Early Education and Childcare
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend from along the south coast for his question. I know that Portsmouth football club are very much looking forward to playing Southampton this season. We promised to make childcare more affordable and we are delivering on that. I pay tribute to him and the work that he did in local government, and is now doing in this place, to ensure that childcare is more affordable and accessible for children in his constituency.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to and recognition of the importance of early years provision, and the support for school-based nurseries, like the new Little Thinkers at Kings Ash academy and the nursery at Furzeham primary school. However, like others, I am deeply concerned about recruitment in the sector. Daisy and Rainbow Childcare said to me this morning:
“Our biggest difficulty is managing the drop off in funding as the child gets older, while negotiating a 37% increase in ENICs, ongoing increases in minimum wages and a rate for three and four-year-olds that has never kept pace. Is it any wonder that practitioners are voting with their feet and leaving the sector to take their skills elsewhere? We’ve been advertising for a qualified practitioner now for three months with zero applications.”
Will the Minister explain what the Government are going to do to ensure that recruitment in the sector is maintained?
Stephen Morgan
The early years workforce is at the heart of our Government’s mission to give every child the best start in life. I mentioned earlier that we have seen an uplift in the number of people working in the sector by 18,000 this year. Our best start in life strategy set out a range of measures that we will take to encourage more people to work in the sector. I am proud that we have the “Do Something Big” campaign—a real effort to increase the number of people working in the sector—which is making a real difference across our country.
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Mobile phones have no place in schools. Government guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day. Research from the Children’s Commissioner shows that 99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools already have policies restricting the use of mobile phones.
Stephen Morgan
I have said that phones should not be out in schools, and heads have the power to enforce that. The Opposition backed those measures. If they felt they needed to go further, they had 14 long years in which to do so.
Caroline Voaden
Last Thursday, I felt the fear in a hall full of parents of primary school children in Totnes as they listened to campaigners going through the evidence of the impact of smartphones on kids at secondary school. There is a clear safeguarding issue around kids seeing videos of hardcore pornography and violence.
I am therefore pleased that Tina Graham, the head of Kingsbridge community college, has just announced a smartphone-free policy from September to protect children, which will mean no phones in school at all except for reasonable adjustments. That is a much better policy than the “Not seen—put it in your bag” policy that most schools follow. In the light of such safeguarding concerns, where every child is only as safe as the least safe phone in school, why will the Minister not do the one thing that could transform our children’s mental and physical health, and school attainment and direct all schools to go smartphone free—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, this is not fair; I have to get others in. I call the Minister.
Early Years Providers: Government Support
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. High-quality early years education is one of the most important investments we can make in not just children’s development but the future of our society. The early years shape everything that follows, laying the foundations for learning, wellbeing and opportunity, but too many children are still starting school without the basic skills they need to thrive. Gaps in communication, language and social development are showing up early, and for too many they persist throughout their education and beyond.
We cannot accept a system where a child’s background determines their chances in life, as the hon. Member set out so clearly. That is why well-supported, high-quality early years settings are so important, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Those environments can transform life chances. They give children the stability, stimulation and support they need to grow, learn and thrive.
The evidence is clear: the earlier we act, the greater the impact. The extension of free childcare to younger children has huge potential, and I welcome two new school-based nurseries in my constituency in Paignton and at Furzeham primary in Brixham, but to truly benefit families and children, this must be about quality, not just hours. That means supporting the people at the heart of this system: the early years workforce. Nursery staff, childminders and early years professionals play a vital role in children’s lives, often forming their first important relationships outside the home. They are educators, role models and a lifeline for many families. We must invest in their training, development and career progression. If we are serious about addressing the SEND crisis, additional training is crucial, as is support from qualified professionals in early years settings such as speech and language therapists.
To tackle recruitment and retention challenges, the Liberal Democrats would introduce a career strategy for nursery staff, ensuring that most people working with two to four-year-olds hold, or are training for, relevant early years qualifications. We would also restore childminding as a valued part of the system by creating a single streamlined childcare register and commissioning a practitioner-led review to simplify regulation, cut red tape and attract new childminders, while keeping high standards.
Of course, families themselves also need support. That is why the Government’s commitment to family hubs has such promise, and I welcome it. These hubs have the potential to spot emerging needs early and provide parents with the tools and confidence to give their children the best start in life, whether that is understanding the importance of reading and play, managing screen time, supporting good nutrition or sleep, or simply helping parents to feel more confident. Family hubs can be transformative.
This is a moment of real opportunity. With the right focus, investment and support for our workforce and families, we can build a high-quality, inclusive early years system that will change children’s lives for the better.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend raises a valid and important point that has been made in various contributions to this debate. At the start of this week, I spent my morning at Fishbourne pre-school. It does not have a lovely name like the Bears or the Acorns—I am quite jealous, actually—but it is a brilliant, popular, charity-run pre-school that is doing everything it can to serve local families.
I was covered in shaving foam the moment I walked through the door. There were activities, messy play and free play going on everywhere. We had a lovely “Wind the Bobbin Up” in the forest school, but I also took the opportunity to talk to the manager of the pre-school. She told me very plainly that, under the new arrangements, not only will their funding model be affected, but they will end up taking fewer children overall. The demand is there—they are already at capacity—but this change will mean that they can serve fewer families in the Fishbourne area.
I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was alluding to: in those rural areas where there is not a huge amount of choice, and just one local service provider, if they can take on fewer children, where are the others meant to go?
Caroline Voaden
My hon. Friend is talking about the provision in rural areas. We have a wonderful nursery called Rainbow nursery in Totnes, which serves not only the town but the wider area. There are very few, if any, village nurseries, so lots of people come into the town to use the nursery provision. It is absolutely rammed, with a huge waiting list, and many parents will not even get a place before their child moves on. As other hon. Members have said, it is really struggling, with the free childcare hours, to cover its costs. If that nursery becomes unsustainable, there will be no provision. There are not lots of alternatives, so we are at a really crucial point.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I hope that the Minister hears the message loud and clear from across the House that many service providers are flagging this to us in our constituencies. I send my concern to Rainbow nursery—another great name for a nursery.
Fishbourne pre-school is just about covering wages and keeping the lights on, but there is nothing left over for the things that actually make early years special: the new books, the toys and the equipment to support those additional needs. Anything extra for the pre-school has to be raised by the parents via raffles or voluntary donations.
The staff at Fishbourne pre-school were conscientious, engaged and passionate about the young people who they look after. I could tell that they valued every single one of them. I was really pleased to see that it had recently taken on a male member of staff, which goes back to earlier contributions from hon. Members. The nursery manager told me that it is brilliant to have a male presence in the nursery because so many of those children only see females in nursery settings. He is doing a marvellous job and I commend him for it. He was not in charge of the shaving foam.
These professionals value every single one of the children they look after. Do the Government believe that they are valuing those professionals in the same way? The Department for Education itself has said that we will need 70,000 new childcare places and 35,000 additional staff by this autumn. Those already in the sector report feeling underpaid, overworked and under-recognised, despite the enormous responsibility that they hold looking after the most precious members of our families. If the Government are to recruit 35,000 more people into the early years sector, they need to make it an attractive career path.
The new entitlements from September are meant to support all families, but the current design risks deepening inequality. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that 80% of the families who will benefit earn over £45,000 a year. Just 20% are lower income families. That means that some of the children who would benefit most from early years intervention and education are the least likely to get it. I hope that the Minister is across that.
My party has welcomed the Government’s commitment to increasing the frequency of Ofsted inspections for early years settings to keep children safe. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) mentioned, that is incredibly welcome, but there is concern that the numbers on the floor can be boosted the day before an Ofsted inspection. The tragic case of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle and the horrific abuse uncovered at Twickenham Green nursery are searing reminders of what can happen when safeguarding fails. Gigi’s parents, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), have long campaigned for more regular and more robust inspections, as they are a vital part of raising standards and safeguarding children.
Going back to supporting the workforce who are delivering this essential care, we need to invest in proper training, setting clear standards for oversight and ensuring that there is a meaningful career path for nursery staff. Requiring a recognised early years qualification and helping staff to access and complete that training is key to building a confident, skilled workforce and ensuring that every child receives the best possible start. So many Members across the House mentioned SEND; that skilled workforce can identify the additional support that a child may need as they move on towards school.
I will briefly touch on the comments by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), on maintained nurseries. I have a maintained nursery in my constituency, which is relaying the same concerns that she raised: it has the additional onus of employing a headteacher and operating like a school, but it cannot access the funding that schools can. The burden and pressure on its balance sheet are huge, and it is at risk of closing, but maintained nurseries have the greatest majority of SEND children. They are doing those early interventions and some incredible work. I was grateful to visit my local maintained nursery.
Water Safety Education
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Paffey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the very relevant point he makes. I will come on to the issue of how we can ensure that education is locally targeted. Each of the situations we face in our constituencies will be that little bit different, so it is important that on top of a compulsory expectation there are locally targeted campaigns.
We would not let someone drive a car without first passing their theory test, so why do not we comprehensively and consistently teach our children about water safety before they enter the water to have fun? This is not about taking away that fun; it is about being aware of the hidden threats, and therefore having the power to do something about it.
I pay tribute to Joe’s mother, Vanessa Abbess, who I am pleased is present in the Gallery today. Ness has become a tireless campaigner, sending hundreds of letters to local schools, working with the Royal Life Saving Society and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and pushing for improved signage in Bournemouth. She brought her powerful story to Parliament earlier this week, when we established the all-party parliamentary group on water safety education. Ness has done all that in the hope that no other family should suffer as the Abbess family has.
The coroner’s report was submitted to the Secretary of State in October last year. The coroner said:
“An ideal opportunity to warn and inform all members of the public would be through educating children of the risks. The lack of providing education to children around these risks through the national classroom curriculum could lead to future deaths.”
The report also stated that
“urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths”
and that the Department for Education has
“the power to take such action.”
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s response to the coroner’s report, in which she committed to
“look carefully at what more can be done to support schools to provide water safety education to all pupils,”
and to
“give full consideration to including a requirement that all pupils should be taught about water safety, including the water safety code.”
I urge the Government today to uphold that commitment and to go further.
As has become clear, we need to do more than just teach swimming. As hon. Members have highlighted, access to pools is uneven, lessons vary in quality and duration, and too many children—especially in deprived or minority communities—are being left behind. The Department for Education states:
“All pupils should be taught to swim and how to be safe in and around water”.
Well, yes, they should, but is saying they “should” really enough? At this point, I do not believe so—we can and we must go further. We need to mandate classroom-based water safety education in every school.
I pay tribute to many people who have campaigned on this before, including Rebecca Ramsay from Chorley, who secured some concessions under the previous Government. However, she has recently said that changes are not coming quickly enough. For her son, Dylan, for Joe, for Sunnah and for too many others, I ask the Government to tackle this issue with the urgency that it deserves. The Royal Life Saving Society has already created high-quality classroom resources that are cost-effective and proven to improve children’s understanding and confidence around water. It reaches everyone—through its Water Smart Schools’ campaign, its Splash Safety at Your Pad campaign, and its lifesaving training, accreditation and awards—regardless of background or access to swimming pools. These resources offer a lesson for life. Let us not leave it to chance; let us bring those resources into the heart of our curriculum.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. Although I recognise that her responsibilities lie within education, included in the recommendations are some wider points that I ask her to convey back to Government. First, there is currently no Minister for water safety or drowning prevention in the UK despite having Ministers for fire safety, road safety and other preventable public dangers, and despite Scotland and Wales having dedicated water safety ministerial roles. Why does England not have such a role? The National Water Safety Forum and the World Health Organisation have both urged the UK Government to appoint such Ministers, and I echo that call today. The coroner noted that one in four children still does not receive any swimming education, and that number has almost certainly worsened since the pandemic.
Secondly, I ask the Government to commit to a national swimming and water safety strategy, based on up-to-date evidence about children’s access across this country to swimming lessons and water safety education. Thirdly, my major request is that when the national curriculum is updated, following the current review, and is then taught in every school as mandated in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, will the Government use that opportunity to enshrine water safety as a core, compulsory part of every child’s education? The point of the curriculum is not just to pass exams; it is to prepare our young people for life. If Labour’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, here is just about the greatest opportunity that we can offer them: the opportunity to learn and to live.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that there is more to this than just teaching children to swim? Hope Cove Life Boat in my constituency saves about 60 people from drowning every year, and many of them have been swept out to sea because of wind and tides. Understanding the nature of the sea and how dangerous it can be is crucial. It is not just about knowing how to swim, but about knowing how to survive at sea.
Darren Paffey
I fully agree with the hon. Lady. As I commended the emergency services that rushed to the scene on that fateful day in Bournemouth, I commend the project that she has mentioned in her constituency.
In closing, no child should drown simply because they were not taught how to recognise the dangers. It is essential to teach children how to swim, yes, but it is not enough; we must teach them how to survive in different contexts. The coroner’s warning was chilling in its clarity:
“Further deaths will occur unless action is taken.”
So today I ask the Government please to act now and make classroom-based water safety education a compulsory part of the national curriculum, not an optional extra, not a postcode lottery, but a guaranteed lifesaving entitlement for every child in every school, in every constituency, in every part of the country. The time to act is now, before any more lives are lost.
Outdoor Education
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Tim Farron
Absolutely. That builds on what I am saying. When it comes to poor mental health, it feels like we are figuratively fishing struggling people out of water, when perhaps what we really need to do is build their resilience so that they do not fall in in the first place. Ironically, of course, we do that in part by pushing people into the water—after an entirely appropriate risk assessment, of course.
Education and policy of successive Governments has failed to prioritise outdoor education to the extent that it has become for many a nice luxury at best, rather than the essential that it ought to be.
Caroline Voaden
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument about the mental health benefits of outdoor education, which I wholeheartedly support. Does he agree with me that if we are to inspire the next generation to appreciate, understand and love nature and promote nature recovery, we need to introduce them to nature? In that spirit, will he commend Grenville House in Brixham and Forest and Beach outdoor education in my constituency, along with all the other schools that promote the Ten Tors expeditions on Dartmoor, for the vital work they do?
Tim Farron
I absolutely will. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about integrating outdoor education in the curriculum as a whole.
To turn the situation around will take a serious, conscious and deliberate effort, and I want the Government to take this opportunity to make that happen. This absolutely has to be a cross-party mission. By the way, this is a small half-hour debate, and yet there are more people here than in many hour and a half debates, which shows how important this is to many people. There are no Conservatives here, but I want to pay tribute to two of them: Sam Rowlands, a Member of the Senedd in Wales, and Liz Smith in the Scottish Parliament, who have so ably led campaigns to increase access to outdoor learning. It is a joy to work with and learn from them.
I met the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), recently, and was impressed by his engagement and interest in the issue. I raised with him a point that I want to raise with the Minister here today; I also have a specific request to make—a few of them, actually. Here we go.
First, will the Minister conduct a review of access to outdoor education experiences in our schools? Specifically, will the Department for Education conduct a review of which children and schools are accessing outdoor education opportunities and which children and schools are not accessing those opportunities? Will she ensure that the review analyses why those who are not getting outdoor education experiences are missing out? Then, having identified those barriers, will she come to Parliament with a plan for systematically tackling them? Will she review the capacity in the sector to ascertain our ability to provide access in reality for every young person?
My second ask is for a nature premium, modelled on the existing PE and sport premium, for the 18% in the poorest of our communities who never even visit the natural environment. Children whose imagination is captured by the outdoors in early life through outdoor education are much more likely to make their own choices in an environmentally beneficial way through the rest of their life. Will the Minister look at the evidence from the trial in Glasgow, which is supported by a private donor, and commit to rolling out the nature premium across the country?
My third ask is basically three asks in one. There are three reviews happening right now that should have outdoor learning at their heart and could transform opportunities for young people if the Government choose to seize the moment. First, DEFRA’s access to nature scheme is under review. It provides residentials for young people at schools where more than 30% of children have pupil premium funding. Is the Minister involved in that review, and is she pushing for that scheme to be maintained and extended?
Secondly, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading on the Government’s youth strategy. I understand that the interim report is due out this month. Is the Minister involved in the review, and has the Department for Education pushed for outdoor education to be central and integral to the youth strategy’s mission to radically improve outcomes for our young people?
Thirdly, on the Department for Education’s own curriculum review, will the Minister say something about her work to ensure that outdoor learning, including the importance of residentials, becomes central to the curriculum at both primary and secondary level? At the moment, I have to say, the signs are not encouraging: in the draft curriculum review, the word “outdoor” appears just once. How can the Minister reassure us that the final review will not completely miss this golden opportunity?
My final and fourth ask is an ambitious one, but surely this is the time to be ambitious for our young people. If the Government want to do something utterly transformational that will improve education and mental health outcomes, tackle obesity and physical poor health, and increase life chances and cohesion in our society, they should support my presentation Bill, which calls for every child to have an entitlement to a week-long residential outdoor education experience at primary, and then again at secondary school.
Schools should be fully funded to provide those experiences. Outdoor education centres should be involved in the design of those programmes, and they should be given the ability to expand capacity. No child should miss out because their parents could not afford it. The value would be immense. It would light the blue touchpaper on a lifelong love of nature, adventure and the outdoors. It would build citizens who can cope and thrive in the modern world. It would mean happier and healthier people, better learners, better workers and a better country.
School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine McKinnell
We did inherit a dire situation. Children were not being taught by the expert teachers they should have been taught by, and teachers were stretched to the limit. That is why the first thing we did was to reset the relationship between the Government and schools, which for years had resembled some sort of combat.
We want to work with schools. We recognise how hard they are working to deliver for children, and we want to work with them to support them in any way we can. That means having high-quality teachers and good-quality teacher training. It means supporting every teacher to be trained to meet the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities. It means maximising every pound so that it can get to the frontline—to the children—by reducing other costs in schools. We will continue to work with schools to do that, so that we can ensure that every child has the expert teacher they deserve and will not be let down any more, as they have been for the last 14 years.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I think we would all agree that education is the best investment that any Government can make; it raises people out of poverty, improves social mobility and improves health outcomes. Sadly, it was not a priority for the last Government, and I welcome the change in tone from the new Government, although I think it will take more than breakfast clubs to fix the problem.
The Devon branch of the National Association of Head Teachers has said, “We’re on our knees.” Primary schools are consolidating classes because they are having to cut spending, and one secondary school in my patch will have to pay £95,000 extra for every 1 percentage point rise in pay that is not funded. If the pay award is not fully funded, can the Minister explain exactly where schools are supposed to find this extra money?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady is—understandably so, given the calling of this urgent question despite a statement being due imminently—getting ahead of herself, and we are doing an awful lot more than breakfast clubs. I have listed just some of what we are doing, but we are working incredibly hard across the board.
Schools will work very hard to make sure that their budgets maximise the outcomes for children, and we will continue to support them to do that. That means having a Department that steps up. It does not stand back and criticise; it steps up. It means supporting the buying that schools do, and making sure they are getting the best value for money in all the purchasing they do. It means supporting them with their maintenance and management. It means supporting them with energy costs. We know that expenditure on energy is a big cost for schools, and the Department can provide support with good contracts that get much better value for money. It is similar with banking and with teacher vacancies. Schools can save a significant amount of money using the products available from the Department for Education, which we are continuing to provide, and they can use the tools available to see how they are doing and also what other schools are doing well. We will continue to support schools to maximise—
Adoption and Kinship Placements
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech.
We know that adopted children are often the most traumatised in our society. The abuse, neglect and instability that they have endured in their earliest years leave lasting scars, affecting their development, their ability to trust and their mental health. With the right support, those children can heal. Therapy gives them a second chance to feel safe, to build meaningful relationships and to lead stable, loving lives.
Let us take the example of Leo, an eight-year-old boy who lost his parents and two siblings and now lives with his special guardian under a special guardianship order due to his assessed psychological need for permanence. Leo also has a diagnosis of autism spectrum condition, and experienced complex trauma within his birth home during the first few years of his life. Thanks to support from the fund, Leo and his special guardian mum have been accessing specialist psychotherapy. The progress that he has made has been remarkable. He is now able to share his sadness and ask for comfort when he feels overwhelmed—a huge step for a child who used to shut down completely and express distress through challenging behaviour.
Leo’s case highlights why early therapeutic intervention is so crucial. However, due to recent cuts and delays in the ASGSF funding, Leo has been waiting five months to continue his therapy, which is critical work focused on processing the complex grief of losing his entire birth family. The interruption in therapy is more than just a pause—it risks undoing much of the progress Leo has made. Rebuilding trust with his therapist will take time, and the delay may trigger deep feelings of abandonment, undermining his already fragile belief that adults can be safe and consistent. Even when therapy resumes, the reduced number of sessions now available is unlikely to be enough to fully support Leo through his grief. A child such as Leo does not need a quick fix; he needs time, skilled support and consistency to help him to heal.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is telling the heartwarming story of her constituent. Two constituents of mine, Liz and Steve from Wincanton, have recently become the special guardians for their grandchild. They faced a long-drawn-out process as a result of the delays to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and they have really struggled to get the support they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should urgently reverse these harmful cuts and reaffirm their commitment to supporting vulnerable children?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
When children like Leo receive the right early help, they are more likely to thrive in school, avoid crisis services and grow into adults who contribute positively to society. Supporting those children gives them a second chance at life, and ultimately it also saves money. That is why the fund was created in 2015. Early therapeutic intervention can be transformative and much more cost-effective than dealing with complex problems later in life.
Demand is growing—in 2023, 38% of families reported reaching a crisis point, up from 30% in 2022—yet therapists fear that recent funding changes will reduce the number of children they can support. Some are already leaving the field. Families are growing wary, hesitant to invest in assessments and worrying that they will not have enough left for therapy or that funding will run out entirely. I have met one therapist who says she will be able to see fewer children, not more, because of the reduction in funding.
Quality of care is also at risk. Limited budgets may push families toward cheaper providers, who lack the specialist expertise needed to work safely with traumatised children. Many effective therapeutic models just cannot be delivered within the reduced budgets and fewer sessions. The long-term costs of underfunding are enormous. Without proper support, placements may break down, forcing vulnerable children back into the care system. We cannot let that happen. Restoring sustainable ASGSF funding is essential. Every child like Leo deserves the chance to heal, and that starts with the right support at the right time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I recognise that there are many champions of children and families in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Indeed, there are many passionate Members who really want the right outcomes for children who are adopted and who are in kinship care through special guardianship or child arrangements orders and others.
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this important debate. I too want the best support for adopted and kinship children, and I acknowledge her sincere interest in the subject. There have been many interventions, questions and speeches. Because of time I will not refer to each Member by their constituency, but I will do my best to respond to the many questions that have rightly been put.
We recognise the particular needs of adopted and kinship children, many of whom have experienced trauma. Some will have experienced in utero damage, which can result in foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other conditions. That is why the Government have continued to provide funding to support these children through the adoption and special guardianship support fund and other ways. There have been no cuts in the overall budget of the adoption and special guardianship support fund. When that announcement was made, I said that further information would follow. The further announcement was made during recess so that the fund could be opened and therapy could be accessed. We had to announce that so that the new criteria were available and the funding could be opened.
Although funding has been confirmed at £50 million this year, we know that it will not be enough to meet the expected demand, and we are therefore making these decisions now to enable us to support the maximum number of children. Families will still receive a good standard of support through the fund: £3,000-worth of therapy each year is a substantial amount of support, and will fund an average of 19 to 20 hours of therapy on current costings. Where needed, local authorities and regional adoption agencies can use their own funding to increase the amount of therapy, if needed. Both multidisciplinary assessments and specialist assessments will be able to continue, but the money for that will have to come from that £3,000. We have decided to stop match funding and the separate funding of special assessments, but, as I said, such assessments can continue out of that £3,000.
School Accountability and Intervention
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I commend him for his experience in the classroom, which is clearly valuable. We always want to encourage more teachers. Indeed, the whole reasoning behind these reforms is to create an accountability system that recognises good practice and identifies where improvements can be made, but also diagnoses how such improvements can be made and ensures there is the ability to create a self-improving system among our schools, so that they can support one another to drive forward those improvements in the interests of everybody. It is not about punishing schools; it is about supporting schools to create those improvements, which we know that they want and we want to see for children.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Headteachers in my constituency of South Devon have expressed some disappointment today at the reform in the Ofsted regime; they said it offered the opportunity for fundamental reform but they do not see that. For example, there are no details on how inclusion will be measured, which we know is absolutely crucial for addressing the SEND crisis. As this is such a key part of the new inspection process, can the Minister assure the House that details of how inclusion will be measured will be made available while there is still time for meaningful consultation?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady raises an important point and we absolutely want to hear from schools about how issues like inclusion can be successfully measured and incentivised and held accountable as part of this system. Along with the document Ofsted has produced today it has produced toolkits that set out its inspection framework, and I urge the hon. Lady and those in her constituency who are making representations to take a look. If additional issues are outstanding, of course she should get in touch.
Oral Answers to Questions
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In Devon, only 4.9% of EHCPs are received within 20 weeks. Conservative-run Devon county council has been utterly failing our children for the past 10 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more we can do to support the council and turn things around for families, like that of my constituent James, who has had to wait two and a half years for the test that he needs to get an EHCP?
Catherine McKinnell
Local authorities have been significantly impacted by the increased demand for EHCPs, and by workforce capacity issues. We know that they need a more effective and efficient service delivery for schools and families, and we are working as hard as we can to support local authorities in meeting their requirements in a timely way.