Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I thank the Petitions Committee for accepting this debate. The e-petition received over 200 signatures from my constituents in Chichester. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I put on record thanks from the parental organisations and advocacy organisations, because I know she has reached out and asked to speak to them ahead of the White Paper’s publication, which is really appreciated. Time and again, when talking to parents, teachers and those in local authority about the SEND system, I hear the word “adversarial” and that it is failing to deliver for our young people. Parents often feel pitted against their school, or even against other parents, in a system that is complex to navigate and distressing for all involved.

Where West Sussex county council is concerned, parents report a pattern that has been cited by many Members on both sides of the Chamber today. In the latest quarterly figures, it managed to put in place just 14.3% of all EHCPs within the 20-week statutory framework, which puts it among the worst councils in England on timelines. When an EHCP is refused, even after lengthy assessments, families appeal, then on the eve of the tribunal, the council concedes and issues the plan—but often, that is only the start of the process for those families. It wastes months that a child does not get back, and it wastes public money on process rather than provision.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

On exactly that point, the problem often starts earlier than that—in schools. My mum, a councillor in Wakefield, has been fighting to get my sister assessed for two years, but the school has lost the paperwork so we are no further forward. Does my hon. Friend agree, similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) said, that we need more support in schools to make sure that people get the assessments they need?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many schools that I have spoken to in my constituency say they cannot fund a full-time SENCO; instead, they might share them with other primary schools in the area. SENCOs are at the frontline of this issue. They want to deliver for the children they are asked to represent, but they are not paid enough nor given enough hours to do the job. We need decisions that get it right first time and support that starts when the need is identified, not after a courtroom date is set.

I welcome the ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on neurodivergent screening and teacher training. His principle is simple: we must identify needs early, including dyslexia; equip teachers with the knowledge and confidence to respond in class; and make specialist pathways clear and timely for those who need them. As he rightly said in his moving contribution in the main Chamber, neurodivergence is not a weakness or a flaw; with the right support, it can be a superpower. If Ministers are serious about addressing the crisis in SEND, parent voice must be at the centre. Parents know their children best and what works, because they live with the consequences of policy every day. Change will command confidence only if families can see and feel the difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

Siouxsie gave me a flag by which to remember young people with speech and language issues. That will be in my office, and I will think about those young people every day in this job. I am grateful to all the organisations and parents who have met me. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who hosted a really powerful roundtable and drop-in earlier so that I could hear from amazing schools that are leading inclusive practice, want to do this work and want to work with the Government.

I ran a council for seven years and spent 14 years in local government. I met so many parents in my own borough and many others who told me the problems with the system, which we have heard about really powerfully today. I met parents who could see that issues were starting early but were not listened to and had to fight for support. I met parents who found that there was no support available until there was a diagnosis. We heard so many stories of the months, and sometimes years, that parents and young people have had to wait. I met parents who found that not only education but wider services, such as playgrounds and youth services, were not set up for their children, or were living in very overcrowded housing and found it difficult to manage their children’s needs. I met parents who could not find local schools that could meet their children’s needs and parents—we heard examples of this today—who had had to give up work to be able to support their children.

I have met children who do not feel comfortable going to school because of their experiences when they were younger; one talked to me earlier about the trauma she had from having to go to a school that was not set up to meet her needs.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Georgia Gould]

I will make some progress as we do not have much time and there were so many different comments.

I have heard from young people who found when applying for college that their EHCP had not been updated since they were very young and colleges said they could not meet their needs. Some of the stories that are hardest to hear are those of people who have had to fight every single year, whose child is now 18, and who can see all the missed opportunities and feel so deeply let down, and of children have lost confidence in the support available.

Too many parents feel they have to arm up for battle when interacting with the system. They do not want to resort to the tribunal, but sometimes feel that is the only way to get support. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said that parents are exhausted. So many parents say that they are exhausted by having to fight and, heartbreakingly, that they feel broken by the system. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who criticised the comments by the Reform leadership attacking parents who are just fighting for their children to get the support that they need. I know parents will never give up, because they want to support their children.

We cannot start this discussion without acknowledging how many children and families have been badly let down by the system. Many within the system are also struggling: teachers who do not feel like they have the right training or support to meet need in the classroom, as we heard from so many Members today; schools that want more specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, for their children but do not have access to it; and local authorities that did not get the investment they needed to build a local offer and so are paying for expensive private provision far away from communities.

Early Education and Childcare

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

I can tell from my hon. Friend’s question how passionate he is about these issues. This Government want to break down the barriers to opportunity to ensure that every child succeeds and thrives. I have already set out a number of measures that we are undertaking to deliver that, and I really look forward to working with him to ensure that every child in his constituency gets the best start in life, whatever their background.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I welcome the positive step towards providing affordable childcare. Coppice Valley primary school in my constituency is part of phase 1 of the scheme that the Minister outlined. However, it worries me that what he has outlined might come at the expense of private and voluntary sector providers, which deliver the majority of early years places. The new early years funding contract is putting huge strain on such providers, which are having to pass the unaffordable costs on to parents. The Minister has said that there will be a review of the funding in due course, but can he give us some more specific dates and timelines? Nurseries and parents cannot afford this issue in the meantime.

[Stephen Morgan]

It is really important that early years education is delivered in a way that is fair and affordable for parents. As a key part of the strategy we published earlier this year, I am very pleased that there are schools in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that will deliver the school-based nursery programme. As I mentioned in my statement, I visited one in Warrington last week that was a really good partnership between the school and a private provider. I really encourage him to look at that model to see how that could work in his constituency.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

We have increased funding to improve the condition of schools to £2.1 billion for 2025-26, which includes more than £7 million for North Yorkshire to invest in its maintained schools, including Springhead. North Yorkshire has also been allocated £6.8 million for 2025-26 to provide suitable and accessible school places for pupils with SEND who require alternative provision.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

A number of years ago, Woodfield school in Bilton in my constituency was closed. It has been rebuilt as a specialist school for children with autism. It was meant to open in September last year, but that was delayed until September this year. Will the Minister meet me and confirm whether it will open on time this September?

[Stephen Morgan]

I am happy to meet the hon. Member.

Further Education Institutions

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon]

Indeed, and I note that FE colleges, on average, have a higher number of SEND pupils than others. They give really good opportunities for children with additional needs to thrive and to go on and educate, so I commend the work of her local college.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. One of the first things that I had to do after the general election was to ensure a funding guarantee of more than £20 million for a rebuild of Harrogate college. Due to the local authority dropping the ball, the planning expired and the funding period elapsed. I was grateful to work with the Labour Government to secure that funding. I do worry, though, about the £90,000 cut to Harrogate college’s adult skills funding. The response that I got from the Government said that that is now devolved to the Labour mayor. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more funding for our devolved mayors to ensure that we keep up adult skills funding?

[Anna Dixon]

I am pleased to hear that the Labour Government have secured the future of Harrogate college. I also agree that it is vital that, as the workplace changes, people keep their skills up to date with lifelong learning, so it is essential that we protect and maintain adult education funding. I would like to hear from the Minister on that. Will she outline the Government’s plans to ensure sustainable funding for FE colleges, as well as the ongoing support for adult education as mentioned?

Adoption and Kinship Placements

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

rose—

[Janet Daby]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) first.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for allowing me to intervene first. In the Adjournment debate that I held on this subject, the Minister responded,

“support for adopted children is critical. It can decrease the likelihood of adoption disruptions or breakdowns.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 555.]

In real terms to people on the ground, this is a cut, so will she acknowledge that the actions of her Government will have an impact on adoption breakdown and disruption?

[Janet Daby]

I absolutely recognise that the threshold and criteria have changed to enable us to reach as many children as possible under the current funding of £50 million. It is crucial that assessments continue for those children to enable them to have the right types of therapy. If Members allow me to press on, I will be able to respond a bit further to the many things they raised.

I turn to the point about adoption and special guardianship support funding not being available to all children living under special guardianship orders. The main reason that the fund is available only to previously looked-after children living under special guardianship or child arrangements orders is that previously looked-after children, such as those who have been in foster care or residential care, may face higher levels of vulnerability and disadvantage than their peers. These funds aim to provide targeted support to address the specific challenges associated with their prior experiences.

I was asked many questions about the kinship pilot and kinship funding, and I want to say more about the adoption and special guardianship support fund. On 14 April, the Department announced that the fund would be open to applications with changed criteria and a fair access limit of £3,000 per child per year, and that match funding and the separate funding of specialist assessments would be stopped. When assessed as having a need, families can approach their local authorities and regional adoption agencies. Adoption England is obviously working with regional adoption agencies. We also have specialist centres of excellence—a multidisciplinary approach to ensuring the essential provision that adopted children need.

Dedicated Schools Grant

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on securing the debate and on his powerful speech. I alert Members to my position as one of the vice chairs of the f40 group, which represents 43 local authorities with historically low funding for education and campaigns for fairer funding for schools and SEND provision.

Somerset is one of those 43 councils. Its 2025-26 dedicated schools grant allocation is just £8,500 per student, while some councils get nearly £5,000 more than that per pupil. The launch in 2018 of the national funding formula for mainstream schools introduced a minimum per pupil funding level, which was designed to level up funding. However, that has continued to lock in historical funding elements, preventing some local authority areas from receiving more funding. The Liberal Democrats understand the need for regional variation to ensure that schools can operate successfully, but that should not come at the expense of schools elsewhere, which often struggle to make ends meet.

As other Members have stated, the DSG is made up of four blocks, one of which is the high needs block, which supports SEND provision for children in both mainstream and specialist schools. Somerset’s 2025-2026 allocation of high-needs block funding is £1,250 per student—more than £2,000 less than the highest-funded local authority. It has been stressed many times that the SEND system is broken; the variance and unequal DSG funding is a big reason for that. My inbox, like that of many other Members, is full of correspondence from parents who all desperately want the best education for their children, but are concerned and deeply upset that their children’s needs are not being met by their schools.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

My area of Harrogate and Knaresborough is covered by North Yorkshire council, which is part of f40, which my hon. Friend mentioned. On high-needs funding, we are 146th out of 151. That is causing real challenges in that rural setting, with children sometimes having to travel for hours to get to school. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about those low levels of funding, which are compounded by the cut to the rural services delivery grant that local authorities receive?

[Sarah Dyke]

I will touch on that. Delivering education in a huge rural county has so many pressures and complexities and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that up.

Let me give a couple of examples of children who are suffering and whose educational needs are not being met in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton. One of them is Jensen from Ilchester. He is only seven years old, but has been experiencing severe mental health distress while awaiting a long overdue neurodevelopmental assessment. His mother told me that he has lost all enjoyment in life. He misses his education and his friends, and all the while he is being passed between services. Jensen is not alone in that situation.

Many other children in Glastonbury and Somerton face similar challenges: Charlie from Castle Cary, for example. He has an EHCP, but his school is simply not able to meet his needs. His mother said that he has been left for months without his educational needs, as specified in his EHCP, being met. As a result, his behaviour at school and his mental health are declining. The differential in DSG funding means that children like Jensen, Charlie and many others heartbreakingly cannot get the support that they deserve. Families are being left to suffer alone, fighting a system that is just not working for them.

We know that the system is broken. The Isos report released last year found that all actors within the system are behaving rationally—schools, councils and parents—but the system is just not up to scratch. The funding model needs to be reformed to make it more responsive to changes so that individual schools can receive funding based on need. I urge the Minister to consider reviewing the funding formulas for both schools and high needs.

The Liberal Democrats have a plan to invest in our education sector above the rate of inflation so that we can ensure that all schools have the capacity to operate sustainably. We must also give our local authorities the financial support that they need. The previous Conservative Government left schools to crumble and forced councils to do more with less, impacting our children’s education. The persistent budgetary strain does not allow local authorities to create long-term plans for children with SEND, so we would also set up a dedicated national body for SEND to act as a champion for children with complex needs and ensure that they receive tailored support.

Without major reforms and changes to funding, we will continue to see a landscape with uneven funding where children are badly let down and schools cannot provide the support that is needed. I urge the Minister to take action, invest in education, invest in our children and invest in our future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot get into the detail of a particular local authority area, or indeed a particular aspect of the funding. He will also appreciate that the national funding formula is fairly complex and obviously any changes to it will be very carefully considered, so that we make sure that it is allocated fairly. Nevertheless, I appreciate the issues that various hon. Members have raised today about the different challenges faced by different parts of the country, different demographics and different geographies. Obviously, all those factors will need to be taken into consideration.

Members have also touched on the issue of pay. In its written evidence to the review body, the Department proposed a 2025 pay award for teachers of 2.8%. We were clear that schools will be expected to fund that award from the overall funds they will receive next year, including the additional £2.3 billion provided in the autumn Budget. The schools’ costs technical note, which was published in March, forecast a £400 million headroom in school budgets nationally in this financial year before staff pay awards. As I said at the beginning, I recognise that individual schools will have to balance funding and costs differently, which will matter in how any staff pay award might affect their budget. We will continue to support schools as they navigate these decisions, which are in line with the asks of the rest of the public sector, too.

[Tom Gordon]

I recently met a number of schools in my constituency; part of the problem that they have in balancing the books is the ongoing lack of reasonable amounts of maintenance funding. Last year I met the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who is the Minister with responsibility for early years, to discuss this issue. Will that funding also be considered when we talk about funding allocation, because in places such as Harrogate, where we have schools that are hundreds of years old, the cost of maintaining those schools far outstrips the cost of maintaining new builds in urban areas?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the challenge that the hon. Gentleman faces. I also appreciate that some of these capital challenges, which are obviously revenue challenges as well for some schools, are a big challenge. We have seen chronic under-investment in our school estate over many years. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and his constituents have sadly experienced that a school built only eight years ago also appears to be crumbling now. We have a significant backlog of repairs and maintenance, and support that has to be given to schools to get them up to a standard whereby they can deliver the education that we know children deserve. Obviously, we will continue to look at these issues as we navigate a difficult financial situation. We are acutely aware of the challenges that many schools face in maintaining their estate.

Fundamentally, each of our decisions is based on the determination to build a firm foundation upon which to rebuild our public services; some of that is about what we deliver and some of it is about the infrastructure. That is because we are determined that all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities also receive the right support, so that they can succeed in their education and as they move into adult life. High needs funding will increase by £1 billion in 2025-26, which will bring the total to over £12 billion. Of that total, Gloucestershire county council is being allocated over £105 million through the high needs funding block of the dedicated schools grant, calculated using the high needs national funding formula, which is an increase of over £8 million. The high needs allocation is an 8.3% increase per head in the two to 18-year-old population compared with 2024-25. That funding is to support the ongoing costs of special educational needs and disability provision.

To be clear, we do not expect local authorities to use that increase in high needs funding to pay down historical deficits. The structure of the high needs funding formula is largely unchanged. As I said, we need to take time to consider what changes might be necessary in future years to ensure that the system is fair and directs funding to where it is needed, and supports any reforms that we want to bring forward in relation to special educational needs and disabilities.

The Government recognise the strain that the rising cost of special educational needs and disabilities provision is putting on local government, and particularly the impact on councils’ finances. The statutory override is a temporary accounting measure that separates out local authorities’ dedicated schools grant deficits from their wider financial position to help them manage their deficits, and we are working with the sector to find a way forward. We will set out plans for reforming the SEND system in more detail later this year, which will include supporting local authorities to deal with historical and accruing deficits as part of any period of transition from the current SEND system to any new system. That will also inform any decision to remove the statutory override.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. I want to press her on her point about working with local authorities. Given that some councils now under Reform control seem to be getting their instructions by diktat from their leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is she disappointed, like I am, that no Member of the Reform party is present for this important debate?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well.

As a Government, we are determined that local authorities will be able to deliver those high-quality services for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, but in a financially sustainable way. Those two elements go hand in hand to create a stronger and more prosperous future for children and families. Many hon. Members have spoken about their constituents’ experiences, and we recognise that too many families and children are not experiencing the quality of SEND services and provision that they should expect, and that the rising cost of SEND provision is putting a significant strain on both local authority and school finances.

Adoption Breakdown

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate on this important issue, which is rarely discussed, yet profoundly impacts thousands of families across the UK: the crisis of adopted children leaving the family home prematurely. I want to highlight this issue of adoption breakdown, which sometimes might be days, months or even years after an adoption order is signed. Adoption is not just a legal process, but a lifelong commitment that demands sustained support from Government. At present, that support is simply not in place.

After meeting a family in my constituency who had experienced an adoption breakdown, I was deeply alarmed by the lack of support available once an adoption order is signed. Since securing this debate, I have been inundated by messages from people and families across the country sharing their lived experience. The overwhelming consensus is clear: adoptive parents feel isolated and forced to navigate the challenges of raising children with trauma and complex needs without sufficient support, often resulting in adoption breakdown.

The reality is that many adoptions face profound challenges. The trauma, loss, and attachment difficulties experienced by adopted children do not simply vanish once an adoption order is granted. Those challenges persist, often surfacing as complex behavioural, emotional and psychological difficulties that demand long-term specialist support. According to Adoption UK, 70% of adoptive families report that their children have significant social, emotional and mental health needs. Many are diagnosed with conditions such as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder, yet post-adoption support remains inconsistent and inadequate, forcing families into exhausting battles just to access the help they desperately need.

For many adoptive parents, raising children who have suffered early life trauma is an immense challenge. Many endure physical aggression, verbal abuse and school exclusions. They feel abandoned, left without a clear pathway to support, and when crises emerge, the system often responds too late, if at all.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The issues that my hon. Friend raises are spot on. Would he agree that the more trauma-informed training we have within schools, the better these young people will be able to be accepted and supported within schools, rather than potentially demonised?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will come on to that important point later in my speech. A major challenge in tackling adoption breakdown is the lack of reliable data. We have little understanding of the true scale of the problem, making it hard to assess the effectiveness of current policies or plan for meaningful improvements. Local authorities, which are meant to provide support, frequently fail to help parents facing those significant challenges in raising children with complex needs, and that is worsened by the absence of clear, specific policies to prevent or respond to adoption breakdowns. There is an urgent need for better data.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I have met a number of adoption charities and organisations in Beckenham and Penge, and they have told me that adoption breakdown can lead to significant emotional trauma for children and adoptive parents, and many other implications. Does he agree on the need to bring local authorities, Government and families together, first to try to prevent adoption breakdown, but then, where it occurs, to take action to support both parents and children?

[Tom Gordon]

The hon. Member raises an excellent point. That is exactly the case, and I have heard exactly those points from many adoption charities across the UK.

Our focus must also be on trying to make sure that there are clearer policies and improved support systems, and addressing the gaps is the only way to reduce adoption breakdowns and ensure that every child has the chance to grow up in a loving and stable environment. Our focus must shift to enhancing the support structures available to families post-adoption. While the current framework is well intentioned, it is insufficient. Raising adopted children is made more difficult by barriers to vital special educational needs and disability services and mental health support. Increased investment in services such as counselling, educational support and respite care could significantly improve outcomes.

The most recent Government research and data that I could find on adoption disruption dates back over a decade. It was the Department for Education’s “Beyond the Adoption Order” research paper published in 2014. The paper estimates a disruption rate of between 2% and 9%. Since then, there has been no significant follow-up or research, and if we are to address this issue, it is vital that we have that up-to-date information on disruptions to properly assess and respond to the challenges that parents face.

Currently, local authorities and regional adoption agencies record data inconsistently, creating an incomplete picture of the national situation. The Department for Education reports that 170 children entered local authority care after being adopted in the year to 31 March 2024, averaging 0.2 adoptions per constituency. However, I am aware that three adoptions broke down in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough in the same time period, so the data is clearly patchy. The discrepancies highlight significant gaps in our understanding of the prevalence of breakdown. How can the Government possibly expect to adequately support those affected, when they do not fully understand and comprehend the extent of the issue?

In speaking to adoptive parents—regardless of whether they face disruption or not—a clear theme emerges: support often vanishes once the adoption order is signed.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gerald Jones.)

[Tom Gordon]

While the early stages of adoption may involve training and some resources, the ongoing assistance tends to dwindle after a child is placed. Many adoptive parents, especially those caring for children with complex needs, report feeling isolated and overwhelmed, as local authorities frequently fail to offer consistent, tailored support.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I have been approached by my constituents about their breakdowns. As we do not have any data, we do not know how many parents are struggling in our constituencies. Does the hon. Member agree that if we do not identify adopters and support them, we will not have any adopters in the future?

[Tom Gordon]

That is one of the key points about adoption disruption and breakdown, and the hon. Gentleman makes it very eloquently. There is concern that if we do not help people who are adopting now, we will not have a next generation of people who will adopt.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing today’s debate. We know from Adoption UK’s adoption barometer that 42% of families experience challenges or crisis. It also notes that it can take them an average of five months to get the support they need, and we need to shrink that timeframe. Does he agree that we need to have money reserved for the urgent support that these families need?

[Tom Gordon]

The hon. Member is exactly right and puts her point eloquently. Far too often, families and children are left waiting, which causes additional pressures that can lead to adoption breakdown, so I completely agree with her. As I said, while the early stages of adoption may involve training and some resources, the ongoing assistance tends to dwindle.

I applied for this debate after meeting some of my constituents at a regular surgery. Ian and Verity experienced this issue at first hand when their adopted child began exhibiting violent behaviour. When they reached out for help, they were shocked to discover just how little was available to them. Unfortunately, like many services, post-adoption support has become a postcode lottery. Available services are often fragmented, underfunded and difficult to access, leaving parents without the necessary help to manage the challenges.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. As he knows, I am an adoptive parent and a foster carer. In the run-up to this debate, I had the opportunity to speak to the social worker who is supporting me and my husband with what we hope will become our second adoption, and I would like to get the hon. Gentleman’s view on some of the things she mentioned: the importance of having better access to more holistic support in schools; closer working between psychologists and adoption teams to maximise the use of the adoption and special guardian support fund; therapeutic life story workers to work with children and families, particularly those at greater risk of breakdown; and greater training in social work courses on key issues, such as early trauma and attachment, to widen the knowledge across the workforce and ensure that a wider range of teams can support adoptive families when they come across them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such measures would go a long way towards keeping adoptive families together?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I have had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman’s child and look forward to meeting more in due course. He makes an excellent point. I will come on to everything he said when I set out the wish list from adoptive parents to the Minister, and I am sure she will respond to the best of her ability, within the constraints of what the Government can do.

When Ian and Verity reached out to me, I was shocked by how the local authority and local services had failed them. When they reached crisis point, they requested an intervention from the local authority, but instead of receiving help, they were threatened with police action for child abandonment. Ultimately, they were forced to disrupt the adoption, causing trauma to both the child and the entire family. I have asked people to email me their stories, and a common, repeated theme is local authorities using child abandonment charges as a scare tactic, which is deeply worrying. The advocacy group PATCH has highlighted how families facing adoption crises are often met with punitive approaches that fail to acknowledge the impact of trauma on these children. As a result, families break down because they cannot access the resources needed to address those challenges. I have heard from many families that have experienced breakdowns, and instead of receiving support when they have faced violent and threatening behaviour from their children, they have been met with blame, threats and criticism. A culture of blaming adoptive parents persists, leaving them isolated and without the help they need. Many adoptive parents are not fully informed about the child’s needs before adoption.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this very important debate. Does he agree that, under article 20 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, when children cannot be looked after by their own family, they should be looked after by those who respect or represent their ethnicity, their culture, their religion and their language? With BAME children being disproportionately represented—and, unfortunately, very vulnerable—does he agree that this is about not just finding a place for children but finding the right place for them?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He makes a good point. We have ended up in a situation where local authorities are trying to recruit anyone to adopt, and it is often a scramble to find any place, so places do not necessarily always meet the needs of or provide the best option for those children. I think that is the nature of the situation we find ourselves in, with the service at a crisis point.

Many families that have been in touch have also said that support for adoptive families is often limited to the adoption and special guardianship support fund. This fund seems to have become a bit of a sticking plaster to allow local authorities to claim that they are supporting families with adopted children. While the fund is massively helpful, it is often the only resource that people can turn to.

As the Minister mentioned a number of times during Tuesday’s urgent question, local authorities have a legal obligation to support families who have adopted. However, this fund is often inadequate, and it is the extent of support in many areas. It is not an instant fix, and it is often only available to families once they have reached crisis point. As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, families often report waiting for months—six months and upwards—to access funds and support due to delays by local authorities. During this waiting period, crises can escalate, and families are pushed closer and closer to breakdown.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing such an important debate. During the process of putting together his speech, I am sure he read the local government and social care ombudsman report from last November, which details a litany of failures across England in supporting adoptive parents. For me, the most heartbreaking element of reading the report and its recommendations was the number of families who said that they were put off the process, or driven out of it, by the bureaucratic failures and the lack of support on offer.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and that is one of the key points. I will turn to examples of where people try to access that fund, but many people do give up, which is such a shame for the children involved.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; the number of interventions he has taken shows how important this debate is to the House.

I, too, have had adoptive parents come to my surgery who are going through a breakdown, and they have told me that their experience of adoption was better in the past because they used to have a named person supporting them at the council. That council service has merged with those of eight other boroughs, so it is now a nine-borough service. Adoptive parents no longer have a named contact, and they have to go through a central hotline. Does my hon. Friend agree that the adoption breakdown rate is increasing partly because of the funding environment for local government, and that we need to improve that first to get this service fixed?

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point he makes is one that I experienced at first hand when we had local government reorganisation in North Yorkshire. People have commented that the merging of services leads to an inferior outcome at the end. I agree with his point about needing greater funding for local authorities to help fix this problem.

The Government must ensure swift distribution of the new funding announced earlier this week to prevent future delays. For many families that are already struggling, the support fund is a lifeline. A delay in therapy increases anxiety and distress not only for these children, but for their families as a whole, and it can cause huge disruption to their daily lives. In some cases, families have been left without support for months or even years. The prolonged period of uncertainty around the support fund has caused an exacerbation in woes and fears. Many families feel they have been abandoned by the system and have struggled to navigate a complex and fragmented network of support services.

It is clear that the system is failing the families it was designed to support. The unpredictable nature of service access means children and families are left to fend for themselves. The Government must urgently address the chronic underfunding of adoption support services, and commit to ensuring that families have timely and reliable access. I have heard countless stories from adoptive parents and children who speak about the deep trauma of what happens when an adoption breaks down. The impact is not just emotional; it can extend to physical and social challenges as well, and leads to behavioural problems, mental health struggles and difficulties in schools in some cases.

A point made earlier by another Member was that a key barrier to providing that support is the lack of training for professionals working with adopted families. Teachers, social workers and healthcare providers all lack an understanding of the unique challenges that adoptive parents and adopted children face. That lack of knowledge results in misguided interventions and insufficient care. Adoptive parents require more than just financial assistance. They require access to specialists, including trauma-informed mental health care, educational support and respite care, too. Lived experiences are at the heart of this issue and countless adoptive parents have shared their stories of pain, struggle and heartache. They are not just statistics; they are real families grappling with unimaginable challenges and receiving little to no support. In the time left, I will try to briefly share some of those stories.

One parent wrote to me about how an adopted child had suffered severe abuse. Despite their best efforts, the child’s behaviour became increasingly violent and unmanageable. When they reached out for help, they were met with indifference by the local authority. Eventually, the situation became so unbearable they had no choice but to disrupt the adoption, leaving heartbreak in its wake. Another adoptive parent shared the story of a child who had been through numerous foster placements before being adopted. Despite the child’s significant trauma, the family was dedicated to providing a loving and stable home. However, due to a lack of support and the inability of the local authority to help meet the child’s needs, eventually another adoption broke down. The parents feel ashamed and abandoned by the system that promised to support them.

As we reflect on those stories, we must remember that behind every statistic is a child who has already endured more than enough and more than most. These children deserve the same opportunity to thrive as any other, but they cannot achieve that without the right support. It is our responsibility to ensure that adoptive families are equipped with the resources, tools and understanding to provide that. We need a system that places support at the centre of the adoption journey: from the moment a child is placed, to the challenges they face during adolescence. It is not enough to provide support just in the early stages and walk away once the adoption order is granted and the child appears settled. We need a cultural shift in how adoption breakdowns are viewed. Parents should never be made to feel guilty for seeking the support they so desperately need.

The lived experiences of families impacted by adoption breakdown serve as a reminder of why change is necessary. Adoptive parents do not want to bear the blame for breakdowns, many of which are caused by systemic failures. They want to be part of the solution. These families have opened their hearts and homes, yet they feel abandoned. We can no longer allow adopted children and their families to fall through the cracks. Decisive action is required now. I will set out a few things that the Government could do to try to help with this issue.

We need a commitment and guarantee that the adoption and special guardianship fund will be made permanent, and that we will never see a return to the year-by-year situation that has caused heartache and pain for children and parents this time around. We need to mandate regular keeping-in-touch opportunities for all adoptive families. Too many families feel isolated without a clear support network during times of crisis. We must improve local authority support structures. Families must have guaranteed access to crisis intervention services and mental health support before situations become unmanageable.

We must ensure that health and education professionals are trained in early trauma and care experiences. We cannot expect teachers, social workers or mental health professionals to support adopted children without properly training them and giving them the resources. I would like to see an extension of adoption support services to at least the age of 26. Trauma does not end at 18, and young people need continued access to support as they transition into adulthood. We need to provide a targeted support pathway for teens and young adults, including access to specialist advocacy services, mental health care and interventions to prevent exploitation and criminal involvement.

Before I conclude, I would like to share a few other personal stories. There is one which stands out. It is from somebody who got in touch after I put out an appeal for stories:

“I’ve been reflecting on my adoptive son’s life story and wanted to share some statistics with you and the services involved: 13 Social Workers, 15-plus placements with only three regulated, 100-plus carers, innumerable police officers, innumerable fire officers, five care home managers, four headteachers, five teaching assistants, 10 judges including eight High Court judges, three GPs, two dentists, 25-plus class teachers, two behavioural analysts, three play therapists, one psychologist, one children’s guardian…”

The list goes on and on. Adoptive children interact with services across the board, but it is clear that they are being failed and passed from pillar to post.

I heard another story from a family whose adoption broke down in January last year, when their children were aged just 13 and 14. Only six months earlier, they had celebrated their 10th anniversary as a family by going to Paris. Like many other adopters, they had several happy years before things started to go wrong. The family

“believe a combination of inappropriate education, hormones, peer pressure, social media and—possibly most significantly—trauma from childhoods…was the cause of a…dramatic change. To cut a long story short, things got so bad that myself and my husband both suffered breakdowns and the children went into care. We are lucky that we are in regular contact”.

The current system leaves far too many families struggling with inadequate support, which often results in disruptions that could have been prevented with earlier targeted intervention and support. Without accurate data, clear policies and sustained funding, we cannot address the root causes of adoption breakdown or provide the resources needed to ensure successful adoptions.

I call on the Government to make sure further action is taken post adoption to ensure that there is no postcode lottery and that local authorities are held accountable for providing the support that families need. These children have already faced immense trauma and instability, and they deserve better. Adoptive parents who open their hearts and homes should never be left feeling abandoned when they seek help. We need urgent and meaningful reforms to mental health services and access to SEND, and we need to establish a robust, long-term framework for post-adoptive care.

I will close by thanking everyone who has reached out to share their deeply personal stories, and especially my constituents Ian and Verity. We must reject the idea that adoption is a one-time event; it is a lifelong journey that requires continuous and specialist support. To every adoptive parent struggling in silence, and to every young person feeling abandoned by the system, I say, “You are not alone.” Today we ask those in positions of authority and power to listen, learn and act.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham for securing this urgent question and the Minister for her commitment on the £50 million. I have secured an Adjournment debate on Thursday on adoption breakdown, and over the past few days I have been asking people to tell me their stories. I have heard that things such as the adoption and special guardianship fund are crucial to preventing it. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the fund on ensuring that adoptions can continue, and will she make that information publicly available, if possible?

[Janet Daby]

I look forward to speaking to the hon. Member during his Adjournment debate—I am sure that he will ask me many more questions, as is absolutely appropriate. I would say that this should not prevent people from coming forward to adopt children, and that children will still get the support they need and so rightly deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

We are working across Government with the sector to put in place training schemes to build up the next generation of installers, including new apprenticeships for retrofit co-ordinators and installation technicians. As I mentioned, we have also established Skills England, which will form a coherent national picture of skill gaps and how they can be addressed.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I recently visited a school in my constituency in a building that is hundreds of years old. Its school condition allocation does not cover the work needed to keep the school warm, safe and up to date. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that classrooms in older buildings are fitted out?