Westminster Hall

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 20 May 2025

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Pensions: Expatriates

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. For over 70 years, successive Governments have upheld the frozen pension policy. The result on those impacted has been not only a severe financial toll, but a heavy emotional burden. These individuals built their lives and careers in the United Kingdom, contributed their share through national insurance, and then, often later in life, moved abroad, in many cases to join family members. In doing so, they found themselves victims of an outdated policy. Most of them first became aware of the policy only after noticing that their state pension was not increasing in line with policies such as the triple lock, proudly founded by the Conservatives.

Let me be clear about what the frozen pension policy entails: British citizens who retire in certain countries—for example, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the Commonwealth, in fact—are denied the annual inflationary increases to their state pension. A person retiring to the USA sees their pension uprated yearly, but if they cross the border into Canada, those increases stop. That can result in elderly pensioners receiving as little as £60 a week on average, despite the current basic state pension being £176.45 a week. As many as four in 10 frozen pensioners report struggling to afford most necessities such as food or medicine.

It may be tempting to dismiss this as a problem “over there”, but British overseas pensioners are citizens who have lived, worked and grown up here. They remain citizens here; they are constituents, and, with the changes to overseas voting rules in 2024, many are now registered to vote in United Kingdom elections again. That means there are up to half a million voices who feel forgotten, neglected and increasingly betrayed by successive Governments.

Geography should not be an excuse for a lack of morality. British overseas pensioners are making their voices heard; over 75% want their representative to commit to ending frozen pensions. In 2016, at an all-party roundtable event, the now Deputy Prime Minister called for a change on frozen pensions and a commitment to finding a solution. I am glad she did so then; I am concerned that the Government are not doing so now. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is still the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed, the Government.

Since I first raised the issue in the House of Commons last year, I have read and heard many compelling stories—for example, that of Anne Puckridge. Now 100 years old, Anne remains an inspiration to all of us, having served in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force during world war two—I repeat: the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force—serving six months in each branch. It is fair to state that she has paid her dues to this country. After the war, she lived and worked for the vast majority of her life in the United Kingdom, until she moved to Canada in 2001. She is one of around 60,000 veterans affected by the policy.

The emotional impact of the policy cannot be overstated. Many of those affected say that they were never informed that their pension would be frozen when they moved. Anne was not told, and the campaign reports that 86% of pensioners affected had no idea the policy even existed before they were impacted. That is too little, too late.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on this timely debate. He just referred to a 100-year-old. Does he agree that the frozen pension issue is not just about the fact that people are seeing a relatively small pension compared with the one they would have had if they were still a UK resident? Because of the policy, in their final years of existence on this earth, they will have a paltry pension to pass away on.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I will come on to some of that later. He is absolutely right that there is not just a severe financial impact, but a moral impact. Constituents of ours, who have paid their dues—and, in Anne’s case, more than paid their dues given what they have done for this country—will end their days on pretty much nothing when inflation is taken into account.

Last December, I challenged the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions on his decision not to meet Anne during her visit to the UK—a visit that required an 8,500 mile round trip, which is no mean feat at the age of 99. She was not offered a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Anne’s story is sadly emblematic of a much wider injustice that continues to be perpetrated on our elderly. Only this year, we saw continued poor treatment through policies such as the removal of the winter fuel payment and the betrayal of the WASPI women, both causes that were vociferously supported by the Labour party in opposition. Labour is happy to freeze pensioners and happy to freeze their pensions.

The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet Anne is symbolic of a Government who are, I regret to say, unwilling to listen to some of the most elderly and vulnerable among us. That brings me to the crux of today’s debate: the Government do not seem willing to engage in any meaningful way with the overseas electorate affected by the policy. I remind hon. Members that 158 parliamentarians from across the UK and Canada wrote to the Government last October calling for an end to the policy, and more than 140,000 people signed Anne’s petition to meet the Prime Minister in December.

The most concerning aspect of the Government’s current line of response is the estimated cost of ending the policy altogether. Based on calculations made annually, the Government quote the figure of £950 million a year to uprate and backdate all pensions, but that is not the ask. The End Frozen Pensions campaign has made it abundantly clear that it is not calling for retrospective compensation. It is asking simply to receive the same annual increases going forward that are awarded to pensioners living here, and in the USA, France and a host of other countries.

The cost of such a policy change is a mere £55 million a year—a fraction of the overall pensions budget. Will the Minister agree to meet the End Frozen Pensions campaign to accurately assess the cost of what is being requested by pensioners? Will he work with us, in good faith, to find a solution that reflects the modest and realistic nature of the appeal?

Beyond the severe individual hardships, there are important and growing geopolitical consequences to the point where the policy is now creating serious diplomatic tensions with some of our closest allies, as pensions are frozen in 50 out of the 56 Commonwealth nations. How can we speak proudly of our Commonwealth partnerships while refusing full pensions to veterans in the Falkland Islands, British-born nurses in Barbados or former civil servants in Canada? Those are countries with deep and historical ties to the UK, yet they are forced to subsidise our negligence.

Australia and Canada have made their frustrations clear. Canada has been formally requesting a resolution to the issue for more than 40 years. In October, 103 Canadian parliamentarians wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to address the issue. The Canadian and Australian Governments already provide full state pension increases to their citizens living in the UK. Meanwhile, they are left picking up the tab for British citizens residing in their countries.

With Canada and Australia having just held national elections, and with new trade discussions likely on the horizon, what assessment has the Minister made of the policy’s impact on our future ability to trade and meaningfully engage with those countries? Will he look at how reciprocal barriers to the policy may be overcome?

As I draw to a close, let me return to the heart of the matter. The policy causes financial hardship for a large number of affected elderly people. It also causes indignity and isolation; their repeated dismissal by the Government is leading to their political disenfranchisement. Putting an end to this blatant injustice is not only achievable but affordable—£55 million a year is not beyond our means. What is ultimately lacking is not money, but political will.

I have one practical ask of the Minister: will he meet campaigners to more fully understand their demands? If not to resolve the issue outright, will he at least commit to acknowledge the request for uprating on a going-forward basis only? Will he agree to work with me and campaigners to explore how, at a minimum, awareness of the policy might be improved, given the vast majority of impacted pensioners still report having no knowledge of the policy’s existence prior to moving overseas? All that those pensioners are asking for is a level playing field, so that those who have contributed can live out their retirement with dignity and security.

09:39

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate on an issue that is often overlooked, as I think we would all agree. It is fair to say that successive Governments have ignored this issue for decades and, understandably, many UK citizens are unaware of what would happen to their state pension if they were to relocate to one of the countries affected by this regressive arrangement.

It seems completely arbitrary that someone could emigrate to America and continue to receive an annual uprating in their state pension, but not if they went to Canada. We have heard that the blight of frozen pensions affects nearly half a million British citizens living overseas, despite the fact that they paid national insurance contributions for much of their working lives.

The impact of this arrangement is absolutely shocking. We have already heard that four in 10 frozen pensioners report that they struggle to afford items such as food and fuel. In my view, our state pension system is already insufficient to meet the needs of millions of existing and future pensioners, but let us imagine how inadequate it would be if the pension failed to rise at least in line with inflation or earnings for more than 20 years of someone’s retirement.

Most pensioners in this position were never informed that their state pension would be frozen in this way. The scandal therefore has a number of parallels with those behind other campaigns, such as that affecting women born in the 1950s, who argue that they saw their state pension age increase without due notice.

Such measures only end up hurting the most vulnerable in our society. Taken alongside recent decisions to means-test the winter fuel allowance, which was mentioned earlier; the refusal to pay compensation to the WASPI women; and the proposed cuts to disability benefits, it could appear that the Government are trying to balance the country’s books on the back of some of the poorest members of our society.

Although there will always be a cost to Government decisions, I ask the Minister to consider that beginning to uprate the frozen pensions at a future date would cost only around £55 million a year. Most commentators would understand that that is not beyond the realms of possibility. It would be a significant step not only in showing that the Government are on the side of older people who have made a contribution to our country, but in unravelling a long-standing anomaly that the public simply cannot understand.

Finally, the Government should also consider that with changes to the overseas voting rules, as was mentioned earlier, many of the UK pensioners affected by the frozen pension scandal are now in fact registered voters in the UK.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Fraser, has now retired and lives in Australia. He is one of the half a million British citizens and voters now affected by this 70-year outdated and harsh practice. He is from my home town of Clydebank. He worked in the ordnance factory in Bishopton for decades, and then in the Govan shipyards. He paid his national insurance contributions for many years, but his pension is frozen. He tells me that every year it is getting harder and harder for him to make ends meet.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a scandalous injustice? We are not seeking a full backdating, but for the Government to introduce some form of yearly indexing to answer that injustice.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that now is the time to grasp an issue that successive Governments of all shades have failed to grasp. This is the Government’s chance to do something positive for older people by ending the injustice once and for all, and I urge them to do so.

09:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate and for putting his case so well on a subject that has been brought to the House’s attention on numerous occasions, both in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber. There are several people in the Public Gallery today who have been involved in the campaign; we thank them for all their correspondence to ensure that we can follow the campaign on behalf of so many British people. Just last week, I was working on some cases in my office. These issues occur regularly, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) said.

As we are all aware, the Government’s policy on freezing state pensions for British pensioners living overseas affects some half a million pensioners and is fundamentally unfair. I believe that it is morally unfair, because it penalises pensioners who have earned their state pension through decades of national insurance contributions. They have done the same as everybody else and have paid national insurance contributions and tax. They made a contribution to the society that they lived in. Today they are being penalised, and it is grossly unfair.

People who have worked for their entire life in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are being denied the annual pension increases granted to UK residents simply because they chose to retire abroad, often to be closer to family. As they get older, they want to support their family, but their family also want to support them, so there is a physical necessity. People want to make the most of their savings elsewhere, as anyone is entitled to do. For example, a pensioner in Australia or Canada, where pensions are frozen, might receive some £7,000 annually, while UK-based pensioners get more than £11,000 annually as a result of triple-lock upgrading.

There is a real differential and a real problem to be addressed. Over time, inflation diminishes the value of frozen pensions, pushing some expat pensioners into poverty. That has an impact not just on them, but on the countries in which they now live. In extreme cases, pensioners have reported surviving on pensions worth less than £20 a week in real terms. Nobody could survive on that—it is impossible. We ask the Minister to give us some support and give us something to tell our constituents and their families.

The freeze is fundamentally unjust. It penalises pensioners who have earned their state pension through decades of national insurance contributions. I think of Anne Puckridge, a 100-year-old world war two veteran who served in all three branches of our armed forces decoding messages during the war. After working in the UK until the age of 76, way beyond her pension years, and paying all her taxes and national insurance, she moved to Canada in 2001 to be near her daughter. Her daughter wanted her to be there, and she wanted to support her daughter. Her pension was frozen at £72.50 per week, rather than the £169.50 she would receive in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has resulted in an estimated loss of £60,000 over 23 years.

When Mrs Puckridge notified the Department for Work and Pensions of her move, she was not informed that her pension would be frozen. At no stage was it intimated to her, “Look, if you go there, this is going to happen.” Because of that false pretence—because it did not disclose the full facts of the case—I believe that the DWP stands accused in the moral court of law for how it treated this lady. She only discovered the situation when her first expected increase did not arrive. She stated:

“It’s the injustice of it that is so unfair, the fact that we were never warned.”

They were never told. That is disgraceful.

As other hon. Members have said, the widespread lack of transparency is reminiscent of the lack of transparency with WASPI women. The all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions has reported that nearly 90% of all affected pensioners were unaware of the policy before moving. Given that those half a million British pensioners have paid into the national insurance system throughout their working life, does the Minister consider it fair to deny them the annual pension increases that residents of the United Kingdom receive?

An especially important factor is that the affected pensioners are not adding to the pressures on public services such as the NHS on their retirement. When people get to 79 or 80, their impact on the national health service will be greater. They may have complex needs. Their age is agin them. Very clearly, their dependence on the NHS at that stage is much greater. If we take that out of the equation and they go to Canada, America or Australia, there is a real saving to the NHS. There will be no prescriptions either. I speak as someone who takes 14 tablets a day just to stay alive; most of them have to do with diabetes, but that is by the way. If someone is saving the NHS all that money, is only right that that be considered in the financial equation.

The findings in the 2020 inquiry report of the APPG on frozen British pensions indicate that the policy affects war veterans and even some members of the Windrush generation, who have returned to their country of birth but now face economic hardship as a result of this policy. The Windrush generation caught the imagination of this great nation. I became aware of their case through being an MP, and it is a really justifiable one. They are now being penalised if they decide to go back home to be close to their families, having come here, worked all their days and paid their national insurance contributions and taxes.

As the current policy is leaving expat British pensioners having to return to the UK, I ask again whether the Minister will conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assess whether ending the freeze might reduce long-term costs by preventing the need to repatriate. The cost factor is of such magnitude that a review might persuade the Government to ensure that expatriates get their pension.

The freeze is also morally indefensible. It punishes a perfectly valid legal choice to live abroad, and it ignores the contributions that these pensioners made to the economy and to our society. Many moved abroad with a reasonable expectation that their pension, a right earned through years of work, would retain its value. The arbitrary distinction between countries with and without an operating agreement lacks logics and smacks of red tape and bureaucracy gone mad: pensions increase in the US but not in Canada or Australia, for example. We always used to blame the EU for bureaucracy. We might blame it again, of course; later today I presume that we will have a statement in the Chamber on the UK-EU deal, so we will have a chance to go over the past once again.

I support the APPG’s recommendations. It is time to end the frozen pension policy and provide full uprated pensions to British expat pensioners as soon as possible. I believe that that stance is supported by evidence from the Governments of Australia and Canada, with which we have a good working relationship. Has the Minister had the opportunity to talk to the relevant Ministers in those Governments? It is not that they are telling the UK what to do, but I understand that they have suggested that we may need reform. If the Minister has had the opportunity to talk to them, what has come out of those talks?

It is unjust to penalise pensioners for living abroad when they have paid into the system like everyone else. By uprating pensioners globally, the UK would honour its moral and economic obligations and ensure that members of the post-war generation that rebuilt Britain can retire with the security that they deserve, wherever they choose to live. Today is an opportunity to make that request and that plea again, and to ask our new Minister to look at the issue in a positive way and consider all the cost factors. There are many things in the pot that should be looked at once again.

09:53

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Eleven years ago, my colleague Ian Blackford stood in pretty much this spot talking about exactly the same thing. Exactly the same arguments that were made during that debate could be made today. Things have not moved on. We are not in a better position. At that time, we were talking about 550,000 frozen pensions; now we are down to 500,000. People are dying before they receive their entitlements.

Pensions are a social contract. We pay our national insurance and our taxes into the system in the expectation and with the understanding that we will get something out of it when we become pensioners. This is not party political: it applies to all Governments over the last 70 years. No UK Government have been willing to fulfil the contract with pensioners who choose to live in a certain country. I do not think that that is fair. When we begin to pay taxes, we are not told that our pension entitlement will vary if we choose to live in one of these countries.

That they are overwhelmingly Commonwealth countries seems even more bizarre. We have a special relationship with the Commonwealth: for example, 12% of Canadians claim Scottish heritage and 14% claim English heritage. Scotland is a nation of emigrants as well as a nation of immigrants—not an island of strangers. It is a brilliant thing that we Scots are found all over the world. In a significant number of places, people with Aberdeen accents can be found speaking the Doric.

People should be allowed to go and live with their family in the expectation that the Government will continue to support them in older age, not pull the rug out from under them. They have paid into the system just the same as the people who choose to live here. In fact, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, they are taking less out of the system than those who continue to live here. The cost-benefit analysis shows that people overseas are not using the NHS here on a regular basis. They are not getting the free prescriptions in Scotland. They are not getting prescriptions down here. They are not getting a free TV licence—well, nobody is getting a free TV licence. They are not getting the benefits that an older pensioner living in the UK would expect. They are not taking those things out of the system, yet the UK is still unwilling to uprate their pensions. They are going to live with their families, in a significant number of cases, and not getting their entitlements.

The Deputy Prime Minister previously said:

“The situation is unfair, illogical and doesn’t make sense.”

It has never been enough of a priority for any Government to sort out, but given the current Government’s electoral standing with some older people on the basis of WASPI and the winter fuel payment, it might be an idea to solve the situation now and gain back some of that capital.

A lady who lives in Canada is coming to visit Scotland in June and is going to pop into my office while she is here. She is from Aberdeen. She went to St Margaret’s school and her husband went to the school I went to; there is an annual music prize awarded in his honour. At the end of her email asking to come and see me, Maureen added something about frozen pensions:

“I believe the Prime Minister is not happy about us Canadians kicking up a fuss. We have been doing it for at least 15 years, but no one listens.”

That is the biggest injustice of all: the fact that we are not listening.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has secured this debate. Like many of us, he is standing on the shoulders of giants: the issue has been brought up for years and years, but we have never managed to make enough of an impact on the Government to get the change to happen and have them recognise that this is important. As several Members have said, now that we have had a change in the electoral rights of people overseas so that they are able to vote for longer, perhaps the Government will feel more under pressure. But it should not have taken that. It should have been understood that this was a moral decision. It does not matter where someone chooses to live out their twilight years; they should have the same entitlements as others who have paid the same amount over the years.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) spoke about his constituent from Clydebank who worked in Govan. The country has been built—these islands have been built—on the hard work of these people throughout our manufacturing history. Anne Puckridge, who is an unbelievable human being, was in the RAF and made a huge input to our prosperity and the safety and security of these islands. We are paying these people back by saying, “Nah, you’ve paid the same as everybody else, but you’ve chosen to live in a different postcode, so we’re not paying it.” This is an injustice that needs fixed.

I know that I have managed to speak for seven minutes, but actually it is pretty difficult to stretch this out. All there is to say is, “This needs sorted. Please could you sort it?” That is the passionate case that we are all making on behalf of our constituents and those who might choose to move to other countries in future. We do not want them to have to ask, “Do I want to live in Canada where my daughter lives? Do I want to live somewhere else, or do I have to stay here because I cannot get my pension uprated?”

I am not asking for a full commitment on any of this. I am not asking for all the backdated stuff. I am not asking for a commitment for every single individual. I understand that some international agreements may have to be made to make some of this happen. But I want the Government to say, “We recognise that this is a priority for people and that there is an unfairness in the system. We will look at doing what we can to ensure that people, no matter where they choose to live, get the pensions that they are entitled to.”

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that we are not supposed to use the second person. Please address things through me and not directly to other Members.

10:00

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on raising an issue that, quite simply, is a matter of national shame. I had the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions for more years than I care to remember, and in that task I had the staunch support of Sir Peter Bottomley, Lord German and many others. We all regarded this as a non-partisan issue. It was quite simply a cross-party matter that had to be resolved.

In spite of the effort that we put into it over many years, successive Governments of all political persuasions have sheltered behind the myth that we uprate pensions only in countries with which we have a reciprocal arrangement. Historically, we have had a reciprocal arrangement with the United States but not with Canada. On one side of the Niagara Falls, people get their pension uprated; a couple of hundred yards across the river, people do not.

That is arrant nonsense, and it is unjust for all the reasons we have heard this morning. These are British citizens who paid their dues over their whole working lives before emigrating. They are as entitled to the full state pension as any other British citizen. John Markham, of blessed memory, led the campaign in Canada for many years. The irony is that, every time he came back for two weeks to make the case to whoever was in power, he would claim his two weeks’ uprated pension, because the moment he set foot on British soil, he was allowed to have it. Where is the sense in that?

The point has been made that pensioners in the majority of Commonwealth countries do not receive uprated pensions, but pensioners in the European Union do, because we reached a reciprocal arrangement when we left the European Union. I am delighted that expat UK citizens living throughout the European Union are getting their pension uprated. That is absolutely right—they have paid their way—but I fail to see why people living in what we proudly used to call the British Commonwealth do not get their money.

What about those living in Australia? What about people like Norma Maloney in South Africa or the greatly revered Anne Puckridge, who I have been privileged to meet on many occasions, in Canada? Why do they not get their money? The answer is quite simple: it comes down to the Treasury solicitors, who have historically been absolutely terrified that, if we give an inch, somebody will try to bring a class action to get a backdated pension, and of course those sums would be astronomical.

When Sir Oliver Letwin was in the Cabinet Office, he made the eminently workable proposal that we should uprate whatever pension the recipient was getting at the time of the uprating. Anne Puckridge would get the triple-locked increase on her fairly pitiful pension, not on anything retrospective. That is not what the expats ought to be receiving or what they are entitled to, morally, but it would work, because over time—by attrition, as people fall off the perch—we would reach the parity we ought to have today.

I was as critical of the previous Government as I am of the current one. They are sheltering behind a Treasury lawyers’ position that is wholly untenable and, I believe, patently dishonest. These elderly people—and I speak as an elderly person—have paid their way. They are entitled to their money. They should have it, and the Government must do something about it now.

10:06

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Dowd. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate.

Nearly half a million UK pensioners living overseas are being penalised, not because they did not pay into the system but because of where they now live. They are our citizens—our veterans, carers, former teachers and nurses. They worked all their lives, paid into the national insurance system and are now denied the annual uprating of their state pension. Their pensions have been frozen, sometimes for decades, based purely on whether the UK happens to have a reciprocal agreement with their country of residence. As we have heard, it cannot be fair that a pensioner in the US sees their pension rise each year, while a pensioner in Australia does not.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for an end to that injustice. We have already heard about Lord German’s sterling work, and I would like to highlight the policy research by Liberal Democrats Overseas, which has proposed a fair and affordable five-year plan to restore full uprating, starting with those who have lost out the most. Campaigners acknowledge the cost of their demands, and are even willing to accept partial uprating as a first step. However, as we have heard, previous Governments have refused to act and, worse, have turned down repeated offers from countries such as Australia and Canada to negotiate new agreements. This Government can take a fairer approach.

It is interesting that the Welsh Affairs Committee is looking into how we can engage the Welsh diaspora in promoting brand Wales overseas. A new settlement for British pensioners living overseas strikes me as a good way to engage with the British diaspora, particularly as we strike new agreements with countries all over the world. We Liberal Democrats call on the Government to stop hiding behind outdated excuses and to start treating all UK pensioners with fairness and dignity.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

People who receive a pension income have worked throughout their careers for that money, and they deserve to be able to access it fairly and with the proper information, lest we see a repeat of the WASPI scandal. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, for people receiving a UK pension, uprating should not be a lottery of land borders, and that His Majesty’s Government should redouble their efforts to find reciprocal arrangements with countries currently without an agreement with the UK?

[David Chadwick]

David Lloyd George created the social contract on which our pension scheme still runs, and I am sure he would be proud to hear my hon. Friend calling for that social contract to be adhered to.

Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that we now have many constituents living abroad who have the right to vote. To better represent their needs and make more progress, the Government might wish to consider the idea of overseas constituencies. That would give one or two hon. Members the opportunity to represent the needs of people living abroad who certainly warrant their full pensions.

10:10

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this debate.

Nearly 13 million UK citizens receive the state pension, and around 1.2 million of them live outside the UK. Most of those people are entitled to state pension increases because they live in the European economic area or in the 15 other countries with which the UK has signed an agreement. In return for uprating the state pension, those countries have promised to continue supporting their own citizens living in the UK.

It is right that UK citizens who have diligently paid into the UK national insurance system over many years are entitled to receive their UK state pension, whether or not they decide to move abroad. However, the issue at the forefront of today’s debate is whether pensioners who reside overseas receive annual increases to their pension.

As other hon. Members have set out, this depends on the specific country in which a person lives. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I know it is unfair that some UK pensioners abroad receive state pension increases while others do not, simply because of the country in which they live, not because of the contributions they have made to the UK national insurance system. Addressing that is a matter of fairness and equality, especially for those who have paid into the UK system for their entire working lives.

There has been a long-standing campaign to rectify this discriminatory system. However, the last Conservative Government refused to take any positive steps to increase the number of reciprocal agreements, which would have had the effect of uprating pensions. In fact, it is disappointing—although unsurprising—that under the last Conservative Government, agreements lapsed and the best interests of both British nationals residing overseas and non-British pensioners residing in the UK were neither prioritised nor championed.

We saw catastrophic economic mismanagement under the last Administration, with spiralling inflation rates and a soaring cost of living. That hugely exacerbated the gap in the value of pensions paid to recipients in countries with reciprocal agreements and those paid to recipients in countries without, with a completely unacceptable impact on hundreds of thousands of pensioners.

The majority of pensioners who live overseas receive pension increases because they live in countries with reciprocal agreements. However, many fall through the gaps and are left struggling. Currently, half a million UK pensioners living overseas do not receive the annual state pension increases that those in the UK and in certain other countries are entitled to. This issue affects my constituents and the constituents of many hon. Members. Their pensions are effectively frozen at the rate when they first started claiming—sometimes decades ago. This frequently leaves long-term pensioners abroad significantly worse off over time.

The UK Government have stated that they uprate pensions only in those countries where there is a mutual agreement. Many of those agreements have not been updated or renegotiated for decades, and no new ones have been signed since 1981. Countries such as Australia and Canada have repeatedly requested new agreements, but the UK has declined. Frozen pensions are the norm in countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and parts of the Caribbean and Asia, despite significant British expatriate populations. It is critical that the Government tackle this injustice and take steps to ensure that all pensioners receive the support to which they are entitled. However, it is also critical that this comes alongside a fair deal for the UK taxpayer.

Rather than unilaterally increasing the state pension for UK citizens living abroad, I urge the Government to prioritise entering new arrangements with other countries that would manage costs and provide oversight. That would be more affordable and provide a better framework for monitoring payments. Colombia, Mongolia, Thailand, Uruguay, Brazil, Australia and Canada have all approached the Government in the past decade to ask for a reciprocal agreement, and each time the Government have refused.

We have seen the Government enter new bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations over the last few weeks. As they work to build new trade partnerships with countries across the globe, there is a real opportunity to speak out for thousands of British pensioners who currently face unfair financial hardship. I urge the Minister to ensure that existing agreements are not allowed to lapse. The Liberal Democrats also call for the inclusion of reciprocal pension agreements in future trade deals. More broadly, the Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should conduct an independent review of frozen pension policy, an issue that has been raised with me time and again by constituents.

The previous Conservative Government abandoned pensioners and totally failed to give them proper support. This Labour Government have also treated pensioners poorly by cruelly ripping away the winter fuel payment. The Liberal Democrats are proud to be the ones who introduced the triple lock, lifting thousands of vulnerable pensioners out of poverty.

[Sir Roger Gale]

It saddens me enormously that the hon. Lady is trying to make a partisan case, simply because—as I recall, and I think I do recall correctly—a member of her party was the Pensions Minister in the coalition, and one of many pensions Ministers who stood by the present policy of refusing to allow these pensions to be paid. The blame lies across the board, not with any one political party.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention; his memory obviously goes back further than mine on this issue. However, we are dealing with the current situation, and the Minister here today is the person who currently has the power to do something about it. I am merely reflecting on the set of circumstances that led us here.

What I will say is that, in the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the last election, we committed to the triple lock. We remain committed to the triple lock, and I will take further opportunities to ask the current Minister, with the power currently to do something about this issue, to redouble his commitment to it. I will also make the point that, as I am sure the right hon. Member will agree, that this Government are not doing everything they can for pensioners.

The Liberal Democrats are looking to the future, and we want to build a country that is the best place in the world in which to save for and enjoy retirement. We want to give everyone the chance to enjoy a decent retirement, by developing measures to end the gender pension gap in private pensions and to ensure that working-age carers can save properly for retirement. We must also improve the state pension system by investing in helplines to ensure quicker responses to queries and resolution of underpayments, as well as ending the scandal of lost top-up payments by overhauling the processing system and providing proper receipts.

The Liberal Democrats are proud to be the party that champions the rights and protections of pensioners. We will continue to hold the Government to account to ensure that a fair outcome is reached for all pensioners—both those who reside in the UK and those who live abroad.

10:17

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate, and I thank everybody who is here to take part; it is heartening to see what is, to all intents and purposes, cross-party consensus on this long-term issue, and I am grateful to be able to speak about it today.

It is worth reminding everyone in the Chamber that, as we have heard, this is a full cross-party challenge that we have faced over the last decades and that, as we have also heard, successive Governments, be they Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, have not grappled with it enough. I am grateful that that point has been raised, because I do not think it would be honest of us to reflect on it in the way that had been done previously.

We have a duty of care to pensioners at home and abroad, and I believe we are all in agreement about that today. However, we have heard much about inconsistencies in how support is delivered and about the ultimate postcode lottery; we speak of postcode lotteries a lot in this place, but this one perhaps wins the prize for being the ultimate postcode lottery. The arguments have been well rehearsed.

The two strongest criticisms of the existing overseas pension system are, first, that most pensioners do not realise that the frozen pension policy exists—perhaps before emigrating to live with their family, as we have heard—and, secondly, that not all British pensioners overseas are impacted by the policy because of reciprocal arrangements, as a result of which, there is a very unequal playing field. Like many here today, until an elector emailed me when I was a candidate in the election, I was not fully aware of this situation.

A large number of overseas pensioners are covered by reciprocal arrangements, which enables us to treat overseas pensioners moving to the UK comparably with UK citizens living abroad. In total, about 60% of overseas pensioners are covered by reciprocal arrangements, which, where possible, is of course the preferred option for pensioners.

However, we have heard some harrowing cases, and Anne Puckridge has certainly got her mentions this morning. That 99-year-old veteran of world war two has lived in Canada since 2001 and is still receiving the £72.50 a week that she has received for 24 years. With 442,000 people receiving a frozen state pension overseas, and often receiving as little as £65 a week or indeed less, the real-life impact of this approach is considerable.

In my South West Devon constituency, I have heard from Denise Bateman, formerly of Ivybridge and now residing in Australia; Gillian Clarke, another Australian resident, who at the age of 87 has seen no increase in her state pension in 27 years; Stephen Mumby, also a resident in Australia; Clive Gray; and Deborah Matthews and Laurie Morbey, who have both raised this issue with me. They are predominantly resident in Australia, but there are also examples in New Zealand and Canada.

As their correspondence highlights, those people could have moved to Turkey or the Philippines, and they would be receiving an unfrozen pension. Yet, they have moved to Commonwealth countries and, despite having worked for many years and contributed to life in the UK, are now faced with a limited pension. Anecdotally, those I have heard from in Australia lived and worked here for far longer than some of those now living in Europe. Indeed, some good friends of mine are retired and have lived in Europe since before I was born, yet they still qualify for the state pension and receive the full pension, having not even worked here in the last 50 years.

As with anything of this nature, the Government need to make sure they properly communicate pension terms to people well ahead of the time they expect receive a state pension. We have seen in the WASPI women campaign the issues that can be caused, and I believe that no one wants to replicate that. British citizens need to know the implication of any move abroad so that they can plan. That is the fairest thing to do, and perhaps work could be done—for example, with well-known employers or organisations in countries that generally support emigration—to help improve the information flows on this topic, in addition to the work that the Department for Work and Pensions and others are already doing.

In 2020, the cost of uprating frozen pensions to 2020 levels was estimated to be around £600 million, and the cost of uprating to today’s levels would be significantly higher. However, as we heard, the End Frozen Pensions campaign has suggested that people do not want the backdating and are happy to see their pension uprated from this point in time, which would cost £55 million. It is worth reflecting that Ministers appear to be having to hunt for cash down the back of the sofa, and I appreciate that the Chancellor has to make the sums add up. That said, the End Frozen Pensions campaign has clearly highlighted that overseas pensioners are in effect net savers for the UK—there is no burden on the welfare system or the NHS—meaning an aggregated saving of around £2,500 per person, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted.

As we have heard, the current system of reciprocal agreements ensures there are protections on both sides for countries in the EU or the EEA, and I am happy to support that long-standing and right approach. However, in the light of the new voting rights, which we have also heard about, this is perhaps the right time for the Government to start exploring conversations on further reciprocal arrangements, especially with Commonwealth friends such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia—countries to which my own constituents have moved. We have heard about the diplomatic awkwardness that this issue causes, which should also prompt such conversations.

The Liberal Democrats mentioned the challenges around pensioners and pensions, and we understand the difficult situations caused by the lack of compensation for the WASPI women, the cruel cut to the winter fuel allowance and the fact that the Government pledged to reduce energy bills by £300 without mentioning that we may all have to wait until 2030 for that to be delivered. Pensioners up and down the country are understandably losing confidence in this Labour Government and in the Prime Minister.

We have talked about the 442,000 people receiving a frozen state pension, but what will the Government do about the 10 million pensioners here in the UK who have had their winter fuel allowance removed? I was surprised to hear that an additional 100,000 pensioners accessed A&E departments last winter, compared to the winter before, which is a direct consequence of Labour’s policy to literally leave pensioners out in the cold.

It really does not matter what dedicated campaigners say in this debate, because we all know that when it comes to issues facing pensioners, we could argue that the Government have their fingers in their ears. However, today is a chance to break the cycle, and for this new Government to be the one that makes this change. It sounds as though there would be enormous support in the Chamber if they chose to pursue that.

We need to push for more action to deliver reciprocal agreements, if possible, with allies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the overwhelming majority of those with frozen pensions currently reside. That should help to provide more security for all those still affected. None of the Front Benchers here has been a Minister before, so we get the privilege of being a fresh pair of eyes, while recognising the lack of action in the past, whether that be under the Lib Dems, Labour or Conservatives, as we have discussed many times. I understand the Minister’s previous expert experience in this field, and he might have a few ideas of his own, which I look forward to hearing.

I appreciate the concerns raised by colleagues about specific cases, and I sympathise with those who committed so much to our country in their early lives, only to face challenges unprepared, when they should have been made aware of them. Information is clearly going to be a large part of the solution, and debates such as this go a long way to raise the profile of issues that do not always get the airtime they deserve. Judging by the Minister’s nods during the debate, I believe that he agrees, and I know from other things he is doing that information is top of his agenda. I hope we will see some commitment to that this morning.

Finally, I plead with the Minister to get the tone right this time. As discussions take place, will he please not treat these pensioners like the WASPI women and those affected by winter fuel payments? He should be honest in the debate, think clearly about the cost and provide constructive solutions that can help reduce the number of pensioners in this position in five, 10, 15 or even 30 years’ time.

10:26

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for opening today’s debate, which was granted by Backbench Business Committee, and for setting the scene so well, in a way that others then followed.

I thank all hon. Members who made the time to speak and set out their cases. They covered issues that are important to many state pension recipients living abroad. I recognise that those who are affected, who obviously cannot speak today, feel strongly about this issue; many of us, in their shoes, would feel the same. On that basis alone, it is right to debate this subject and to hear from hon. Members about their constituents, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and others who are not in Scotland.

Late last year, my predecessor, now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, met Anne Puckridge and others from the End Frozen Pensions campaign to discuss the policy’s impact. We have listened, and I read case studies every week, either from hon. Members who have written in about them or in letters directly from pensioners themselves. We are all aware that there are many countries where high inflation has posed particular challenges in recent years, so I recognise the salience of today’s subject matter.

We all recognise the importance of the state pension, as the UK’s foundation of support for older people. In 2025-26, the Government will spend over £174 billion on benefits for pensioners. That represents 5.8% of the UK’s GDP and includes £145 billion spent on the UK state pension, including for those living abroad. I raise those facts because they are important; they sit behind the debates that we often have here or in the main Chamber about the size of the state and the level of taxation.

As hon. Members are very aware, the state pension is uprated abroad only when there is a legal basis for doing so, which is why we are here today.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On that, the state pension is uprated abroad only when there is a legal requirement to do so. There is no legal bar to the UK uprating those pensions in countries where there is not a reciprocal agreement in place.

[Torsten Bell]

There must be a legal basis for making payments. However, the hon. Member is right to say that under the specific policy I am setting out, payments are made only when there is a legal requirement to do so. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon set out right at the beginning, that is a long-standing policy that has lasted for 70 years. For many years, the priority for successive Governments of all parties has been to prioritise those living in the UK when making difficult spending decisions on pensioner benefits. That was true of the coalition Government, when a Lib Dem Pensions Minister chose for five years not to make any progress on this issue. He did that under a Conservative Government and a Conservative Prime Minister all the way through.

The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—my constituency neighbour—mentioned Lloyd George, who introduced a state pension with no uprating whatever. The first uprating of the contributory state pension in 1946, under the Attlee Government—again, I am making a point about the cross-party basis of some of these decisions—was not paid to pensioners living abroad. So since the beginning, policy on pension uprating has been consistent.

As we have discussed, people move abroad for many reasons—to be with their family, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) set out, enjoy a particular climate or return to their country of birth. It is for individuals, not the Government, to make those decisions, but when they make them, they will of course consider the impact on their finances, alongside a wide range of other factors. As the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) set out, our duty is to ensure that information regarding the effect of living abroad on the state pension entitlement is available. These days, that is on gov.uk, and includes information on where the uprating does and does not occur.

Pensioners who have retired to other countries will obviously take into account the UK state pension position, but they will also look at the wider provision for pensioners in those countries. Many countries will have a means-tested provision that is similar to the UK pension credit. It is true that the real-terms value of some people’s state pension will fall over time, but in most cases, particularly in the countries that have been mentioned today, that will be compensated for by higher means-tested payments when they are living abroad.

It is also important that further advice can be obtained from the International Pension Centre or the Pension Service. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked whether there is more we can do, and I want to be clear that I am always open to new ideas about what more we can do to communicate what happens to the state pension if people choose to retire abroad. More generally, I am happy to meet with any hon. Members who have suggestions in that area.

[Jim Shannon]

I gave the example—others will have similar examples—of a constituent who had moved to Canada. She phoned the DWP to ascertain her pension obligations and responsibilities, and was assured that her pension would follow her, but quite clearly it did not. The Minister outlined a system whereby it should be able to follow her, but that lady went a stage further—she actually phoned the Department, which told her that it would not matter and she would still receive her pension—and quite clearly it did not.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that story. I have not heard of specific cases like that, and he might like to write to me about it. The position with respect to Canada is clear: somebody can take their state pension with them, but the uprating will not be paid once they are living in Canada. That is what the gov.uk website spells out. However, I am open to talking about individual cases and to hearing suggestions about what more we can do to communicate clearly, because this is an important issue.

Of the 1.1 million state pension recipients overseas, 652,000 live in countries where pensions are uprated. However, I do not want to hide from what that means, because that is why we are here today; as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, it means there are more than 400,000 pensioners living in countries where uprating is not paid. By volume, those are in the countries that have been mentioned most today: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Many hon. Members have spoken eloquently of the impact of living in a country where that uprating is not paid, and I have heard about it myself in correspondence from those affected, as I have said.

That does not mean that we can wish away the real trade-offs that are involved. There would be significant additional costs to be borne by current taxpayers if uprating were extended to everybody living overseas, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North calls for. The cost of increasing all state pensions in payment to current UK levels would be approximately £0.9 billion a year, as has been mentioned. If there were any above-inflation uprating, it would then increase gradually over time.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

Let me get through the discussion of the costs, and then I will take any interventions on that issue.

I recognise that many campaigners are asking for indexation in future, not for retrospective indexation, although there are obviously disagreements among campaigners about the exact ask to prioritise. However, arguing that we can simply put in place indexation going forward does not escape the need to recognise the real trade-offs involved. The long-term impact would be the same, as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) explained. In the end, moving to forward-looking indexation would take us to the same increase in spending levels as would immediately lifting people up to the current level of the basic and new state pension. It is the same effect in the long-run, and we owe it to everyone to make financial decisions based on the long-run effects of the policies that we call for.

There are wider considerations about the net financial effects of these decisions. The hon. Member for Strangford and others raised the issue of health expenditure. To get to a wider understanding of the net effects, we have also to take into account where income is taxed and where it is spent. That does not get us away from the underlying point, which is that, focusing narrowly on the question of uprating, the costs are as I have set out.

[Sarah Olney]

Does the Minister not agree that under a reciprocal arrangement, not only would we uprate the pensions of our citizens who are living in a partner country, but that partner country will then be required to uprate the pensions of their citizens living here, and that would obviously be a benefit to this country, because they will have a greater income that they can spend here? Can the Minister assure me that that particular effect is included in the estimates?

[Torsten Bell]

I recognise the point that the hon. Member is making. I offer a few reflections on that. Some countries already do provide uprating for their pensioners based in the UK, so some of that is already in place, although it does vary across countries. It is, obviously, always for countries to set in place their own social security system. That is why the Australian system, for example, provides means-testing of the state pension, or elements of means-testing of their state pension. I suspect most people—with the possible exception of the Leader of the Opposition on occasion—do not support means-testing of the state pension.

I come on to the other point made by the hon. Member in the debate, which was to call for new reciprocal arrangements to put in place more widespread uprating. As I have explained, that would require significant tax rises. There is no way around that. The issue she raised would not negate that effect.

It is worth putting ourselves in other’s shoes. Why did the Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister for five years not change the policy on this issue? It was because he recognised the costs involved, and that it would involve tax rises. It is worth us reflecting on why the situation is not as some people would like.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Does the Minister consider that it is morally acceptable for Canada to uprate the pensions of its citizens in this country and to also bear the cost of this country not uprating its pensions for UK expats in Canada when Canada has formally offered to enter into a reciprocal arrangement? Why is that offer not being accepted?

[Torsten Bell]

Canada is a close ally of this country. We talk about that a lot in the current climate, for a whole host of reasons, and that is not going to change.

The right hon. Member is correct that Canada has made requests for a formal reciprocal arrangement, but the UK Government’s position—and that, again, of all parties—is that we are not in the business of new reciprocal arrangements with any countries. The only recent agreements have been the roll-over agreements with the EU and the EEA by the previous Conservative Government, but that was to maintain the existing social security arrangements, not to put in place any new reciprocal arrangements over that time.

I fully recognise the case that many hon. and right hon. Members have made today. I see the ongoing campaigning that those Members have put in place and that of many pensioners who are affected, but as I have said, the policy on uprating pensions is a long-standing one. More importantly, changing it involves real costs and trade-offs.

I gently note—very gently, so that I get out of this room safely—that many of the people calling for pensions to be uprated are also calling for reverses to the winter fuel payment policy and compensation for WASPI women, but are not calling for less investment in the NHS or higher taxes. In the current financial climate, there are real choices, and there have been no suggestions in this debate about how any of these policies would be funded.

I fully recognise the issues raised by Members today. I hope that I have explained why that recognition sits alongside the long-standing policy in this area, and I look forward to hearing the closing remarks from the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon.

10:38

[Gregory Stafford]

I think I have 22 minutes; I usually get about 22 seconds to wind up, so this is a luxury, but I will not test your patience, Mr Dowd, by taking the full time.

We have had a very wide-ranging and helpful debate today. I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) who brings a significant amount of experience from many years on this issue. It was interesting to hear his historical knowledge and, indeed, the potential solutions that he raised.

This is very much about the social contract, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) suggested. People have paid in, so they should expect to receive an equitable and fair playing field, whether they happen to have moved to somewhere in the European Union, the Philippines, Canada or Australia, or they are still living in this country.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted exactly why this is morally unfair—it is by not just the dint of the policy itself, but its impact on people. There are people living on very small incomes who are having to choose between paying their heating bills in those countries and their medicine and food. That is clearly not appropriate, especially as we have discovered many people who have paid into this country not just financially but in terms of the things they have done, for example, serving in the armed forces.

It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the Welsh perspective and his interesting idea for a number of MPs for overseas citizens. I am not sure whether that is Lib Dem policy.

[Sarah Olney]

indicated dissent.

[Gregory Stafford]

It is not; the Lib Dem spokesman is shaking her head, but it is an interesting idea. Before entering Parliament, I have to confess that I had no idea this was an issue. People might say that is because I am so young I would not even had to have thought about it—I can see what you are thinking, Mr Dowd. But it has come up time and again. The case of Anne Puckridge really highlights it, but many other Members have mentioned other people who have been affected. I thank the campaigners on this for highlighting it to me and to others. Without them, this issue would really have died a death.

Even after having understood this issue, I did not fully grasp the nature of the problem. I understood that we did not have reciprocal arrangements, and we were not paying uprating in places such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries, which I did not agree with, but I could just about understand because they are foreign nations. I was contacted yesterday by a representative of the Falkland Islands Government—the Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory, and is essentially Britain in all but name. There are 80 people there in this situation, many of whom have served in the armed forces. It seems bizarre that even for our overseas territories we do not uprate the pension. I reflect on that, and I hope the Minister does.

I was disappointed but not surprised that the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), decided to get in some political digs, conveniently forgetting that her party had a Pensions Minister for five years in the coalition Government who did absolutely nothing about it. I think that her comments do her, this campaign and the pensioners no service at all.

In contrast, I thought the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), the Conservative spokesman, were measured and sympathetic. I wanted to correct her on one thing: Anne Puckridge is now 100, and I do not think she would want to be known as that. I suppose it was heartening to the campaign, but disappointing overall that my hon. Friend, like so many of us, has had so many people contacting her about this. She was right; we have a new Government and new Ministers, so we could have a fresh look at this.

I do not lay the blame at the feet of the current Minister, or indeed, the current Government. As I said at the start, this is a multi-generational, cross-party problem for which we all should take some responsibility. However, it is in the current Minister’s hands to fix the problem now. As the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, given everything else this Government are doing to pensioners—whether that be personal independence payments, WASPI, winter fuel and so on—this issue could be one where people see they are actually on the side of pensioners.

I am afraid I was a little bit disappointed with the Minister’s speech. I accept there will be a cost to the taxpayer, though I think it is disingenuous to say there is a trade-off between this particular policy and cuts to the NHS. It is a more complex situation, and I get that, but I fear he has been captured—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich said—by the Treasury solicitors. That is unhelpful.

Finally, I go back to the requests I made. Will the Minister agree to meet with the campaigners so that we can go through the cost-benefit analysis and have a discussion about whether his figures or the campaigners’ figures are accurate? Will he at least commit to looking at some of the reciprocal pensions arrangements that we have with some of the countries that have been mentioned today, including Canada? Will he commit to doing everything in his power to make sure that first, people understand this policy and where they can and cannot get their pensions uprated? Even if he cannot commit today to sorting this out, will he commit to it still being on his radar going forward? If he has the opportunity —if finances allow—will he look to remove this policy so that every person, wherever they live, gets the pension they deserve?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.

10:45

Sitting suspended.

GP Services: Christchurch

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I will call Sir Christopher Chope to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to GP services in Christchurch.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This short debate was triggered by the perverse decision, announced last week, of the Dorset integrated care board to refuse permission for Burton surgery to reopen. The surgery is a premises in Burton village in Christchurch constituency, which has had a GP surgery for more than 30 years. The surgery was converted from a guest house. It has good car parking nearby and a pharmacy adjoining it, and is a well-loved community facility.

In 2007, the GP practice in Burton was amalgamated with Christchurch medical practice and became a branch of that practice. Then, in December 2023, patients were told that the Burton premises would be closed and all patients transferred to Christchurch medical practice in Purewell. I wrote to the integrated care board to express my concern at the impact that would have on the people of Burton. Although the ICB said that it was powerless to intervene because the surgery was only a branch, local residents were confident that another GP practice would acquire the premises and continue to provide GP services, because the building is in really good order: it has 11 consulting rooms and is a very attractive proposition for another GP practice. It was expected that it would be put on the open market for sale.

Much to everybody’s frustration, that did not happen. The owners of the practice decided instead to do a closed deal with a veterinary hospital based in Christchurch, which agreed to acquire the site, thereby excluding the possibility of another GP practice taking it over. However, one thing they had not thought about was that they needed to get planning permission for a change of use. The planning application was strongly opposed by local residents, backed by me, and it became a major issue in the general election campaign. Eventually, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council refused the application on a series of grounds, the principal one being that

“insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the loss of a community facility at this site would not result in a substantial decline in the range and quality of facilities and services available for local people.”

In essence, the local planners said that it was necessary to keep the surgery in Burton because removing it would take away an important community facility. If nobody else was willing to open such a community facility, I would not have been able to put forward this argument, but another practice has now purchased the premises and is willing and ready to open a branch in them. However, in order so to do, it had to apply to the integrated care board for permission. It did just that last November. Extraordinarily, it took months before a decision was reached—so long that I raised the issue in an oral question. The Secretary of State himself took it on board and, as a result, the ICB was pushed into having to make a decision on 23 April. As I understand it, the decision was made on 23 April, but was not communicated until some time afterwards.

In the meantime, and in anticipation that the application to reopen the branch was essentially a formality, South Coast Medical completed the purchase of the building and started the refurbishment. The plan was that it would reopen this summer. The ICB’s decision to refuse permission for the branch surgery to reopen is, in my view and that of my constituents and local residents, beyond belief. I appeal to the Minister to intervene on behalf of the 4,500 patients whom the ICB accepts would choose to re-register at Burton were the surgery to reopen.

Ironically, it is said that the cost of re-registering those 4,500 patients would be a significant burden on the health service. That is because people who are in their first year with a GP are thought to be more burdensome, so the GP gets paid a slightly larger amount for each of them. To describe the exercise of patient choice in that way—as a burden on the NHS—seems to me to be pretty wide of the mark.

After I heard the outcome of the application, I tabled a series of questions, one of which sought to establish how many people have been transferring from one practice to another in Christchurch each year, because I wanted to get a feel for that. The answer, from the Minister for Care, stated that the information is not available.

Some of the arguments made in favour of not allowing the surgery to be reopened, in answer to another of my questions, were based on the number of appointments already taking place in Christchurch. That prompted me to table a named day question on that subject. At about 9.30 am this morning I received a holding response, saying that the information relating to the number of appointments at surgeries in Christchurch over the past couple of years is not available, yet the ICB says that it used that very information to help it reach its conclusion. I hope the Minister will explain why the ICB, which I think is basically the custodian of all this information, so far has not decided to share that information with Ministers. Either it has the information or it has not been wholly open in suggesting that the information helped in its decision.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will not just at the moment, but I may do later.

This whole issue is a test case for the credibility of the new Labour Government’s promises about increasing access to GP services. In August 2024, after the general election, no one in government or in the NHS, including Dorset ICB, was suggesting that a GP surgery in Burton was not needed. Now that a serious plan to reopen the surgery is in place, without any capital cost to the NHS because South Coast Medical has acquired the premises using its own resources and does not need a grant, it is surely perverse that the ICB is arguing that such a branch surgery can no longer be afforded and that reopening it would adversely affect the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch.

I tabled questions on that issue as well. There is no evidence that other practices in Christchurch would be adversely affected, and I challenge the Minister to share with me, the House and my constituents the evidence that has been used to reach this decision. Will she also explain what can be done to appeal against the decision? It has been handed down by an unelected and unaccountable quango, or arm’s length body, which, among other things, has said to me in a letter that there have been no complaints about the quality of service being provided by the other main practice in Christchurch, which was operating the Burton branch and chose to give it up. However, there have been many complaints; I have fistful of them here, some of which I may refer to. Either the ICB does not open its post, or it is closing its eyes and ears to representations about issues relating to the availability of doctors, the importance of patient choice and the inconvenience of having to travel so far in a community that is not well served by public transport and where taxis are very expensive. If somebody is dissatisfied with the quality of service being provided by their general practitioner, they may wish to exercise their choice, and it is good to have some healthy competition, but all that seems to be being squeezed out by the integrated care board.

I will quote from a letter from Helen Yonwin, who writes: “Since the surgery closed last year in Burton and patients were transferred elsewhere, trying to get an appointment has been a nightmare. They seem to be unable to cope with the extra patients. The telephones are not always answered and it can take over 30 minutes to eventually get a response, only to discover that you are number 20-something in the queue. After a long wait to be told there are no available appointments, so ring again the next day, there are still no appointments, ‘But you can receive a telephone consultation from a GP’—but the next available slot is in four weeks’ time.”

That is not improving access to GP services, which is what the Government pledged. It is a levelling down and reduction in service. I hope the Minister will say that it is intolerable and unacceptable, and that for it to be condoned, if not supported, by the ICB is appalling.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will just finish quoting from this letter: “If you are lucky enough to get an appointment, the next problem is getting there. Many people don’t drive or have a car, public transport is not easy for those with mobility issues, and taxis are expensive. If you do drive, another problem arises because parking is very limited.” It continues: “I cannot understand how it was stated that no complaints have been made. I and many others, in emails sent to the ICB, mentioned several issues, but I doubt any were noted.” That is a letter from one constituent; there are lots of others.

A new housing development has been approved in the locality of Burton; with some 700 new houses, there will inevitably be increased demand for GP services. Indeed, the developer, or the owner of the land, has already approached a surgery to see whether it would open a branch on the new estate. That will not be necessary if the branch to which I have referred is reopened.

I will quote from another letter. I will not give the person’s name because it refers to their condition, but she has multiple sclerosis. She says: “It’s so hard for me to get to the Purewell surgery even if you can get an appointment…I fell nearly two years ago, and I still haven’t had a proper appointment to see a doctor to see what’s causing my pain.” She says that she wants to have a choice.

Another person wrote: “I previously lived in Stour surgery’s catchment”—that is another surgery within the Christchurch constituency—“and they were amazing. I couldn’t fault them one bit. I then moved to Burton and was forced into this alternative provision.” She says that it is a nightmare to get hold of and that we should have a right to choose who we want as our GP. She also says, “Every time I’ve had an appointment, it’s been running 30 to 45 minutes late.” Reopening the local branch surgery would resolve those problems.

I hope that I have given a flavour of the strength of local feeling on this fraught issue. Somebody else wrote to me that not everybody wishes to complain publicly about the lack of service available from providers in the Christchurch medical practice, because they are worried about the consequences for them. I think that such concerns are irrational, but they are understandable.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his campaign on this issue. It is what we expect from him, because he is very assiduous and very committed to his constituents. He has clearly laid out the issue. Does he feel that the main reason for the ICB’s not pursuing the case is finance? If it is, even with the proposed new housing, perhaps the Minister needs to look at the case personally to ensure that it is not being held back by anything that the Government are doing at this moment in time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the issue of finances. I tabled a written question about how much the health service has been spending on general practice in the Christchurch constituency. Again, rather surprisingly, the information is available only for the year ending 2023, so we do not have any information for 2023–24. Although I would not expect the figures for 2024–25 to be available, I certainly would have expected the total costs for 2023–24 to be available by now. The answer says that in 2022–23, some £17.5 million was spent on providing GP services in Christchurch.

The idea that the cost of transferring patients from one practice to another should be a decisive factor against the reopening of a branch seems extraordinary. It makes a nonsense of the argument that we must rein in our expenditure. While we are talking about the ICB’s expenditure, for the last several years I have been complaining that, at any given time in Dorset, under the ICB’s supervision, there are some 250 patients in Dorset hospitals who have no need to “reside”, as it is called. In other words, those people are in hospital but do not need to be there. Every day, that is 250 patients at a cost of between £500 and £1,000 each.

The same body is presiding over that scandal. It said last year that it was going to halve the number, but it has failed to do so—indeed, the number is just the same as a year ago. Instead of taking it out on the people of Christchurch and saying, “You can’t have access to a reopened branch surgery,” it should be looking at its own poor performance. As I have said to the Minister informally, the idea that Dorset ICB will somehow be amalgamated with other ICBs—creating even more bureaucracy, and making it even more remote from the people—is, again, farcical.

My final point—I want to give the Minister time to respond—is that, in answer to a written question, the Minister for Care said that as a result of what has happened in the last year, the number of patients in Highcliffe has increased by about 150. In Christchurch medical practice, the total number of patients has actually fallen; in the Stour surgery, it has increased; and in the Grove, it is about the same. To suggest, on those figures, that the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch will be threatened if this branch surgery is reopened seems to be without any justification. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response, although I note that the Minister for Care is not responding to the debate.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will not, because I want to ensure that the Minister has time to respond to those points.

11:18

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for raising GP surgeries, which is a vital matter to so many of our constituents. That is because GP surgeries are the front door to our NHS, and visiting a GP represents far better value for taxpayers’ money than accident and emergency departments. That is why, since coming into office, fixing general practice has rightly taken up a lot of our bandwidth, energy and focus.

It is worth remembering that we inherited a system in total disarray, and a bizarre situation in which we simultaneously had a GP shortage and newly qualified GPs looking for work. I am proud of everything we have done to turn GP services around in the nine or 10 short months we have had. However, before I come on to that, let me address some of the hon. Gentleman’s points.

Ahead of this debate, I asked my office to get in touch with the integrated care board locally so that we had a fuller picture of what is happening on the ground. My understanding is that Burton surgery was previously a branch of Christchurch medical practice, which is just under two miles away. The surgery closed in August last year because the owners wanted to sell. Although the ICB did not approve of the closure, it recognised that it had little influence over the sale as GPs are independent practitioners.

I am informed that the local community were—as they often are—understandably unhappy with the news about changes to the services, and that the hon. Gentleman got in touch with Dorset ICB. When a veterinary business tried to buy the site, the application received over 100 objection letters and the sale did not go ahead. The ICB then received two further applications to renew the site, about which it considered a number of factors, as is normal practice: whether there is good access to surgeries in the area; what the impact would be on patients and on community needs; how it would affect the quality, equity and safety of provision; and how it might affect the stability and ability of other local GP services to run viable surgeries in their area.

I have been assured that the decision that Dorset ICB took was not taken lightly but based on the needs of and the benefits to all prospective patients in the area. The surgery catchment area for Burton is covered by Christchurch medical practice and Farmhouse surgery. As the hon. Gentleman outlined, reopening would have required additional costs, which were not justifiable given the financial challenges facing the NHS—something that we all understand. Consequently, Dorset ICB felt that those costs would reduce provision in the area and lead to significant financial pressures on other local surgeries, which could lead to further closures.

Dorset ICB has seen no degradation of services for patients since the surgery closed and the number of appointments has not decreased overall. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the numbers, and I do not know why that information is not available; I am happy to take that question back to the Department. Local MPs should have as much information as possible about services in their areas. These are taxpayer-funded services, so I will check as to why that information is not available. Dorset ICB has not received what it calls formal complaints from patients, but it has received communications from a local campaigning group, which is important. On balance, however, it decided that it could not reopen the practice.

On the point about housing needs, which I talked about for many years when I was an Opposition Member of Parliament, the Government absolutely understand the issue of additional demand and the challenge it poses to primary care infrastructure.

[Clive Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will not, because the hon. Member for Christchurch wants me to answer his questions.

We are working closely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the issue of additional demand in national planning guidance and ensure that all new and existing developments have an adequate level of healthcare infrastructure for the community. The NHS has a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient medical services, including general practice, in each local area, with funding and commission reflecting population growth and demographic changes. The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point that we will continue to pursue.

Those are the facts about the decision made by the ICB, which was its decision to make. I am not going to stand here and tell the hon. Gentleman that he is not right to do what he is doing; he is absolutely right to fight for the best possible service provision for the people of Christchurch, and I would do the same for my constituents—all hon. Members do that. These decisions are best made locally, however, and it is for Dorset ICB to use its autonomy to make them, not Ministers in Whitehall.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The ICB is not elected or accountable. We have an elected and accountable council—BCP council—which decided that the surgery in Burton, a community facility that had been there for more than 30 years, should remain and that permission should not be granted to change its use, because of its value as a community asset. Why should the ICB be able to second-guess the elected representatives of the community? Is that not intolerable?

[Karin Smyth]

I could talk for a long time about the accountability of health services, but we do not have time for that. The legislation, as set up by the previous Government and others, is clear that ICBs have responsibility for commissioning services on behalf of the local population within the resources that they have available. They need to do that under particular guidelines, which I have outlined, and it is important that they keep up communications with Ministers and local people.

I am not au fait with the day-to-day running of Dorset ICB—that is not for Ministers—but at a strategic level, I recognise that Dorset currently has the fifth-highest ratio of GP clinicians to patients in the country. I know that everyone wants to be in first place, but I am sympathetic to the ICB’s arguments that other practices may suffer if the surgery were reopened. Closing the former site has made the services at Christchurch medical practice and other neighbouring practices slightly larger, which has given them greater resilience in the long term.

The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the new Labour Government and what we are trying to address. I do not have the figures in front of me, but every hon. Member present will know there have been hundreds of GP service closures—not just branches but practices—over the past 14 years. The trend has been for primary care to receive a smaller share of the NHS budget, and as a result, secondary care has had much more activity. We all know about the 8 am scramble, and some GPs have been forced to work in appalling conditions with leaky roofs and buckets catching rainwater.

That is why our priority is to stem the flow of resources away from primary care, shift the focus of the NHS from hospital to community, and begin building a much better neighbourhood health service. Our objectives are to hire more GPs, reach an agreement on a new contract, rebuild surgeries through increased capital spend, and bust the bloated bureaucracy that has built up. In the summer, we committed to bringing in an extra 1,000 GPs through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, which we backed with an extra £82 million of funding after changing a technicality that prevented primary care from hiring more new doctors. We have surpassed our initial target and 1,500 more GPs are now serving patients on the frontline. Since we took office, I am happy to confirm that 11 have been recruited by Dorset ICB, including, as I understand, three in the hon. Member’s constituency.

In conclusion, we are committed to shifting the NHS from hospital to community and to building a neighbourhood health service. We are bringing back the family doctor.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

One of the issues is that since the branch surgery was closed, Christchurch medical practice has reduced its number of full-time equivalent GP doctors. There used to be 10.7 and now there are only 10.2, which may be part of the problem. Surely it must be in the interests of the Government, the taxpayer and everybody else to allow a branch surgery to reopen, at minimal additional cost, to the benefit of 4,500 people in the Christchurch area.

[Karin Smyth]

As I said, decisions about how the additional costs are borne and the resilience of the rest of primary care in the area are for the ICB. It has been very clear that that is not the case, so the hon. Member may want to take it up with the ICB.

Since we came into office, we have been doing the hard yards of restoring the role of general practice at the heart of our health service, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, by investing in people, places and programmes that cut bureaucracy. We are laying the foundations for an NHS that is fit for the future, particularly based around primary care and neighbourhood health centres.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Adoption and Kinship Placements

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

14:30

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for children in adoptive and kinship placements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Harris, and I thank so many hon. Members for being present in the Chamber. I will keep my speech as short as possible so that they can all get in—bear with me.

Children who are no longer able to live with their birth parents are the responsibility of us all. I committed to speak up for them and their families before my election, so it is a privilege to be here to do just that. We are primarily here to talk about those who are fortunate enough to have a permanent placement through adoption, or a secure long-term arrangement with a special guardianship or child arrangements order—in other words, kinship care. However, we know that the average amount of time that a young person or child spends in care before they are adopted is 15 months, and that often involves multiple placements. We also know that around 80% of those children may have experienced neglect, abuse or violence before their adoption. The adoption and special guardianship support fund was set up in response to those realities, which is why the recent uncertainty and the limitations that have been placed on it have been so concerning and have resulted in this debate.

Over recent weeks, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been raised a number of times in Parliament, first when we were waiting for news about the fund for 2025-26 after damaging delays, and several times since the Government announced that they would continue funding the scheme, albeit with significant rule changes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are here today, have been raising these issues and speaking out, as I have, and seeking opportunities to raise the future of the ASGSF in detail.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Many of us have been talking to special guardians in our constituencies—I certainly have in Hartlepool—and one of their huge concerns is that the cut to this fund will dissuade people from taking on these incredibly important roles in the future. Does the hon. Member agree that that will result in costs popping up elsewhere for the state, costing us more in the future?

[Rebecca Smith]

The hon. Gentleman takes the words right out of my mouth, and if he stays for the whole debate he will hear me say exactly that. He raises an important point: we are asking people to care for the most vulnerable children, and if we do not give them the tools to do that, they will not apply in the first place.

I am pleased to have secured this debate to shine a further light on the issue, highlight how the Government’s recent position is a false economy, and put further pressure on them to do the right thing and reverse the recent changes. Without access to the previous level of support offered through the fund, there is a real concern that the number of adopters will fall, and more children—including those with some of the most difficult and challenging stories—will face the long term in care, seeing their future massively impacted as a result.

Before I progress, I wish to pay tribute to the thousands of parents, guardians and carers across the country who have been fighting for children and young people in their care—those who are unable to live with their birth parents—and especially to those families in my constituency of South West Devon, some of whom I have met, and some who have written to me to share their experiences. They are all, rightly, incredibly worried about the impact of the cuts on the support that they previously received, and it is a privilege to be here to speak on their behalf.

I also place on record my thanks to the charities that have been campaigning against the recent changes to support for children in adoptive and kinship placements: Adoption UK, Coram, Kinship, Family Rights Group, and the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies to mention a few, as well as local adoption agencies such as Adopt South West, which serves families in my constituency and others in Devon and Cornwall. Their work has been especially powerful over the past couple of months as they have shared information with us and we have fought together.

The adoption and special guardianship support fund was set up under the Conservative Government in 2015 as a result of the Children and Families Act 2014, and it was designed to help families to access the specialist therapy services that they may need. Since the Adoption and Children Act 2002, adoptive families have had a right to an assessment of their adoption support needs by their local authority. However, the 2014 Act introduced a number of further measures to support adoptive families, including the fund. In 2023, the fund was expanded to include kinship care, enabling some children with special guardianship or child arrangements orders to qualify for support too. That was a solid legacy to work from.

Since July 2024, however, there has been a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Although it is a lifeline for thousands of vulnerable children, it was left hanging in the balance. Families were left wondering whether the therapeutic support that their children desperately need would vanish overnight.

In April, the Department for Education announced significant cuts to the fund. The annual therapy funding per child has been slashed from £5,000 to £3,000. The separate £2,500 allowance for specialist assessments has gone, match funding to support the most complex cases has gone, and the ability to carry support across financial years has also gone. That is a shocking 40% reduction in funding for the support that we all know is highly specialised and that, as a result, comes at a cost.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, and I agree 100% with the point that she is making. Two constituents in West Dorset support two children with multiple needs—overlapping autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and significant trauma of the kind she mentioned. The funding for a one-off assessment remains, but the ongoing funding to support those children no longer exists, and that is a fundamental problem.

[Rebecca Smith]

Absolutely: the goalposts have completely shifted. As we saw with farming, it happened overnight, so there was no warning for families and no ability for them to come up with other ideas.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Following the announcements in April, a constituent got in touch. She has two adopted granddaughters who, given their traumatic start in life, rely on specialist support. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that diminishing the support fund will have long-term financial impacts on the Government’s budget?

[Rebecca Smith]

I agree with the hon. Member that there is definitely a concern around that issue. I will touch on it more later, but it has already been brought up this afternoon.

I turn to what some of my constituents are saying. My constituent CA said:

“These children are slipping through the net and it is the parents who are dealing with the fallout— excessive child on parent violence, total exhaustion from managing needs at home and constant battling with professionals.

I myself have had to give up my career—”

incidentally, she was a teacher—

“in order to maintain the daily battle of getting her to school, then constant meetings to get her any sort of education that meets her needs. It’s exhausting!”

Similarly, Joanne said:

“Myself and my husband adopted our daughter 12 yrs ago and our son 6 yrs ago. They both have Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder alongside Autism Spectrum Disorder.

My son is 6 yrs old and because of the trauma he endured in utero, he also has complex needs and has suicidal ideation with intent and wishes he has never been born—we were lucky enough to secure vital match funding last year to enable the sensory OT”—

that is, the sensory occupational therapist—

“to have weekly sessions to support him in controlling his emotions and to create a specific sensory diet which school will be able to use”

to support him in accessing school and supporting his needs. She continued:

“To hear that the fund is being reduced to £3,000 is truly terrifying. As a family, we have been in crisis and at risk of family (placement) breakdown, as having 2 complex children is exhausting, physically, mentally and emotionally, and my husband and myself had nothing left in the tank to carry on. I have been unable to work for 6 yrs due to my daughter being unable to access education as her needs were not understood or being met.”

The Labour Government promised to be different, to be bold and to put children first. However, when it came to one of the most vulnerable groups in our society—children who have experienced trauma, neglect and loss—they hesitated, they wavered and they failed to provide the leadership that we had been told to expect.

The Government say that the changes to the fund have been made to “maximise the number” of children supported, but how can they claim to support more children by offering them less? How can they ask families to step up and adopt or become guardians, only to pull the rug out from under them when they need the most support? Nearly 20,000 children received support through the fund last year. That is 20,000 stories of resilience and of families holding on through the hardest times. Now, however, many of those families are being told, “You’re on your own.”

Another constituent wrote:

“I am in the final months of a doctorate to become a Clinical Psychologist and much of my work…is with families who rely on this fund. Children and young people who are adopted have almost all experienced developmental trauma and are left with many relational and neurodevelopmental complexities that require long term specialist support and intervention in order to heal. Parenting these children is usually not straightforward and can be incredibly challenging and draining, requiring specialist support. I have little doubt that with the reduction of the fund, we will see a significant increase in adoption break downs…This is not only incredibly traumatic for all involved, but is also incredibly expensive—far greater than the costs that will be saved through the reduction in the support fund. The cost of keeping a child in care has been estimated at around £280,000, significantly more than the £2,000 that has been cut.

We know that that is not the only cost that will increase. As well as the risk of returning to care, adopted young people face tougher educational and employment outcomes and their mental health and wellbeing is significantly impacted, especially as they transition to adulthood. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has just progressed through the Commons—why undermine its aims by severely limiting the support in the ASGSF?

In the past few months, it has become clear that this decision should not be binary. It should not be about spreading funding thinly to go further; it should be about extending the funding to its previous levels. We need to see a return to the £5,000 fair access limit, to reinstate the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessments and to allow for match funding. We must make the funding permanent—not subject to annual spending rounds—provide it for more families and recognise that if it is not provided and ringfenced by the Government, it will fall to local authorities to find it, and we know how that tends to end up.

To conclude, I will quote from a constituent who works as a professional in this field and has raised some serious questions that I hope the Minister can address. She says:

“There has been no consultation process at all...how can this be fair or legal as adoptive & kinship families have access to therapies in their adoption and special guardianship order paperwork and in their EHCP agreements?”—

that is, education, health and care plan agreements. She continues:

“Who will adopt disabled children where lots of intervention and support is necessary? How many children will return to care? What will families do without multi-disciplinary assessments where it is beyond negligence to take this away as it is often the only thing that triggers considered recommendations for adopted children in EHCPs for case reviews, for providing carefully managed intervention plans.

Our previously looked after children are being discriminated against due to their complex needs where families face yet another closed door.”

I call on the Minister to reverse her decision and to acknowledge that failing to do so risks an uncertain future for these special children and young people, and their families.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I am concerned that there are a lot more Members present than on the speaking list. If you have not put in to speak, it is unlikely you will be called. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.28 pm, so I am allowing each Member three minutes in which to speak.

14:42

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on her speech.

This is difficult: because of the Minister’s professional background, I know that she will know everything we are going to say to her in this debate. I know that she cares deeply about this issue. In fact, I know that she will do everything she possibly can to ensure that children who have care experience, whether that is through a special guardianship order or adoption, get the holistic support they need. I know that she wants every child to have the therapeutic interventions that will make a difference to their life course and their future.

I know that the Minister understands the importance of the fund and the transformational difference it makes not only to children but to their families, siblings, parents and environment. I know that the Minister understands that the life course of these children will be different if they do not get that vital intervention as early as possible. I know that she understands the issues associated with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, trauma, abuse, violence and neglect.

I know that the Minister cares deeply about this issue, yet there was a cliff edge between the last fund and this fund. It was only at the eleventh hour—in fact, it was gone midnight—before we saw the confirmation that the fund would continue, but it was not until two weeks later that we learned it had been slashed by 40%.

The outcomes of those young people will be deeply affected. Drilling into the data, the average amount spent on therapeutic support for a family was £3,335 last year. That is the average, so many need more. As a result of the changes, the average will not even be reached and those specialist assessments will not be there. It would be fine if we had these services available in our public sector—I would welcome that—but we simply do not. Those families need vital access.

I suggest to the Minister that she stamps her feet at the Treasury’s door, and that she demands that the Treasury does not play games, like it did this morning during Treasury questions, but actually delivers the money, because it will cost the Treasury far more if it does not. I also suggest that the Minister addresses the big challenge that we are seeing: that the number of children in our country in care is rising. That is where the solution is—getting that early help to make a real difference. I am proud that my city is reducing the number of children who are care experienced, but we need to see this fund restored first.

14:45

[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.

14:50

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate. I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise concerns on behalf of my constituents in County Durham. Kinship carers play a crucial role in our communities. They step up to care for children when their parents are no longer able to do so, often under challenging circumstances. Their care allows children to remain within their families and support networks, which we know leads to better outcomes in adulthood.

Yet, despite their vital contribution, Government support remains unequal. A two-tier system persists, where access to help is based not on a child’s needs, but on how they entered kinship care. That must change. For example, only kinship children who have previously been looked after the local authority can access pupil premium plus, priority school admissions, support from the designated teacher and the adoption and special guardianship support fund. That should not be the case—it is simply unfair. That is one reason why I support the Kinship charity’s #ValueOurLove campaign, which calls for the Government to join up the fragmented system and guarantee access to support, no matter which route is followed into kinship care. Emotional and behavioural challenges are the main reasons kinship carers fear they cannot continue to care for their loved ones. These children, often shaped by trauma and loss, need early, high-quality therapeutic support to heal—support that must be protected, not cut.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to a £40 million kinship allowance trial in 10 local authorities, but we urgently need clarity. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm when decisions will be made, and whether County Durham will be included, since I understand that 317 local authorities are vying to be a pilot authority. In east Durham alone there are 340 kinship families, some of whom are known to me, who face ongoing financial uncertainty and reduced access to support. The limited pilot risks leaving many behind.

The comprehensive spending review is the ideal opportunity to accelerate plans for kinship carers. I urge the Minister and the Government to commit to a non-means-tested allowance, at least equal to the national minimum fostering rate, and to ending the current two-tier system. Carers save the state £4.3 billion annually. Every child matters and deserves the same chance to thrive, no matter their circumstances.

14:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for leading the debate. The crowd that is present indicates how important the issue is. Adoptive and kinship care is a wonderful thing to offer children a safe and caring environment to grow up in, but there is no doubt that it has challenges that need addressing, and in particular need Government support. It is great to be in Westminster Hall to talk about that.

To give an understanding of the topic, in Northern Ireland there are an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 children living in informal kinship care, and the number of children living with friends and family is consistently increasing. As of March ’24, there were some 4,000 children under the care of local authorities, even though a number of children had been adopted out of care in 2023—there are still many more in care than are being adopted. Northern Ireland, along with Scotland, seems to have the highest rate of kinship care, and there is no doubt that more should be done to support those agreeing to take on the care of relatives.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The hon. Member mentions the challenges that kinship carers face; one is the legal complexity of the current system. I recently spoke to a constituent who has a special guardianship order in place for her grandson, for whom she is the kinship carer. On her diagnosis with lung disease, she went to see whether it was possible to add her son, the child’s uncle, to that agreement. She was told that it was not legally possible—but thankfully, and thanks to advice from the Family Rights Group, she learned that it is. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done to simplify the legal processes around kinship care?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is frustrating to have a legalistic system that seems to try to hold up the process, when people are looking for a good way forward for the child.

In October 2024, the Government announced that it would provide some £40 million to trial a new kinship allowance in 10 local authorities in England. The aim is to test whether paying some form of allowance to kinship carers could encourage more people to take a family member in when needed. The Government have said that trial will start in the autumn. Finances are often a block, and relatives who already have children of their own often find they simply cannot afford to take on kinship care. Would the Minister and the Government—those who hold the purse strings—consider extending funding for that trial to Northern Ireland and Scotland, where the figures surrounding children living in kinship care with family members are higher? A trial in those two places would give a better perspective, if the Minister does not mind me saying so.

There are many reasons why a family may choose to adopt, but post-adoption support is paramount. I have no doubt that, with specialist long-term assistance, relationships can thrive. Access to therapeutic services for children is incredibly important to support the child’s emotional and mental wellbeing. For example, in education—I find this to be of major importance—children will naturally discuss their family environments, their parents and their grandparents. For many young people who do not have the same environment, those conversations in schools can become uncomfortable for them. Although we have fantastic pastoral support in schools, perhaps it is not a bad idea for outside specialists to engage with those kids in school to ensure that they have the specific support that they need.

Statutory adoption pay is paid at 90% of earnings for the first six weeks and at a further, lower rate of £187.18 a week for the next 33 weeks. Perhaps kinship payments could also be looked at for those relatives who take on care from birth, so that they are not left behind when supporting young children, and giving them the best start.

To conclude, the sacrifice that adoptive and kinship carers make for the lives of young people is incredibly wonderful. Many people out there make that decision for the betterment of a young person and to give them the opportunity to grow up. Government support for them must be unwavering so that they do not struggle, but have access to sufficient finance and wellbeing support. For the children, having access to long-term assistance will allow them to thrive. What more can we ask for in this debate other than their bright futures?

14:57

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Since I came to this House in July, I have found this issue to be one of the few that cuts across parties; all hon. Members see what the adoption and special guardianship support fund does on the ground, whether in their county councils or district councils. It is one of those issues brought up by people at our constituency surgeries, and we see the impact that it has on the families supporting those children.

I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been very patient with the many comments that I have put to her, and supportive in getting me answers, but I have big concerns about the impact of the changes to the fund. It will discourage future kinship carers to come forward if they feel that the financial impacts on them mean that they will not be able to support the children who they desperately want to. Many hon. Members in this Chamber have been councillors and have seen the impact on local government finances. We know that if the Government do not step up or change course on this issue, local government simply will not be able to step in and take their place.

This Government, of which I am proud to be a part, talk a lot about social value in our decision making. I am frustrated that the previous Government did not talk about social value as much as they should have. This is an issue where social value is evidently important in making financial decisions. It is about not just the price to Government of future interventions, whether they be—God forbid—in police or crime or in education, but the impact that it will have directly on the life chances of those children involved.

I took my responsibility as a corporate parent very seriously when I was a county councillor, and I was often very frustrated when politics got in the way of making good decisions about children’s services and supporting children in Worcestershire. We cannot afford not to take better financial decisions on this issue, or it will cost us more money down the road.

In the past few weeks, I have met some of the children in my constituency supported by this fund. Frankly, we are missing out on some of the brightest young people I have met. They have gone through hugely difficult times and will make incredible contributions to society. On this issue, I am more than happy to grab my pitchfork and support the Minister in running to the Treasury. This decision is something that we cannot afford not to change.

15:00

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this important and timely debate. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, I will focus on how vital kinship carers are and on how they are often overlooked and under-supported. Many do not even identify as kinship carers, yet they are the ones providing stability, safety and love to children who can no longer live with their birth parents. Often, they are grandparents, aunts, uncles or family friends; they do this for the love of the children, and often of the families the children can no longer be with, yet kinship carers need proper support to avoid these arrangements breaking down.

In a 2024 survey, 35% of kinship carers rated the information they received from their local authority as very poor, while 44% said they did not trust their local authority at all. They are exhausted by being forced to battle a system that should be supporting them. Many are navigating complex traumas on top of a failing special educational needs and disability system, with half of children in kinship care also not getting the help they need in their education setting. Families also face a cliff edge of support when the young person turns 18.

That is why the adoption and special guardianship support fund—a pot that kinship carers have been able to access only since 2023—is so crucial to getting the bespoke therapies that these children and their trusted adults rely on. In my Chichester constituency, we are lucky to have Beacon House, which is a truly outstanding therapeutic service for young people, families and adults. I will share some of the comments from the children who have had the support of Beacon House. One said:

“It has helped me to understand why I sometimes act the way I do in scenarios and to unload my day to day worries that perhaps were taking a toll on my mental health”.

Another said:

“It’s made me feel safer. It doesn’t make me feel I’m not welcome here”.

And finally:

“It has helped me to think about why I do things and help to understand and for my parents to understand too”.

For so many of the families using services like Beacon House, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been a lifeline. It benefited more than 18,000 children last year. I believe that the Government know this fund is vital to families up and down the UK, and I understand their desire to increase its availability so that more families can benefit, but the fund is preventing breakdowns in adoptions and special guardianship arrangements. Will the Minister make the argument to the Treasury for increasing the fund, so that all children under care arrangements can access this support, with proper clinical assessments funded so the support can be tailored? These families do extraordinary things, stepping in, often at a moment’s notice, to give vulnerable children a future. The least we can do is give them the support they deserve.

15:03

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing what we all acknowledge is a really important debate.

Like a lot of people in the Chamber today, one of my biggest privileges before coming to this space was serving as a corporate parent on the local authority of the place I lived at the time. Although “corporate parent” can feel like quite a stale and bureaucratic term, it is actually one of the most deeply important and human parts of a councillor’s role, making sure they are there for, championing and supporting every young person who, for whatever reason—whatever has happened to them in their life—now finds themself in their local authority’s care. There is nothing more moving or devastating than to speak to some of those young people, to see their inspiring resilience in the face of traumas that lots of people here never have to even contemplate happening to themselves, and to know the very real ways in which the current system is continuing to let them down and fail them.

We know that kinship placements, strong supportive fostering placements and adoptive placements are strongly associated with the best outcomes for young people in care, providing the best support for them to make the best start in life and later to thrive, but far too often the system is not set up to facilitate that. Young people often end up—at great cost to all of us and our local authorities—in unproductive and sometimes deeply cold private placements.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

We rightly hear about the many challenges that adopted children can face, but as a proud adoptive parent, I say we also need to remember the huge joy they bring to their families and adoptive parents. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the many challenges in children’s social care. Does he agree it is vital that the Government get on with the root and branch reform of children’s social care, as they are committed to do, so that we get children into permanent, safe, long-term placements as soon as possible?

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. In a heartwarming way, my hon. Friend has reminded us of the opportunity we have if we can get the system right, to make sure that more young people who have had deeply difficult starts in life can experience the parenting, support and love that we all want for our children.

I am glad that, whether through investment or reform, the Government are committed to overcome the challenges in the system they inherited. Whether it is finally funding a long overdue and important kinship care pilot or reforming and supporting more local authorities to attract more people into foster caring, there is a lot to shout about. I am glad, albeit with some caveats, that in the context of a difficult financial and public services inheritance, we have been able at least to safeguard existing funding to keep adoption support going for the next year.

Although it is welcome that the funding is now being accessed by many more families, there is no getting away from the fact that the changing cap will have an impact on young people with SEND and their carers. Their concern is understandable. There will be lots of conversations about how we can best bring to life our broader vision and look after the young people in our care in the best way, by supporting more of them into nourishing, fantastic and thriving placements. In the meantime, we owe it to them to use every available lever to provide the fullest support possible.

I welcome that support, but what more can we do to ensure that local authorities use their virtual heads to hold schools accountable for the pupil premium placement money they are given for children in adoption and foster care placements under their watch, to widen support available to them? Where we have given local authorities more money for children’s social care, I would welcome consideration being given to how guidance could be strengthened to ensure that they are filling in the gaps. We know that is in the child’s, the family’s and all our best interests.

Like many others, I welcome further opportunities to work with the Minister. We have a number of champions of care and care leavers here. It is one of the most exciting and energising things about being an MP in this new Parliament. I know we would all be excited to work with the Minister to bring to life fully this Government’s vision of ensuring that every young person, particularly those entrusted to all of us, those society cares for, gets the support in life they desperately need.

15:07

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for bringing this vital debate. I rise to applaud the work of Beacon House in Cuckfield in Mid Sussex, which serves people across the south-east, including constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). I visited recently and met the incredible people who do incredible work there. Jigsaw in Burgess Hill also supports children who have been adopted. I thank the families in Mid Sussex who have taken on children in kinship care or have adopted them. That is an enormous commitment to make and is so important, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members. I also thank them for writing to me.

As has been said, many of us do not know what it is like to be an adoptive parent or to take on kinship care; I certainly do not. Until a few months ago, I was unaware of the ASGSF and the vital provision it offers to families who have come forward to take on children. When considering the work provided by the ASGSF, we need to remember that we are talking about families, and because of that, a lot of what goes on is in private, behind closed doors and not very visible to the public. That is why so many hon. Members have come today from all parties to make the case for the ASGSF to be reinstated and properly funded. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for her work in pushing the urgent question that came the day after last year’s funding expired, which resulted in ASGSF funding being secured.

Details of the changes to how the funding is allocated were released during recess, and I think we were all deeply dismayed by that. As other Members said, this money gives people the courage to offer to adopt and take on kinship children, and prevents adoption breakdowns every single day. There is a great deal of cross-party support for getting this right, which is why after this debate I am going to the Backbench Business Committee to put in a bid for a Back-Bench debate on this matter, because we share the same strength of feeling. I urge the Minister to come back with a better answer than the one that I suspect she will be able to give this afternoon, although I do not want to prejudge where she is going to go.

15:10

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this important debate. I also thank the Minister for engaging constructively with me on this important issue and for the extension of the £50 million fund that supports children in adoptive and kinship care. It helped 20,000 children last year, and that support has really made a difference.

I welcome the Government’s £40 million commitment to the new kinship care trial, which is a positive and much-needed step in the right direction. It is absolutely right that our Government support as many children as possible who have been adopted or raised in kinship care. However, a number of constituents have raised concerns about the future of funding and how it will be delivered in practice.

One first-time adopter in Swindon North wrote to me about his experience of applying for the adoption support fund. He said that overall the experience was positive, but he was concerned about the changes to the funding ceiling and asked whether he will have to reapply. He fears that that could cause delays and that his child might miss out on the vital therapy that they need at a crucial time. Will the Minister confirm whether families that were previously approved for higher levels of funding will automatically be approved under the new lower ceiling without the need to submit new applications?

Another constituent who got in touch with me is a mother who is a special guardian for two children. She, too, welcomed the kinship fund trial, but expressed concerns about the scheme. Currently, no detailed information has been published. She relies on the adoption support fund and is unsure what will happen when it ends. Will the Minister tell us when more information about the kinship fund trial will be shared? Can she confirm whether Swindon will be included in the trial area? It would be nice to get an answer to that, although we have some competition from Dudley.

Finally, the FASD Hub South West team have been in touch. It is a voluntary organisation that provides vital support for children suffering from the effects of FASD. Many of those children have experienced trauma, neglect and irreversible brain damage, and previously benefited from clinical pathways and multidisciplinary assessments, supported by the £2,500 premium, but that funding is now gone. The team are deeply concerned that children with FASD will no longer be adopted simply because the support is not there. Will the Minister provide clarification on the funding levels through the upcoming spending review, and commit to long-term, sustainable adoption support funding for children with FASD? Those children must not be left behind.

15:13

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this debate.

About 3,000 children in England are adopted each year, and most have suffered severe abuse or neglect. Earlier this year, the Government left many adoptive families in limbo when they failed to confirm whether the adoption and special guardianship support fund would continue beyond 31 March. That was even the case right up to the end of March. I received a letter from my constituent Laura Blatherwick, the Devon lead for the Like Minds network, who wrote:

“It is now the 22nd March and we still don’t have a decision from the Government on the continuation of the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund… In NINE DAYS the fund is due to close....New applications and top ups to existing support take MONTHS to approve. This means that already there are families not receiving the support they desperately need, and others will have a long gap in their therapy. We are very concerned about current increases to risk and recovery disruption for some of the most vulnerable children we support.”

As we have heard, in the end the fund was retained, thanks in part to pressure from the Liberal Democrats and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who forced an urgent question in Parliament, but the funding available to an individual was slashed by 40% from £5,000 to £3,000.

I have been in contact with two organisations in Devon that are affected by the changes: the Youth Arts and Health Trust and Family Compass. Between them, these two registered charities provide professional therapies for approximately 130 children per year. The children have experienced adoption, and their therapy has been terminated mid-process, often at very risky times in their lives. The Youth Arts and Health Trust is dipping into its limited reserves to continue to offer therapy—for free and at a cost to the charity—to some of those young people who are profoundly at risk. That therapy must continue because the young people are disclosing issues such as youth homelessness and sexual abuse and exploitation.

The huge reduction in funding means that much-needed, year-long therapy is now unaffordable through good-value, trusted providers. We are likely to see other providers that we cannot be sure of moving in to fill the gap. This is not just a funding issue; it is a moral issue. In fact, it is a moral failure. A system that claims to protect children cannot simultaneously undermine the very services that support their recovery.

15:16

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for enabling us to speak on this subject. I declare an interest as an adoptive parent and foster carer. That experience has shown me the transformative effects that adoption can have and the immense challenges faced by many children who are looked after and care experienced.

When we talk about Government support, let us be clear that we are talking about lifelines, not luxuries. Around 3,000 children in England are placed in adoptive families every year, and 80% of them will have suffered from abuse, neglect or violence, so it is no wonder that they often need specialist support to help them and their families to heal, and to live with the scars that will never fully fade.

I will not speak at length about the adoption and special guardianship support fund, as many hon. Members are raising it in their speeches, but I will say that to limit its reach is to effectively clip the wings of the young people and families it supports, as well as those of the incredibly skilled and compassionate professionals who work with them. I highlight the fact that the Minister is among that group. She draws on a wealth of experience from her career as a social worker, and I know how deeply she cares about adopters and kinship and foster carers. If she faced no financial constraints, I know that the money would be out of the door tomorrow, to support every family to the fullest.

Yesterday, I met Adoption UK, which stressed to me not only the importance of the ASGSF but of the need to ensure that all healthcare and education professionals are aware of the impact of early-childhood trauma and care experience, so that affected children and young people can receive targeted support and advocacy services.

In advance of an Adjournment debate led last month by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), I spoke to the social worker who supports my husband and I with what we hope will be the adoption of our second child. She had lots of thoughts on the subject, and I would like to mention some that I could not raise in that debate. She highlighted the need for improved holistic support in schools, enabled by integrated working among schools and healthcare professionals such as occupational therapists, so that there is continuity of support; closer working between psychologists and adoption teams, because access to support within teams could reduce the need for families to apply to the ASGSF; and higher levels of short-term funding to allow for weekly therapeutic support, which is currently very difficult to obtain through the ASGSF.

Although I do not have enough time to say as much as I would like about kinship care, I will say that too few families receive financial or therapeutic support, but they still face the practical and emotional challenges. The route closest to my heart, which my husband and I took, is fostering to adopt, which gives the benefits of early permanence, but without a cast-iron guarantee that the placement will end in adoption. I hope we will have the opportunity to debate that more in the future.

My point is that whatever the route into permanence, children’s needs are no different. What is different is the consistency and quality of the support they receive. When we ask families to step up for vulnerable children—and they do, day in and day out—the least we can do is make sure that we step up for them.

15:19

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this important debate.

The Government’s cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund are going to harm vulnerable children in my constituency of Wokingham and across England. Those children and their families will see vital therapies suspended, and they do not know when, or even if, they will resume. Prior to the cuts, one family received 264 hours of therapy, but that will now fall to just 32 hours. Will the Minister meet me and my constituents to discuss the cuts to the ASGSF, so that she can hear directly from those affected? Will she publish the analysis on which the changes to the ASGSF were made? Will she detail the level of consultation that was undertaken with service providers and adoptive and kinship families before the cuts were announced?

Finally, I pay tribute to all the families who will be affected by the cuts, and ask them to continue their incredible work in fighting against them. I also thank my constituent, Clare Solomons, who has worked so hard in organising petitions, speaking in the media and being an invaluable source of advice on this issue. I hope the Minister will listen to the experience of families and reverse the cuts as soon as possible.

15:20

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this debate.

It is an often repeated political trope that children are our future, but it stands the test of time much better than most clichés. It is also often said that a society can be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. I feel that the two sayings come together here as we talk about some of the most vulnerable children in our society and the vital support networks that surround them.

Children often come into adoptive and kinship settings having experienced incredible trauma, neglect or abuse in the first months or years of their lives. The complex challenges that arise from those unthinkable but all too real experiences should be talked about more often. We need to do more to highlight how we can support our fantastic adoptive and kinship care support networks, not talk about cuts to the funding that keeps them going.

In the south-west and throughout the country, thousands of children and their families are supported by funds from the adoption and special guardianship support fund. In 2023-24, the south-west had 3,129 applications under the fund approved, with nearly 1,200 applications for creative and physical therapies.

On the economy, kinship care saves the Government about £4.3 billion each year, and adoption saves £4.2 billion, spread among local authorities, the wider economy and the NHS. Why, then, did the Government feel they had no option but to slash the ASGSF budget allocation per child? I am not sure.

In conclusion, we already have a crisis in adoption, with the number of families willing to step forward to adopt plunging. Without the support of the ASGSF for the families who need it, that number will continue to decline and the number of children saved will plummet. I call wholeheartedly on the Government to reverse the harmful cuts immediately, and to reaffirm their commitment to supporting vulnerable children and the families who care for them. We can be a society that cares. We must look after those for whom we need to care so deeply.

15:23

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who spoke so passionately for children and families.

Kinship carers and adoptive families perform an extraordinary public service, providing stability, love and hope for children who have experienced trauma, loss or neglect. I had the privilege of meeting many adoptive families and family carers in my Stratford-on-Avon constituency. Too often they are left to navigate complex systems with little support. More than half of kinship carers say that their children are not getting the help that they need in education or to access mental health, or indeed any legal advice about their rights or options. Many are forced to reduce their hours or leave work entirely, yet there is still no statutory right to paid employment leave for kinship carers.

On adoption, the situation is no less troubling. Post-adoption support is patchy at best, with some families waiting six months just for an initial assessment, and the Government have now reduced this important fund. The cuts to the ASGSF threaten the very purpose of the adoption system and might lead to adoption breakdowns. These families deserve stability, not sudden U-turns. They need clear, consistent support, not muddled promises. Above all, they need a Government who stand with them, not just in words but in action.

15:25

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate.

Around 157 children in my constituency are in kinship care. These are children being raised not by their parents, but by grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or close friends who step up in times of crisis to provide stable, loving homes when children cannot live with their parents. They do that not for recognition or financial reward, but out of love and a deep commitment to bringing families together.

Across England more than 132,000 children are growing up in kinship care. Those children might otherwise be in the care system, and it is thanks to kinship carers that they are not. That love comes at a cost—a cost that is often borne alone, as I have heard at first hand from kinship carers in my constituency. When I met our local kinship care group in Polegate in my constituency—set up by formidable local kinship campaigner Wendy Turner—I listened to carers and children and heard about the challenges they face, particularly financially.

Unlike foster carers, most kinship carers receive little or no financial support, despite taking on exactly the same responsibilities. Recent research from Kinship and the Centre for Care reveals that kinship carers contribute more than £4.3 billion to our economy, yet many struggle to make ends meet. The figures are deeply troubling. Kinship carers are twice as likely as other adults to rely on food banks and four times as likely to be behind on their bills, and one in eight may be forced to make the heartbreaking decision to stop caring for the children they love, simply because they cannot afford to continue.

This is not just about fairness to carers; it is about doing the right thing by children. When I think of those 157 children in kinship care across Lewes, Seaford, Newhaven, Polegate and our local villages, I see 157 reasons why we must do better. I have written to the Chancellor urging investment in kinship care to be prioritised in the upcoming review, and the message from my constituents is clear: these families stepped up for children when it mattered most; it is now time for us to step up for them.

15:27

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate; she and I are both passionate about this issue, and I know she cares about it deeply.

I will start by reminding colleagues—as many have done already—about who the children we are talking about are. These are children who have experienced the kind of trauma that none of us should ever have to experience in our life. After I first brought up the adoption and special guardianship support fund with the Prime Minister in March, a lady from Lincolnshire wrote to me. She is a special guardian for a child who witnessed her mother being murdered by her father at the age of two. For some reason that child does not qualify for child and adolescent mental health support, and has been able to access only a limited amount of counselling. That is the sort of child the ASGSF is for.

These are also children who have been abused and neglected. When I spoke to the Purple Elephant Project, a therapy provider in Twickenham, its chief executive officer Jenny, who has worked with adopted children for many years, spoke to me about children she had worked with who had been made to sleep in the garden, or who had ingested heroin. Those are the sorts of experiences these children have been through. They need our collective help and support to overcome that trauma, as do the amazing people who step up to care for them, whether through adoption or often as kinship carers overnight.

As one adoptive parent in my constituency said to me, these children deserve

“the absolute best second chance in life.”

I implore the Minister, who has a professional background in this area and cares about this issue deeply, to please listen to the pleas from those on all Benches about the support that is desperately needed.

Before I talk in a bit more detail about the ASGSF, let me say a couple of words on kinship carers, given that I have been proud to campaign alongside my party for kinship carers for a number of years. I welcome the limited progress we have seen under this Government and the previous one on support and recognition of kinship carers, but as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, we have to go much further. We have to roll out allowances on a par with those for foster carers across the country to all kinship carers, extend employment leave to kinship carers and ensure that children in kinship care are given the support that they need in education through pupil premium plus and priority school admission.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) said in a recent debate, adoptive parents make a “lifelong commitment” to children. We heard from the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who has also adopted, that the state needs to give them a lot more support. One constituent said to me that the ASGSF is the only post-adoption support there is for these children.

That brings me to the ASGSF. I cannot begin to describe my anger and dismay at what has happened. I will try to contain that emotion as I speak. The stories that have been sent to me, and that I have heard face to face as I have been working on this issue in recent weeks and months, have on a number of occasions moved me to tears. These families faced months of uncertainty. The Minister had to answer a litany of written questions and letters from Members from all parties on whether the ASGSF would continue for this financial year. Those Members were stonewalled.

I have explained the trauma that these children have experienced. They have had a huge amount of uncertainty and instability in their lives, and the Government added to it. We were all stonewalled. It took me dragging the Minister kicking and screaming to the House of Commons Chamber to answer an urgent question the day after the fund expired for her finally to commit to renewing it for this financial year. There was a sigh of relief among carers, adoptive parents, kinship carers and charities across the sector that the uncertainty had ended, despite the backlog that had built up in the meantime and the interruption in therapy for so many children who had had to stop therapy because they had run out of money from last year’s fund.

However, there was no hint from the Minister during her response to my urgent question of the cuts that were to come. Instead, the Government waited until the depths of the Easter recess to sneak out a private letter to local authorities and charities about the 40% cut to grants, the removal of the assessment grant and the scrapping of the match funding. An adoptive mother I met at the drop-in organised by Adoption UK and Kinship yesterday told me that that felt very underhand. She said, “It felt like the Government didn’t care as I was dealing with my adoptive son, who was dysregulated and trying to hurt me.”

There was no consultation with the sector, despite the fact that the Government have reference groups, such as the kinship care reference group, that they talk to on a regular basis. There was no consultation with them and no formal public announcement. Even the Government website on the ASGSF remained out of date for several weeks, until our first day back after recess, when the Minister issued a fairly scant written ministerial statement. My first question to her is: when she answered my urgent question on 1 April, was she aware that these cuts were coming, or did she inadvertently mislead the House on that occasion?

The impact of the changes to the ASGSF means that we have a backlog. Everybody who had previously applied—some 46% of applications for grants for this financial year exceed the £3,000 limit—has to reapply. There will now be a delay and an interruption in therapy. The mum I met yesterday told me that she is borrowing money from friends and family to continue therapy because, in her son’s last therapy session, they finally achieved a breakthrough and she cannot bear to stop it. Purple Elephant in Twickenham is desperately fundraising to try to make sure that there is no interruption in therapy for the 40 or so children that it supports.

We know that, with smaller grants, providers will struggle to provide adequate therapy. Given the sorts of trauma that we have talked about, these children’s brains need rewiring and they need time to build trust. Often, therapists have to run several sessions before a child will even come through the door. That takes time; it will not be done in the few short sessions that the grants will cover. Given that the assessment costs will now have to come out of the reduced grant of £3,000, after a bespoke assessment is made there will be very little, if anything at all, left for the actual therapy.

In addition to the impact on the children and the carers who are desperately trying to look after them, the changes will undermine and destabilise the charities and other providers that offer support in this area. As many hon. Members have said, we are talking about children who are dysregulated and exhibit challenging behaviours, and the changes will lead to adoption and kinship care placement breakdown, which will result in extra costs for the taxpayer, because more children will go back into care. We will probably also see more school exclusions as a result of dysregulated behaviours, and therefore poorer educational and employment outcomes. Sadly, care-experienced children are four times more likely than other children to end up with a criminal conviction by the age of 24.

The costs to the taxpayer of the changes, in the short term and the long term, are exorbitant, yet the fund is only £50 million; in the grand scheme of things, it is not a huge amount of money. If the Government wanted to extend the fund, say by 50%, I could tell the Minister exactly where she can get the money from. In her written ministerial statement, she suggested that the fund can be topped up from local authority children’s services budgets. I am not sure whether she is aware of this, but a lot of local authorities are on the brink financially, and many children’s services budgets are in huge deficit. However, where she can find the money is in the £46.5 million that the Department for Education spent on advertising, consultancy and marketing costs in the last year. I suggest that she halves that budget, and instead expands the ASGSF by 50%.

These cuts are entirely incoherent and contradict Government policy. The DFE has recently written to Adoption England calling for improvements in adopter recruitment, and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill mandates the signposting of support, yet everything we have discussed today will go against those measures. I have three asks of the Minister: please apologise to carers and children up and down the country, reverse the cuts—I have told her where to get the money—and fight tooth and nail in the Treasury over the spending review for the next financial year, and make that announcement early. Carers and children will continue to campaign, and I will be alongside them.

15:37

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate. Keen observers of Westminster Hall debates will have noticed that she responded on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to the debate that I had secured this morning, so there is a nice symmetry in the fact that I am responding to her debate this afternoon.

My hon. Friend gave an excellent summary of the current system and the impact that the changes that happened overnight will have on adopters and carers and, of course, on the children they support. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have powerfully demonstrated the impact that the changes are having on their constituents, and the situation in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, is no different. Hon. Members will have to forgive me; because so many Members have spoken in the debate, I will not be able to mention all their contributions. However, I pay special tribute to those Members who referred to their personal experiences in this matter.

First, I want to note the strong record of the previous Conservative Government on supporting kinship carers, adoptive families and some of the most vulnerable children in our society. While others have made promises, we took action. However, there is no doubt that there is more to do, which is why I welcome this debate.

The Conservatives have a strong record of prioritising and increasing adoption and strengthening kinship policymaking, including by introducing the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provided financial support to local authorities and regional adoption agencies to pay for essential therapeutic services for the most vulnerable children. The Government’s decision to cut the fund was a retrograde step, and it has placed significant stress on the near 17,000 applicants in 2023-24 alone who utilised services such as family therapy, parental training and creative therapeutic intervention.

It is highly regrettable that the Government failed to provide clarity about the continuation of the fund before its expiry on 31 March. Despite repeated calls for assurance, including from practitioners and sector leaders, Labour delayed its announcement. When it finally came, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, it confirmed a 40% reduction in the fair access limit, capping support at £3,000 per child per year compared with the £5,000 that families could access previously. The reduction places pressure on local authorities to bridge a shortfall of almost £34 million, using already stretched children’s services budgets.

The Minister has stated previously that additional support can be provided above the cap, but only at the discretion and financial behest of local councils. As hon. Members have said, many local authorities are not in the position to do so, but even if they are, this approach risks creating a postcode lottery, with some of the most vulnerable children supported but others left out.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

As one of the vice-chairs of the APPG on kinship care along with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I want to add my voice to those calling for a reversal of the cuts, and for the Government to go further and better support families in adoption and kinship care.

[Gregory Stafford]

I know what a doughty champion my hon. Friend is for this cause, and I entirely agree with him. The Government need to set out precisely what they will do going forward, as well as reversing the cut that they made. I seek clarification on what the Minister’s adoption strategy is, beyond the delayed and unfair cuts that she has made so far for these children. In 2024, there were nearly 3,000 looked-after children who were adopted. Putting aside the fund that we have been talking about, how is she going to support those vulnerable children?

While the continuation of essential schemes remains, let us say, grey under this Government, adoptive families now cite a lack of support as a key barrier. Without essential support, the whole adoption process risks becoming what former MP and Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, called a “false economy”. The truth is that when we fail to invest in adoption, especially in kinship care, we end up relying more heavily on a state system that, in the long run, costs more and too often fails children. It leaves them more vulnerable to poor outcomes, including higher risks of criminal involvement and limited aspirations. When it is done right, adoption offers the security, stability and sense of belonging that every child deserves, and we should support it accordingly.

Likewise, the deeply flawed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill represents a major failure for kinship carers. The lack of statutory obligations and the concerns about the sufficiency of financial support highlight the need for continued advocacy and potential further legislative action to ensure that kinship carers and the children they support receive comprehensive support. Those carers typically receive little financial or emotional support, despite playing a vital role in keeping children out of the formal care system.

These often unsung heroes deserve better. That is why the previous Government introduced the social impact bond model, an innovative funding approach that backed targeted projects to support kinship families. They included initiatives such as training and guidance for carers; family group conferencing, where social workers bring family and carers around the table to discuss the most viable options for the long term; and other structured efforts to prevent the breakdown of kinship placement, which, if unsupported, can push children into the care system.

A notable example of such an SIB is Kinship Connected. Funded by private investment, it aimed not only to relieve pressure on local authorities but, more importantly, to enhance stability and wellbeing for the children at the heart of these families, by rehoming children with their grandparents when the immediate family had broken down. That ensured that siblings remained together and received consistent, supportive care within their extended family network. That approach prioritised emotional continuity and minimised the trauma often associated with foster care placements.

Kinship care and adoption offer vital, human-centred alternatives to the traditional care system, yet too often those pathways are undervalued. To truly serve the best interests of children, we must ensure that local authorities are supported and broaden our strategy to actively support and invest in family-based solutions beyond the boundaries of state control.

The Minister has been widely praised this afternoon by Government Members. This is the time for her to live up to that reputation, so I will close my remarks with four questions to her. How are the Government working with local authorities to ensure that they are able to provide the best care available for vulnerable children, especially following the cut to the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Secondly, what steps will the Minister take to ensure sustained and equitable support for kinship carers, particularly in the light of the cuts to that fund and the absence of statutory obligations in legislation? Thirdly, how are the Government ensuring that private capital is not isolated by their state-focused strategy, so that that as much investment as possible can be awarded to worthy schemes for kinship care? Finally, how are the Government extending family group conferencing to ensure that children are kept within the family unit, where they can be safe and happy for as long as possible?

I agree with the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I will take up my pitchfork, too, and go to the Treasury to get the funding. We have a duty of care to these children. We need to support adopters and carers. If we do not, the financial cost will be great, but the human cost will be far greater.

15:46

[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.

[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.

[Alison Bennett]

What is the Minister’s assessment of the reserves that local authorities and adoption agencies have available to boost that funding?

[Janet Daby]

We have invested a further £8.8 million in Adoption England, £5 million of which will go towards centres of excellence. On local authorities, Members will be aware of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. They will also be aware that we are investing in early prevention and intervention work in local authorities. In doing so, we are trying to support families through kinship arrangements. Members will also be aware that we have committed £40 million to a pilot for kinship care.

[Rachael Maskell]

The bottom line is that there is insufficient money for specific therapeutic interventions for those young people. Will the Minister commit to go back to the Treasury and make the case for ensuring the full funding of therapeutic interventions so that no child misses out?

[Janet Daby]

The Government are in a challenging situation, but we will continue to ensure that provision is in place for adopted and kinship children. We will always make sure there are certain provisions in place, and we will continue to look at the different types of therapy that are needed. Obviously, I will continue to have conversations with the Treasury about the essential funding that is needed in this area.

I am very conscious of time, and the hon. Member for South West Devon needs to respond. On the £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance from kinship carers, hon. Members across the Chamber have put in bids for their local authorities, but we will make sure that there is a call to all local authorities for expressions of interest. That will be launched this summer, and it will identify which local authorities will be best placed to deliver the pilot from autumn 2025. Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee that it will be local authorities that have already put in bids to me.

Adopted children and those in kinship care should be supported to obtain good educational outcomes. However, many do not do so, as this cohort has poorer GCSE results than the overall population and higher exclusion rates. Adopted children are entitled to priority school admissions, plus advice and support from designated teachers. Schools also receive £2,630 in pupil premium plus funding for every adopted child in their school. Both adopted children and children in kinship care can receive advice and support from local authority virtual school heads. We will fully update the statutory guidance for virtual school heads, including sections on supporting educational outcomes.

Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are seeking to mandate local authorities to appoint at least one person to promote the educational achievement of children who live in kinship care, regardless of whether they have been in local authority care. These duties will ensure that they receive consistent support to improve their outcomes.

There is much more to be said on all this and in response to all the questions. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the important subject of adoption and kinship care support today, and for such a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. I will take away many points from today’s debate.

On match funding for assessments, match funding applications accounted for less than 2% of all applications in the last financial year. It is important to put it in that wider context. There was wide disparity in the country on match funding but, as I have said, there are other avenues that adoptive parents and kinship carers can pursue to ensure that they get the additional support they need for their children.

I have listened carefully to Members’ remarks and I know that many outside this House will be very keen to follow up on what has been said. I am sure there will be opportunities to further question me and this Government on these issues, and a Backbench Business debate has been mentioned.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the biggest tribute must very much go to the parents and carers of adopted and kinship children. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) mentioned the joy that adopted children and kinship children bring to their families. I want to acknowledge that, and to thank all those parents and carers who continue to demonstrate compassion, resilience and dedication.

15:58

[Rebecca Smith]

We heard earlier about the role of a corporate parent. That did not make it into my speech—I ran out of time—but although that might be a local authority responsibility, it is clear that today there are many who take the same approach as parliamentarians.

Hon. Members have highlighted the opportunity to provide the best possible outcome for children in adoption, kinship and foster care, but also the need for significant commitment to ensure that the specialist resources required to deliver on their potential are a certainty for families. I think everyone in Westminster Hall would agree that we have not heard that certainty today, and I believe that we will all be working incredibly hard to keep pressing the Minister—and, by the sound of things, the Chancellor —to ensure that we get the funding required for these vulnerable families. No doubt we will all see each other, I hope, in the main Chamber to discuss this further.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for children in adoptive and kinship placements.

Government Travel Advice: Laos

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government safety advice for visiting Laos.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the chance to lead this debate on the Government’s safety advice for visiting Laos and to raise awareness of the dangers of methanol poisoning.

Late last year, the family of Simone White contacted me to alert me to her tragic case and their worries about a lack of awareness among young people of the dangers posed by counterfeit alcohol. As any Members present who have seen the media coverage will know, Simone was travelling with her friend Bethany in Laos, as many young people from the UK and other countries do. They were staying in the town of Vang Vieng, a regular fixture on the backpackers’ trail around south-east Asia, when they drank free shots that they were offered in a hostel. The next day, both felt unwell and initially thought that they had food poisoning, but a few days later, Simone tragically died in hospital, the victim of methanol poisoning.

I have since had the opportunity to meet Simone’s family and have heard what a wonderful young woman she was, with a brilliant life ahead of her. When attending her funeral in January, it was clear from the eulogies delivered the kind of esteem in which she was held by friends and family. What really struck me was the sense of determination that came through from her friends and family that, no matter what, when she set her mind to do something, she would go out there and achieve it, whether that was playing a musical instrument or deciding at 13 that she wanted to become a lawyer, as she subsequently successfully went on to do. The eulogies also told of a keen sportswoman who regularly played football and netball, as well as finishing several half-marathons to raise money for good causes. A testament to her character was the voluntary legal work she took on outside her job, helping victims of domestic abuse. She also became a covid vaccine volunteer.

I pay tribute to the courage of Simone’s family—her mum Sue, her dad Neil, and Tom and Amanda, and their wider families—as well as to her friend Bethany, who was with her in Laos. They have shown courage in fighting for justice for Simone and in trying to raise awareness so that other families do not lose loved ones in the same tragic circumstances. I welcome members of Bethany’s family and others involved in tragic cases involving methanol to the Public Gallery this afternoon—thank you for joining us.

Simone was not the only young person to die at the hostel, with two young Australians, Holly Bowles and Bianca Jones, two young Danish women, Anne-Sofie Orkild Coyman and Freja Vennervald Sorensen, and an American, James Louis Hutson, losing their lives as well. All our hearts go out to their families, who lost loved ones in the most difficult circumstances. As Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in November, this is “every parent’s worst nightmare”.

I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for taking the time to meet Simone’s family earlier this month, and for her replies to my many letters on the subject. I appreciate the support that the Minister’s Department, along with Kent police, have offered to the family during this awful time.

Issues with the addition of methanol to alcohol are not confined to Laos, with reports of over 30 deaths in Turkey earlier this year. Nor is the issue new: just over 10 years ago, Cheznye Emmons was travelling in Indonesia with her boyfriend when she drank gin that had been mixed with methanol. The inquest into her death heard that she suffered sudden blindness and convulsions, and died five days later.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. I do not think anyone was not shocked and moved to hear what can happen, especially to young people, who go for one of those adventure holidays where they look forward to the excitement they will have together. Does he agree that although it is ostensibly safe to visit Laos, British citizens need to be aware that excursions out of the safe golden triangle are an absolute no-go? Rules are already in place, but those rules are perhaps not raised enough with British citizens. How does he feel we can effectively get the message across?

[Jim Dickson]

It is indeed the case that not enough awareness is currently out there among citizens of all ages travelling from the UK to places where organised crime regularly doctors drinks. Part of the mission of this debate and our conversations with the Minister and the families is to raise awareness and find ways that the Government can help to do that.

[Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)]

I want to raise awareness of this issue today in the name of Kirsty, who tragically died in Bali as a result of methanol poisoning. I also pay credit to her family, who live in my Cheadle constituency—some members of her family are here—and tirelessly campaign to raise awareness of the issue. Methanol poisoning is not just a problem in Laos but in many countries across the world. Does the hon. Member agree that more needs to be done, including having a curriculum fit for the 21st century and a greater public awareness campaign that involves travel agents, NHS providers, schools, colleges and universities to inform and educate people on the very real dangers of methanol being used in countries across the world?

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Member for that moving intervention. Our hearts go out to Kirsty’s family; it was a pleasure to meet her mother just now. I pay tribute to them for the work they have been doing since their loss. I agree very much with the hon. Member that more needs to be done to strengthen the curriculum, particularly to ensure that young people are aware of the risks involved in methanol. But there is much more that we think the Government can do, and I will suggest some ways in which they can do that later in the debate.

Following Cheznye Emmons’s tragic loss in Indonesia, Cheznye’s family, including her mum Pamela and her sister Measha, have been campaigning through their “Chez—Save A Life” campaign to warn of the dangers of counterfeit alcohol. I hope we can use this debate—I know other Members wish to participate—as an opportunity to widen awareness of the significant danger that methanol poisoning can pose. That is especially crucial for travellers heading to countries where organised crime, as I said, seeks to profit from using methanol as a cheap way to dilute spirits.

I hope that there will soon be progress in the case of the death of Simone and other tourists who died in Laos. I hope very much that those responsible will be swiftly brought to justice, but I know that the case is ongoing and the outcome is uncertain. I am optimistic that with the Government’s support we can take important steps to prevent more families going through what Simone’s family has experienced. I know they would like to see the dangers of methanol much more widely communicated, especially to young people and other inexperienced travellers heading out on those incredibly important first trips abroad.

In Australia, the Government are taking steps to increase awareness of alcohol-related risks in overseas travel and are launching a dedicated advertising push to reach young Australians. The Smartraveller hub is a website provided by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It will roll out a specific marketing campaign to raise awareness and educate Australians on the signs of methanol poisoning and how to protect themselves from drink spiking, and on broader alcohol safety, as well as warning young people that they must travel knowing the risks and watch out for their mates.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The case he raises touches the hearts of those across the world who have also lost loved ones in the tragic circumstances of methanol poisoning. Would he agree that it is imperative that we must build awareness of how to stay safe abroad among all those preparing to travel, regardless of their age, to ensure that these tragedies are not repeated?

[Jim Dickson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This issue does not just affect young people. It is important that we get messages across to young people, and I am suggesting a variety of ways to do that, but travellers of all ages could be at risk from methanol poisoning, and other alcohol tampering and spiking. I will also suggest some ways that the Government could deal with that issue.

I would like the Government, as part of their ongoing work, to reform the curriculum, perhaps through personal, social, health and economic education, and to consider how we can build awareness among young people of how to travel safely. If they are looking for inspiration, they might want to look at the Australian campaign and lessons on alcohol safety. I know that Simone’s friend Bethany currently has a petition on the parliamentary website to that effect.

I appreciate that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has updated the health section of the travel advice on its website, but I hope that we might be able to review what could be done to make the warnings clearer and more explicit, and that information more readily available. The Government’s Travel Aware website has an informative section on methanol poisoning, but could more be done to make that advice and guidance better known to young people before they travel? Someone really has to search for it to find it.

I also hope that the Government might explore whether one of the big players in the travel industry—we all know that big brand names are involved in the travel industry—might consider funding an awareness-raising campaign to educate travellers about how to stay safe as they explore. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that she may be able to answer some of the questions I have raised, and further reassure Simone’s family that everything possible is being done to protect and inform young people of the dangers of methanol poisoning. I commit not just to listening to the response to this debate, but to continuing the campaign to make sure that the different parts of Government that have to work together to solve this problem genuinely do that.

16:12

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for enabling me to make a brief contribution to this debate, and to highlight an issue about a Brit from my constituency who faced a very difficult situation in Laos. I wish, however, to start my remarks by saying how sorry I was to hear about the truly tragic death of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I very much appreciate the family being here today, and all the work they have undertaken.

My former extremely vulnerable constituent was coerced into drug trafficking, apparently enabled online, and detained at the Laos border in June 2024. From then onwards he was detained awaiting trial and facing the death penalty, and under Laotian procedures he was unable to move prisons for more than six months before he died. In December he spent one night in hospital before being discharged back to prison, where he died at the age of 65, thin and with wounds on his body apparently from scurvy. I know that the FCDO engaged with his case when he was still alive and after his death, but I wish briefly to underline two points.

First, the length of pretrial detention can make British citizens and their families vulnerable to financial extortion in Laos, and there is a particular problem with obtaining good quality legal support. I urge the Department to continue to engage with my constituent’s family on that issue, given their concerns about recommended lawyers. I appreciate that the FCDO’s travel advice indicates that legal representation is far below UK standards in Laos, but the impact of that on people in desperate situations cannot be underestimated.

Secondly, and finally, it is imperative that the risk of what is effectively the transnational exploitation of vulnerable people is better recognised. There must be a co-ordinated response between police and border services, especially when clearly vulnerable individuals are travelling to countries such as Laos. The FCDO website is rightly clear about penalties in Laos for illegal drugs, and that the standard of prisons is poor, but vulnerable and coerced individuals are being manipulated, and they need more than information on a website to protect them.

16:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and it was wonderful to hear the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson). I thank him for securing it. I know that he has been active in supporting his constituents all along. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland), who have all been active in assisting with educating Members of Parliament—who have so much to do with their young constituents—and were active in a parliamentary lobby just last month. All these approaches will hopefully lead to a proper prevention strategy.

I also pay tribute to Sue White, Neil White, Tom Sampson and Amanda Dennis. That family tragically lost their dear daughter Simone White to methanol poisoning in Laos. I want to repeat here what I said when we met last week over in King Charles Street: thank you for your determination to raise the profile of a problem facing so many young travellers. So much fortitude has been shown by the families and other young people, and family members being here today makes this debate even more salient. Our thoughts are with all the families of those who set off with high hopes for their holidays, yet tragically lose their lives.

I am grateful for the contributions from other hon. Members today. I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). She is right to raise the situation of the family of her constituent who tragically died. My door is open, and I look forward to meeting the family when they are ready to have a conversation about the tragic loss of their dad.

My right hon. Friend is also right to emphasise the transnational repression element, which sadly seems to be quite prevalent in parts of the Indo-Pacific, for which I am the Minister. I am very pleased that we have this opportunity, because of the strength that it gives me to improve my mandate to take up this issue with like-minded countries. She raised transnational repression, but also the lack of good quality legal advice in country. Often when a family hear of something, they arrive in a country that they do not know anything about, and, particularly in the country that we are talking about here, the system is very different from that in the UK, so this is where we really do need there to be that high quality legal advice.

Laos is a country under significant strain, and that includes its health system. It is a one-party state socialist republic. Culture, history and levels of socioeconomic development inform how open societies can be, and in this particular case, of course, we are dealing with a way of doing government that is very different from our own. Having said that, I was very pleased on a recent visit to Vientiane, the capital of Laos, to be able to raise both the tragic case of the loss of Simone and that of the constituent of my right hon. Friend.

For all of us at the FCDO, supporting British nationals abroad is a priority. I want to underline the fact that, happily, most British people who travel abroad do so without incident or the need for consular assistance. Yet every day our staff here in the UK and in our network around the world work tirelessly to help people facing some of the most distressing events imaginable. They work around the clock, keeping cool heads in all sorts of emergencies and crises, to provide assistance to people on one of the worst days of their lives. When an incident occurs, people rightly want to know whether it was preventable and what steps are being taken to stop such incidents happening, so let me set out some of the ways in which the Government are acting, informed in part by the activism that has come out of such tragic losses.

The FCDO regularly updates travel advice, including recently on the methanol poisoning question. We also seek to underline other risks—for example, the dangers of travelling on motorcycles without helmets. Our embassy in Vientiane regularly engages with the Laos authorities to help to prevent accidents and incidents. In this particular case, the Laos authorities issued an order prohibiting the sale and consumption of Tiger vodka and Tiger whisky because of concerns that they posed a risk to public health. I emphasise to anybody listening to the debate that it is not simply a question of a shot being offered to someone. It is also the fact that what is in bottles in supermarkets, in some cases, will not be what is described on the label.

During my visit to Laos last month, I discussed those priority consular cases with the vice Foreign Minister, and since then our ambassador in Vientiane has met the Ministry of Public Security to receive an update on the ongoing investigation. We cannot prejudice ongoing criminal investigations and potential prosecutions, but we continue to raise with the authorities the need for a swift and transparent inquiry into this tragic case.

I have also had the opportunity to raise the issue with the ambassador to the UK and a delegation of travelling Members of the Laos National Assembly. I emphasise that it is not the exact same situation as an MP, as elections in Laos are very different from those in the UK, but I was able to raise the issue with an audience of a dozen influential Laos National Assembly Members.

In all our efforts, our goal is to help British nationals make better informed decisions about international travel. Safety is always our top priority. Our advice is there to guide people, but obviously not to set rigid rules; people have their own autonomy with their travel plans. Our work considers all the risks proportionately, and draws on local knowledge to offer advice to those travelling overseas. In the wake of Simone’s hospitalisation, we reviewed and updated our travel advice for Laos to reflect the risks of methanol poisoning.

We now include warnings about the risks of methanol poisoning or counterfeit alcohol in the travel advice for Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Fiji and Turkey. Since then, we have worked with like-minded international partners to review our travel advice globally to ensure that we highlight the risks from methanol poisoning accurately. We have over 30 million individual views of our travel advice every year, so there are a lot of people who follow the Foreign Office as a regular part of their travel planning.

Alongside travel advice, the Government also aim to reduce incidents through our long-standing travel aware campaign. This includes encouraging British nationals to secure appropriate travel insurance, read our travel advice, and sign up for alerts. A dedicated section on the risks of spiking and methanol poisoning now shares practical tips on how to spot and prevent it. We are working in partnership with more than 100 organisations across the travel industry to reach more people and direct them to our travel advice and travel aware pages online. That includes airlines, tour operators, and insurance providers.

We have a targeted youth travel ambassador programme, and we are giving special thought to this summer, so that we can impress upon youngsters travelling to the Laos region what the dangers are. We are working with partners such as Vibe by Jet2holidays and Gap 360 to reach younger audiences with bespoke information and blogs that highlight the dangers of methanol poisoning. All that raises awareness, and we are committed to improving. Indeed, we are updating our travel checklist to ensure it includes advice on the risks of methanol poisoning—and we welcome all feedback.

Finally, I recognise the depth of feeling on this issue. We all want to help Brits abroad to stay safe, and our message to those who find themselves in hot water abroad is: “We’ve got your back.” None of us wants any other family to go through this. The FCDO will consider any future proposals carefully. We will explore more ways to inform British travellers about the risks of methanol—for instance, through channels online—and work with others to get the message out.

I thank all MPs who were able to speak in the debate. This debate can also play a role. We will continue to provide clear, accessible, and up-to-date travel advice, and keep it under constant review. We will also work with Governments around the world to reduce the risks, wherever we can—including in Laos.

Question put and agreed to.

16:23

Sitting adjourned.