Tim
Loughton: The Minister has given a full answer. I am
encouraged by his assurance that further consideration will come
forward in the autumn. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
14Payment
of fees ‘(1) Section 49 of
the Children Act 2004 (c. 31) (payment to foster parents) is amended as
follows. (2) After subsection
(4) insert— “(5)
Payment of the fee to a foster parent should continue until a
qualifying determination has been
reached.”’.—[Mr.
Timpson.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Timpson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 40— Complaints against foster
carers— ‘(1) The 1989
Act is amended as follows. (2)
After section 26(8)
insert— “(9) In
carrying out any consideration of any representations (including
complaints) every local authority
shall— (a) take such
steps as are reasonably practicable to protect the identity of foster
carers who are the subject of a complaint;
and (b) continue to pay
allowances to such foster carers until it has reached a decision on the
complaint.”’.
Mr.
Timpson: It falls to me to speak to new clauses 14 and 40,
which stand in the names of hon. Members from all parties on the
Committee. It would be remiss of me not to say to you, Mr.
Pope, that it has been a delight to serve under your chairmanship on my
first
Committee. The
new clauses deal with two principal issues. The first is the
requirement that local authorities continue payments to a foster carer
or foster carers until a determination is reached regarding an
allegation made against them. The second is the protection of the
identity of foster carers who are subject to complaints. There is a
general consensus in the Committee that social workers have not been
valued and that that needs to be recognised in the legislation. It
seems to me and my colleagues that the same can be said of foster
carers. I should say at the outset that the welfare and protection of
children in public care is the primary consideration at the core of the
new
clauses. 2
pm It
is important to say that foster carers provide a valuable and vital
service that is complex and highly specialised. They perform a hugely
demanding role, and many do so full time. Given those demands, foster
carers often receive no earnings through employment or lose earnings
through reduced hours. They therefore make an enormous
commitment.
The dearth of
foster carers has been a theme during our consideration of the Bill. In
2000, the book “Delivering Foster Care” made it clear how
deep that dearth was, saying:
“In
order to meet the demand for placement and to ensure a choice of
placements that can best meet children’s needs, at least 10,000
more foster carers are needed in the
UK”. That
was said in 2000, but it remains true today. What makes those figures
even more pertinent, however, is that the current population of foster
carers is ageing, with one fifth over 56—and that includes my
own parents.
If we are to
increase the pool of foster carers, we need to send out a signal that
we are on their side. One reason for the lack of take-up is the lack of
protection afforded to foster carers in carrying out their role and
particularly during the investigation of allegations. Unlike members of
the teaching profession, foster carers do not benefit from such
protection, and the consequences are potentially hugely damaging, not
only for the individual foster carer, but for the fostering service as
a whole. Any foster carer who has been through the investigative
process, as a third of all foster carers have, will say two things:
first, that it is a tremendously traumatic experience that leaves them
in constant fear of further allegations and undue public vilification;
and secondly, that the financial impact can be devastating.
Hon. Members
will have seen the helpful briefing from the Fostering Network, which
sets out a number of case studies. One of those case studies is as
follows:
“A
child made an allegation against a male carer, which was later proved
unfounded. The couple had been out of work and the fostering income was
relied on for all their outgoings. They were struggling and
subsequently, as the ‘investigation’ took so long (over 2
months at this point) without an income, the couple were given notice
by their building society. They have since been forced to sell their
house to a company which then rents them back. They are in a very
precarious position which has lost them their
equity”. That
cannot be right.
The problem
is compounded by the Government time scales for the resolution of
allegations, as set out in the “Working Together”
guidance of April 2006. Those time scales are being routinely missed.
The target is 80 per cent. resolution by one month and 90 per cent.
resolution by three months, but the actual figures show that 50 per
cent. of cases run for more than three months, one in 10 runs for more
than a year, and some run for several years.
During an
investigation, almost all foster carers have their fostering income
cut, and 46 per cent. have all their fostering income stopped. Despite
the unfair and severe financial hardship that is laid at the door of
foster carers, the majority of allegations prove unfounded—I
would be interested to know whether the Minister has specific figures
showing what that majority is. Certainly, in more than two thirds of
cases, children are not removed from the foster carers’ care on
completion of the investigation.
The
repercussions of any investigation are widespread. We must bear it in
mind that foster carers are often involved in other child care
occupations, in parallel with their fostering commitments. An
investigation might therefore threaten their other sources of family
income.
The British
Association for Adoption and Fostering makes a strong argument when it
says:
“Due
to the nature of children and young people placed with them and the
often fraught relationships between foster carers and birth parents
unfounded allegations are a regular
occurrence.” I
know of a teenage girl who was moved from placement to placement after
making unfounded allegation upon unfounded allegation, purely because
her birth mother encouraged her to disrupt the placements. She was told
that if she did so enough times she would eventually be returned home,
as the least worst
option. Any
allegation has the potential to trigger one of three types of
investigation: a child protection inquiry under section 47 of the
Children Act 1989; the fostering
service’s own investigation; and, of course,
a police investigation. A third of foster carers are subject to an
investigation at some time during their fostering career, and the
majority of allegations prove to be unfounded, which only heightens the
case for greater protection of their identity, to mirror the protection
given to teachers whose role in children’s lives has, in many
ways, a professional symmetry with that of foster
carers. Tim
Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a very good case for the
new clause. Does the Fostering Network not also say that 10 per cent.
of such allegations take longer than a year to investigate? That means
an extended period of uncertainty in which the foster carers may not be
looking after their charges, although we desperately need their
services because of the shortage of appropriate foster care, as has
already been mentioned.
Mr.
Timpson: My hon. Friend is right. I think that I alluded
to the figure of one in 10 earlier. The point about investigations
lasting a year or more is that the foster carers in question are out of
the fostering pool during that period of suspension. That is a resource
that we can ill afford to lose. My plea to the Government is that they
think again and commit to bringing to an end once and for all the
unjust position in which foster carers are singled out for financial
penalty and potential public exposure and humiliation following
unfounded allegations.
There are
local authorities, such as Portsmouth, that have already recognised the
absolute necessity of financial entitlement for foster carers during
the period of investigation and have implemented such a system. On that
point, and on the issue of identity protection, my colleagues who
support the new clause urge the Government to do the same and support
the proposed changes in their
entirety. Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Like other hon. Members, I
have tabled a new clause on this subject because I support the proposal
that foster carers should be paid while they are under investigation
following an allegation. I do not intend to give a view on the
rightness of allegations in any individual case, nor do I come at the
matter with any particular assumption about whether an allegation might
be valid or false. The memory is fresh in my mind of two sisters, who
are now adults, and who, as children, made a complaint about abuse.
They came to see me to tell me how inadequately their felt their
allegations were investigated. However, it is a fact, as the Fostering
Network briefing says, that
“around a third
of all foster carers will face an allegation during their fostering
career and the vast majority of these turn out to be
unfounded.” The
Fostering Network deserves much credit for its campaign on the issue.
It has marshalled its facts well; its arguments are cogent; and it has
been quite attuned to the parliamentary process in trying to influence
decision makers. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recall that I
brought a delegation from the Fostering Network to see him, and the
present subject was among the matters that we discussed. My hon. Friend
gave a very sympathetic reception to the points that they made. On
Second Reading, the Fostering Network arranged a lobby of Parliament by
foster carers. The focus on that day was on children staying put with
foster carers after 18, but this issue was discussed as well.
I have found
in preparing for the debate that Unison is a major trade union in
social care and has strong views in support of the Fostering Network.
Its briefing to hon. Members reminds us of
the “emotional
strain and the considerable length of
time” that
foster carers might be worrying about an allegation made against them,
as well as the loss of income. It makes the point that people might be
able to manage the emotional strain and the worry, but they certainly
cannot manage without the money. Unison says that it is crucial to
ensure that good foster carers do not move out of fostering because
they are compelled to do so by the lack of money, even though at the
end of the investigation it might be found that indeed they are good
foster carers with no stain on their character from the allegation that
was made. Unison
states: “We
believe that foster carers should continue, where paid, to receive
their fee payment (the money given as remuneration for their work,
skills and experience) and a portion of their allowance (the money paid
to cover the cost of looking after children) that relates to ongoing
fostering costs during an
investigation.” The
hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made the point that often the
timetable for completing an investigation given in Government guidance
is missed. That is a scandal in itself. Acceptance of the proposal that
people continue to be paid during an investigation might be an extra
incentive for local authorities to ensure that their investigations
comply with the time limit. In that way, it might have a second benefit
in addition to the benefit of maintaining foster carers’ incomes
while they are under investigation. That is why I support new clause
14.
Annette
Brooke: I, too, will start by thanking the Fostering
Network for bringing these important issues to our attention in a very
powerful way—through the meetings with foster carers and
looked-after children.
Unfounded
allegations will undoubtedly be made, because we are talking about
often very troubled children who will feel the need to hit back. Making
such allegations is one manifestation of that impulse. However, given
what we hear after the events in various children’s
homes—I have a constituent who was placed with a foster carer
many years ago and it was proven that he was abused while in that
care—it is vital that allegations are investigated properly. It
is also important that there should be pressure to complete
investigations in a timely
fashion. Most
of all, payment of the fee to the foster parent while the investigation
is taking place is vital. We pride ourselves in this country on working
on the premise that people are innocent until proved guilty. The
current provision seems to go completely against that by stopping
payment immediately an allegation is made. I also concur with the hon.
Member for Crewe and Nantwich about the need for anonymity as far as is
possible.
Kevin
Brennan: I shall cut to the chase. I am very sympathetic
to the principle of new clause 14. We have to do what we can to reduce
the financial impact of an allegation on foster carers, but a better
way of achieving that aim, rather than by amending primary legislation,
is through the national minimum standards, which we are in the process
of reviewing and which will be subject to full public consultation
later this year. We intend, therefore, to use the revised national
minimum standards to make it clear that fostering service providers who
usually pay their foster carers a fee should continue to do so while an
allegation is investigated, at the same level as it would have been
paid at had the child or children not been removed from the placement.
Payments would continue until the allegation had been resolved. I hope
that that announcement is helpful to all hon. Members who spoke on the
new clause and put their names to it, and to the Fostering
Network. New
clause 40 also deals with payments to foster carers who are subject to
an allegation, but it concerns the allowance that is paid to foster
carers, rather than the fee. This new clause would require local
authorities to continue paying the allowance to foster carers who were
the subject of a complaint until a decision on the complaint had been
reached. Unlike the fee, which is intended to reward the foster carer
for their skills, experience and commitment, the allowance is intended
to meet the cost of caring for the child. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate for us to insist that the allowance be paid if the foster
child or children had been removed while the allegation was
investigated. In certain cases, the local authority or other provider
might want to consider continuing to pay at least an element or perhaps
all of the allowance if there are special circumstances, but that is
best determined locally where all the facts are known. There is
certainly no legislative barrier to providers continuing to pay an
allowance if that is appropriate in the
circumstances.
2.15
pm New
clause 40 would also require local authorities to take steps to protect
the identity of foster carers who are the subject of a complaint.
Rather than lay out all of the provisions that we have in place, it may
be useful if I write to Committee members to outline the details of the
foster carers right to confidentially. We accept the principle that
foster carers’ identities should not be released in most cases
and, where appropriate, should be protected while an allegation is
being
investigated. The
“Working Together to Safeguard Children” guidance, states
that that all complaints should be treated seriously and in accordance
with consistent procedures. It also states that it is reasonable to
expect 80 per cent. of cases to be resolved within one month, 90 per
cent. within three months and all but the most exceptional cases within
12 months—so, 10 per cent. is not an acceptable outcome, as hon.
Members have said. Evidence says that those time scales are not always
met. During an investigation, the national minimum standards for
fostering services, makes it clear that providers should be making
independent support available to their foster carers. Again, it appears
that that is not happening in all
cases. I
am committed to taking further action to address those issues. I
recognise that lengthy investigations without adequate independent
support can add to the stress experienced by foster carers. So, in
addition to our commitment regarding fees, we will be revising the
national minimum standards for fostering services to reinforce our
expectations about the time scales for resolving investigations and to
highlight the need for foster carers who are subject to an allegation
to receive appropriate independent support. We will clarify what we
mean by that during the revision of those national minimum
standards.
I
accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that
there are times when allegations have substance, and we should not
forget that when trying to deal with the problems that the Fostering
Network and hon. Members have rightly highlighted. I hope that hon.
Members are reassured by what I have said and that the action that we
are taking will improve the situation of foster carers subject to an
allegation. I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will
withdraw the motion on that
basis.
| 
