Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords]

That is part of the general principle behind the amendment. I am interested to hear the Under-Secretary's comments on it and to hear how that might be conveyed to those responsible in the unlikely event of her not wanting to accept the amendment. For local authorities coming up with strategies for looked-after children, it is not just a question of ““Have we got the right number of foster carers and the appropriate services?”” It is also a question of trying to get some flexibility in creating the environments that enable more foster carers to come forward, or that allow more current foster carers to increase their responsibility, such that they could accommodate more children at home if they made some adaptations. That might involve various grants being available, as the hon. Lady has just said. It would certainly involve some leeway on planning policies in some cases. I would go well beyond my brief if I tried to suggest that there should be a change in planning policy guidance of any description. Housing and planning departments must be included within the planning for foster care placements in particular. I can think of one London borough where this has happened informally and, as a result, there is a much higher number of foster carers and the authority is able to make many more foster placements. More leeway could be allowed in terms of adaptations for children with disabilities or in the ability to accommodate more children, within the realms of safety; one is not trying to take risks. I wanted to place on record in this probing amendment that housing and planning departments have a role in this as well, although one would not normally expect them to. I am aware that I have taken up rather a lot of the House's time but this is the largest grouping of amendments. There are some important amendments among them but I certainly would wish to pursue new clause 24 in a vote later today.