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.