also the emotional support they need to deal with some difficult issues? I have real concerns that we may be expecting too much in too short a time and end up not getting the outcomes we need for the children concerned, and that has to be the focus.

Finally, I'd like to raise the matter of special guardianship orders. Have you any figures on whether the use of these is increasing? Are the children subject to these orders still classed as 'looked after'? If not, how are their outcomes recorded? Thank you, Minister. 

Yes, well, the Member is obviously absolutely right about the numbers rising every year and, yes, this is something that is certainly happening in England and Wales. It is an upward trend. And the reasons behind it I think are very complex. I think it does include poverty and deprivation, and the impact of the UK Government's austerity programme—I don't think we can discount that having an effect on our most vulnerable families, but I don't think it's the whole picture.

There's no doubt that local authorities are under pressure. The family court system is under considerable pressure and, certainly, some of the practices that have arisen in the family courts have increased the number of children who are staying in care. I did mention earlier in the statement about quite a trend, an upward trend, of giving care orders and placing the children at home. So, the children are under a care order but they're placed at home, and I believe we've got about 1,000 children like that in Wales, who are living with their families but actually are under a care order. But I want to pay tribute to what the local authorities are doing under great pressure, because they're doing a tremendous job and they are safeguarding vulnerable children and they are supporting families. But the reasons are very complex, I think, as Lynne Neagle said. There's a wide range of reasons, and we have got to try to work at them as we can. 

We certainly do need to give help to foster parents and adoptive parents, because they're absolutely key in this system. I mentioned earlier about this £2.3 million that we have given to the adoption service, and that is in order to help support adoptive parents so that we try to avoid the re-entry into care, because with children who are so damaged and have been through such difficult periods, whatever the adoptive parent does, there is additional help often needed. And so that is there, now, as a matter of right, the post-adoptive service. So I think that's a big step in progress. 

I don't think that we can say that we're expecting too much of the local authorities, because it's the lives of our children in Wales that are at stake. So, I think we have to aspire and we have to help them aspire. We could say all the time, 'It's austerity, we're all too pressed, we can't do anything, more and more children will come into care.' But you've got to try and do something, and I think it's right we have to try and do something on a governmental level. So, that's what we're trying to do by taking this forward.

The Minister has been kind enough to refer to my role as chair of the ministerial advisory group, and I remind Members now of my position there. 

Deputy Minister, I think it is important—we've heard really insightful questions and comments, and inevitably they've looked at the challenges, but we should remind everyone that outcomes are good when we get care right, and there are foster carers, there are people running residential homes, there are social workers and there are people involved in the system in health and in the councils as well, politically, that are really taking some good decisions and delivering high-quality care as well as, obviously, this general situation we're in. And I don't think we can ignore the fact that, in the 20 years of devolution, we have roughly doubled the number of children we take into care. And we've not done that in a planned way—it has happened. Members have already said it's happened in other parts of the UK as well, but we do need to look at the current balance and whether we're getting it right—do we shift more to educare and even earlier in the cycle, where families need that early intervention and support with parenting skills, for instance, as Mandy referred to earlier? 

I think another key thing that has to be looked at is the lack of consistency across the local authorities. Now, local authorities with roughly the same socioeconomic position should be in a band that is comparable to others in terms of the proportion of children they're taking into care. And if there's a very significant difference between like counties, then I think that needs explanation. There may be an explanation, but we do need to ask for it.

I think there needs to be more co-operation with the courts. That's clearly part of the dynamic at play here, and that comes also into professional practice, the right social worker being in the court when the case is heard—all these things need to be done if we're going to get a more balanced outcome and appropriate interventions. 

I was also pleased—. I think it was Helen Mary that raised the issue of corporate parenting. This is all agencies; you've referred to the public—I can't remember what they're called now—the boards, anyway—the new regional public boards. That is an important, I think, forum for us, and it's all the agencies, the courts, the police, health, education, housing—all these agencies need to come together. But the political dimension needs to be there—what we are doing, but also our colleagues at local government level, both the chair of the key scrutiny committees and the cabinet members, and we need to draw all the politicians active in this area, I think, into some sort of network.

Can I finally just inform Members, really, that the Public Accounts Committee's done some excellent work looking at the current situation of looked-after children? And they have said that the ministerial advisory group should be more public-facing and, indeed, we are doing that in terms of the reports that we've produced and our minutes becoming available on the website. But also, I was pleased that you agree that we should commit to issuing an annual report and having an annual debate in the Assembly, because I do think that's going to be a key part of ensuring that this important subject remains central in the priorities of all the political parties here, and all have said that this is not an issue that divides us—it has consensus—but it needs an application as well.  

I thank David Melding very much for his contribution, and I'd like to reiterate my thanks for all the work that he has always done over many years, and is doing now on the MAG. So, thank you very much for that.

I think he's absolutely right that the outcomes are good when they get care right, when we've exhausted every possibility for the children staying at home, and then we want to provide them with the best care that they possibly can have. And if we get it right, we know that the outcomes will be good, and we know that we need to put in extra things to make sure that that happens. But I have absolutely no doubt that he's right about that.

The fact that the number has doubled in 20 years, I think, again, that is something that is concerning, because I don't think we really understand why it's doubled in 20 years. As we've said here today, in all the very good contributions there have been, there is absolutely no one way of saying, 'This is why that has happened.' So, I think that is something that we need to look at very closely.

I think he's right that we do need more help with parenting skills, and I think that that's something we are actually looking at quite closely in looking at removing the defence of reasonable punishment. That's something that we are considering and looking at across the whole of Wales to see where there are gaps in terms of helping with parenting skills. But I think one of the good developments, which I know that David Melding has been involved with, is the development of the reflect programme, and I understand there is a reflect project in every region in Wales now, which is for a woman who's had one child taken into care and now is having a chance to have help and reflect, and following that, taking the child into care. I think that's a very good development. The lack of consistency in different local authorities and why there are differences between them is, again, something that should be looked at.

Finally, this issue about politicians—yes, I think it is all our responsibility as politicians. Political leaders in local authorities are seen as the corporate parents, and I know that one of my predecessors in this job, Gwenda Thomas, who certainly has got a reputation to follow—. I was told, when I went into one local authority, that Gwenda Thomas said, when she went into that local authority, that she expected the officers to know the name of every child who was being looked after in that authority. And I think we have a role as politicians, and I know that David Melding has often said that perhaps we're the grandparents of them, the corporate grandparents of the children who we're looking after. And I think we do need to have this awareness and responsibility as politicians that these children are our children in Wales, and that's why I think it's so admirable, really, that the First Minister has put this right on the top of his agenda, which means that the work that David Melding is doing and the work that I'm doing is of absolute crucial importance. So, thank you for those comments, and we'll continue to work together.  

I'm not going to repeat anything that's already been said. We know that the numbers of looked-after children are rising steadfastly, and there are many, many reasons for that. But one of the numbers that does sort of stand out a little bit is Powys, where there's been a 50 per cent increase from April 2017. So, it was 160 children and now, in March, it's 244. Now, that's a fair escalation, and I'm sure there were reasons behind that. The reason I picked that particular one out, apart from it being in my area, is that there was a damning report by Care Inspectorate Wales in 2017, and it said that the children in the county were being placed 'at risk'.

Now, I know that this week they've announced a new framework and that framework is going to be underpinned by more money, because part of the issue clearly was a lack of spending and, therefore, lack of priority in this area. So, that's good news—and I'm going to be positive here—that that was recognised, even if it wasn't Powys council who recognised it themselves. So, I suppose the question here is: how are we going to know, in advance, not after things have gone wrong, that looked-after children are high up, not just this agenda but the agenda of local authorities and other people who are supposed to be delivering those changes positively for them? And could I suggest that, if we insisted that local authorities had to make a declaration or an announcement within their given authority annually and that that report had to become public, at least people would have sight of it and perhaps the council would take some ownership of it, because it would have to be comprehensive and they would have to say how much money they were spending on it. And it might also help focus the minds of all those councillors and those corporate parents in those areas about the importance of looking after looked-after children.

Just finally, it's a really, really good move here from the Assembly that looked-after children who leave care don't have to pay any council tax. So, it's a move in the right direction and, hopefully, it will help some to not end up back in care.

I thank Joyce Watson for those comments and for her comments about Powys, where there has been this rise that she's illustrated. She refers to the care inspectorate report, and I can assure her that we have been meeting with Powys and reinforcing the importance of having this new framework, and I think that that is what is progressing at the moment. But I think she's right about trying to emphasise that the safety of children and the importance of looked-after children should be high up and on the top of the agenda of local authorities, and I would be happy to discuss with her any way that she thinks that this could actually be done. And I'm very glad that she mentioned the council tax, because, obviously, that is another positive move forward, as there have been quite a few positive moves forward that have been carried out by David Melding's group. And just to say, in terms of a response about special guardianship, which I didn't reply to, the numbers of special guardianships have gone up, yes.

And finally, Neil McEvoy.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister—Deputy Minister—I'm really pleased to hear you talking about reducing the number of children in care. The fact that there's been a 34 per cent increase in 15 years is really, really concerning. I'd like to know more about the variations that you're talking about. If there are areas of Wales where the rate of looked-after children is almost three times higher than in the north of Ireland, then I think we really need to know why.

I'm really concerned about the privatisation of looking after children. There are private companies in Wales that don't welcome scrutiny, they don't want councillors to visit the homes—in fact, they refuse visits—and there is a complete lack of transparency and a huge—a huge—profit motive. I've got a case on my books where the child is begging to go back home—begging—but that child is worth certainly £300,000 a year, and it could even be £0.5 million; they won't confirm it, because of the client confidentiality. And so that care home is never going to let that child go—never. I can't go to the children's commissioner, because it's an individual case; I can't go to you—I've tried, but it's an individual case, and—. Maybe the Youth Parliament can help, because these children need a voice. And the case I'm talking about—. Being an independent, I was lucky to have a bigger budget; I was able to employ a really experienced social worker full-time, and it took two months of work to find the paperwork to find that, basically, the child should never have been taken into care. Errors were made and information was not passed across. That case is still ongoing.

But, just to go back to the profit motive, I think it's scandalous. It's pleasing that the president of the family court is making this issue his No. 1 priority. For me, it's disappointing that six local authorities have not given targets, so I was wondering which local authorities they were.

I want to mention as well parental alienation. It affects so many mothers, fathers, grandparents and also parents of children in care. Again, we're back to the profit motive. Lots of people do a tremendous job, but I think that we cannot ignore the fact that these children in some circumstances represent bags of money, and I have parents knocking on my office door telling me that they're being alienated from their children. This issue really does need to be looked at.

In closing, I do want to emphasise I'm really concerned about the lack of scrutiny, the lack of transparency, with private companies making an absolute fortune. If we are the corporate grandparents, give us the opportunity to look after those children and to look after their interests. As it stands now, it's very, very difficult, and we're met with extreme hostility and, indeed, complaints.

I thank Neil McEvoy for those comments. In terms of him asking who are the six local authorities, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to say who those local authorities were, because one of the things we're trying to do is to work in co-production with the local authorities and I want us to work together. So, I think it wouldn't be very helpful for me to name any local authority here today, so I've got no intention of doing that.

In terms of the variations, there are some quite considerable variations between different local authorities and that's one of the things that we're hoping to find out more about in the visits that we're doing, and particularly in the second round of visits. And I think that we will be able to ascertain whether there are particular issues in particular local authorities, which there may very well be. So, we are approaching it in that sort of way. I know that he mentioned the president of the family court, that he was pleased that Sir Andrew McFarlane was taking this very seriously, because I understand that he has said on record that it's his No. 1 priority to understand the rise in the number of care cases. And, although we've had no direct contact with him yet, the Welsh Government intends to liaise with Sir Andrew McFarlane to try to work and get try and get down to the bottom of this rise in cases.

In terms of private provision, what we're trying to do is to try to encourage provision by the local authorities directly and non-profit bodies—voluntary sector—to provide provision. But I do know that in some counties—I believe, actually, in Powys, which Joyce Watson may know—there are—. I believe it's true that there are 13 private establishments there and that there aren't any local children in those establishments. I believe that's correct, but, obviously, this is a situation that we need to look at.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Deputy Minister.