HL Deb 06 February 1989 vol 503 cc1379-84

The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd December 1988 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend may I say that the provisions we are to discuss tonight apply equally to Scotland, England and Wales, and that I speak also on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dundee. The orders before your Lordships, the Adoption Allowance Schemes Order 1989 and the Adoption Allowance Schemes (Scotland) Order 1989, have the effect of repealing Section 57(7) of the Adoption Act 1976 and Section 51(8) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Without the repeal of these sections there will be no provision for further approval of allowance schemes to adopters after 14th February. No allowances will then be payable except those agreed before that date. The provision we are considering his its origin in a recommendation in 1972 of the departmental committee on the adoption of children—the Houghton Committee. In its report the committee addressed the then revolutionary case for paying allowances to adopters in certain circumstances: circumstances in which adoption had been identified as the best future for a child and a suitable family had been found, but where there was a financial obstacle to the adoption.

The proposal was taken up in Section 32 of the 1975 Children Act—now consolidated as Section 57 of the 1976 Adoption Act and Section 51 of the 1978 Adoption (Scotland) Act. During the passage of the Bill a number of reservations and cautions were voiced about the wisdom of the measure—natural and thoughtful reservations—to which I shall turn in a moment. Accordingly, the Houghton Committee's recommendation of an experimental period was taken on board. Adoption agencies were given the opportunity to seek the approval of the Secretaries of State to schemes for payment of allowances for a period of seven years from implementation of the provision. The provision would come to an end automatically after seven years unless both Houses agreed to its continuation; and the Secretaries of State were required to publish before that date a report on the operation of the schemes.

The provision duly came into force in England, Wales and Scotland in February 1982. Adoption agencies began to put together and submit for approval schemes drawn up according to guidelines issued by the department. Now, after seven years, there is universal coverage in Scotland and in Wales, where all local authorities have a scheme. In England 98 authorities and two voluntary societies have approved schemes, with a further six local authority schemes going through the approval process.

Research projects were put in hand to investigate and report on the operation of these schemes: in Scotland by the social administration department of Edinburgh University and in England and Wales by the National Children's Bureau. We were, of course, particularly looking to the reports first, to find out whether allowances had succeeded in their objective of enabling agencies to secure adoption for children who could not otherwise be adopted, however much they might need an adoptive family; and secondly to shed light on the concerns which were in the minds of some in your Lordships' House and in another place when the experiment was originally agreed. There is no doubt about the answer to the first question.

We now know from the research reports that in Scotland, up to the end of 1986, more than 500 children were placed with allowances. In England and Wales, there were nearly 1,000 such placements by the end of 1986, and the National Children's Bureau estimates that this figure has probably now passed the 2,000 mark. In all the countries, the majority of adopters were foster parents. In Scotland nearly one-quarter and in England and Wales nearly one-half of the children had special needs in the sense of physical, mental or emotional handicaps or behavioural difficulties—some children were severely handicapped with multiple handicaps; in Scotland nearly one-half and in England and Wales nearly one-third of children were placed with one or more brothers and sisters.

These findings can be read as heartening endorsement of allowance schemes. But do the reports offer us reassurance on those points which caused anxiety in 1975? There was a school of thought that the payment of special allowances to adopters would undermine the principle of adoption which puts adoptive parents in the same position as other parents: would it not be sufficient, indeed better, for people who could not afford to adopt to be foster parents instead? Could allowances be restricted to cases where they were genuinely needed? Might they create an invidious distinction so that all adopters would expect and demand allowances? Might adopters even seek to adopt for the wrong reasons if allowances were available?

The findings in England and Wales and in Scotland on these points are resoundingly unanimous. Far from clamouring for allowances, adopters were diffident about their need for the money and would have preferred to be able to do without it; many would have striven to adopt without an allowance. It was left to social workers to explain to the researchers the very real need for allowances in these families and in relation to these children whose care so often calls for higher than usual expense; and the hardship that would have been incurred by children and family if adoptions had been allowed to go forward without financial support. Nonetheless, the adopters made no secret of their thankfulness for the allowances and above all their thankfulness that they had been enabled to adopt.

On the point as to whether children would be equally well served by foster placements, I can do no better than quote from the Scottish report: The children themselves … felt that adoption made a big difference to their sense of belonging, security, permanence and outside recognition, even when they already felt very much part of the family".

The reports demonstrate that people adopting with allowances were people in modest circumstances, with many on low incomes. The allowances themselves were not extravagent. Nor has adoption with allowances become the norm. The majority of adopters are still able to adopt without an allowance. All schemes have criteria for allowances so that allowances are restricted to circumstances of special need.

All this does not mean that adoption is something which agencies must strive for in any circumstances and at any price; far from it. There will always be cases where fostering is the better option for the child where a child has links with his own family, for example, and wishes to remain part of that family. Since 1985 foster parents and others caring for children have had the option of custodianship, which offers the security of a custody order without severing a child's legal relationships with his own family. Authorities have powers to pay allowances to custodians, and there are equivalent provisions in the Children Bill. Above all, authorities have duties to help families to stay together so that substitute families are not needed. The Children Bill provides for improved services to help children and families.

We can now be satisfied that where children cannot be cared for by their own families adoption allowances have their place, and a place of proven value, in the range of options open to agencies seeking to provide the happiest, most secure and best future for such children. I ask for your Lordships' agreement to these orders which will allow agencies to continue to make use of this option.

I should like to add a further point in relation to the framework within which agencies pay allowances. I understand from my noble friend that in Scotland adoption allowance schemes have been introduced without particular difficulty and have worked smoothly. It is not intended, therefore, that there should be any change in the arrangements for schemes set out in Section 51 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act. In England and Wales the position is different. The diversity of schemes led to much discussion between the department and local authorities and at times there have been long intervals between application and approval. Many authorities are now finding, with the benefit of experience, that they wish to make changes in their schemes, and such changes require further approval by the Secretary of State. The number and variety of schemes have provided rich feedback during the experimental period. But we see a need now to look for a less cumbersome and potentially frustrating system requiring less intervention from the central departments.

Accordingly, we shall be introducing as an amendment to the Children Bill a regulation-making power; so that agencies will be able to determine and pay allowances within the framework of regulations instead of within the framework of an approved scheme. It is our intention that regulations should draw on the experience of schemes and, like schemes, give agencies sufficient flexibility to respond to a diversity of circumstances. Until a regulation-making power is available and regulations made, the effect of the order will ensure that schemes continue in operation. And those few authorities which are still considering whether to put in a scheme can do so.

I apologise that it has taken some minutes to explain the orders, but in the light of what has happened in the past we felt it would be useful information for your Lordships to have. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd December 1988 be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I rise to welcome the Minister's explanation in respect of adoption allowances in England and Wales and in Scotland. The Minister apologised to t he House for explaining the orders in such detail. We on this side welcome the length of his explanation a nd the detail with which it was furnished, because this is an important measure.

Earlier today I read Adoption Allowances in England and Wales, The Early Years, a report to the Department of Health and to the Welsh Office. I have not read the Scottish report but I gather that its findings are similar. It is an excellent report and refers to the doubts expressed at the time of the introduction of the scheme and to the legitimate fear that adoption allowances might lead to some form of baby farming or exploitation of children. It makes clear that such exploitation does not appear to have happened, and this was confirmed by the Minister in his explanation. There have been safeguards and they have worked. The children who have been adopted are often those who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to be adopted. I refer to children with disabilities and children with special needs. They have been adopted and allowances have been provided for them.

I am glad to welcome both orders. I note that the Minister has said that the framework for England and Wales may need to be changed because it is felt to be cumbersome. However, that does not arise under these orders. We wait to see what amendments are tabled to the Children Bill so that those may be discussed later by the House. In the meantime, I welcome both orders and commend them to the House.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I rise as president of the National Children's Bureau, which was commissioned by the then Department of Health and Social Security to carry out research into the working of the adoption allowances scheme in England and Wales. At the time when the adoption allowances were announced it was a revolution because never before had allowances been paid to adopters. As the noble Baroness has said, the children who have been greatly helped and who might otherwise not have been helped have been the disadvantaged children.

I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister one question. According to the research which was carried out, details of which I have with me, by the end of 1986 over 80 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales had submitted schemes. However, I think that he quoted a figure of about 90 per cent. I imagine that perhaps more people have submitted schemes which have not yet been accepted. I should like to know which local authorities have not registered for the scheme and what efforts have been made to help them to submit such schemes. 1 do not expect an answer at present, but perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough to write to me on this matter.

Secondly, from the point of view of voluntary adoption agencies, many of which place handicapped children for adoption—and very successfully—can my noble friend say whether thay have such schemes? According to the papers which I have with me, very few voluntary agencies have schemes. Further, are such agencies being encouraged to do so?

I happen to know the research worker involved in this work. He is one of our very good research workers. Indeed, they are all good, but he is especially good. I must say that I think he has vindicated this very good scheme in his research. I certainly support the 1989 orders.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I should like first to say how grateful I am for the broad acceptance which has been given to the orders. Indeed, I can put it even stronger than that and say how grateful I am for the generous spirit in which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has accepted the report on the allowances and for her expressed wish that the scheme should be continued.

Perhaps I may try to help my noble friend Lady Faithfull as regards which local authorities have or have not adopted the schemes. I can clarify two matters. First, since the National Children's Bureau sent in the main part of its report in 1986, many more schemes have been approved and the number of allowances agreed has more than doubled. There is now a universal coverage in Wales and Scotland and 98 English authorities have a scheme; six others will be approved within the next few months. As I understand it, the few remaining authorities are considering whether to put in a scheme. In its 1988 update report the bureau found that the use of adoption allowances was gaining in momentum.

As regards whether I am able to name the local authorities which have not adopted such a scheme, I am afraid that at present I am unable to do so. However, as my noble friend kindly agreed, I shall write to her as soon as I possibly can. Secondly, I can also tell my noble friend that children placed by voluntary adoption societies in circumstances in which an adoption allowance may be needed are usually in the care of a local authority. Some voluntary societies without adoption allowance schemes are nevertheless placing children on behalf of local authorities which agree to pay an allowance to the adopters.

Conversely, two voluntary societies in England and Wales have schemes and again allowances paid under those schemes are funded by the local authorities responsible for children placed on their behalf. I think that it is right that there should be this scope for co-operation in a variety of ways between statutory and voluntary agencies: this is in keeping with the spirit of the statutory adoption scheme.

I am most grateful for your Lordships' acceptance of the measures. I think that we can be in no doubt as to the value of establishing on a permanent basis the provision for adoption allowances.

On Question, Motion agreed to.