The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Siân Gwenllian, and amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the name of Neil McEvoy.

We now move to item 6 on the agenda, which is the Welsh Conservative debate on looked-after children, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Motion NDM7287 Darren Millar

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales;

1. Notes the Public Accounts Committee’s report into care experienced children and young people and the Ministerial Advisory Group for Improving Outcomes for Children Programme’s Annual Report 2019.

2. Further notes that the life chances of looked-after children and care leavers are significantly poorer than those children who are not in care.

3. Regrets that the number of looked after children in Wales has risen by 34 per cent in the last 15 years, and that nearly 10 per cent of children in care have been in three or more placements.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to:   

a) urgently review local authority plans on reducing the numbers of looked-after children;  

b) assist local authorities in recruiting 550 Welsh foster families to cover the gaps found by the Fostering Network;

c) investigate financial and rehabilitative support available to adoptive parents; and

d) ensure the roll out of access to free positive parenting courses to be offered for all parents and guardians across Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Care-experienced children and young people in care are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Nearly two thirds of those individuals are in care, sadly, because of abuse or neglect. Now, there is a declared interest already across the floor here in supporting looked-after children, whilst also, too, looking at safely reducing those numbers.

Even the First Minister of Wales did make a pledge in his leadership manifesto to ensure that the problem is gripped and resolved. Unfortunately, however, the situation in Wales currently is slipping out of control. There are currently 6,845 children aged between 0 and 18 looked after by local authorities. This is a 2.1 per cent—21 per cent, sorry—increase since the end of the last Assembly term, in March 2016, and there has been a 34 per cent rise in the last 15 years. Wales had 109 looked-after children per 10,000 by the end of March last year, compared with 65 per 10,000 in England. Similarly, Northern Ireland and Scotland have recorded less serious rates, and the Commission on Justice in Wales has noted that what is striking is the marked and continual increase in the rate in Wales, and the widening gap with England.

I fear that Siân Gwenllian, our colleague Assembly Member, is right—the policy of local authority reduction targets is a superficial solution. In fact, evidence points to that Wales is not getting to grips with the root causes of children ending up in care. The strategy does not seem to be working, so we need to urgently review the plans and programmes of assistance for children and their families. 

Now, I'm all for prevention and early intervention, and appreciate that many of you are too, such as the ministerial advisory group, which has reinforced moves towards prevention. Importantly, the Public Accounts Committee's report highlighted that there is an opportunity to better use preventative spending to secure better long-term outcomes for our children. However, there is still room for improvement. For example, whilst £5 million was given to 22 local authorities to provide edge-of-care services in 2017-18, the justice commission in Wales has been sceptical about the success of the expenditure to date. Concern has also been raised by the Association of Directors of Social Services, they say the limited moneys councils have available is increasingly being taken up with the provision of the urgent help for children and families already at crisis point, leaving very little to invest in early intervention. Personally, I commend the success of the Troubled Families programme launched by the UK Govenrment in 2012. It has seen a 32 per cent difference in the proportion of looked-after children. As Professor Jonathan Portes of King's College London stated, the

'most...significant impact of the programme is to reduce the number of children going into care'.

For those children who do enter the care system, the Welsh Government has a long way to go on improving life chances for these children. In terms of education, at key stage 2, just 58.3 per cent of looked-after children achieve the core subject indicator, compared with an 87.8 per cent average across Wales. At key stage 4, just 10.9 per cent achieve the core subject indicator, compared with roughly 60 per cent overall. Those facts come despite our current First Minister having co-published the 'Raising the ambitions and educational attainment of children who are looked after in Wales: Strategy' in 2016. Progress may be achieved by considering the Skolfam initiative in Sweden and introducing a looked-after children premium. 

Now, in terms of mental health, NSPCC found that looked-after children are five times more likely to suffer from any mental health disorder, and nine times more likely to have a behavioural disorder. And, a recent study by Cardiff University showed some truly shocking facts about young people in residential care, such as: they have the lowest mental well-being score; 56 per cent have been exposed to bullying; and a greater percentage of them have been found to be drunk and used cannabis in the last month than children not in care. Now, whilst the Welsh Government has committed further investment into the emotional and mental health of all children and young people, I cannot overlook the fact that we in the CYPE Committee felt it was unclear. We need to know how much exactly is being targeted at looked-after children specifically. How is this being monitored in terms of its impact on delivering the 'Mind over matter' recommendations? In terms of a brighter future, findings by the National Audit Office and the Children's Society highlight that care leavers are at increased risk of homelessness and poverty. 

Wales can and should facilitate better futures for our children than this, and there are steps that we can take. For example, again, the Public Accounts Committee's report recommended that all care-experienced children are routinely made aware of their right to an advocate and provided with clear information about how to access the range of available advocacy services. These are not big asks, but they need to be in place. However, TGP Cymru recently found that only 5 per cent to 10 per cent of children's homes run by the private sector have residential visiting advocacy arrangements in place. So, we should also act on the calls made by the Children's Society to help ensure that Welsh local authorities are identifying European national young children in and who have left their care, so that they can be supported with securing their status or citizenship if required. Similarly, we need to support placements. The Fostering Network has reported that Wales needs another 550 foster families to ensure that children get to the right home first. If we do not achieve this, some children face being split up from their own siblings. Local authorities have started joining the recruiting challenge, but your Government needs to be doing more to assist them.

The same is true in relation to adoptive parents, which does bring me to my final point. I have a constituent who has one foster child and one adopted child. She desperately, passionately wants to incorporate the foster child into the family and become an adopted parent. Upon asking her whether this was going to happen she said 'no', and this was simply due to the significant decrease in support that would follow. Quite often, when people move from the fostering model to the adoptive model, you're very much on your own to get on with it, and it doesn't work like that. The support should still be there for adoptive parents to keep those families together, and I've actually dealt with two other cases where siblings have potentially faced being separated because adopting siblings can be quite intensive in terms of support requirements. There is no duty on anybody to support adoptive parents. So, I ask you, Deputy Minister, to really look at this and let's try and get more of our children, where needed, into adoptive parent situations.    

The situation for looked-after children in Wales can be quite depressing, but I have hope for the future, and I have hope for these children. Working together cross-party here and elsewhere, I actually believe that our motion today speaks common sense, it is what is required, and it would be really refreshing if the Welsh Government could support our motion today. Thank you. Diolch. 

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. I call on Siân Gwenllian to move amendment 1, tabled in her name.  

Amendment 1—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion:

Recognises that there are complex reasons behind the increasing levels of children in care, but believes that the expectation on local authorities to set targets in order to address the problem is a superficial solution.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is huge concern, of course, about the increasing levels of children in care in Wales, to such an extent that it formed a large part of the Thomas report, looking at the justice system. In that report, they highlight the fact that the percentage of children receiving care in Wales is quite a bit higher than in England and Northern Ireland, and we heard some of the frightening figures quoted by the individual who moved the motion. What is remarkable about the figures is the substantial and ongoing increase in that percentage in Wales, and that the gap between Wales and England is growing. It is worth drawing the Senedd's attention to the assessment and recommendations made in the Thomas report on looked-after children, and therefore I urge the Government to respond formally to those recommendations, and particularly to give consideration to the urgent steps and the short-term recommendations that are made.

According to professionals working in this area, there are a number of reasons for the substantial change in the needs that are emerging in this area.. There's no denying that, as a background to all of this, there are years of poverty. The austerity policies—the policies by those who proposed this debate—are the background to all of this. There is no denying the impact of austerity. There are other changes, of course. Changes in society certainly form part of the picture, as well as emerging issues. For example: county lines, problematic and inappropriate sexual behaviour, use of social media, online abuse, and so on and so forth. Historically, these weren't prominent factors, but of course they are now.

The Welsh Government has asked local governments across Wales to formulate plans to reduce the number of children in care, and those are to be welcomed. They could give a focus to services, recognising the changes that have emerged too. But, as I have said previously, numerical targets aren't an effective means of reducing the number of children in care. As we say in our amendment, numerical targets in and of themselves are a superficial solution in tackling this particular problem. I do think that that is now accepted, and that there is now a better understanding of that within Government than there was just a few months ago, and I do welcome that.

We need holistic solutions: preventative work; more funding for mental health services; and a multi-agency focus within our schools. Reducing numbers does require comprehensive solutions. We may need legislative changes. We certainly need to look at the courts processes, and we need to look at how kinship care is different in Scotland to the situation in Wales. We need to look at placements with parents, where the child would live at home with a parent with a care order and with support, but unfortunately, in some areas, the courts are very reticent in agreeing to that. Certainly, we need substantial investment in preventative services, and short-term grants aren't sufficient in maintaining those services. So, I do welcome what the PAC and Thomas commission reports state, namely, that we need to make whole-system improvements in order to provide timely services to families so that they are supported in staying together, with the ultimate aim of reducing the number of children in the care system.

Before I conclude, I would like to mention one other issue this afternoon. I would like to thank the Children's Society for contacting some of us to talk about the thousands of European children who are in care in the UK. Now, legislative changes in light of leaving the European Union could create problems for children in care, particularly as they become adults, as some of them will need new documentation to secure their status. So, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Welsh Government. One, do you have any idea how many children in Wales fall into this category? And secondly, what can you do to assist local authorities, who are the corporate parents, to identify those children and to ensure that these applications are made? It's extremely important that this cohort of children receiving care don't fall through the net. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled in his name? Neil.

Amendment 2—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that:

a) a well-recognised route out of care is via good quality contact between looked after children and their parents;

b) contact ought not to be reduced or restricted for the convenience of paid care providers; and

c) restricted contact can retain children in care for longer than necessary.

Amendment 3—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Recognises that care leavers who become parents are also at risk of discrimination and that all looked after children's cases might usefully be revisited to check for any history of discrimination against parents that contributed to their child remaining looked after.

Amendment 4—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Recognises that the profit motive should be taken out of children's care and that private companies are not best placed to serve the interests of children in Wales going forward.

Amendment 5—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Demands that children who allege abuse in care are taken seriously and that they are provided with an advocate, spoken to by a child protection specialist in a place of safety in order to go through the issues they have raised.

Amendment 6—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Recognises that investigations of complaints disputing facts in intake and assessment reports in relation to looked after children need to be totally independent and not paid for by the county council about whom the complainant is complaining.

Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is probably—well, not probably—the most significant area of concern for me over the last, probably, two to three years. The Chamber may not know that I employed a very experienced social worker because of the amount of cases that I was getting in terms of looked-after children especially.

Amendment 2 is very straightforward. It says that a well-recognised route out of care is via good quality contact between looked-after children and their parents. It's very straightforward. It says that contact ought not to be reduced or restricted for the convenience of paid care providers and that restricted contact can retain children in care for longer than necessary. Now, I understand that not everybody in the Chamber is going to support this amendment—I find that very surprising. Because what is happening is that contact is being restricted between children who want to see their parents and parents, because of the private—very often—care providers. So, it's not in the best interests of the child; it's in the best interests of a private company. So, I would ask everybody to support amendment 2 there.

Amendment 3: it recognises that care leavers who become parents are also at risk of discrimination and that all looked-after children's cases might usefully be revisited—it's a key point—to check if there's any history of discrimination against parents that contributed to the children remaining looked after. I've got a number of people in my mind here—a number of mothers in particular—who I think have been treated disgracefully, to be perfectly frank. What you see here, as well, is basic class discrimination. What this amendment asks is that these cases are looked at in light of recognition of discrimination that could actually be happening. And my view is that it certainly is happening, because I think when you've—[Interruption.] Yes.

I note your amendment with alarm, I have to say, and I won't be supporting it, because first of all, I can't see that you've presented any proof whatsoever to say that (b) is a valid amendment. And also, my experience of what people—having spoken to children in care and taken cases, very often, that contact is removed because it's best for the welfare of that child; it's never removed otherwise.

I'd say, with respect, that you're wrong, and I can see nothing wrong with saying that contact should not be restricted by an agency, especially when children want contact with their parents.

The amendment you didn't speak of there is the justice angle. What is wrong with reviewing cases where there could have been discrimination? The case I'm thinking of where contact has been restricted is because the parents are complaining, and the child is complaining of abuse in care. That's another amendment—we'll come to that now.

This may be controversial for some; it's not for me. The profit motive should be taken out of children's care, and I agree 100 per cent with the Children's Commissioner for Wales, and I hope everybody supports that amendment. Because people are literally becoming millionaires on the basis of—. The huge amount of money that is charged to local government—£300,000, £0.5 million, depending on a child's needs.

Amendment 5, and I hope that nobody opposes this amendment. This demands—and that's the right word to use—that children who allege abuse in care are taken seriously; that they are provided with an advocate; and they are spoken to by a child protection specialist, in a place of safety in order to go through the issues that are raised. Now, if there's anyone out there not supporting this, then they need a damn good reason, because I'm telling you that this is happening. And if anybody thinks it's not happening, come into my office and you can speak to parents and you can see the records.

Amendment 6 deals with the complaints process, and the Welsh National Party believes in individual sovereignty, enabling people to have control over their own lives. If you have complaints in about children's services—intake and assessment, in this case—the person who does the investigating is paid for by the council. They're called independent, but they're not because they're paid for by the council that they're supposed to be investigating. What generally happens is that the complaints do not receive the amount of attention that they should do.

I just want to turn very briefly to point 2. If we're serious about getting children out of care—and a colleague over there just spoke against this—good-quality contact is necessary between the parents and the children. And what this says here—. It's not a question of you saying you don't believe this is happening, but where contact is being restricted, for the convenience of a private company, what this amendment says is that that should not be happening. What we have here in Wales—I'll finish now, Dirprwy Llywydd—is a system where children's rights are routinely ignored. What I'm coming across in my casework, one particular case, is an abuse of human rights. We all come in here week in, week out, we say the same old things—most I agree with, to be frank—but there are really concrete cases that need addressing. And I won't be supporting Plaid's amendment because I think action should be taken, and I can see no other alternative, at the moment, other than what the Minister is trying to do via targets. Diolch yn fawr.

Wales has some of the highest rates of looked-after children in the United Kingdom. More than 6,800 children aged up to 18 years old are currently looked after by local authorities in Wales. It is a stark fact that over the last 15 years, the number of looked-after children has risen by 34 per cent. The figure is far higher than in England or Northern Ireland. By the end of March 2019, Wales had 109 looked-after children per 10,000 people. This compares, on the latest figures available, to 65 per 10,000 in England and 71 per 10,000 in Northern Ireland. The Commission on Justice in Wales commented on this last year and said, 

'What is striking is the marked and continual increase in the rate in Wales and the widening gap with England.'

Another aspect of this issue is that the rate varies wildly between local authorities. In Carmarthenshire, figures show that there are 49 looked-after children per 10,000 people. In Torfaen, the figure is 216. Studies show that there is a clear social gradient where children in the 10 per cent most deprived areas were found to be 16 times more likely to be subject to child welfare interventions than those in the 10 per cent least deprived areas.

The Wales Centre for Public Policy concluded that there were four main contributing factors to the number of children in care. One of the factors identified is deprivation. This is important because outcomes for young people in care are generally poor—poorer than those for children outside the care system.

Educational outcomes are also of particular concern. Just 59 per cent of looked-after children achieve the core subject indicator of key stage 2, compared to a Wales average of nearly 88 per cent. At key stage 4, fewer than 11 per cent achieve the core subject indicator, compared to an overall figure of roughly 60 per cent. Those Welsh young people who have left care—23 per cent have no qualification whatsoever.

Estyn's chief inspector has also noted that the poverty gap has not narrowed. Differences in attainment and attendance between pupils from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds have not closed over the last decade. We need to break this cycle of deprivation as a matter of urgency, Presiding Officer. Over the last 10 years, the Welsh Government has implemented numerous programmes to prevent children entering the care system. The Flying Start scheme targeted children up to the age of four at a cost of more than £690 million since 2006 and £290 million was spent on Families First since 2012. Neither of these programmes have managed to stem the increase in looked-after children. The budget for 2020-21 has proposed extra resources to address this problem. It allocates £2.3 million from extra health funding into the adoption service, as well as £900,000 on exploratory work on an integrated approach to supporting looked-after children in education.

While this is a good start, we believe that the Welsh Government needs to go further to support those children in care. We would introduce a looked-after children pupil premium to support—[Interruption.]—to support the children who are already facing huge gaps in educational attainment. Presiding Officer—[Interruption.] If you want to ask something, Kirsty, you're very welcome.

Deputy Presiding Officer, looked-after children and care leavers are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. I call on the Welsh Government to ensure that looked-after children have the same life chances as those who have not suffered adverse childhood experiences. We all have children. Children need safe, healthy—to have an opportunity in their future lives, so that they become law-abiding citizens of the country. That not only creates the best society, but it also creates the best economy. We all are working towards it. I hope that this Government listens and makes sure that our children are looked after properly by everybody who cares for them. Thank you.

I want to start my contribution by acknowledging that there is a strong cross-party consensus in Wales that we all have a collective responsibility to ensure that care-experienced children are provided with the best care and support available. Last week, Deputy Presiding Officer, I asked the Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles AM, a question about the European Union settlement scheme. It is an area of interest that I would like to follow up today.

The Welsh Government has allocated £224,000 to the Welsh local authorities to support European Union citizens applying to the EU settlement scheme. The proportion of that funding to Caerphilly County Borough Council is £9,500, based on an estimate of 3,000 EU citizens in that local authority. So, today, I have written to the council to ascertain how many of the 435 care-experienced children are European Union citizens, and what the authority is doing to ensure that their status within the United Kingdom is safeguarded. So, I would be keen to further my understanding—if the Minister can—as to what actions the Welsh Government is undertaking to support and ensure that local authorities such as Caerphilly identify children who are eligible for the European Union settlement scheme.  

Statistics show, as has been stated, that the number of children in care in Wales is continuing to increase, as is the case across the United Kingdom. Over the past 15 years, the number of care-experienced children in Wales has risen by 34 per cent, and this is a fact that should cause us all a moment to pause. There are a number of factors, though, that are driving this trend, including poverty, deprivation, and the very real impacts of austerity and welfare changes. We cannot ignore that. The introduction of the bedroom tax, benefit cuts and freezes, and the reduction on universal credit rates in particular, have hit the poorest families in Wales the hardest. We know that money issues are the biggest driver of family break-up, mental health deterioration and a drive to substance abuse. So, I'm heartened that the Government here has made this issue a priority.

I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has invested an additional £9 million a year to expand the support for care-experienced children since 2017. This funding has meant that edge-of-care services are now in place in every local authority in Wales. It has led to the establishment of the groundbreaking St David's Day fund, which has supported almost 2,000 care leavers in their transition to adulthood. And it has provided for the roll-out of the Reflect programme throughout Wales, which supports young parents whose children have been placed in the care system. We know that this is important. A further £15 million is being invested over the next two years via the integrated care fund to expand preventative and early intervention services. This will help ensure that families receive seamless family-centred services that help support them to stay together.

These are practical support-based initiatives that work. We all need 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 enjoy the same opportunities as any other child would expect. We are all corporate parents in this Chamber with this lens. To that end, we must acknowledge, surely, that this era of UK Government policy of austerity is damaging to the opportunities and life chances of the very poorest and most vulnerable children throughout Wales and the UK.  

I thank the Welsh Conservatives for tabling this important debate. Sadly, the number of children taken into care has doubled in the past 20 years. And, while the needs and safety of the child must always be the only priority, we must do all that we can to reduce the number of children taken into care. Because, as the Welsh Conservatives' motion rightly points out, the life chances of looked-after children and care leavers are significantly poorer than those of children who are not in care.

I also agree with Plaid Cymru that setting superficial targets is not the answer. We have to take strong positive steps to prevent children being taken into care in the first place; take steps to ensure that we have a well-resourced and supported foster care network for short-term care needs; and make adoption much easier for adoptive parents. 

And I'd like to comment on the opening speech of Janet Finch-Saunders, where she said about the transition from a foster parent into adopting. I can relate to that through a constituent who told me of his experience. They had one biological child and wanted another. It wasn't possible, so they adopted another little child, for company as well as being much loved. The little child showed signs of mental health issues early on, but the support network wasn't there, and to this day, the family of this little girl have struggled, really, to cope. So, because help was not forthcoming in the very early stages, the whole family now has been traumatised because the deterioration of the mental health has impacted on the life of the family, and it is an ongoing—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

I appreciate your intervention, Caroline Jones, and I take your point, and I just want to add that, actually, the other thing that happens is that a looked-after child is finally adopted, that support disappears, and then it leads to complete adoption breakdown. I know in my own constituency I have dealt with complete adoption breakdowns at least half a dozen times, and they are truly heartbreaking for all of the people involved.

Thank you, Angela. It's totally disrupted the whole family's life, you know?

So, as we take steps to improve the life chances of those in long-term care, whether that is in a care home or with a foster family, the Commission on Justice in Wales stated that children’s interests are being neglected in the family courts and were concerned at the very high numbers of children being taken into care. So, whilst I don't always agree that devolution of justice is the answer, the Welsh and UK Governments, I believe, must work together to understand why we have such a high number of children being placed in care, and take action to ensure that Wales doesn't become the UK nation with the highest proportion of children in care. Aside from tackling—

Will you take an intervention? Very briefly. Would you acknowledge that children who are placed into a care-experienced child's situation, they are not in that position lightly, and that there is a whole process that is undergone, and it is the last possible part of that process before a child is taken into care?

Well, sometimes it's a last resort, but what I was saying is, I think that more prevention is needed to ensure that children are not taken into care in the first place. And I don't think that support network is there. So, I agree with you—sometimes, but not totally, Rhianon. Thank you.

So, where was I? I'd said that the Welsh Government and the UK Government must work together to understand why we have such high numbers of children being placed into care, and take action to ensure that Wales doesn't become the UK nation with the highest proportion of children in care.

So, aside from tackling the rise of children being taken into care, the Welsh Government must do so much more to improve the outcomes for looked-after children. We have to break the cycle of a poor start in life leading to poor life chances. There is some fantastic work being done across Wales, but due to pressures in manpower and finances, these are the exception rather than the norm. We all know that prevention is better than a cure, we have to do everything we can to ensure that these adverse childhood experiences do not stop children in care becoming healthy, active and productive adults. We know only too well that children in care are less likely to achieve good educational qualifications, have greater health issues, well-being and housing needs as adults, and have a greater risk of becoming substance misusers. By investing in mitigating these risks, not only do we improve the outcomes for the individual, we improve our society as a whole.

As I said earlier, there are excellent examples of great work being done, and I would like to highlight, once again, the work of Roots Foundation Wales in my region. They are a volunteer-led charity based in Swansea, which aims to support young people in care, care leavers, children in need and adults who have left care with a transition period of independent living. They very successfully help young people transition to life outside the care system and they teach the skills needed for independent living—skills that most of us learn from parents, but that, sadly, due to a whole range of pressures, children in care do not sometimes gain. What Roots Foundation Wales do should be par for the course and charities such as these shouldn’t need to exist, but I and the hundreds of children they have supported are glad they do. However, we owe it to the nearly 7,000 children in care to do so much more. I urge Members to support this motion.

Thank you to everyone taking part in this debate. I think it's been very interesting so far, and I appreciate that perhaps the main thrust of it is about reducing the numbers of children in care in a safe way, but in discussing life chances, which I think is point 2 of our motion, I think we do need to look at the relationship between looked-after children and the education system in which they find themselves and about how the needs of those children are met. It's not a stand-alone issue, of course. The ability of any child to get anything from the formal education system to improve their life chances of course, as Caroline Jones said, can be compromised by a host of childhood experiences, but it is for the system to respond to the needs of the children and, actually, the role played by other important people in that child's life, rather than the other way around. 

So, the first question I want to ask is: how confident are we of how well foster carers are supported and how well they are trained and encouraged to find out the best ways to help the child that's in their care get the most out of their education? This has already been mentioned, but our children's committee did some very hard-hitting work a few years ago on the lack of effective post-adoption support for new parents, but I think the same is going to be true for those long-term foster placements—not the shorter ones, but the longer term foster carers, including kinship carers who, of course, are going through their own mixture of very complicated emotions relating to their own family. So I just want to make the point that point 4(d) of our motion is not just about a child's safety and, perhaps, their behaviour, it's about recognising that school can be one more place for a looked-after child to feel lost or misunderstood, unsupported, miserable and out of place, even in those schools that are the most switched on to the extra needs of looked-after children. So, can we just be sure and ask ourselves that question as to whether foster carers have all the tools they need to fight a child's corner with that child's school? As we've heard already, educational outcomes for looked-after children are poorer than for their peers. I'm not going to rehearse that again. 

We should of course be pleased that 23 per cent of looked-after children are now achieving their five good GCSEs. That's considerably up in the last eight years, but we still have 23 per cent of those children who leave with no qualifications at all. How has that happened? What has gone so right and simultaneously so wrong, because behind those figures are some others that should worry us. We've already heard that 10.9 per cent of looked-after children—that's a very small proportion—are reaching that point to be reasonably expected of a 16-year-old. So I'm wondering will we now see a drop in that range of—[Interruption.] Yes, by all means. 

Thank you. I totally understand the aspiration behind that and totally share that aspiration in terms of that threshold figure around GCSEs. Would you also acknowledge that there is a wide range of ability and, for some children, being able to attend school and come out of school intact is a major achievement, and that it's not all about qualifications?

I completely accept that point, but if you're in a world where qualifications mean so much, we need to be acting in a way that doesn't artificially prevent children who have care experience from being able to access that and getting the most out of qualifications if they can. So it's certainly not a position that everyone's got to have 6,000 GCSEs, regardless of their background. 

Nevertheless, I think this is an important point, Rhianon. The children's commissioner herself has pointed out that 43 per cent of children who are looked after or have been looked after aren't engaged in education, training or employment at the age of 19, and that's despite some of them now having pretty good GCSEs. And it does compare with 5 per cent of their peers. So, while qualifications absolutely aren't the only thing we should be thinking about, it does matter that the children who can get them do get them. What contribution does it make to your well-being if, after a lifetime of school, you emerge without a single qualification? How easy it must be to write yourself off when you've barely started on your adult life.

The Minister for Education, of course, is putting well over £100 million into the pupil development grant. I imagine you're frustrated with progress a little bit on the outcomes for our most deprived children, including our looked-after children. Estyn point out, of course, that provision is very variable, so that maybe is something where we can have some ministerial oversight. But your version of our looked-after children premium is going to consortia; you mentioned that yourself just a few weeks ago. I'm quite keen to find out how much money is going directly to schools to help them help looked-after children negotiate the new curriculum, and contribute to a whole-school system that really nurtures looked-after children, because online resources are one thing but teachers need time to assess and use them.

Deputy Minister, I think this is where some cross-Government work would be useful. Ministers and Members have talked about ACEs for a long time, and I was a bit disappointed to know that it's only now that a holistic approach, which Siân Gwenllian mentioned, to children and education specifically is being explored, when well-being and the capacity to achieve potential are well interwoven.

I just want to finish, Dirprwy Lywydd, on the point that Janet Finch-Saunders raised about the Skolfam programme developed in Sweden—and the Welsh Government love Sweden—which is a system for children in foster care, based entirely on multi-agency commitment and mapping. It saw the attainment of participants improve considerably and results in standardised tests improve significantly. But what mattered to me was looking at the number of young children who achieved the required results to attend post-16 education: we go back to life chances. A hundred per cent on this scheme achieved those grades compared with 67 per cent of children in care who did not. Now, that 100 per cent of children, that's 100 per cent of them reassured that they had a future that defied their past, and I think that's the kind of ambition we need to be looking for here in the Welsh Government.  Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

When we refer to looked-after children, we mean those children and young people looked after by the state in a manner described under UK and Wales legislation, whether that be in state institutions or under some form of fostering arrangement. Looked-after children and children living in state care remain, unfortunately, one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. The number of children subject to care proceedings has increased substantially over recent years, and the majority entering care due to alleged parental or family abuse and neglect.

It is an unfortunate fact that, compared to their peers, looked-after children generally have poorer outcomes in relation to education and mental health, as has been mentioned several times earlier, with many experiencing isolation and continued vulnerability whilst in care. Despite some improvement in the care system, many young people still go on to have poor life experiences when leaving state care, which include problems in relation to poverty, lack of suitable accommodation and employment. 

It is therefore vital that the removal of children from a family home should always be the last resort. It is understandable that social workers err on the side of caution, given the condemnation of some decisions made by their colleagues in recent high-profile cases. However, it is also a fact that an over-zealous approach can sometimes act against the best interests of the child, and therefore the family. 

The First Minister in his election address to the post he now occupies realised that too many children are taken from families in Wales. He also alluded to setting targets, a target for each local authority to reduce the number of children from that locality— 

Will you take an intervention? 

—removed from the care of the family, including—. Of course I will.  

Thank you for that. Would you acknowledge that in regard to having too many children in a local authority being taken into care, as you have just stated, is based on an individual assessment of each individual case? And that has to go through a very long and drawn-out process, which I haven't really got time to go through at this moment in time. That has to be done because of that child's particular situation, and that's the only factor involved. 

I certainly acknowledge that, Rhianon, but it does appear from the statistics that we have in Wales, compared to those they have in England and the other parts of the UK, that there seems to be an over-zealous approach being used in Wales by those social workers who are looking after these children, and I'll come to what happens after.

And I want to just look at what happens once the children are taken into care. Families who have children taken away face great difficulties in overturning social service decisions with regard to removing their child or children. The fact that family courts are closed courts, including the exclusion of journalists, means there is no independent scrutiny of the judicial procedures. There are also many obstacles for families in securing good legal representation as there may be conflicts of interests where large practices are often engaged on local authority business.

The removal of a child from its natural parents is a traumatic event, both for the child and the family, including grandparents and close family. It is therefore essential that such decisions can be robustly scrutinised through the judicial system. There's a great deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest that under the present legal system this is almost impossible to obtain. Whilst we recognise that much of the legal levers lie outside the competencies of the Welsh Government, we would urge you to make interventions where possible to enable a true scrutiny of the whole area of the taking of children into state care or the allocation of where parental control should lie. 

Would you give way?

The fact of the matter is that closed family courts—

Are you giving way?

—are not in the interests of the children. Sorry, I do apologise.

Thanks. I absolutely agree with what you're saying about the family court system. So, do you not think that we could do it better in Wales if we had our own legal jurisdiction here?

Well, I'm not sure that that would happen. We have to have a situation where there's an acknowledgement of the fact that family courts sitting in secret is wrong. When I was a magistrate, I could instruct all journalists in a court—I could give reporting restrictions on those journalists. I see no reason why those restrictions can't be applied to family courts. I appreciate the fact that we shouldn't have the general public in family courts, but why not journalists to make sure that there is some scrutiny of what goes on? I think it's appalling that there isn't.

Thank you. Can I now call the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this debate today, and I'd like to thank the Conservatives for bringing this debate to the Chamber. I think there's been a lot of interest and a lot of very important points made. So, thank you for that.

I first want to acknowledge the very helpful work of the Public Accounts Committee and its inquiry into care-experienced children and young people. I also want to acknowledge the work of the ministerial advisory group, very ably chaired by David Melding, who I'm pleased is in the Chamber today. And following on from his announcement on the weekend, I'd really like to pay tribute to David for his huge contribution to children in Wales. I've worked with David—we've worked together on this issue—for many years, and his contribution to children in Wales is immeasurable. So, thank you, David.

While I'm pleased with the progress of the Outcomes for Children programme, I think it's very important that we do not be complacent. Statistics from March 2019 showed that the number of children looked after by local authorities continued to increase by 7 per cent on the previous year, and, obviously, an increase is disappointing, but it is very important to note that for the second year running the number of children starting to become looked after has decreased.

It's very important that children have stable placements. The 2018 and 2019 data show that 9 per cent of children had three or more placement moves. These figures have actually remained stable over a period of time, and I think we've just got to recognise that, sometimes, placement moves are necessary and are in the best interest, but we want children to have as much stability as possible.

This area of work is complex and we are working with partners across the whole system, and many of those areas have been mentioned today, including the local authority, social services, the judiciary, health, education, housing and the third sector and all these organisations have a significant role in helping to keep families safely together and reducing the need for children to come into care.

The motion makes a number of calls on Government, so I will address these in turn—firstly, to review local authorities' reduction expectation plans. We already do this through our peer learning and feedback group. Local authorities' progress in the first six months showed that the looked-after rate has slowed. While there was an increase during this period, it was at a rate of 1.3 per cent, and previous years' annual increases have been around 7 per cent. I want to caution that these are unvalidated numbers, but I do hope that this trend will continue. That is for the first six months.

The reasons for increases in the looked-after population are, indeed, complex, as Siân Gwenllian said in her amendment, but I'm absolutely in no doubt that the First Minister's request for local authorities to set reduction targets has focused minds and encouraged a whole-system approach to prevention. And we are on that journey of improvement and must sustain momentum. As I've said before in the Chamber, the targets are the targets put forward by the local authorities, there no penalties, and they are only part of a whole-system approach.

In terms of foster carers, we continue to help local authorities recruit more foster carers through the national fostering framework, and this year we provided an additional £100,000 to progress its marketing strategy. Similarly, we're striving to make adoption services in Wales the best they can be. In 2019-20 we provided unprecedented funding of £3.2 million for local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to improve adoption support, to be delivered through the adoption support framework for Wales. I attended an adoption symposium yesterday in the Temple of Peace, and although everybody acknowledged there is a long way to go, certainly there is a feeling that now the Welsh Government has invested in very important areas of post-adoption support—and some of the comments made today about parents having to struggle post adoption—we are definitely trying to address that. I was on that first inquiry that looked into adoption, and I would say that there has been improvement since then, but there's still a long way to go. [Interruption.] Yes.

Thanks for giving way, Julie. You mentioned at the start of your contribution the work of the Public Accounts Committee in this area that looked at all of these areas. As you'll know, we made a point of taking evidence from the young people themselves, and one of the overriding messages that we got from those young people was the importance of stability, particularly when it comes to placements. Some young people may be having 20, 25 placements in one year. So, when you're looking at this whole-system approach, do you value the input of the committee in suggesting that there should be greater stability for young people and that they should be put at the centre of the process, not just told what's going to happen to them?

Absolutely. I think that's a very important point—the children must be at the centre of this—and I value the work that the Public Accounts Committee did on that issue.

Local authorities are under a statutory duty to assess the need for adoption support services for individual adoptive families, including making an assessment for financial support to meet the particular needs of children. We have an all-Wales policy that sets the criteria and circumstances within which an adoption allowance can be paid, the assessment and review process, and what the support can cover.

As a Government, we've placed a firm focus on positive parenting and recognise the value of parenting support. Our parenting expert action group is looking at how parenting support can be delivered most effectively across Wales. And I don't want to pre-empt the outcome of their work, but want to emphasise that while parenting support, as part of a course, has its place, other approaches are available and effective in different circumstances.

In light of what I've just explained, I will support the original motion, but I won't support Siân Gwenllian's amendment because I don't accept the words about the targets. But I thank her for her considered opinions and for drawing attention to the Thomas review.

And in relation to the EU settled status scheme—and Rhianon also mentioned this—there are 115 eligible children in Wales, and we're working with the Home Office, the local authorities, ADSS Cymru and the WLGA to support the application process for these children. And we're in regular contact with the local authorities about this matter.

In terms of Neil McEvoy's amendments, obviously, in all the work we're doing with children, their safety has to be the predominant determinant of what we do. But contact with parents is, indeed, very important, and a key part of reunifying families after a child has had some time in care, along with ongoing support. So, I will support that amendment. I agree about the importance of advocates, and these arrangements are already in law and guidance, so I will also support that.

However, I won't support the other amendments for reasons I will explain. I too am concerned that care leavers who become parents may be at risk of discrimination. We want local authorities to shift their approach to better prevention, and this issue is part of that agenda. The Reflect programme we fund, which has already been mentioned, is providing much-needed support to parents, and we're already expecting a lot from local authorities, so we don't want to add a major case file audit to their workload.

Rebalancing the social care sector to support the growth of local authority fostering, residential care and reduce reliance on the private sector is Government policy. At the current time, however, we do need some good-quality private provision. So, I can't agree with the wording of that amendment, because we do have children in that provision at the moment, so we can't agree the wording of that amendment.

And on the complaints process, the Wales regulations 2014 and guidance make provision for an independent investigator who must be neither a member nor officer of the local authority. So, I can't support that amendment.

I am aware that I need to come to the end of my remarks, and there were a lot more issues I think that we could have gone into. I know that very important points were made about education, but I will stress the point in response to Oscar that we do have a pupil development grant that is specifically geared to children in care, as well as some other children. So, I think that's an important point to make.

But I think, finally, I'd like to end, as Janet Finch-Saunders did, on a positive note, and I know David Rowlands mentioned the Roots Foundation in Swansea. I visited the Roots Foundation, and I think that it's excellent work that they are doing there. I think we have to say that for many children, being in care is in their best interest and provides stability and security, as responses to the Bright Spots survey have shown. I have met care leavers who are doing admirably well, achieving academically and successfully living independent, fulfilled lives. So, I think it's important to finish on that positive note.

Thank you. I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Diolch. Thanks very much to everybody who's contributed. Janet Finch-Saunders, of course, opened the debate, saying the situation in Wales is currently slipping out of control with the number of looked-after children rising 34 per cent over 15 years, 6,845 children between nought and 18 currently looked after by local authorities, and the number of looked-after children in Wales per 10,000 now far higher than in England and Northern Ireland, and also higher than in Scotland on the latest published figures. She talked about the justice commission being sceptical about the effectiveness of expenditure in Wales to date on this agenda, the need to prioritise early intervention in practice to reduce the number of children going into care, and to improve life chances. She said children going into care are five times more likely to suffer mental health conditions than children not in care, and therefore we need to know not just how much is being targeted at looked-after children, but also how this is being monitored. With care leavers at an increased risk of homelessness and poverty, she said we need care leavers to be provided with an advocate, and for local authorities and the Welsh Government to identify and support looked-after children in Wales that are eligible to make applications to the EU settlement scheme, something many people mentioned, and the need to support adoptive parents to keep siblings together. She finished on a positive note about hope for the future and hope for these children.

Siân Gwenllian again referred to the Thomas report, the percentage of children receiving care in Wales higher than in England and Northern Ireland, and the Welsh Government needing to respond to the widening gap with England. She referred to emerging issues, such as county lines and online abuse, the need for a multi-agency approach in a number of areas, specifically schools and courts, and sustainable investment in preventative services to keep families together.

Neil McEvoy raised a number of concerns, including the need for contact—or concern about contact being restricted—between children who want to see parents and their parents; that parents themselves can be at risk of discrimination; that children alleging abuse should be taken seriously; and that complaint investigations need to be totally independent, and I fully agree with that.

Mohammad Asghar talked again about the Commission for Justice in Wales, stating that there has been a striking increase in the number of children in care in Wales and a wide variation between local authorities in Wales, and then he explored that further, and the need to break the cycle of deprivation, where the Welsh Government has launched a number of programmes and invested hugely in those, but none have stemmed so far the increase in looked-after children.

Rhianon Passmore referred to the strong cross-party consensus to ensure that care-experienced children are provided with the best support available, and the importance of early intervention and prevention services. Caroline Jones talked about children's interests being neglected in the family courts, the need to break the cycle of a poor start in life leading to poor life chances, and, again, like a number of people, subsequently referred to the great work of the Roots Foundation, emphasising the key role played by the voluntary sector, and again the vital importance of investing in the voluntary sector's key early intervention and prevention services in order to improve lives and use money better and prevent pressure on statutory services.

Finally—or almost finally, if I can find my final page, because there are so many bits of paper here—we had, penultimately, Suzy Davies saying that the system must respond to the needs of children, not vice versa; the importance of supporting foster carers, of positive parenting courses, and of access to training and education and gaining qualifications to give every young person a future. David Rowlands—he talked about the number of children subject to care proceedings increasing substantially, and about that the removal of children from the family home should always be a last resort. The removal of a child is devastating not only for the parents, but also grandparents, which we should never forget, and the wider family. And he expressed concern about the family courts sitting in secret.

The Deputy Minister, Julie Morgan, concluded by praising, rightly, the ministerial advisory group ably chaired by David Melding; the importance, however, of not being complacent; the importance of stable placements wherever possible. She said that this area of work is complex, multi-agency, and that, although the looked-after rate has slowed, the numbers are so far unvalidated. She said that we're on a journey of improvement and must sustain momentum, but there's a long way to go. Clearly, these figures and reports are evidence of that. As she agreed, children must be at the centre of this. Of course, we welcome the fact that she said that she will be supporting the motion. So, I'll conclude by calling on everybody to join the Deputy Minister in supporting our motion. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Could be quicker than that. Therefore, we defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.