(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Lewell. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank hon. Members who supported my application.
The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund has, since 2015, been a lifeline for families who are raising children who have endured immense hardship and trauma. I welcome the announcement this morning—nicely timed for this debate—that the fund will continue into the next financial year, giving families and providers a little more of a chance to plan and deliver therapy. It is also good news that the Department plans to engage with providers and families during the reform process. That shows that the campaigning of colleagues, families and providers—including those in the Public Gallery for this debate—makes a difference, and shows that we cannot stop now.
But while the extension is welcome, it does not properly address any of the fundamental issues that exist as a result of the cuts announced in April, such as the significant decrease in per child funding, or the lack of a long-term settlement for the fund. The fund was designed to provide children with the therapeutic support that they need to recover from trauma, neglect and abuse. It has enabled outstanding providers, such as Beacon House and Jigsaw in my constituency of Mid Sussex, to deliver life-changing therapy to vulnerable children. The fund also provides vital support to parents such as Rachel, who is here today and who speaks so powerfully about the importance of the fund and the irreversible damage its withdrawal does.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this specific issue, on behalf of us all. Providers such as Beacon House, which also serves my constituency, have been clear that proper assessments are essential; they are not optional extras. Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting funding for those specialist assessments means that therapy risks starting without the foundations needed for long-term healing, which is both clinically unsafe and deeply unfair to the families involved?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. She is absolutely right. I will address her point in due course.
When I saw Rachel this morning and told her about the one-year renewal of the fund, she told me that she had come out in goosebumps as a result. That is how much this fund matters to adoptive families. I have seen for myself the difference that the fund makes. One parent told me that her gratitude for the ASGSF was immeasurable, and that she would never have been able to be an adoptive parent today without it. She spoke about two professionals whose
“deep understanding, profound compassion and reflective empathy”
had supported her and her children through multiple crises and out the other side. Such stories are not rare. Every year, Adoption UK’s adoption barometer shows consistent results: 85% of families who access the fund say that it makes a positive impact; 94% say that they would use it again. So, yes, it was a relief in April when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) secured a commitment from the Minister that the fund would continue, but that relief came only after weeks of absolutely unnecessary anxiety. Families were left in limbo, and providers unsure if they could keep going. Even now, huge problems and unanswered questions remain. The profound concern that I am hearing from families, therapists and charities working with adoptive and kinship families is about whether the Government are going to learn from the shambles of the spring and not repeat those mistakes.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. In my constituency of Surrey Heath, my constituent Matt and his husband adopted their son in 2023. He is a child who had already endured appalling trauma in the past. This fund has enabled Matt and his son to seek the therapy they needed from the Cherrycroft practice in the village of Bagshot. Does she agree that—despite the one-year reprieve—without long-term sustainable funding and guarantees, sustainable therapies will not be available in the long term, and that we will also risk putting people off the act of adoption all together?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an excellent point. A lack of long-term funding will put people off adopting children or taking children into kinship care. It also risks putting providers off providing support.
Ministers have insisted that the fund has not been cut, but that is because the overall pot has remained unchanged. For children and families, however, the reality is very different. Individual allowances have been reduced. The per-child therapy limit has been slashed from £5,000 to £3,000, which is a 40% cut, and the separate £2,500 allowance for assessments has gone. Match funding for complex cases has ended.
Families now face impossible choices; they can have therapy or assessment, but not both. One provider put it bluntly, saying:
“It’s like asking a garage to fix a car without first checking what the problem is.”
This situation is a waste of time and money, and the consequences are already being felt. Children have had their therapy stopped abruptly while applications were resubmitted. Families have endured months-long gaps without support. Parents describe sharp declines in mental health, rising violence in the home, and children losing trust in professionals. One provider told me of a young child who was heartbroken to learn that their therapy was ending. They asked:
“If I save up my pocket money, can I keep seeing you?”
That question should haunt us all; it certainly haunts me. It shows just how fragile trust is for children whose lives have already been shattered by trauma, and whose early years have been defined not by making the secure attachments that are so important for getting the right start in life. Relationships are everything; to pull away support is profoundly damaging.
The data backs that up. This year’s adoption barometer found that 42% of families reached crisis point in 2024; 77% said that it feels like a continual struggle to get the help their child needs; and 65% experience violent or aggressive behaviour from their child. I know that there are parents behind me in the Public Gallery who have experienced violence from their children this very week. And in Kinship’s 2024 survey, more than one in eight kinship carers expressed the fear that they might not be able to continue caring for their children.
Meanwhile, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy has warned that these 40% cuts per child will have a
“negative and long-lasting impact.”
That seems to be putting it mildly. Families, providers, experts and children themselves all say the same thing—these cuts are devastating. It is not just the children and their families who will pay the price; the Treasury will, too. There will be placement breakdowns, more children in care, more exclusions, more antisocial behaviour and more long-term damage. All these things cost the state money. The cost of withdrawing support is far higher than the cost of sustaining it.
On top of the cuts there is the uncertainty, even with the extension announced today. Providers cannot plan and families are turned away. Experienced therapists have warned me that that will
“replicate the cycle of deprivation and abuse”
that these children have already suffered. What message do we send if we withdraw the one source of essential therapeutic support that children and families rely on?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for the passion with which she speaks about this subject.
I wanted to raise the case of my constituent, Jean, an adoptive mother who cared for a son who has foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and developmental trauma. I wanted to raise her case because, very sadly, Jean has died. Before she died, she had managed to arrange long-term support for her son. She obviously does not know it, but her son will lose that support in a year’s time. My question, on behalf of Jean and others in a similar situation, is this: what happens to her son, and to children in a similar situation, now?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes a profound contribution about how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. I do not think I have the answers to that question, but I thank him for raising it.
Adoption England has suggested reform to the fund. Devolving it to its regional agencies or local authorities is a possibility, but no consultation has taken place and pilots have not even begun. It would be reckless to make major structural changes before the evidence is in, and it would risk leaving children and families in deeper crisis. That is why we were particularly glad to hear this morning that the Department will engage with families and providers.
Charities such as Adoption UK, the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK, Coram, Kinship, Barnardo’s and the Family Rights Group are calling for urgent action. They are calling for, first, a permanent ringfenced fund; secondly, a comprehensive review of the April changes; thirdly, a full public consultation on any future reforms—the engagement promised must be meaningful; and fourthly, a two-year moratorium on further changes so that reforms can be evidence-based, not rushed. We should be supporting vulnerable children and encouraging adoptive parents to keep doing what they are doing by providing the necessary support for therapy—not least because in 2021 alone adoptive parents saved the UK economy £4.2 billion.
I will end with four questions for the Minister. First, what concrete reassurance can she give children, families and providers about the long-term future of the fund? April’s announcement came too late and caused avoidable harm, and today’s remains short term. Will the Government commit to doing better this time?
Secondly, can the Minister assure us that the equality impact assessment was considered as part of the development process for the changes made to the fund that were announced in April, as per the requirements of the Equality Act 2010? Will she undertake to share the relevant documents to support that?
Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the decision to cut funding available through the ASGSF aligns with the Department’s wider efforts to increase the uptake among eligible kinship families and grow the use of the kinship care arrangements?
Fourthly, will the Minister acknowledge that cutting the support will cost far more—socially, emotionally and financially to the taxpayer—in the years to come? The adoption and special guardianship support fund is a vital lifeline for vulnerable children and their adoptive families. It is not a luxury. The Government must change course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I was about to remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to speak in the debate, but I see everyone already has. I need to call the Front Benchers at 2.38 pm, so we will need to impose an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes. I call Helen Hayes, Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate.
The introduction of the adoption and special guardianship support fund as part of the Children and Families Act 2014 marked an important recognition of our understanding of the impact of early childhood trauma and the increasing complexity of need of children in the care system. It is a vital acknowledgment of the reality that the impact of early childhood trauma does not always end with the stability of a loving adoptive home.
The fund also provides vital support to children in kinship care with a special guardianship order and to other children who have previously been looked after—for example, where family reunification has taken place. The fund has provided support to 54,000 children who have been able to access diagnosis and therapeutic support, and it is a vital source of support for families who are struggling as a consequence of early childhood trauma. It has been a lifeline.
However, the fund has never been established on a long-term footing, and that has left families in a state of continual anxiety about whether the support they rely on will continue. I know that the Minister is aware of this, but the delay in announcing the continuation of the fund until the day after it had expired, despite many weeks of requests for clarity, caused unnecessary fear and anxiety for many families. I hope that she and her colleagues are reflecting on how cross-Government decision making can be done in a more compassionate and child-centred way in the future.
My Committee recently published a report on children’s social care, for which we heard the concerns of parents and voluntary sector organisations about the decision this financial year to reduce the fair access limit for therapy from £5,000 to £3,000 per child. I understand that the Government have concerns in the sense that some of the services being paid for by the fund should be provided by the NHS. Will the Minister set out her assessment of the level of need, including the level per child, that the fund is seeking to meet? What work is she doing with the Department of Health and Social Care to improve access to mental health services via the NHS for looked-after children and previously looked-after children, including adopted children and those in kinship care?
My Committee recommended that the Government undertake urgent engagement with families on the impact of the reduction in the fair access limit and, if evidence of negative impacts is found, that urgent steps be taken to restore the level of funding per child, so what assessment is the Minister undertaking of the impact of the changes, and what engagement is under way with families?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett).
Imagine for a moment that you are a child. You endured abuse, neglect or violence, or your parents were unwell or fought or could not cope. You were then taken into care and had to leave everything behind. You spent 15 months in the care system, as the average adoptee does, and had to deal with different placements, different places, different spaces, different schools, different teachers, different friends and different routines. Everything familiar and comforting was stripped away. Your identity was eroded and confused. You also had to deal with courts and meetings, and social workers and questions. You had to deal with all that before being placed in a loving forever home.
That is the story of 80% of adoptees. No wonder young people need specialist support. Let me put it this way: on top of the tragedy, trauma, pain and loss, these young people now have to regulate their social, emotional and psychological challenges. More than the average will be neuroatypical, and 30% will have self-harmed. We have to recognise the centrality of getting support to these young people at the right time, to ensure that not only their now but their long-term future is built on stable support.
The instability we saw earlier this year must never be repeated. I personally long for the relevant services to be in the NHS and across public services, but we know that they are not for now. They are really specialist, so we must enable every single child to have a full assessment, for the child and their family, of their complex needs and the therapeutic interventions they need. Those therapies need to be the right therapies—not on the side and on the cheap and what is in the mainstream, but the specific therapies needed to build stability again in these young people’s lives. Family therapy is also required to ensure that we see not family breakdowns—the proportion is now 7% for adoptions—but instead families coming together, with strong bonds for life.
I know that the Minister—and, indeed, you, Ms Lewell —could not be more dedicated on these issues, but we cannot go through this cycle of not knowing how much support an individual could have. It must be uncapped, because there can be no limit on getting this right for a child.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell— I think I have done so three or four times this week already. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for bringing this issue to the House and for the passion she obviously has for this subject. She brought that to us all really well, and we thank her for that.
As Members will be aware, I always give a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates. Northern Ireland offers support through the regional adoption and fostering services and the health and social care trusts, providing an assessment of need and funding for therapy for eligible families. Although the process and funding structure differ from the system we have here—the ASGSF—the issue is exactly the same. Demand far outstrips funding, and the bottom line is that children’s lives and futures are on the line.
It has been well established by numerous studies that cared-for children do better in kinship care, which enables them to be with those they have a connection with, those who will care for them because they have that biological connection and probably a very strong relationship. I am sold on the benefits of kinship care, as others are. Evidence shows that kinship care provides better long-term outcomes and a safe and stable home for children and young people who are likely to have experienced significant early life adversity, such as loss, trauma or neglect.
The impact of the lack of funding is clearly heading towards families who are struggling, and cannot afford to fund another child with additional emotional needs, saying that they cannot provide kinship care. We must do all we can to prevent that outcome in order to get the best outlook for the child, and because of the financial burden that care places on social services. I know that the Minister will look at this very honestly.
Research from the Centre for Care estimates that kinship care is worth some £4.3 billion a year to the Government, which is equivalent to nearly 40% of the entire children’s service budget for England. If that care was no longer available, that is a lot of money—another black hole that the Government will have to try to find the money for. We must not let that happen. To address the rising demand for children requiring alternative forms of care, most commonly foster care, which costs taxpayers millions each year, we need to ensure that kinship carers receive help and support. That is essential to the entire care system, whether in Northern Ireland or England. Funding to allow support and help must match the needs of children whose difficult upbringing or shocking change in circumstances has the potential to derail them for life.
We have a responsibility to ensure that cared for children are exactly that: cared for, protected and supported, with hope for the future.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate.
I have seen the difference that the adoption and support grant has made locally. I visited the Purple Elephant Project, based in Whitton in my constituency, which supports over 100 children and families in Hounslow and Richmond, including many who have been adopted, are in kinship care or are currently looked-after children in foster care. It provides intense professional therapeutic support.
The Purple Elephant team gave examples of the difference it has made, sometimes after a long period of therapeutic support, to benefit those children and families. I saw the safe and welcoming space it provides and understood the difference it makes. The children it has supported have all had a traumatic start to their life through neglect or abuse, and they have great difficulty building relationships and coping with school, siblings and any social situation.
Due to the close correlation between neglect, abuse and adoption, Purple Elephant and other organisations are heavily dependent on the grant for their sustainability. When I met our kinship care group, I heard that many of them, and the children for whom they are now guardians, gain from the services that the fund supports. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) cares deeply about this issue and is personally committed, but I ask her to address the problems.
Purple Elephant told me recently that it is not out of the woods yet. It is still being impacted significantly and having to fundraise to bridge the gap in funding and ensure that therapy sessions do not stop. Let us remember that it is not just the children and families who lose out because of the uncertainty and the cuts resulting from these decisions, but the therapists themselves, who have a living to make. Most of them are freelancers. They want to work with these damaged children and do not want their whole practice to be paid for privately by families who can afford it.
There must be equality here. Purple Elephant has told me that families are anxious, stressed and disillusioned about the loss of support and worried about how they will cope if these services—
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate.
We know that children who experience early trauma face profound challenges that can reverberate throughout their lives. Early years often marked by instability, neglect or harm can leave invisible wounds that can impact emotional development, the ability to form trusting relationships and overall mental wellbeing. However, the challenges are not insurmountable. With targeted therapeutic intervention, children can begin to regain a sense of safety and stability, laying the foundation for healthier, more hopeful futures. Therapy provides them with the essential tools to process their experiences, manage overwhelming emotions and build trust and resilience.
The changes announced in April have meant that many families can no longer pursue the long-term, sustained therapeutic support that is vital for our most damaged children. Two therapists have told me that they have had to stop work with adoptive children because the breaks in support and the lower individual funding allocations have meant that the long-term therapeutic support that they provide is no longer accessible to families. We must not risk losing these valuable skilled professionals from the sector.
James is a 16-year-old adopted young man who ended up leaving his adoptive parents and being placed in residential care after a violent episode. During that time, regular sessions were held with his adoptive parents to help them to understand the placement breakdown and explore how best to support all the family. He now wants to rebuild relationships with his family, but because of the funding cuts, he can access only 16 therapy sessions over the year. Given the complexity of his situation and the need to rebuild attachment relationships, it is just not going to work over 16 sessions. Liaison with child and adolescent mental health services and social care is essential, but funding constraints mean that that cannot happen.
James’s example is not unique: it demonstrates how the inadequate funding model is undermining the very interventions that will allow children to heal, thrive and reintegrate successfully into family life. The Government must provide a long-term commitment to the fund and reconsider cutting the individual support packages. If ever there was a case for investing to save, this is it. Getting it right for some of our most vulnerable children will set them up for a more stable, happy and healthy life. It will support family cohesion, and it will reduce pressure on a host of other Government and third sector services later in life.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this very important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing it. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care and have lived experience of kinship care, so I know how significant this discussion is for families across the country, including in my constituency.
Since coming into office, I am pleased that the Labour Government have been engaging much more in the wider kinship conversation, and I want to acknowledge and welcome the positive steps that the Government have already taken in making it a legal duty for every local authority to have a kinship local offer once the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill receives Royal Assent. That local offer includes information about therapeutic support and is exactly what kinship families have long called for. I am grateful to the Minister for acting swiftly on that.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund provides vital therapeutic support for children who have experienced trauma and loss. Today’s announcement will extend funding for next year, and having that certainty is important, as it gives families some of the clarity and reassurance that they have been seeking. It is right that after supporting 54,000 children already, this much-needed fund is continuing. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to review the scheme and to launch a public engagement process, so that kinship families themselves can help to shape its future. I can say with confidence that the kinship care APPG will be more than happy to support the Government in that endeavour, having recently heard from a wide range of kinship carers in our evidence sessions.
Nevertheless, despite those welcome announcements, challenges remain. Support for kinship families still varies dramatically depending on where they live. The Family Rights Group’s 2024 audit found that a third of local authorities do not yet have a kinship care policy in place, despite being required to have one, and a survey by Foundations showed that not all have a designated kinship care worker. That postcode lottery simply is not good enough. Every family should be able to expect clear, consistent and accessible support.
The further challenge of the level of financial support now on offer through the fund disproportionately affects children with the highest need. The Kinship 2024 annual survey found that more than one in eight kinship carers said that they were concerned about their ability to continue caring for their kinship—
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing the debate and on her speech. It brought a tear to my eye when she mentioned the child and their pocket money. That is the one thing that should stay with us in this debate: how important this fund is to those young people.
The funding is crucial for the roughly 55,000 adoptive families across the UK. It ensures that both children and their guardians receive the care and support they need. It is estimated that around 80% of adopted children suffer abuse, neglect or violence prior to adoption, with the average child spending 15 months in care and often moving through several foster placements. That instability is traumatic for anyone, but especially for young children, so it is essential that the right level of support is provided to these children, as well as to the families who care for them every day.
I was recently contacted by a constituent who adopted three children in 2007. Post-adoption, all three were diagnosed with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, autistic spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and early-life trauma. Now young adults, they have had involvement with CAMHS and some support from the adult mental health services. The parents have fought tirelessly for the help that their children need, often resorting to self-funding therapies and education.
In May 2023, their middle daughter requested life story work, which is critical for her development, but that has been halted due to the changes in the ASGSF. A very vulnerable, disabled, brain-injured young woman has therefore been left without the therapy she needs to navigate an incredibly difficult stage of her life. Their youngest child’s specialist occupational therapy has also been affected by the funding changes, but thankfully her therapists were able to adjust the package to fewer sessions to bring it under the £3,000 cap—although that is far from ideal.
We need a clear commitment from the Government to fund that support not just next year but in perpetuity. Families need the reassurance of a long-term plan; without it, we risk more children going into long-term care without the support that they should have.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank Carers UK and all those fighting for the rights of carers—they are too often hidden in society, but some of them are here in the Public Gallery. I will speak about the impact of changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund in Bedford, where children’s services are already under extreme pressure.
At a recent children’s services overview and scrutiny committee, the council heard that more than two thirds of young carers in Bedford are not formally identified or supported, and the proportion who have high needs has more than tripled in the last three years. These are children who are taking on responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, giving medicines and providing emotional and personal care, sometimes for hours each day before going to school. This is not a marginal issue; these children are carrying an adult burden while still at school. On top of that, Ofsted recently downgraded Bedford borough’s children’s services to “requires improvement”, warning that too many vulnerable children are being placed in unregistered and unregulated homes.
While I acknowledge the financial pressure this Government have inherited and know that difficult spending decisions will have to be made at national and local level, it is deeply concerning that against this backdrop the Government have cut the fair access limit for therapeutic support under the ASGSF from £5,000 to £3,000 per child. Families caring for children who have already experienced trauma and loss will now have less access to the specialist therapy that can make the difference between stability and crisis.
I urge the Minister to reconsider this cut or, at the very least, introduce transitional arrangements to ensure that families already in the system are not left without support.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate and for an excellent and heartfelt speech. I want to share the story of my constituent Lisa—I thank her for allowing me to do so—who adopted her children when they were four and six years old. After that, they were able to access what was then called the adoption support fund and specialist occupational therapy, which Lisa called a lifesaver for them.
Since then, Lisa’s eldest child has accessed various support options, but the situation has proven more complex with her younger child. In Lisa’s own words,
“She did her best to hold things together at school for many years—masking anxiety, struggling with sensory issues, and living in a near-constant state of hypervigilance. At home, however, we saw the cost: meltdowns, self-harming, substance abuse and social withdrawal. In her mid-teens, she was diagnosed with ADHD, complex PTSD, OCD, depression and anxiety. And yet, she has not had access to therapy for over four years.”
Recently, a tailored, long-term development approach was finally designed for their child, with plans to deliver it over a three-year period of careful and considered therapeutic intervention, but a few weeks ago Lisa received a devastating blow: the specialist provider, who in their experience was the only one who truly understood their daughter, would no longer be used by the local authority because of the cost. It is impossible not to link that decision to the fund’s cap being lowered by 40%. They are now waiting to hear about possible alternatives from the local authority—plunged back into uncertainty just as her daughter starts her A-level studies.
Lisa played her part. They have attended specialist training, driven hundreds of miles for therapy, reduced working hours and given everything to advocate for their children, but there is only so much they can do without Government action. The Government must do the right thing for Lisa, her daughter and families like hers across the UK by reversing the cuts to the individual funding and confirming long-term funding.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. To ensure all Members get a chance to speak, we are going to have to reduce the time limit to two minutes. I call Josh Newbury.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing the debate.
I begin by declaring that as a family, we will begin using the adoption and special guardianship support fund from next week, so this is current and personal for me. As I am about to find out, the ASGSF is a lifeline for thousands of families like mine up and down the country. Education is where this matters so much. Despite changing attitudes, better training and awareness in schools, and innovations such as the pupil premium, too many adopted children and children in special guardianships still fall behind. If we give them the right support early, however, we can give them an equal start in school and the same opportunity to learn, make friends and feel comfortable in the classroom.
It is important to give that view on how much difference this £50 million, and many other sources of support, make for families like mine, because if we listened only to Liberal Democrat MPs today, we might, regrettably, lose sight of that. I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today that the ASGSF will continue for another year. However, I hope that the Department will still consider multi-year certainty, which would benefit families, providers and local authorities hugely.
Ruth Cadbury
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that we are hearing that some adopters, or potential adopters, are being put off going even through the process because of concerns about a lack of post-adoption support, which of course has to be long term, as he just mentioned?
Josh Newbury
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When my husband and I were going through the adoption journey and had our training and information evenings, the post-adoption support offer was very much part of that. If families feel that they cannot take that step because they fear they will be unable to get support, that is a great concern. I know that the Minister is also concerned about that.
I also know that the Minister will be carefully considering the impact of changes made to the ASGSF in April this year. The £3,000 fair access limit will, for some, be enough, but last year, almost half of children received more than that, reflecting the often complex needs assisted by the fund.
As we look ahead, I urge the Minister to see what can be done to build in flexibility. I hear that families often cannot access the fund quickly enough, so they reach crisis point and sadly, in some cases, placements break down. Quite apart from the devastating impact of breakdowns on families, the cost to local authorities is immense.
The ASGSF must be part of a holistic, early-help model, not crisis care. If at all possible, we also need look at how assessment costs are funded, particularly for complex cases where need is greater and for families in financial hardship. This House has always been united on one thing: children deserve stable, loving homes and the support to make sure that those remain their forever homes. By building on what we have now, we can ensure that the fund continues to support families and remains fit for the future.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate. I am pleased that each time Liberal Democrat MPs raise this issue, the Government back the fund.
I want the Government to hear what the ASGSF means for one family in my Esher and Walton constituency. Two of my constituents adopted a two-year-old boy. They were his seventh family. He had already suffered physical abuse and was displaying behavioural issues. It was clear to my constituents that significant professional support was needed to prevent this adoption from breaking down. That was provided by the ASGSF. Without it, my constituents do not believe they could have coped. Now, their son is six and attends a mainstream school.
The delay in announcing money for the ASGSF this year led to a five-month gap in support for my constituents’ son. During this time, he became more aggressive and disruptive. Without the ASGSF’s continuation in April, they would have struggled to maintain the adoption. However, even while extending the ASGSF for one year, the Government cut it by 40%. To cover the resulting shortfall, my constituents have had to use some of their savings. They cannot afford to do so next year.
For my constituents, there is no alternative to the ASGSF. They applied for mental health support for their son from Mindworks Surrey. They have been on the waiting list for three years. They waited more than two years for an appointment through developmental paediatrics, but health professionals did not understand the child’s case and nearly misdiagnosed him. The services unlocked through the fund have given this boy a chance of happiness. He has been through more than most adults will go through in their entire lives. To restrict support and leave him and his family in limbo is cruel.
When the Minister lays out the details of the fund’s future, I urge her as strongly as I possibly can to secure it for the long term, reverse this year’s cruel and damaging cuts, and secure this child’s future.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate.
I want to speak today of families who make a life-changing decision to care for children through adoption and special guardianship. It is a noble thing to do, but it is not always easy. The children have often faced trauma, instability and loss. I have met a lot of those families in my Calder Valley constituency. They are loving parents, fighting to do the best for their children. They do not ask for praise or reward, but they do ask for support and stability. The adoption and special guardianship support fund was created to provide that support. It has helped thousands of children to access therapy, assessments and the kind of specialist care that can be transformative.
More than half of the children looked after through the special guardianship fund have special educational needs. That figure rises to 80% in some cases. They need things such as trauma support, speech therapy, counselling and sensory support.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I met the representatives from the Yorkshire Adoption Agency and a number of adoptive parents this week. The one point they made to me is that the earlier that therapy takes place, the better the life chances and opportunities. Does my hon. Friend agree that having that fund available over a longer period is unbelievably important for the peace of mind of parents, families and guardians?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I was just about to come to that point. Stability and long-term decisions are key. Families need certainty, not just this year, but for the years ahead. Right now, there is no confirmation of funding for 2026-27. I note that there was a written ministerial statement today, although I do not think we know the exact numbers.
As a recovering member of local government, I know far too well the long-term costs when money is saved in the wrong place. I urge the Minister to hear that point and to make sure that we are making the right decisions on this issue, that we are not saving money in the wrong place and that we are giving that long-term stability and support. I know none of these decisions are easy and they are being taken against a backdrop that is worse than any Government have inherited. Let us make sure that we get this right and that we support the people who need it most.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate. In a recent parent and carer survey examining the impact of cuts to the ASGSF, the findings were alarming. Some 71% of children have seen a reduction in the number of therapy sessions, and 34% of families have been forced into an unethical choice between having an assessment of their child’s needs but no treatment, or treatment of unassessed needs.
The cuts to therapeutic packages have led to an increase in school exclusions, which were already far greater than for non-care-experienced children. They have led to an increase in child-on-parent violence, impacting 75% of families. There are children experiencing suicidal feelings who no longer have therapeutic support. Only 1% of families answering the survey have found the new £3,000 fair access limit sufficient to meet their child’s needs. Just 1%—that is a dreadful statistic.
The Government’s changes to the ASGSF have contributed to placements without adequate therapeutic support, despite us knowing the harm that this causes. The Government should think again, consult with families and the sector, reverse the cuts and ensure that a permanent fund is created that allows all families access to the right levels of specialist therapeutic support, right from the start and throughout their young lives. Only then can children heal and thrive.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Unfortunately, we are going to have to reduce the time limit to a minute and a half. I call Martin Wrigley.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate and on the passion of her speech.
I would like to raise the serious challenges that adoptive families in my constituency face in accessing the adoption support fund and wider post-adoption services. Too often, the system is designed for crisis rather than prevention. Overstretched social workers are forced to firefight, and families wait months, even years, for help. One family in my constituency told me that their daughter showed clear needs from the moment she was placed with them as a baby, yet only now, at the age of eight, is she undergoing an education, health and care plan assessment. That is because her behaviour has escalated to the point at which she can no longer cope in mainstream school. For years, her parents fought for therapies and support, but they received only fragmented and inconsistent help.
Funding is another problem. Last year, a child received 14 sessions of therapy through the fund, but this year it has been cut to eight; the family is expected to pay privately if more is needed. They have already waited 16 weeks for a referral to a specialist paediatrician as the first step towards an EHCP for suspected foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
Those are not isolated cases. Most children placed for adoption in the UK have experienced trauma, neglect or abuse, with a lifelong impact on development and behaviour. I urge the Government to rethink their approach. A care package should be the starting point for the adoption placement, not something that parents battle for—
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate.
This is, I believe, the fifth time in as many months that I have spoken on the ASGSF. I reiterate that it is not a luxury but a lifeline for some of most vulnerable children, many of whom desperately need consistent therapeutic intervention to cope with the traumas of loss, neglect and separation.
Although I am pleased to hear that the Government have committed to fund the ASGSF for another year, that will not undo the damage that children across this country have already faced. I recently met the Oakdale Group in my constituency, which provides therapeutic interventions through the support fund. Many families have expressed concern that a reduction in fair access will lead to poorer outcomes and the need for more therapy in the longer term.
Changing, suspending and tinkering with the ASGSF has led to a huge backlog of applications. Many children now face gaps of up to four months with no therapy at all. One family in my constituency is still waiting for their application to be accepted. For traumatised children, consistency is everything. The direct consequences of this Government’s actions have been severe: self-harm, suicidal ideation and thoughts, violence in the home and, in the most heartbreaking of cases, adoption break- down. The full impact of these cuts and delays is yet to be seen.
I ask the Minister directly: will she commit today to a permanent ringfenced fund, removing the need for year-on-year decision making? Will she restore certainty, stability and security for the children who depend on it?
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for her passionate advocacy. There is sometimes a misunderstanding that adoption and kinship care are somehow the fairytale ending to a traumatic situation, but I know at first hand that that is not the case. When I moved into the care of my grandparents as a teenager, I was angry and full of trauma, and I gave my nan and pops way too much grief and not enough appreciation. It was not until years later that I got to access therapy. Hearing the contributions from others today, I wish I had access earlier.
I want to address the Government’s announcement today of the year extension. I want to be honest about how I feel about it—I feel like it is a sop. Families do not renew every financial year; they are for life, and they need long-term certainty about the fund.
Bobby Dean
I absolutely agree, and that was the point that I was about to make. I am sure the Minister will tell me that money is tight, but I ask her over what time horizon she is considering this—five, 10 or 15 years? Families know that this is not a cost-cutting measure. They know how expensive it gets for the state if arrangements fail.
A family in my constituency—a couple of elderly grandparents caring for a teenager who keeps making attempts on their own life—cannot get the support they need, and that child is now under the care of the local authority, which is a far more expensive measure. How are the Government evaluating this fund and the impact it has on their finances? To me, it feels like they are saving a penny a day, and it is costing them a pound tomorrow. I say this to the Minister: restore the funding, guarantee it for good, and stand by those families who are doing our society such a service.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I remind the Opposition Front Benchers that if they take the full allotted 10 minutes, the Minister’s time to respond to the debate will be squeezed.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I warmly congratulate my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate and for so brilliantly outlining the issues at the start. I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning, alongside that of all the carers and parents who are here today and those who are not, who have been filling our inboxes and cannot afford to be here because they are busy looking after vulnerable and traumatised children who need our help.
There have been many powerful and moving contributions today from hon. Members across the House. I salute the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and his partner for stepping up to adopt, and I hope they get the support they need from the ASGSF that they have applied for. However, I was disappointed by his party political swipe, because until now, there has been cross-party consensus in all the debates I have been in on this issue that the changes made in April were short-sighted and extremely damaging.
It is no accident that when I secured my urgent question in April, the day after the fund had expired, the Minister came forward and announced its extension. It is no accident that we are having this debate today, and that a written ministerial statement has come out with this fig leaf of an extension of the fund into next year. The reality is that, yes, there has been cross-party consensus, but we Liberal Democrats have led the charge on this and dragged the Minister, kicking and screaming, to make the announcements.
I really hope that we do not end up being blindsided once again, as we were in April. We all welcomed the announcement in the Chamber that day but then, quietly, in the middle of the Easter recess, the announcement was snuck out that the fair access limits were to be reduced, the assessment grants slashed and the matched funding cut. These parents, carers and families deserve far better. I really hope that Ministers and officials have learnt the lessons from earlier this year.
It is worth repeating and reminding ourselves who we are talking about today: some of the most vulnerable children in our communities, who have suffered unimaginable trauma, including abuse and neglect, sometimes witnessing unspeakable violence in their homes. Their carers—both adoptive parents and kinship carers—have made the most amazing commitment to step up and provide a loving, stable home to help heal and give them a second chance in life. The impact of these short-sighted cuts to the grants has been utterly devastating. The decision has resulted in a backlog of applications, delaying assessments and therapeutic support, and leaving already deeply traumatised children with a heightened sense of abandonment.
I received this email from a parent in June:
“My youngest daughter has recently had her sensory therapy put on hold for two months, due to all the delays by the government. My daughter started her new therapy at the beginning of February this year, had 4 therapy sessions and then had to stop due to the uncertainty around the funding.
We were just starting to see real progress when the therapy stopped abruptly. It was what I can only describe as ‘opening Pandora’s box and violently slamming it shut again’. The regression we saw was severe. We experienced behaviours (including feral screaming), which our daughter had not displayed in over 4 years. This regression not only affected our youngest daughter, but also her older sister (who is also traumatised).”
The charity Home for Good and Safe Families recently surveyed parents and carers to understand the impact of the recent changes to the fund. It found that the loss of therapeutic support is already affecting many families, particularly those without the means to pay privately, leading to increased inequality in access to services, with financial vulnerability closely linked to greater disruption.
In mid-July, one adoption support provider reported that only 50% of their families waiting for support had any funding from the ASGSF in place. That has raised serious concerns about the impact on children’s mental health, with the vast majority of parents and carers saying that they are “extremely” or “very concerned” that their children’s mental health will be negatively affected. For some children and families, long periods without support have caused extreme difficulties—declines in mental health, suicidal thoughts, self-harming, school absence and an escalation of violence in the home. These are children whose lives have been characterised by loss and separation, for whom trusting and consistent relationships are vital.
The cuts have meant that the Purple Elephant Project, which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), right on the border of mine, has reduced its yearly programme of support to just 26 weeks. Six months is a long time in a child’s life. For some children and young people, gaps in therapy greatly risk their willingness to engage in therapy in the future. The Government’s failure to communicate their planned changes has also led to providers reporting substantial financial losses, particularly small providers such as Purple Elephant, which is relying on crowdfunding and emergency funds to stay afloat. Some, including Purple Elephant, are already having to cut their staff, and they are concerned that some therapists will leave the profession altogether. We cannot afford that when we look at the scale of the mental health crisis not just among children in adoptive and kinship care, but more broadly across society.
The irony and the frustration is that the Government have sabotaged a tool that works. An evaluation of the fund in 2022 found that at the end of funded support, the mental health difficulties of school-age children improved, and there were also significant improvements in family functioning. Some 94% of parents say the fund is “absolutely vital” or “very important” to their family and is a need that could not be met elsewhere.
The ASGSF helps families to stay together and prevents family placement breakdown. It also helps children to stay and thrive in school. One adoptive parent I met in my constituency was very clear that her child would not have been able to stay in school without the supportive therapy provided by the ASGSF. As we have heard, there is anecdotal evidence of potential adopters being put off going through the process because of concerns about a lack of post-adoption support. We know that for every child adopted, £1.3 million-worth of value is created through improved outcomes from adoption, and there are the lower financial costs of adoption compared with care. The economic case is unquestionable.
The Government keep telling us—the Minister with responsibility for early years, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), just told us this in the main Chamber—that giving the children the best start in life is one of the Government’s biggest priorities. If they really mean that and want to break down barriers to opportunity, this Minister needs to understand the outrage and despair not just of Members here, but of families and carers up and down the country. The Government have sabotaged a supremely effective fund.
Aside from today’s announcement, there are rumours about the Department reforming the fund, and a paper has been released by Adoption England that proposes devolving funding to regional adoption agencies or local authorities as grants. A whole host of organisations are publicly opposed to those proposals and are concerned that the model will compromise fair and equitable access of funding for all children, regardless of where they live or the agency they have been adopted through.
Furthermore, regional adoption agencies are typically responsible only for adoption services. We are not sure what this would mean for special guardians or those who have child arrangement orders in place and how the funding would be split between kinship families and adoptive families. The Government desperately need to consult families and sector experts. I note that today’s written ministerial statement alludes to engagement—not before time, because people were not consulted or engaged with when the changes were made at Easter.
I believe, and I have told the Minister this privately and publicly, that she and her Department deeply care—as I and my hon. Friends do—about the lives of children and families. But I think that the failure so far in joined-up policymaking and engagement is actually being driven by the Treasury, not by her or her Department. If she needs help with the Treasury, which is desperate for savings, she has support here in all parts of the Chamber, and we will continue to bat for children up and down this country.
I reiterate the calls that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex made at the start of this debate. We need to see a permanent ringfenced fund restored to the previous full amount in terms of grants per child. That will mean extending and expanding the size of the fund. I have told the Minister this before: she can find the money in the £46.5 million budget that the Department had for advertising, consultancy and marketing costs in the past year. She should halve that budget and instead expand the ASGSF by 50% so that the fair access limits can be restored to what they were. There needs to be an end to the surprise annual announcements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) said, children are not adopted or taken into kinship care for one financial year. That is done for life, and with love, and this Government should honour that.
I hope that the Government will start to engage properly with the sector and families up and down the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, I ask for a two-year moratorium on further changes so that the reforms are evidence-based. It is incumbent on all of us as corporate parents to ensure that our most vulnerable children are properly supported and given the best second chance in life, which many of these children are being offered. This is a tiny budget in the context of huge Government spending, but it has a massive impact on those precious and fragile lives. It is time to think again. It is time to do far better. It is time to put children, who are our country’s future, first.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. First, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this incredibly important debate about support for some of the most vulnerable children in this country. The adoption and special guardianship support fund, set up under the Conservative Government in 2015, has, for many years, provided much needed therapeutic support to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care.
I pay tribute to all the adoptive parents, foster carers and kinship carers out there who step up and welcome a child into their home: you are amazing, and I am humbled by the sacrifices you make and the love you give every day. I know it is not always easy. Some of these children, who have often suffered neglect, abuse and violence, have complex needs and can be challenging to care for. There will be days when it feels difficult and never-ending, when you feel alone and unsupported. But you keep going, and are continually there for your child, loving, protecting and supporting them. Given all that you do, in extremely difficult circumstances, the least that can be expected is a reasonable level of support from this Government for you and the child in your care.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund is an important part of that and, frankly, the way that cuts to the fund have been handled beggars belief. It is unacceptable to leave families for months on end without certainty about the funding they rely on and then, at the very last minute, to confirm a 40% cut to the therapy fund from £5,000 to £3,000, the removal of the entire amount for specialist assessment and the cessation of match funding for the most complex cases.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case, and I echo the sentiment that she has expressed so far. My constituent Sara Taylor came to me to make the case for the restoration of the fund. Her key point was that the economic and fiscal consequences, as Members across the House have said, are so obviously detrimental. If we do not spend the money on this, that means that the costs are displaced to society in other ways for the whole generation to come. Does my hon. Friend agree with that sentiment?
Rebecca Paul
My right hon. Friend is spot on. In a written statement, the Government said that
“we are in a challenging fiscal climate and are having to make tough but fair decisions across the public sector”.—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 31WS.]
Minister, how is this fair? Of all the things that this Government could cut, they chose to cut funding to the most vulnerable of children. If they want to be fair, might I suggest that they look elsewhere for efficiencies? If they are looking for suggestions, they might want to cancel their plans to give away the Chagos islands while paying Mauritius £35 billion for the pleasure. Might that not be a more acceptable way to make savings? No one wants to see a Government balancing the books off the backs of the most vulnerable children in our communities.
This decision really is one of the most disappointing things I have seen from this Government. The fund is actually quite small in the scheme of things. These cuts do not move the dial on this country’s financial position in any meaningful way, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have proceeded in this manner. They could have protected it or even boosted it, but they have chosen to spread it more thinly.
Labour always talks a good game on supporting the most vulnerable, but actions speak louder than words. If the Government continue on this path, they need to take responsibility for this short-sighted decision and the impact that it will have. More children with special needs will not get what they need to flourish. That will put even more pressure on adoptive parents and kinship carers, who are already at breaking point. Ultimately, fewer people will put themselves forward to look after these children. That is an absolute tragedy, and one that will end up costing this country more in both human and financial terms, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Mark my words: we will see more of these children going back into care because of this Government’s cuts to the fund.
In a letter to the Education Secretary dated 22 July 2025, stakeholders including Adoption UK, Family Rights Group and Barnardo’s said:
“We have heard from families who are in complete crisis because of the abrupt changes that have taken place…including families who have…been torn apart.”
They continued:
“The thousands of adopted children and eligible children cared for under special guardianship or child arrangements orders, including kinship care, affected by delays and cuts to the Fund have faced unimaginable barriers in their first years of life. They are almost all care experienced and share a childhood characterised by trauma, loss and disruption. These are children who need more from their government, not less.”
In 2024-25, of the nearly 20,000 approved allocations of funding for therapeutic support, 9,000—or 46%—were for an amount of more than £3,000, which suggests that at least 9,000 children will be worse off following these cuts. I, too, have heard from many residents in my constituency, from across Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, who will be impacted by the cuts to this fund.
One story that really hit home is that of a couple who took out a special guardianship order on twins, both of whom had additional needs, significant trauma and attachment issues. When they were looked-after children, they were entitled to all the support they needed, so before taking out the SGO the couple rightly and responsibly sought reassurance that the SGO would not reduce the essential support that the twins were receiving. In typical fashion, they were putting the children first. They were promised that the funding would be there, so they went ahead, but that funding has now been reduced—a promise broken, a placement now at risk. How many SGOs or adoptions will now not go ahead because the support just will not be there afterwards?
I know that the Minister cares deeply about these children and this issue, and that it is likely that the Treasury has driven this decision. But I ask her, as part of this Labour Government and as someone who bears collective responsibility, to fight for these children, reconsider the decision to cut per-child funding, and reinstate both the £5,000 fair access limit and the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessment and match funding.
I was going to ask the Minister to provide the certainty needed by families about funding beyond March 2026 so that families can plan for future changes, but I am pleased to welcome her statement today on this matter. However, I ask her to provide more information on the planned public engagement process in the new year with respect to delivery of this fund, as it again creates unwelcome uncertainty. Just as families breathe a sigh of relief about securing next year’s funding, they have to hold their breath again about March 2027.
Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach and ensure that our most vulnerable children get more from Government, not less. If a change in direction is not forthcoming, I fear that more children will remain in the care system, locked into poorer life outcomes, rather than being welcomed into warm, loving homes where they can flourish and thrive. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing for these children. We all implore them to do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This morning, I laid before Parliament a written ministerial statement confirming that the adoption and special guardianship support fund will continue next year. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate, and I thank all other hon. Members who helped to secure it. I acknowledge the contributions from the chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and from the chair of the kinship care APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I acknowledge her lobbying to extend the fund.
Kicking and screaming is not something I do, however, and the personal attacks of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), lower this debate and what we wish to achieve. I also say to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), that her party had many opportunities to secure the adoption and special guardianship support fund when it was in Government, and it chose not to—in fact, it reduced the funding. I felt it was appropriate to put those things in order.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about this Government, the adoption and special guardianship support fund and our record of supporting the wellbeing of children. I have heard the many contributions and the heartwarming descriptions of situations that really do affect the lives of children who have been adopted or taken into kinship care. The adoption and special guardianship support fund enables valuable therapeutic support to be provided to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care. As I said, I recognise the particular needs of this cohort of children and young people. I know many of them will have had a challenging early life experiences.
Janet Daby
I will make as much progress as I can, because I have been asked many questions in this debate and in many other scenarios and areas. It is very important that I am at least heard for the majority of my speech.
That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that these children and their families have support available that meets their needs. Therefore, I am pleased to confirm that applications to the adoption and special guardianship support fund that run into the next financial year, 2026-27, can now be made. That is part of a wider continuation of the scheme in the next financial year, and full details will be set out later in the autumn. I am absolutely behind making sure that we can present that information in a timely way. That is clearly acknowledged.
I am pleased to say that we will also begin public engagement in the new year to consider the future of the adoption and special guardianship support fund into 2028 and beyond. I am keen to work across Government with children, families and sector representatives to understand more about what support can and should be provided at a sustainable level.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund has now been running for 10 years, and in that time, it has helped to provide support for more than 54,000 children. Independent evaluations have found that the fund has been successful in improving the lives of recipient children and their families. The last independent evaluation of the fund in 2022 found that 83% of parents and guardians had found support funded by the adoption and special guardianship support fund “helpful” or “very helpful”. We also know from parents and carers about the difference the adoption and special guardianship support fund has made to their lives.
However, the fund is not the only source of support available to adopted and special guardianship children and their families, although it is a significant one. Adoption England is a key partner of the Department in improving adoption support. We have provided it with £8.8 million this year for specific projects to improve adoption support. That includes funding for developing national standards, developing centres of excellence as multidisciplinary teams with education and health, and establishing services designed to respond to adoptive families in crisis quicker and more effectively.
We are working to improve the support available to children in kinship care. Last year, the Government announced a £40 million package to test the payment of an allowance to cover the additional costs of supporting children to move into kinship care. We have also published updated statutory guidance on kinship care for local authorities, and we appointed the first kinship care ambassador to advocate for kinship families across Government. Across England, more than 140 kinship peer-to-peer support groups are already up and running, providing kinship carers with vital spaces to connect, share their experiences and support one another. Alongside that, a comprehensive package of training and support is being actively delivered, ensuring that every kinship carer has access to the resources they need to thrive. We have also expanded the role of the virtual school heads to champion the education, attainment and attendance of children in kinship care who were previously in care.
This Government’s approach to informing children’s social care will transform services and transition towards earlier intervention. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will shift the focus of the children’s social care system and put children’s needs first. Our landmark investments in family help and Best Start family hubs will help families to access earlier support before they reach crisis point. Those measures and investments are alongside the adoption and special guardianship support fund so that specialist support is available should families need it.
On health, Ministers and officials engage regularly with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England on how we can improve support for children, and we will continue to do that. The most recent NHS plan sets out how we intend to improve mental health services.
In order to ensure that the fund was financially stable in 2025-26, I announced a number of changes to the management of the budget. In the interests of transparency, I committed to making the equalities impact assessment, which helped to inform decision making, available for review. On 17 July, I placed the assessment in the Libraries of both Houses. It provides a breakdown of the available data and explains the rationale behind our decision to make changes.
In particular, it highlights the fact that, had we not made changes, many children could have been prevented from accessing therapy. The number of children accessing the fund has increased by 2,000 year on year. The equalities impact assessment is kept under review, and my officials update it regularly to better understand the impact of any changes on vulnerable children. The Department also publishes annual data on the adoption and special guardianship support fund.
Rachael Maskell
Does the hon. Member share my concern that if we are going to make the investment for the long term, we have to look at the number of children in care? In 2010, there were 64,000, and in 2024, 83,630. That places significant demand on the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Will she look at the work that York council is doing on halving the number of children in care? Surely that will reduce demand on the fund.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for all her comments. Over the last decade, the number of looked-after children in care has increased by 22% to 84,000. The previous Government have a lot to answer for. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are trying to make sure that we do intervention and prevention work early so that we support more families as early as we can. Through family group decision making, we are supporting support families and friends to come forward to provide a home for a child where that is the right thing for them.
More needs to be done. We are getting on with and trying to do a lot, but there is still so much more to address.
Tom Gordon
In an Adjournment debate on 3 April, the Minister said:
“This debate has given me the opportunity to talk about our plans to ensure that all adopted children get the support they need”.—[Official Report, 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 558.]
Just a week and a few days later, she went on to cut the support fund and the fees that people could access through it. At the time of that debate, did she know that those cuts to the funds and access were coming?
Janet Daby
Just for clarification, at that debate I always said that more information would follow in due course. As soon as the decisions regarding the fund had been made, that information was laid before the House.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must continue to be grateful to the parents and carers of adopted and kinship children, in particular for the compassion and dedication they have shown in giving vulnerable children the chance of having a happy, stable home. I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ remarks, and I will continue to do so. I know the importance of this debate to many families outside this House. I and my officials will continue to work closely with families and sector representatives over the coming months to understand what support should be provided at a sustainable level.