My Lords, I will speak to the single amendment in this group, Amendment 69AB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I reflect the concern that has been expressed about the care and support that some of the most vulnerable children receive. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged that too many children have been let down over the years, and I believe that this Bill is a real opportunity to set things on a more constructive path.

I recognise that the amendment has been tabled to add a legislative requirement to ensure that the nature and level of parental care that families strive to provide for their own children is provided by local authorities for looked-after children. A local authority is a corporate parent in two senses: first, it has corporate parenting duties; and, secondly, it stands in the parents’ shoes, having parental responsibility for the children in its care.

As I said, I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment’s goal, and we want to ensure that our looked-after children received the highest possible quality support. However, existing legislative and regulatory frameworks mean that local authorities should already care for looked-after children as good parents would. Sections 22 and 22A of the Children Act 1989 already set out the duties owed by a local authority to any child who is looked after by it. These include duties to provide accommodation for the child, to safeguard and promote their welfare, to promote their educational achievement and to help them access a range of services. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, is giving me a look, but I did check that that is indeed the case.

On top of this, all looked-after children must have an up-to-date and detailed care plan setting out the arrangements for the child’s care, covering how a child’s needs will be met and, importantly, taking the child’s wishes and feelings into account. It is through that plan, and the child’s ongoing and trusted relationship with their social worker, that the local authority ensures that looked-after children are receiving the care and support they need.

There are already minimum standards that must be met by those caring for looked-after children. Both the minimum standards for fostering and the quality standards for children’s homes make it clear that children should benefit from excellent parenting and that staff should provide

“nothing less than a good parent would” for children in their care. This includes the child feeling loved, supported in their personal and emotional development, and supported to pursue their hobbies and interests—things we should all expect from good parents.

In addition, local authorities are corporate parents under the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which means that, in carrying out their functions, they must have regard to the need to seek the best outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers. This includes, among other things, acting in their best interests, promoting their physical and mental health and well-being, and encouraging high aspirations.

From a personal point of view, as a former elected councillor, I note that we took our responsibilities as members of the council extremely seriously. We set up a separate board of councillor representatives to ensure that all our expectations could be measured going forward. That included training for those involved in ongoing conversations to make sure that they actually happened.

We will come on to discuss the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill. They will ensure that government departments and relevant public bodies take looked-after children and care leavers into consideration when designing policies and delivering services. The phrase I would use when I had responsibility for children’s services is that looking after children is everyone’s business. Everyone has a role and a responsibility; the important thing is making sure that it is measured and acted upon. The intention of the new corporate parenting measures is to level the playing field for children in care and care leavers, who do not have, as we have heard, the family support networks that their peers benefit from.

Given the extensive duties and requirements already placed on local authorities and those who care for children, I believe that this amendment would have little to no practical impact. For these reasons, I kindly ask my noble friend Lord Watson to withdraw his amendment.