HC Deb 24 January 1977 vol 924 cc1137-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the subject of a national minimum scale of boarding out allowance for foster children.

As I have said on previous occasions in the House, I am a foster parent. Strictly speaking, I have no financial interest because the boarding out allow- ance is paid to the foster child not to the foster parent. But in practice, where allowances are not as much as they might be, the foster parent has to supplement the allowance. If the boarding out allowance went up, there might be some reduction in the amount of supplement made by the foster parent.

The child whom I foster is in the care of Oldham Metropolitan Borough and the allowance paid by that authority is among the best in the country. Indeed, if that level of allowance were paid throughout the country, I should not be raising this matter in this debate.

I hope that the House will accept that I speak from some first-hand knowledge of the problems and pleasures of being a foster parent and that I am not arguing for any more allowance to be paid to my particular foster child. I am much more concerned with the money paid to foster children by local authorities where the allowances are not as generous as those that exist in the North-West.

We need to examine the way in which children are dealt with by local authorities when they come into care. In many instances a local authority when receiving a child into care has to make an assessment, and probably places the child in an assessment centre or observation centre while it decides the appropriate way in which to look after that child. Often when the child comes into care for a short time, it is obvious how that child should be looked after. In may instances it is clear that the best way to look after that child is to place it in a foster home.

Unfortunately, most local authorities have not enough foster homes in which to place all the children they would like to place. Therefore, many children remain in residential accommodation—not because that is most suitable for them, but because it is all the local authority can find. It is not only to the child's benefit to find a foster home, but often it is of benefit to the local authority in purely economic terms.

It was estimated during 1976–77 that the national average cost of keeping in residential nursery a child of only a few weeks up to age 5 amounted to as much as £72 a week. If the child is a little older—for instance, if he is living in a community home or in a hostel—the average amount is about —53 a week. On the other hand, if the child is boarded out with foster parents, more often than not the sum paid by the local authority will be well below £10, though it is a little above £10 for older children, the average being about £10 a week. Therefore, to leave a child in a residential home, which in most instances is the second-best solution, is five times dearer than it costs to board a child out with foster parents.

It is very difficult for local authorities to find good foster homes. I would not argue that the allowance paid to foster parents is one of the most important issues. However, it is certainly a factor to be taken into account. Perhaps the principal problem is that of making people aware of the opportunities that exist to be foster parents. One of the best ways of recruiting foster parents is by word of mouth£by one foster parent explaining the work he is doing and its attractions and problems and, as a result, encouraging someone else to become a foster parent.

It is undoubted that the fact that the boarding out allowance does not cover the cost discourages some people from trying to persuade their friends to become foster parents. In addition to the level of the allowances, the amount of support given by social workers is crucial.

Several surveys have been conducted into why people cease to be foster parents. Few mention the level of boarding out allowances, but many more mention the lack of support from social workers. The question of the level of support from social workers is complex, but it is a much easier matter for the local authorities and the Minister to do something about the level of allowances.

Since becoming a Member of Parliament in February 1974 I have repeatedly pressed the present Minister and his predecessor to publish the scales that local authorities pay for children of different ages and to consider whether it would be politic to publish a national minimum scale. On each occasion I have received a parliamentary answer, or when I have button-holed the Minister outside the Chamber, he has indicated his sympathy but has been able to say no more than that he would hope that local authorities would effect an improvement.

I realise that the Minister has no statutory power to force local authorities to increase their allowances, but I believe that he could do much to encourage local authorities to publish their scales so that comparisons could be made nationally. If the Minister were to lay down a minimum scale, it would allow local groups to press their local authority to apply at least the minimum scale.

I have collected many statistics on the boarding out allowance and the National Foster Care Association has carried out an extensive survey. There are some problems about quoting the figures, first because my figures date back over six months and it may well be that any local authority that I quote as having a rather low rate six months ago has increased its allowance. I must apologise for any shortcomings of that type. Further, some authorities have special allowances such as one for Christmas and an initial clothing allowance which make the rates I shall quote rather better than they appear at first sight.

The London borough of Camden pays an allowance of £12.46 for a 2-year-old, Lambeth pays £10.80, Oldham £8.40, Stockport £7.14, and the Welsh authorities pay allowances down to as low as £6.51. In Shropshire it is £6.12, going down to below £6 in Oxford and Norfolk. For a child aged 10 rates vary from £12.50 in Lambeth and £12.11 in Oldham to £8.33 in Stockport and down to something over £7 in Wales, Shropshire and Wiltshire. The lowest again is Norfolk, with a rate of £7.34.

These are considerable variations. The best comparison is with national average expenditure by parents of a single child in an ordinary family. If the child is aged 2, the average is £9.54 and if it is 10, the average is £12.19. These figures show that, with the exception of the London boroughs, where housing costs are much higher than national ones anyway, few local authorities pay boarding out allowances as high as that average family expenditure.

The other problem is that allowances paid depend upon where the child is in care, not on where the child is living. In my constituency foster parents with two children from different local authorities are paid different rates. The differences have nothing to do with the ages of the children. If a child from a London borough were fostered in Norfolk, he might receive a grant of £12, while another child in the same household or the same neighbourhood was receiving half that amount.

Other anomalies—not striking but real all the same—are the ways in which different authorities change their rates according to the age of the child. Some authorities raise their rates suddenly by as much as £1.50 when a child reaches the age of 10. The National Foster Care Association published in April 1976 a list of recommendations that it wanted local authorities and the Department to consider. I hope that the Minister can refer to some.

I particularly draw attention to the recommendation of a national minimum scale sufficient to cover clothing, food, pocket money, laundry and transport expenses, regularly uprated to take account of average family expenditure on children of that age group. Another was that the variations which local authorities have brought into their scales between long-term and short-term boarding out allowances should be abolished but that there should be more flexibility to take into account the special needs of children who are particularly disturbed or who could have particular problems.

The association also says that when children are in homes for relatively short periods, the basic equipment supplied or lent by local authorities could be greatly improved. For instance, if a small baby enters a household which normally does not look after one, a lot of extra equipment is required. If the next child fostered is much older, one does not want to keep that equipment permanently.

The association mentions other matters, like the retaining fee and additional allowances when a household takes on more than one child, and points out that the system of boarding varies between local authorities. Evidence that I have received from foster parents suggests that the method of payment causes problems. The association suggests that there are problems with things like the holiday grant, birthday and Christmas allowances and initial clothing allowances. I hope that I can leave the Minister sufficient time to reply to those many points.

In some areas foster parents experience difficulties because of the way in which income for the child, its allowance, is treated when considering rate and rent rebates and problems with supplementary benefits. I hope that the Minister will comment on this.

I particularly want to press the Minister to produce a national minimum scale to reflect the national average expenditure on children of particular ages. I should like the Minister to arrange to update that scale every six months as long as present levels of inflation continue. If the Minister does not feel able to do this quickly, I hope that he will at least publish comparative figures for each of the local authorities in Hansard. It would then be clearly put on record which local authorities pay reasonable rates and which authorities fall badly behind.

I hope that the Minister appreciates that it is only during this period of considerable inflationary pressure that foster parents have started to question the levels and the wide variations of boarding out allowances. For most of them being a foster parent does not involve questioning cost. They do it because they like to do it and because it gives them satisfaction.

Fostering can also be very frustrating and, sometimes, heartbreaking. I hope that against that background the Minister will try to persuade local authorities to make sure that foster parents can return to the situation that existed in the 1950s when allowance problems did not add to their worries and anxieties.

12.12 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport North (Mr. Bennett) for raising this important subject which I know from the Questions that he has tabled over recent months is one in which he has a special interest.

I should like to echo and develop the tribute that he paid to foster parents. They do an excellent job in looking after and bringing up other peole's children and in doing so perform a valuable service for the community. I should like also to commend their representative body, the National Foster Care Association, which is ardent in the pursuit of what it believes to be the best interests of foster parents, including this question of a national minimum scale which was the main message of my hon. Friend's speech. I know of the concern among the foster care community about the wide variations that exist in the scales and scope of boarding out allowances paid by different authorities and I welcome this opportunity of clarifying some of the issues the question raises. I share my hon. Friend's aim, which is to bring about a greater degree of uniformity in boarding out scales, though I may not share his view as to how this can best be achieved. It is not easy to understand the wide variations that exist at present.

The relevant legislation, which is of some importance, is set out in the Children Act 1948. That is the existing law. It enables a local authority, as one of the ways in which it may discharge its duty to provide accommodation and maintenance for a child in its care, to board him out on: such terms as to payment by the authority and otherwise as the authority … may determine. So Parliament has laid down the duty on the local authorities and has given them complete autonomy in the matter of boarding out allowances by allowing them in fixing their rates to take account of local and regional factors. This has been the legislative position since 1933. The power of the Secretary of State to lay down minimum scales is therefore circumscribed by statute. I do not think that there is any disagreement about that point.

However, the Secretary of State could issue guidance on what he considered any minimum scale ought to be, if he thought that would be the right course to take. Even though the law would not oblige local authorities to pay those rates, that would have some persuasive force.

We had this possibility in mind when we invited the Working Party on Fostering Practice, which was set up to produce the guide on fostering practice published for my Department in June last year, to consider as a separate question the factors which govern the rates local authorities pay. The working party considered whether there should be a national scale, but it made no recommendation that there should be one.

Such a scale would have far-reaching implications for local authorities, not only because of the financial constraints under which they are working, but because it would constitute a direct involvement of central Government in local authority affairs and in the exercise of local authority discretion. Finally, any recommendation of a national scale would be likely to result in additional expenditure, and, in view of the fact that the Government are calling for a standstill in local authority expenditure, unless they can make offsetting savings elsewhere, the authorities might, in present circumstances, well regard such guidance, commendable though it might be, as a longterm objective for implementation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we could get extra foster homes there would be a very substantial saving to local authorities, even if boarding out allowances were slightly increased, because of the difference between those and the cost of keeping children in residential accommodation?

Mr. Moyle

Yes. But those savings may not be readily achievable within the time scale in which the savings are called for, although I agree with my hon. Friend that in the longer term this is an aspect of the problem in which we are interested.

The working party noted the variation which existed in the various basic allowances, but it also noted that local authorities were getting together to deal with this problem on a regional basis and some children's regional planning committees have either agreed to or are in the course of discussing standard rates for the authorities in their regions, which is an advance on the present situation. In addition, the local authority associations are considering the possibility of issuing guidelines on scales to member authorities, and this would be national voluntary action to supplement the regional action which is being taken.

So, with all this activity already taking place, the working party recommended that officials of my Department should meet those of the local authority associations to discuss the whole basis of calculating boarding out allowances and how they might be regularly reviewed—a suggestion made by my hon. Friend. A meeting took place on 15th July last year, before I took office, when officials of local authority associations agreed upon the need for greater uniformity in boarding out scales but expressed the view that the call for reductions in levels of local authority expenditure did not allow them to recommend to their member authorities any change which might involve an individual authority in additional expenditure.

The local authority associations offered to consider whether simple and flexible guidelines could be recommended to their members, at least on a regional basis, as soon as the resource position will allow. My officials were in touch with the local authority associations as recently as last week to see whether there had been any developments in this respect, but the associations advised again that resources did not allow further action any more than when the meeting took place last July.

Another thought behind the argument advanced by my hon. Friend but to which he does not, I believe, attach great importance, is that to get more foster parents we should step up the rates paid for children. I agree with my hon. Friend that the evidence that we have from surveys in various parts of the country does not agree with that thesis; indeed, it agrees with the view put forward by my hon. Friend. For example, a survey in Portsmouth in 1972 showed that of 98 foster parents consulted, financial considerations were not given as the main reason for becoming foster parents, and of a further 62 foster parents consulted in only two cases were financial considerations given as a secondary reason for becoming foster parents. That survey was taken before the great inflation and therefore may be a little out of date. Among reasons given for ceasing to foster children, money, which includes possibly the need to take a job, was given as a reason in only seven out of 59 cases.

That is one example of a finding. It is not conclusive for the whole country, but it suggests that the level of boarding out allowances is rarely a deterrent to the recruitment of foster parents. But this does not mean that the level of boarding out allowances is incapable of improvement or that we are complacent about the rate variations which exist in various parts of the country.

Another finding in the same survey showed that about half the foster parents questioned felt that the boarding out allowances they received were not sufficient to enable them to provide adequately for the children in their care. This, of course, is a serious view, and it is a view shared, as my hon. Friend said, by many social workers who have experience in this field.

The survey compared the Portsmouth boarding out scales with some of those paid by other authorities, and the comment was that the Portsmouth rate for short-term placements appears to be relatively high and for long-term placements about average". I know that my hon. Friend would probably like to see the abolition of the distinction between those two rates.

The findings suggest, therefore, that what is needed is a general levelling up of scales to more realistic levels, and the message which my right hon. Friend and I would like to send out would be to that effect. How to achieve this aim in a period of financial constraint, however, bearing in mind the Secretary of State's limited power of direction in relation to boarding out allowances, is the crucial problem, as I have said.

What we are choosing to do is to persuade the local authority associations to issue simple and flexible guides. In fact, we have little alternative in terms of power but to adopt that course, in the absence of legislation. I know that my hon. Friend would prefer that we issued guidance to local authorities themselves by recommending a national minimum scale. Thus, what lies between us is how we achieve the greater uniformity which, I think, we both agree should be achieved. I hope that, as the financial situation of the country and of local authorities improves, the present trend, which is towards a greater degree of uniformity, will continue.

I promise my hon. Friend that my officials will be keeping in continuous touch with the local authority associations to make sure that, in the press of events, the aims which I have stated are not lost sight of but are kept fully in the forefront of the minds of local authorities. I promise also that I shall consider the views which have been expressed in the debate to see whether anything further can be done.

My hon. Friend raised two further matters. First, he asked me to comment in detail on the proposals of the National Foster Care Association, to which he referred. I have considered these, but the problem comes down to this. They are caught by the general situation in which the Government and local authorities find themselves. Almost all the proposals of the National Foster Care Association would require further expenditure on the part of local authorities or would require further expenditure by the central Government. In both those respects, the Government feel that they have not got the resources to commit at the moment.

Second, my hon. Friend referred to the desirability of collecting and publishing the scales which local authorities implement in various parts of the country. I have given further consideration to this during the course of my hon. Friend's speech, but it seems to me that, if the Government are not prepared to make additional resources available to local authorities, it would be putting them in an unfair position to produce a sort of league table of scales so that extra pressure could be brought on local authorities.

It would be felt that, in one respect, the Government were not providing the money to authorities to meet the problem but, on the other hand, they were subjecting them to pressures of public opinion in other directions, which would highlight the problem without providing the resources by which it might be solved. I think, therefore, that it would not be sensible for the Government, given their present attitude, to collect those statistics and publish them nationally.

I realise that my hon. Friend will find this reply not of any great immediate satisfaction, but I hope that he will feel that at least the Government and he are, in principle, on the same side of the argument. It is a question of how we proceed further.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.