Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[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—]