Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Proxy Voting: Review of 2024-25 Arrangements
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Procedure Committee
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Graeme Downie will speak on the publication of the second report of the Procedure Committee, “Proxy voting: Review of arrangements introduced in Session 2024-25”, HC 489, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and I will call Graeme Downie to respond to these in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee, following the publication of our second report of this Session, entitled “Proxy voting: Review of arrangements introduced in Session 2024-25”.
Before turning to our inquiry and report, I would first like to express my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee from across the House for their dedicated work on this timely report, as well as to Gavin and his team of Clerks, who guided us through this process, and to all who gave and submitted evidence. I put on record my thanks to everyone who took part in the inquiry.
It is our view that this report comes at an important moment. With more than 300 new Members of Parliament elected in July 2024, many colleagues may be unfamiliar with the origins and evolution of proxy voting in the House. Our aim in conducting this review and publishing our report was, first and foremost, to assess the arrangements introduced in this Session, but in doing so we have sought to clarify the principles and underpinning of the scheme, assess its current operation and make recommendations for its future development.
As many Members are aware, proxy voting was first introduced in 2019 in response to greater calls for support for Members during parental absence. That landmark change was made in recognition of the reality that Members, like those we represent, face personal circumstances that may temporarily prevent them from attending their place of work. Since then, the scheme has expanded to cover long-term illness, serious injury and, more recently, additional provisions that have been brought forward relating to complications during pregnancy and fertility treatment.
These developments reflect a growing recognition that Members should not be forced to choose between their personal health and family responsibilities, and the performance of their solemn constitutional duties in this place. The Committee, like our predecessors before it, firmly believes that the arrangements in this space must continue to evolve to reflect the lived experience of Members of Parliament.
I turn to our inquiry. Late last year, the Leader of the House asked us to review the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury that were introduced at the start of this Parliament and are due to expire at the end of this Session. As part of our inquiry, we also considered the permanent provisions introduced in November 2024 for complications related to pregnancy and childbirth, and for fertility treatment. Because of the early point in the Parliament at which we conducted the inquiry, we received only limited evidence. Uptake of proxy votes remains relatively low, and that has limited the evidence base available to the Committee in our inquiry. However, the feedback that we received was constructive and thoughtful, and it has informed our recommendations.
We conducted a thorough assessment of the arrangements introduced in the present Session of Parliament. First, the Committee puts on the record its strong support for the continued evolution of proxy voting for pregnancy, childbirth and fertility-related absences. From the beginning, the arrangements in this space have rightly grown organically in response to evolving circumstances. This growth has, in our view, worked well, and continues to do so. We accordingly recommend that the arrangements introduced in November 2024 remain in place permanently. In our view, they are clearly defined and provide vital support to Members at a time when flexible support is most in need.
Secondly, on the question of long-term serious illness and injury, we sound a slightly more cautious note. Although the temporary arrangements have provided valuable support to Members across the House, we nevertheless heard concerns about the consistency, transparency and integrity of the scheme. We have also heard concerns that the scheme is not constructed broadly enough—I will touch on that later in my statement. On both points, however, we feel that there is at present insufficient evidence on which to base concrete recommendations for detailed changes to the scope or operation of the scheme. We have therefore taken the view that these issues must be taken in the round before any firm decision is made to put the provisions on a permanent footing.
We therefore recommend that the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury, which were introduced at the start of this Session, be extended to the end of this Parliament. That would provide continuity of support to Members, while providing sufficient evidence base for further work to be undertaken by this Committee.
In the conduct of this inquiry, the Committee also gave thought to the future of proxy voting. Our Report sets out what we consider to be the three guiding principles that underlie the scheme at present, which we believe should guide any future developments.
First, physical absence from the Parliamentary Estate must remain a core requirement. Proxy voting is intended for Members who are genuinely unable to be present. Although we recognise that exceptions may apply in cases of medical recovery or maternity leave, the principle must be upheld. We must avoid a situation where Members vote by proxy while actively participating in other business on the Estate.
Second, the integrity of the scheme is paramount. Proxy voting is a privilege that should be exercised cautiously. Members must exercise it cautiously and avoid any all conduct that could undermine public confidence in the system, thus upholding the highest levels of propriety.
Third, supplementary mechanisms that can achieve similar aims to proxy voting, such as pairing, slipping and nodding through, remain important. These informal arrangements have long supported Members who face short term or less severe absences, and they should continue to operate alongside proxy voting, offering flexibility and fairness to all Members.
Our Report also acknowledges that the current scheme does not cover every circumstance in which Members cannot be present on the Estate to vote in Divisions that they may find themselves in, and it notes the strength of feeling and frustration from some quarters on this matter. We also noted the increased focus on accessibility, health and wellbeing, which is rightly finding expression in this Parliament. We are following with interest the inquiries conducted by the Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee in this space.
We hope that this Report, far from being the final word on proxy voting, starts the conversation anew—in a new Parliament with a new cohort of Members—about what proxy voting seeks to do for them and how the scheme can best be adapted to achieve that. To that end, our Report proposed that we conduct a further review of proxy voting later in the Parliament. That would allow us to gather more evidence, particularly as more and more Members use the scheme as the Parliament progresses, and to consider the findings of the inquiries being undertaken by the Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee.
The Procedure Committee is committed to ensuring that the procedures of the House of Commons remain responsive to the needs of its Members. Proxy voting is a vital part of that commitment, and we hope that our Report will assist the House in maintaining a fair and effective method for all Members to exercise their constitutional functions and vote in Divisions in the House. I therefore commend this Report to the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair and the Committee for their hard work in releasing this. I have a simple question. Some of us sitting here today could, in three months’ time, find ourselves seriously ill suddenly and unexpectedly. I presume that would need to be backed up by a letter from a consultant, a doctor or some medical person to ensure that the illness is serious enough that they cannot go and vote.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I remind the hon. Member that these are brief questions.
Graeme Downie
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I have now been intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford and asked a question; I wonder exactly what the third part of the trio to complete the hat-trick might be. We considered matters such as that, and we received some evidence. However, as I stated, we did not find enough concrete recommendations to come up with a full report as to how the scheme might be further improved. The example he expresses is the kind of thing that proxy voting is designed for already. We did have some evidence as to how the system is currently, as I said in the statement, not exactly open to everyone, and sometimes not entirely clear. However, the circumstances that he describes represent some of the times that proxy voting could be used.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech and the members of the Procedure Committee, which I am part of, for their hard work. In particular, I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), on her excellent stewardship.
I have a question for my hon. Friend. One thing the report looked at was proxy voting when Members are present on the Estate. Could he expand on that? Also, will the scheme be reviewed, and are there any plans for it to be expanded?
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work he does with us on the Committee. His contributions are always valuable and should be listened to carefully. Yes, we considered both those matters. As I outlined in my speech, we appreciate that maintaining the principle that we should use proxy voting only when away from the estate does not cover everyone’s circumstances. Certainly, in the limited evidence we had from the inquiry, we pointed to the need to keep this under review throughout this Parliament before making any arrangements permanent. I would hope the Committee would look through that during the Parliament.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, and I am grateful to all Committee members. He will not be surprised to see me here in a statement on this issue. Colleagues will know that my father-in-law died on 20 June, which is the day we had the vote on assisted dying. I was unable to seek a proxy, a pair or, frankly, any real meaningful support from those who ought to have helped. With that in mind, and with the interest of making sure that others are not forced to choose between their responsibilities in this place and to their families, I urge my hon. Friend and the Committee to go further and give real consideration to making sure that proxies are available to Members with families who are in receipt of end-of-life care—who are on their death bed —so we are not forced to choose between being with our families or being here to do our jobs.
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I know that was a very difficult day for him. We spoke briefly on that day, and I know how hard it was. I think everyone on all sides of that debate had a great deal of sympathy for what had happened. My belief is that that kind of thing should never have to happen again. As I said, there is more work to be done on proxy voting and making sure it is fully fit and covers more circumstances; it is just that within the scope of the inquiry we led, we were not able to consider and make concrete recommendations on those points. When the Committee returns to the topic later in the Parliament, I am sure my hon. Friend will be a key voice in bringing such evidence to the Committee to make sure it is considered fully.
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Lewell. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank hon. Members who supported my application.
The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund has, since 2015, been a lifeline for families who are raising children who have endured immense hardship and trauma. I welcome the announcement this morning—nicely timed for this debate—that the fund will continue into the next financial year, giving families and providers a little more of a chance to plan and deliver therapy. It is also good news that the Department plans to engage with providers and families during the reform process. That shows that the campaigning of colleagues, families and providers—including those in the Public Gallery for this debate—makes a difference, and shows that we cannot stop now.
But while the extension is welcome, it does not properly address any of the fundamental issues that exist as a result of the cuts announced in April, such as the significant decrease in per child funding, or the lack of a long-term settlement for the fund. The fund was designed to provide children with the therapeutic support that they need to recover from trauma, neglect and abuse. It has enabled outstanding providers, such as Beacon House and Jigsaw in my constituency of Mid Sussex, to deliver life-changing therapy to vulnerable children. The fund also provides vital support to parents such as Rachel, who is here today and who speaks so powerfully about the importance of the fund and the irreversible damage its withdrawal does.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this specific issue, on behalf of us all. Providers such as Beacon House, which also serves my constituency, have been clear that proper assessments are essential; they are not optional extras. Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting funding for those specialist assessments means that therapy risks starting without the foundations needed for long-term healing, which is both clinically unsafe and deeply unfair to the families involved?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. She is absolutely right. I will address her point in due course.
When I saw Rachel this morning and told her about the one-year renewal of the fund, she told me that she had come out in goosebumps as a result. That is how much this fund matters to adoptive families. I have seen for myself the difference that the fund makes. One parent told me that her gratitude for the ASGSF was immeasurable, and that she would never have been able to be an adoptive parent today without it. She spoke about two professionals whose
“deep understanding, profound compassion and reflective empathy”
had supported her and her children through multiple crises and out the other side. Such stories are not rare. Every year, Adoption UK’s adoption barometer shows consistent results: 85% of families who access the fund say that it makes a positive impact; 94% say that they would use it again. So, yes, it was a relief in April when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) secured a commitment from the Minister that the fund would continue, but that relief came only after weeks of absolutely unnecessary anxiety. Families were left in limbo, and providers unsure if they could keep going. Even now, huge problems and unanswered questions remain. The profound concern that I am hearing from families, therapists and charities working with adoptive and kinship families is about whether the Government are going to learn from the shambles of the spring and not repeat those mistakes.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. In my constituency of Surrey Heath, my constituent Matt and his husband adopted their son in 2023. He is a child who had already endured appalling trauma in the past. This fund has enabled Matt and his son to seek the therapy they needed from the Cherrycroft practice in the village of Bagshot. Does she agree that—despite the one-year reprieve—without long-term sustainable funding and guarantees, sustainable therapies will not be available in the long term, and that we will also risk putting people off the act of adoption all together?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an excellent point. A lack of long-term funding will put people off adopting children or taking children into kinship care. It also risks putting providers off providing support.
Ministers have insisted that the fund has not been cut, but that is because the overall pot has remained unchanged. For children and families, however, the reality is very different. Individual allowances have been reduced. The per-child therapy limit has been slashed from £5,000 to £3,000, which is a 40% cut, and the separate £2,500 allowance for assessments has gone. Match funding for complex cases has ended.
Families now face impossible choices; they can have therapy or assessment, but not both. One provider put it bluntly, saying:
“It’s like asking a garage to fix a car without first checking what the problem is.”
This situation is a waste of time and money, and the consequences are already being felt. Children have had their therapy stopped abruptly while applications were resubmitted. Families have endured months-long gaps without support. Parents describe sharp declines in mental health, rising violence in the home, and children losing trust in professionals. One provider told me of a young child who was heartbroken to learn that their therapy was ending. They asked:
“If I save up my pocket money, can I keep seeing you?”
That question should haunt us all; it certainly haunts me. It shows just how fragile trust is for children whose lives have already been shattered by trauma, and whose early years have been defined not by making the secure attachments that are so important for getting the right start in life. Relationships are everything; to pull away support is profoundly damaging.
The data backs that up. This year’s adoption barometer found that 42% of families reached crisis point in 2024; 77% said that it feels like a continual struggle to get the help their child needs; and 65% experience violent or aggressive behaviour from their child. I know that there are parents behind me in the Public Gallery who have experienced violence from their children this very week. And in Kinship’s 2024 survey, more than one in eight kinship carers expressed the fear that they might not be able to continue caring for their children.
Meanwhile, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy has warned that these 40% cuts per child will have a
“negative and long-lasting impact.”
That seems to be putting it mildly. Families, providers, experts and children themselves all say the same thing—these cuts are devastating. It is not just the children and their families who will pay the price; the Treasury will, too. There will be placement breakdowns, more children in care, more exclusions, more antisocial behaviour and more long-term damage. All these things cost the state money. The cost of withdrawing support is far higher than the cost of sustaining it.
On top of the cuts there is the uncertainty, even with the extension announced today. Providers cannot plan and families are turned away. Experienced therapists have warned me that that will
“replicate the cycle of deprivation and abuse”
that these children have already suffered. What message do we send if we withdraw the one source of essential therapeutic support that children and families rely on?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for the passion with which she speaks about this subject.
I wanted to raise the case of my constituent, Jean, an adoptive mother who cared for a son who has foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and developmental trauma. I wanted to raise her case because, very sadly, Jean has died. Before she died, she had managed to arrange long-term support for her son. She obviously does not know it, but her son will lose that support in a year’s time. My question, on behalf of Jean and others in a similar situation, is this: what happens to her son, and to children in a similar situation, now?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes a profound contribution about how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. I do not think I have the answers to that question, but I thank him for raising it.
Adoption England has suggested reform to the fund. Devolving it to its regional agencies or local authorities is a possibility, but no consultation has taken place and pilots have not even begun. It would be reckless to make major structural changes before the evidence is in, and it would risk leaving children and families in deeper crisis. That is why we were particularly glad to hear this morning that the Department will engage with families and providers.
Charities such as Adoption UK, the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK, Coram, Kinship, Barnardo’s and the Family Rights Group are calling for urgent action. They are calling for, first, a permanent ringfenced fund; secondly, a comprehensive review of the April changes; thirdly, a full public consultation on any future reforms—the engagement promised must be meaningful; and fourthly, a two-year moratorium on further changes so that reforms can be evidence-based, not rushed. We should be supporting vulnerable children and encouraging adoptive parents to keep doing what they are doing by providing the necessary support for therapy—not least because in 2021 alone adoptive parents saved the UK economy £4.2 billion.
I will end with four questions for the Minister. First, what concrete reassurance can she give children, families and providers about the long-term future of the fund? April’s announcement came too late and caused avoidable harm, and today’s remains short term. Will the Government commit to doing better this time?
Secondly, can the Minister assure us that the equality impact assessment was considered as part of the development process for the changes made to the fund that were announced in April, as per the requirements of the Equality Act 2010? Will she undertake to share the relevant documents to support that?
Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the decision to cut funding available through the ASGSF aligns with the Department’s wider efforts to increase the uptake among eligible kinship families and grow the use of the kinship care arrangements?
Fourthly, will the Minister acknowledge that cutting the support will cost far more—socially, emotionally and financially to the taxpayer—in the years to come? The adoption and special guardianship support fund is a vital lifeline for vulnerable children and their adoptive families. It is not a luxury. The Government must change course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I was about to remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to speak in the debate, but I see everyone already has. I need to call the Front Benchers at 2.38 pm, so we will need to impose an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes. I call Helen Hayes, Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate.
The introduction of the adoption and special guardianship support fund as part of the Children and Families Act 2014 marked an important recognition of our understanding of the impact of early childhood trauma and the increasing complexity of need of children in the care system. It is a vital acknowledgment of the reality that the impact of early childhood trauma does not always end with the stability of a loving adoptive home.
The fund also provides vital support to children in kinship care with a special guardianship order and to other children who have previously been looked after—for example, where family reunification has taken place. The fund has provided support to 54,000 children who have been able to access diagnosis and therapeutic support, and it is a vital source of support for families who are struggling as a consequence of early childhood trauma. It has been a lifeline.
However, the fund has never been established on a long-term footing, and that has left families in a state of continual anxiety about whether the support they rely on will continue. I know that the Minister is aware of this, but the delay in announcing the continuation of the fund until the day after it had expired, despite many weeks of requests for clarity, caused unnecessary fear and anxiety for many families. I hope that she and her colleagues are reflecting on how cross-Government decision making can be done in a more compassionate and child-centred way in the future.
My Committee recently published a report on children’s social care, for which we heard the concerns of parents and voluntary sector organisations about the decision this financial year to reduce the fair access limit for therapy from £5,000 to £3,000 per child. I understand that the Government have concerns in the sense that some of the services being paid for by the fund should be provided by the NHS. Will the Minister set out her assessment of the level of need, including the level per child, that the fund is seeking to meet? What work is she doing with the Department of Health and Social Care to improve access to mental health services via the NHS for looked-after children and previously looked-after children, including adopted children and those in kinship care?
My Committee recommended that the Government undertake urgent engagement with families on the impact of the reduction in the fair access limit and, if evidence of negative impacts is found, that urgent steps be taken to restore the level of funding per child, so what assessment is the Minister undertaking of the impact of the changes, and what engagement is under way with families?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett).
Imagine for a moment that you are a child. You endured abuse, neglect or violence, or your parents were unwell or fought or could not cope. You were then taken into care and had to leave everything behind. You spent 15 months in the care system, as the average adoptee does, and had to deal with different placements, different places, different spaces, different schools, different teachers, different friends and different routines. Everything familiar and comforting was stripped away. Your identity was eroded and confused. You also had to deal with courts and meetings, and social workers and questions. You had to deal with all that before being placed in a loving forever home.
That is the story of 80% of adoptees. No wonder young people need specialist support. Let me put it this way: on top of the tragedy, trauma, pain and loss, these young people now have to regulate their social, emotional and psychological challenges. More than the average will be neuroatypical, and 30% will have self-harmed. We have to recognise the centrality of getting support to these young people at the right time, to ensure that not only their now but their long-term future is built on stable support.
The instability we saw earlier this year must never be repeated. I personally long for the relevant services to be in the NHS and across public services, but we know that they are not for now. They are really specialist, so we must enable every single child to have a full assessment, for the child and their family, of their complex needs and the therapeutic interventions they need. Those therapies need to be the right therapies—not on the side and on the cheap and what is in the mainstream, but the specific therapies needed to build stability again in these young people’s lives. Family therapy is also required to ensure that we see not family breakdowns—the proportion is now 7% for adoptions—but instead families coming together, with strong bonds for life.
I know that the Minister—and, indeed, you, Ms Lewell —could not be more dedicated on these issues, but we cannot go through this cycle of not knowing how much support an individual could have. It must be uncapped, because there can be no limit on getting this right for a child.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell— I think I have done so three or four times this week already. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for bringing this issue to the House and for the passion she obviously has for this subject. She brought that to us all really well, and we thank her for that.
As Members will be aware, I always give a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates. Northern Ireland offers support through the regional adoption and fostering services and the health and social care trusts, providing an assessment of need and funding for therapy for eligible families. Although the process and funding structure differ from the system we have here—the ASGSF—the issue is exactly the same. Demand far outstrips funding, and the bottom line is that children’s lives and futures are on the line.
It has been well established by numerous studies that cared-for children do better in kinship care, which enables them to be with those they have a connection with, those who will care for them because they have that biological connection and probably a very strong relationship. I am sold on the benefits of kinship care, as others are. Evidence shows that kinship care provides better long-term outcomes and a safe and stable home for children and young people who are likely to have experienced significant early life adversity, such as loss, trauma or neglect.
The impact of the lack of funding is clearly heading towards families who are struggling, and cannot afford to fund another child with additional emotional needs, saying that they cannot provide kinship care. We must do all we can to prevent that outcome in order to get the best outlook for the child, and because of the financial burden that care places on social services. I know that the Minister will look at this very honestly.
Research from the Centre for Care estimates that kinship care is worth some £4.3 billion a year to the Government, which is equivalent to nearly 40% of the entire children’s service budget for England. If that care was no longer available, that is a lot of money—another black hole that the Government will have to try to find the money for. We must not let that happen. To address the rising demand for children requiring alternative forms of care, most commonly foster care, which costs taxpayers millions each year, we need to ensure that kinship carers receive help and support. That is essential to the entire care system, whether in Northern Ireland or England. Funding to allow support and help must match the needs of children whose difficult upbringing or shocking change in circumstances has the potential to derail them for life.
We have a responsibility to ensure that cared for children are exactly that: cared for, protected and supported, with hope for the future.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate.
I have seen the difference that the adoption and support grant has made locally. I visited the Purple Elephant Project, based in Whitton in my constituency, which supports over 100 children and families in Hounslow and Richmond, including many who have been adopted, are in kinship care or are currently looked-after children in foster care. It provides intense professional therapeutic support.
The Purple Elephant team gave examples of the difference it has made, sometimes after a long period of therapeutic support, to benefit those children and families. I saw the safe and welcoming space it provides and understood the difference it makes. The children it has supported have all had a traumatic start to their life through neglect or abuse, and they have great difficulty building relationships and coping with school, siblings and any social situation.
Due to the close correlation between neglect, abuse and adoption, Purple Elephant and other organisations are heavily dependent on the grant for their sustainability. When I met our kinship care group, I heard that many of them, and the children for whom they are now guardians, gain from the services that the fund supports. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) cares deeply about this issue and is personally committed, but I ask her to address the problems.
Purple Elephant told me recently that it is not out of the woods yet. It is still being impacted significantly and having to fundraise to bridge the gap in funding and ensure that therapy sessions do not stop. Let us remember that it is not just the children and families who lose out because of the uncertainty and the cuts resulting from these decisions, but the therapists themselves, who have a living to make. Most of them are freelancers. They want to work with these damaged children and do not want their whole practice to be paid for privately by families who can afford it.
There must be equality here. Purple Elephant has told me that families are anxious, stressed and disillusioned about the loss of support and worried about how they will cope if these services—
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate.
We know that children who experience early trauma face profound challenges that can reverberate throughout their lives. Early years often marked by instability, neglect or harm can leave invisible wounds that can impact emotional development, the ability to form trusting relationships and overall mental wellbeing. However, the challenges are not insurmountable. With targeted therapeutic intervention, children can begin to regain a sense of safety and stability, laying the foundation for healthier, more hopeful futures. Therapy provides them with the essential tools to process their experiences, manage overwhelming emotions and build trust and resilience.
The changes announced in April have meant that many families can no longer pursue the long-term, sustained therapeutic support that is vital for our most damaged children. Two therapists have told me that they have had to stop work with adoptive children because the breaks in support and the lower individual funding allocations have meant that the long-term therapeutic support that they provide is no longer accessible to families. We must not risk losing these valuable skilled professionals from the sector.
James is a 16-year-old adopted young man who ended up leaving his adoptive parents and being placed in residential care after a violent episode. During that time, regular sessions were held with his adoptive parents to help them to understand the placement breakdown and explore how best to support all the family. He now wants to rebuild relationships with his family, but because of the funding cuts, he can access only 16 therapy sessions over the year. Given the complexity of his situation and the need to rebuild attachment relationships, it is just not going to work over 16 sessions. Liaison with child and adolescent mental health services and social care is essential, but funding constraints mean that that cannot happen.
James’s example is not unique: it demonstrates how the inadequate funding model is undermining the very interventions that will allow children to heal, thrive and reintegrate successfully into family life. The Government must provide a long-term commitment to the fund and reconsider cutting the individual support packages. If ever there was a case for investing to save, this is it. Getting it right for some of our most vulnerable children will set them up for a more stable, happy and healthy life. It will support family cohesion, and it will reduce pressure on a host of other Government and third sector services later in life.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this very important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing it. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care and have lived experience of kinship care, so I know how significant this discussion is for families across the country, including in my constituency.
Since coming into office, I am pleased that the Labour Government have been engaging much more in the wider kinship conversation, and I want to acknowledge and welcome the positive steps that the Government have already taken in making it a legal duty for every local authority to have a kinship local offer once the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill receives Royal Assent. That local offer includes information about therapeutic support and is exactly what kinship families have long called for. I am grateful to the Minister for acting swiftly on that.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund provides vital therapeutic support for children who have experienced trauma and loss. Today’s announcement will extend funding for next year, and having that certainty is important, as it gives families some of the clarity and reassurance that they have been seeking. It is right that after supporting 54,000 children already, this much-needed fund is continuing. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to review the scheme and to launch a public engagement process, so that kinship families themselves can help to shape its future. I can say with confidence that the kinship care APPG will be more than happy to support the Government in that endeavour, having recently heard from a wide range of kinship carers in our evidence sessions.
Nevertheless, despite those welcome announcements, challenges remain. Support for kinship families still varies dramatically depending on where they live. The Family Rights Group’s 2024 audit found that a third of local authorities do not yet have a kinship care policy in place, despite being required to have one, and a survey by Foundations showed that not all have a designated kinship care worker. That postcode lottery simply is not good enough. Every family should be able to expect clear, consistent and accessible support.
The further challenge of the level of financial support now on offer through the fund disproportionately affects children with the highest need. The Kinship 2024 annual survey found that more than one in eight kinship carers said that they were concerned about their ability to continue caring for their kinship—
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing the debate and on her speech. It brought a tear to my eye when she mentioned the child and their pocket money. That is the one thing that should stay with us in this debate: how important this fund is to those young people.
The funding is crucial for the roughly 55,000 adoptive families across the UK. It ensures that both children and their guardians receive the care and support they need. It is estimated that around 80% of adopted children suffer abuse, neglect or violence prior to adoption, with the average child spending 15 months in care and often moving through several foster placements. That instability is traumatic for anyone, but especially for young children, so it is essential that the right level of support is provided to these children, as well as to the families who care for them every day.
I was recently contacted by a constituent who adopted three children in 2007. Post-adoption, all three were diagnosed with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, autistic spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and early-life trauma. Now young adults, they have had involvement with CAMHS and some support from the adult mental health services. The parents have fought tirelessly for the help that their children need, often resorting to self-funding therapies and education.
In May 2023, their middle daughter requested life story work, which is critical for her development, but that has been halted due to the changes in the ASGSF. A very vulnerable, disabled, brain-injured young woman has therefore been left without the therapy she needs to navigate an incredibly difficult stage of her life. Their youngest child’s specialist occupational therapy has also been affected by the funding changes, but thankfully her therapists were able to adjust the package to fewer sessions to bring it under the £3,000 cap—although that is far from ideal.
We need a clear commitment from the Government to fund that support not just next year but in perpetuity. Families need the reassurance of a long-term plan; without it, we risk more children going into long-term care without the support that they should have.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank Carers UK and all those fighting for the rights of carers—they are too often hidden in society, but some of them are here in the Public Gallery. I will speak about the impact of changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund in Bedford, where children’s services are already under extreme pressure.
At a recent children’s services overview and scrutiny committee, the council heard that more than two thirds of young carers in Bedford are not formally identified or supported, and the proportion who have high needs has more than tripled in the last three years. These are children who are taking on responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, giving medicines and providing emotional and personal care, sometimes for hours each day before going to school. This is not a marginal issue; these children are carrying an adult burden while still at school. On top of that, Ofsted recently downgraded Bedford borough’s children’s services to “requires improvement”, warning that too many vulnerable children are being placed in unregistered and unregulated homes.
While I acknowledge the financial pressure this Government have inherited and know that difficult spending decisions will have to be made at national and local level, it is deeply concerning that against this backdrop the Government have cut the fair access limit for therapeutic support under the ASGSF from £5,000 to £3,000 per child. Families caring for children who have already experienced trauma and loss will now have less access to the specialist therapy that can make the difference between stability and crisis.
I urge the Minister to reconsider this cut or, at the very least, introduce transitional arrangements to ensure that families already in the system are not left without support.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate and for an excellent and heartfelt speech. I want to share the story of my constituent Lisa—I thank her for allowing me to do so—who adopted her children when they were four and six years old. After that, they were able to access what was then called the adoption support fund and specialist occupational therapy, which Lisa called a lifesaver for them.
Since then, Lisa’s eldest child has accessed various support options, but the situation has proven more complex with her younger child. In Lisa’s own words,
“She did her best to hold things together at school for many years—masking anxiety, struggling with sensory issues, and living in a near-constant state of hypervigilance. At home, however, we saw the cost: meltdowns, self-harming, substance abuse and social withdrawal. In her mid-teens, she was diagnosed with ADHD, complex PTSD, OCD, depression and anxiety. And yet, she has not had access to therapy for over four years.”
Recently, a tailored, long-term development approach was finally designed for their child, with plans to deliver it over a three-year period of careful and considered therapeutic intervention, but a few weeks ago Lisa received a devastating blow: the specialist provider, who in their experience was the only one who truly understood their daughter, would no longer be used by the local authority because of the cost. It is impossible not to link that decision to the fund’s cap being lowered by 40%. They are now waiting to hear about possible alternatives from the local authority—plunged back into uncertainty just as her daughter starts her A-level studies.
Lisa played her part. They have attended specialist training, driven hundreds of miles for therapy, reduced working hours and given everything to advocate for their children, but there is only so much they can do without Government action. The Government must do the right thing for Lisa, her daughter and families like hers across the UK by reversing the cuts to the individual funding and confirming long-term funding.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. To ensure all Members get a chance to speak, we are going to have to reduce the time limit to two minutes. I call Josh Newbury.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing the debate.
I begin by declaring that as a family, we will begin using the adoption and special guardianship support fund from next week, so this is current and personal for me. As I am about to find out, the ASGSF is a lifeline for thousands of families like mine up and down the country. Education is where this matters so much. Despite changing attitudes, better training and awareness in schools, and innovations such as the pupil premium, too many adopted children and children in special guardianships still fall behind. If we give them the right support early, however, we can give them an equal start in school and the same opportunity to learn, make friends and feel comfortable in the classroom.
It is important to give that view on how much difference this £50 million, and many other sources of support, make for families like mine, because if we listened only to Liberal Democrat MPs today, we might, regrettably, lose sight of that. I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today that the ASGSF will continue for another year. However, I hope that the Department will still consider multi-year certainty, which would benefit families, providers and local authorities hugely.
Ruth Cadbury
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that we are hearing that some adopters, or potential adopters, are being put off going even through the process because of concerns about a lack of post-adoption support, which of course has to be long term, as he just mentioned?
Josh Newbury
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When my husband and I were going through the adoption journey and had our training and information evenings, the post-adoption support offer was very much part of that. If families feel that they cannot take that step because they fear they will be unable to get support, that is a great concern. I know that the Minister is also concerned about that.
I also know that the Minister will be carefully considering the impact of changes made to the ASGSF in April this year. The £3,000 fair access limit will, for some, be enough, but last year, almost half of children received more than that, reflecting the often complex needs assisted by the fund.
As we look ahead, I urge the Minister to see what can be done to build in flexibility. I hear that families often cannot access the fund quickly enough, so they reach crisis point and sadly, in some cases, placements break down. Quite apart from the devastating impact of breakdowns on families, the cost to local authorities is immense.
The ASGSF must be part of a holistic, early-help model, not crisis care. If at all possible, we also need look at how assessment costs are funded, particularly for complex cases where need is greater and for families in financial hardship. This House has always been united on one thing: children deserve stable, loving homes and the support to make sure that those remain their forever homes. By building on what we have now, we can ensure that the fund continues to support families and remains fit for the future.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate. I am pleased that each time Liberal Democrat MPs raise this issue, the Government back the fund.
I want the Government to hear what the ASGSF means for one family in my Esher and Walton constituency. Two of my constituents adopted a two-year-old boy. They were his seventh family. He had already suffered physical abuse and was displaying behavioural issues. It was clear to my constituents that significant professional support was needed to prevent this adoption from breaking down. That was provided by the ASGSF. Without it, my constituents do not believe they could have coped. Now, their son is six and attends a mainstream school.
The delay in announcing money for the ASGSF this year led to a five-month gap in support for my constituents’ son. During this time, he became more aggressive and disruptive. Without the ASGSF’s continuation in April, they would have struggled to maintain the adoption. However, even while extending the ASGSF for one year, the Government cut it by 40%. To cover the resulting shortfall, my constituents have had to use some of their savings. They cannot afford to do so next year.
For my constituents, there is no alternative to the ASGSF. They applied for mental health support for their son from Mindworks Surrey. They have been on the waiting list for three years. They waited more than two years for an appointment through developmental paediatrics, but health professionals did not understand the child’s case and nearly misdiagnosed him. The services unlocked through the fund have given this boy a chance of happiness. He has been through more than most adults will go through in their entire lives. To restrict support and leave him and his family in limbo is cruel.
When the Minister lays out the details of the fund’s future, I urge her as strongly as I possibly can to secure it for the long term, reverse this year’s cruel and damaging cuts, and secure this child’s future.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate.
I want to speak today of families who make a life-changing decision to care for children through adoption and special guardianship. It is a noble thing to do, but it is not always easy. The children have often faced trauma, instability and loss. I have met a lot of those families in my Calder Valley constituency. They are loving parents, fighting to do the best for their children. They do not ask for praise or reward, but they do ask for support and stability. The adoption and special guardianship support fund was created to provide that support. It has helped thousands of children to access therapy, assessments and the kind of specialist care that can be transformative.
More than half of the children looked after through the special guardianship fund have special educational needs. That figure rises to 80% in some cases. They need things such as trauma support, speech therapy, counselling and sensory support.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I met the representatives from the Yorkshire Adoption Agency and a number of adoptive parents this week. The one point they made to me is that the earlier that therapy takes place, the better the life chances and opportunities. Does my hon. Friend agree that having that fund available over a longer period is unbelievably important for the peace of mind of parents, families and guardians?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I was just about to come to that point. Stability and long-term decisions are key. Families need certainty, not just this year, but for the years ahead. Right now, there is no confirmation of funding for 2026-27. I note that there was a written ministerial statement today, although I do not think we know the exact numbers.
As a recovering member of local government, I know far too well the long-term costs when money is saved in the wrong place. I urge the Minister to hear that point and to make sure that we are making the right decisions on this issue, that we are not saving money in the wrong place and that we are giving that long-term stability and support. I know none of these decisions are easy and they are being taken against a backdrop that is worse than any Government have inherited. Let us make sure that we get this right and that we support the people who need it most.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate. In a recent parent and carer survey examining the impact of cuts to the ASGSF, the findings were alarming. Some 71% of children have seen a reduction in the number of therapy sessions, and 34% of families have been forced into an unethical choice between having an assessment of their child’s needs but no treatment, or treatment of unassessed needs.
The cuts to therapeutic packages have led to an increase in school exclusions, which were already far greater than for non-care-experienced children. They have led to an increase in child-on-parent violence, impacting 75% of families. There are children experiencing suicidal feelings who no longer have therapeutic support. Only 1% of families answering the survey have found the new £3,000 fair access limit sufficient to meet their child’s needs. Just 1%—that is a dreadful statistic.
The Government’s changes to the ASGSF have contributed to placements without adequate therapeutic support, despite us knowing the harm that this causes. The Government should think again, consult with families and the sector, reverse the cuts and ensure that a permanent fund is created that allows all families access to the right levels of specialist therapeutic support, right from the start and throughout their young lives. Only then can children heal and thrive.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Unfortunately, we are going to have to reduce the time limit to a minute and a half. I call Martin Wrigley.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate and on the passion of her speech.
I would like to raise the serious challenges that adoptive families in my constituency face in accessing the adoption support fund and wider post-adoption services. Too often, the system is designed for crisis rather than prevention. Overstretched social workers are forced to firefight, and families wait months, even years, for help. One family in my constituency told me that their daughter showed clear needs from the moment she was placed with them as a baby, yet only now, at the age of eight, is she undergoing an education, health and care plan assessment. That is because her behaviour has escalated to the point at which she can no longer cope in mainstream school. For years, her parents fought for therapies and support, but they received only fragmented and inconsistent help.
Funding is another problem. Last year, a child received 14 sessions of therapy through the fund, but this year it has been cut to eight; the family is expected to pay privately if more is needed. They have already waited 16 weeks for a referral to a specialist paediatrician as the first step towards an EHCP for suspected foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
Those are not isolated cases. Most children placed for adoption in the UK have experienced trauma, neglect or abuse, with a lifelong impact on development and behaviour. I urge the Government to rethink their approach. A care package should be the starting point for the adoption placement, not something that parents battle for—
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate.
This is, I believe, the fifth time in as many months that I have spoken on the ASGSF. I reiterate that it is not a luxury but a lifeline for some of most vulnerable children, many of whom desperately need consistent therapeutic intervention to cope with the traumas of loss, neglect and separation.
Although I am pleased to hear that the Government have committed to fund the ASGSF for another year, that will not undo the damage that children across this country have already faced. I recently met the Oakdale Group in my constituency, which provides therapeutic interventions through the support fund. Many families have expressed concern that a reduction in fair access will lead to poorer outcomes and the need for more therapy in the longer term.
Changing, suspending and tinkering with the ASGSF has led to a huge backlog of applications. Many children now face gaps of up to four months with no therapy at all. One family in my constituency is still waiting for their application to be accepted. For traumatised children, consistency is everything. The direct consequences of this Government’s actions have been severe: self-harm, suicidal ideation and thoughts, violence in the home and, in the most heartbreaking of cases, adoption break- down. The full impact of these cuts and delays is yet to be seen.
I ask the Minister directly: will she commit today to a permanent ringfenced fund, removing the need for year-on-year decision making? Will she restore certainty, stability and security for the children who depend on it?
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for her passionate advocacy. There is sometimes a misunderstanding that adoption and kinship care are somehow the fairytale ending to a traumatic situation, but I know at first hand that that is not the case. When I moved into the care of my grandparents as a teenager, I was angry and full of trauma, and I gave my nan and pops way too much grief and not enough appreciation. It was not until years later that I got to access therapy. Hearing the contributions from others today, I wish I had access earlier.
I want to address the Government’s announcement today of the year extension. I want to be honest about how I feel about it—I feel like it is a sop. Families do not renew every financial year; they are for life, and they need long-term certainty about the fund.
Bobby Dean
I absolutely agree, and that was the point that I was about to make. I am sure the Minister will tell me that money is tight, but I ask her over what time horizon she is considering this—five, 10 or 15 years? Families know that this is not a cost-cutting measure. They know how expensive it gets for the state if arrangements fail.
A family in my constituency—a couple of elderly grandparents caring for a teenager who keeps making attempts on their own life—cannot get the support they need, and that child is now under the care of the local authority, which is a far more expensive measure. How are the Government evaluating this fund and the impact it has on their finances? To me, it feels like they are saving a penny a day, and it is costing them a pound tomorrow. I say this to the Minister: restore the funding, guarantee it for good, and stand by those families who are doing our society such a service.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I remind the Opposition Front Benchers that if they take the full allotted 10 minutes, the Minister’s time to respond to the debate will be squeezed.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I warmly congratulate my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate and for so brilliantly outlining the issues at the start. I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning, alongside that of all the carers and parents who are here today and those who are not, who have been filling our inboxes and cannot afford to be here because they are busy looking after vulnerable and traumatised children who need our help.
There have been many powerful and moving contributions today from hon. Members across the House. I salute the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and his partner for stepping up to adopt, and I hope they get the support they need from the ASGSF that they have applied for. However, I was disappointed by his party political swipe, because until now, there has been cross-party consensus in all the debates I have been in on this issue that the changes made in April were short-sighted and extremely damaging.
It is no accident that when I secured my urgent question in April, the day after the fund had expired, the Minister came forward and announced its extension. It is no accident that we are having this debate today, and that a written ministerial statement has come out with this fig leaf of an extension of the fund into next year. The reality is that, yes, there has been cross-party consensus, but we Liberal Democrats have led the charge on this and dragged the Minister, kicking and screaming, to make the announcements.
I really hope that we do not end up being blindsided once again, as we were in April. We all welcomed the announcement in the Chamber that day but then, quietly, in the middle of the Easter recess, the announcement was snuck out that the fair access limits were to be reduced, the assessment grants slashed and the matched funding cut. These parents, carers and families deserve far better. I really hope that Ministers and officials have learnt the lessons from earlier this year.
It is worth repeating and reminding ourselves who we are talking about today: some of the most vulnerable children in our communities, who have suffered unimaginable trauma, including abuse and neglect, sometimes witnessing unspeakable violence in their homes. Their carers—both adoptive parents and kinship carers—have made the most amazing commitment to step up and provide a loving, stable home to help heal and give them a second chance in life. The impact of these short-sighted cuts to the grants has been utterly devastating. The decision has resulted in a backlog of applications, delaying assessments and therapeutic support, and leaving already deeply traumatised children with a heightened sense of abandonment.
I received this email from a parent in June:
“My youngest daughter has recently had her sensory therapy put on hold for two months, due to all the delays by the government. My daughter started her new therapy at the beginning of February this year, had 4 therapy sessions and then had to stop due to the uncertainty around the funding.
We were just starting to see real progress when the therapy stopped abruptly. It was what I can only describe as ‘opening Pandora’s box and violently slamming it shut again’. The regression we saw was severe. We experienced behaviours (including feral screaming), which our daughter had not displayed in over 4 years. This regression not only affected our youngest daughter, but also her older sister (who is also traumatised).”
The charity Home for Good and Safe Families recently surveyed parents and carers to understand the impact of the recent changes to the fund. It found that the loss of therapeutic support is already affecting many families, particularly those without the means to pay privately, leading to increased inequality in access to services, with financial vulnerability closely linked to greater disruption.
In mid-July, one adoption support provider reported that only 50% of their families waiting for support had any funding from the ASGSF in place. That has raised serious concerns about the impact on children’s mental health, with the vast majority of parents and carers saying that they are “extremely” or “very concerned” that their children’s mental health will be negatively affected. For some children and families, long periods without support have caused extreme difficulties—declines in mental health, suicidal thoughts, self-harming, school absence and an escalation of violence in the home. These are children whose lives have been characterised by loss and separation, for whom trusting and consistent relationships are vital.
The cuts have meant that the Purple Elephant Project, which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), right on the border of mine, has reduced its yearly programme of support to just 26 weeks. Six months is a long time in a child’s life. For some children and young people, gaps in therapy greatly risk their willingness to engage in therapy in the future. The Government’s failure to communicate their planned changes has also led to providers reporting substantial financial losses, particularly small providers such as Purple Elephant, which is relying on crowdfunding and emergency funds to stay afloat. Some, including Purple Elephant, are already having to cut their staff, and they are concerned that some therapists will leave the profession altogether. We cannot afford that when we look at the scale of the mental health crisis not just among children in adoptive and kinship care, but more broadly across society.
The irony and the frustration is that the Government have sabotaged a tool that works. An evaluation of the fund in 2022 found that at the end of funded support, the mental health difficulties of school-age children improved, and there were also significant improvements in family functioning. Some 94% of parents say the fund is “absolutely vital” or “very important” to their family and is a need that could not be met elsewhere.
The ASGSF helps families to stay together and prevents family placement breakdown. It also helps children to stay and thrive in school. One adoptive parent I met in my constituency was very clear that her child would not have been able to stay in school without the supportive therapy provided by the ASGSF. As we have heard, there is anecdotal evidence of potential adopters being put off going through the process because of concerns about a lack of post-adoption support. We know that for every child adopted, £1.3 million-worth of value is created through improved outcomes from adoption, and there are the lower financial costs of adoption compared with care. The economic case is unquestionable.
The Government keep telling us—the Minister with responsibility for early years, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), just told us this in the main Chamber—that giving the children the best start in life is one of the Government’s biggest priorities. If they really mean that and want to break down barriers to opportunity, this Minister needs to understand the outrage and despair not just of Members here, but of families and carers up and down the country. The Government have sabotaged a supremely effective fund.
Aside from today’s announcement, there are rumours about the Department reforming the fund, and a paper has been released by Adoption England that proposes devolving funding to regional adoption agencies or local authorities as grants. A whole host of organisations are publicly opposed to those proposals and are concerned that the model will compromise fair and equitable access of funding for all children, regardless of where they live or the agency they have been adopted through.
Furthermore, regional adoption agencies are typically responsible only for adoption services. We are not sure what this would mean for special guardians or those who have child arrangement orders in place and how the funding would be split between kinship families and adoptive families. The Government desperately need to consult families and sector experts. I note that today’s written ministerial statement alludes to engagement—not before time, because people were not consulted or engaged with when the changes were made at Easter.
I believe, and I have told the Minister this privately and publicly, that she and her Department deeply care—as I and my hon. Friends do—about the lives of children and families. But I think that the failure so far in joined-up policymaking and engagement is actually being driven by the Treasury, not by her or her Department. If she needs help with the Treasury, which is desperate for savings, she has support here in all parts of the Chamber, and we will continue to bat for children up and down this country.
I reiterate the calls that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex made at the start of this debate. We need to see a permanent ringfenced fund restored to the previous full amount in terms of grants per child. That will mean extending and expanding the size of the fund. I have told the Minister this before: she can find the money in the £46.5 million budget that the Department had for advertising, consultancy and marketing costs in the past year. She should halve that budget and instead expand the ASGSF by 50% so that the fair access limits can be restored to what they were. There needs to be an end to the surprise annual announcements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) said, children are not adopted or taken into kinship care for one financial year. That is done for life, and with love, and this Government should honour that.
I hope that the Government will start to engage properly with the sector and families up and down the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, I ask for a two-year moratorium on further changes so that the reforms are evidence-based. It is incumbent on all of us as corporate parents to ensure that our most vulnerable children are properly supported and given the best second chance in life, which many of these children are being offered. This is a tiny budget in the context of huge Government spending, but it has a massive impact on those precious and fragile lives. It is time to think again. It is time to do far better. It is time to put children, who are our country’s future, first.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. First, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this incredibly important debate about support for some of the most vulnerable children in this country. The adoption and special guardianship support fund, set up under the Conservative Government in 2015, has, for many years, provided much needed therapeutic support to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care.
I pay tribute to all the adoptive parents, foster carers and kinship carers out there who step up and welcome a child into their home: you are amazing, and I am humbled by the sacrifices you make and the love you give every day. I know it is not always easy. Some of these children, who have often suffered neglect, abuse and violence, have complex needs and can be challenging to care for. There will be days when it feels difficult and never-ending, when you feel alone and unsupported. But you keep going, and are continually there for your child, loving, protecting and supporting them. Given all that you do, in extremely difficult circumstances, the least that can be expected is a reasonable level of support from this Government for you and the child in your care.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund is an important part of that and, frankly, the way that cuts to the fund have been handled beggars belief. It is unacceptable to leave families for months on end without certainty about the funding they rely on and then, at the very last minute, to confirm a 40% cut to the therapy fund from £5,000 to £3,000, the removal of the entire amount for specialist assessment and the cessation of match funding for the most complex cases.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case, and I echo the sentiment that she has expressed so far. My constituent Sara Taylor came to me to make the case for the restoration of the fund. Her key point was that the economic and fiscal consequences, as Members across the House have said, are so obviously detrimental. If we do not spend the money on this, that means that the costs are displaced to society in other ways for the whole generation to come. Does my hon. Friend agree with that sentiment?
Rebecca Paul
My right hon. Friend is spot on. In a written statement, the Government said that
“we are in a challenging fiscal climate and are having to make tough but fair decisions across the public sector”.—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 31WS.]
Minister, how is this fair? Of all the things that this Government could cut, they chose to cut funding to the most vulnerable of children. If they want to be fair, might I suggest that they look elsewhere for efficiencies? If they are looking for suggestions, they might want to cancel their plans to give away the Chagos islands while paying Mauritius £35 billion for the pleasure. Might that not be a more acceptable way to make savings? No one wants to see a Government balancing the books off the backs of the most vulnerable children in our communities.
This decision really is one of the most disappointing things I have seen from this Government. The fund is actually quite small in the scheme of things. These cuts do not move the dial on this country’s financial position in any meaningful way, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have proceeded in this manner. They could have protected it or even boosted it, but they have chosen to spread it more thinly.
Labour always talks a good game on supporting the most vulnerable, but actions speak louder than words. If the Government continue on this path, they need to take responsibility for this short-sighted decision and the impact that it will have. More children with special needs will not get what they need to flourish. That will put even more pressure on adoptive parents and kinship carers, who are already at breaking point. Ultimately, fewer people will put themselves forward to look after these children. That is an absolute tragedy, and one that will end up costing this country more in both human and financial terms, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Mark my words: we will see more of these children going back into care because of this Government’s cuts to the fund.
In a letter to the Education Secretary dated 22 July 2025, stakeholders including Adoption UK, Family Rights Group and Barnardo’s said:
“We have heard from families who are in complete crisis because of the abrupt changes that have taken place…including families who have…been torn apart.”
They continued:
“The thousands of adopted children and eligible children cared for under special guardianship or child arrangements orders, including kinship care, affected by delays and cuts to the Fund have faced unimaginable barriers in their first years of life. They are almost all care experienced and share a childhood characterised by trauma, loss and disruption. These are children who need more from their government, not less.”
In 2024-25, of the nearly 20,000 approved allocations of funding for therapeutic support, 9,000—or 46%—were for an amount of more than £3,000, which suggests that at least 9,000 children will be worse off following these cuts. I, too, have heard from many residents in my constituency, from across Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, who will be impacted by the cuts to this fund.
One story that really hit home is that of a couple who took out a special guardianship order on twins, both of whom had additional needs, significant trauma and attachment issues. When they were looked-after children, they were entitled to all the support they needed, so before taking out the SGO the couple rightly and responsibly sought reassurance that the SGO would not reduce the essential support that the twins were receiving. In typical fashion, they were putting the children first. They were promised that the funding would be there, so they went ahead, but that funding has now been reduced—a promise broken, a placement now at risk. How many SGOs or adoptions will now not go ahead because the support just will not be there afterwards?
I know that the Minister cares deeply about these children and this issue, and that it is likely that the Treasury has driven this decision. But I ask her, as part of this Labour Government and as someone who bears collective responsibility, to fight for these children, reconsider the decision to cut per-child funding, and reinstate both the £5,000 fair access limit and the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessment and match funding.
I was going to ask the Minister to provide the certainty needed by families about funding beyond March 2026 so that families can plan for future changes, but I am pleased to welcome her statement today on this matter. However, I ask her to provide more information on the planned public engagement process in the new year with respect to delivery of this fund, as it again creates unwelcome uncertainty. Just as families breathe a sigh of relief about securing next year’s funding, they have to hold their breath again about March 2027.
Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach and ensure that our most vulnerable children get more from Government, not less. If a change in direction is not forthcoming, I fear that more children will remain in the care system, locked into poorer life outcomes, rather than being welcomed into warm, loving homes where they can flourish and thrive. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing for these children. We all implore them to do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This morning, I laid before Parliament a written ministerial statement confirming that the adoption and special guardianship support fund will continue next year. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate, and I thank all other hon. Members who helped to secure it. I acknowledge the contributions from the chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and from the chair of the kinship care APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I acknowledge her lobbying to extend the fund.
Kicking and screaming is not something I do, however, and the personal attacks of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), lower this debate and what we wish to achieve. I also say to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), that her party had many opportunities to secure the adoption and special guardianship support fund when it was in Government, and it chose not to—in fact, it reduced the funding. I felt it was appropriate to put those things in order.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about this Government, the adoption and special guardianship support fund and our record of supporting the wellbeing of children. I have heard the many contributions and the heartwarming descriptions of situations that really do affect the lives of children who have been adopted or taken into kinship care. The adoption and special guardianship support fund enables valuable therapeutic support to be provided to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care. As I said, I recognise the particular needs of this cohort of children and young people. I know many of them will have had a challenging early life experiences.
Janet Daby
I will make as much progress as I can, because I have been asked many questions in this debate and in many other scenarios and areas. It is very important that I am at least heard for the majority of my speech.
That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that these children and their families have support available that meets their needs. Therefore, I am pleased to confirm that applications to the adoption and special guardianship support fund that run into the next financial year, 2026-27, can now be made. That is part of a wider continuation of the scheme in the next financial year, and full details will be set out later in the autumn. I am absolutely behind making sure that we can present that information in a timely way. That is clearly acknowledged.
I am pleased to say that we will also begin public engagement in the new year to consider the future of the adoption and special guardianship support fund into 2028 and beyond. I am keen to work across Government with children, families and sector representatives to understand more about what support can and should be provided at a sustainable level.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund has now been running for 10 years, and in that time, it has helped to provide support for more than 54,000 children. Independent evaluations have found that the fund has been successful in improving the lives of recipient children and their families. The last independent evaluation of the fund in 2022 found that 83% of parents and guardians had found support funded by the adoption and special guardianship support fund “helpful” or “very helpful”. We also know from parents and carers about the difference the adoption and special guardianship support fund has made to their lives.
However, the fund is not the only source of support available to adopted and special guardianship children and their families, although it is a significant one. Adoption England is a key partner of the Department in improving adoption support. We have provided it with £8.8 million this year for specific projects to improve adoption support. That includes funding for developing national standards, developing centres of excellence as multidisciplinary teams with education and health, and establishing services designed to respond to adoptive families in crisis quicker and more effectively.
We are working to improve the support available to children in kinship care. Last year, the Government announced a £40 million package to test the payment of an allowance to cover the additional costs of supporting children to move into kinship care. We have also published updated statutory guidance on kinship care for local authorities, and we appointed the first kinship care ambassador to advocate for kinship families across Government. Across England, more than 140 kinship peer-to-peer support groups are already up and running, providing kinship carers with vital spaces to connect, share their experiences and support one another. Alongside that, a comprehensive package of training and support is being actively delivered, ensuring that every kinship carer has access to the resources they need to thrive. We have also expanded the role of the virtual school heads to champion the education, attainment and attendance of children in kinship care who were previously in care.
This Government’s approach to informing children’s social care will transform services and transition towards earlier intervention. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will shift the focus of the children’s social care system and put children’s needs first. Our landmark investments in family help and Best Start family hubs will help families to access earlier support before they reach crisis point. Those measures and investments are alongside the adoption and special guardianship support fund so that specialist support is available should families need it.
On health, Ministers and officials engage regularly with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England on how we can improve support for children, and we will continue to do that. The most recent NHS plan sets out how we intend to improve mental health services.
In order to ensure that the fund was financially stable in 2025-26, I announced a number of changes to the management of the budget. In the interests of transparency, I committed to making the equalities impact assessment, which helped to inform decision making, available for review. On 17 July, I placed the assessment in the Libraries of both Houses. It provides a breakdown of the available data and explains the rationale behind our decision to make changes.
In particular, it highlights the fact that, had we not made changes, many children could have been prevented from accessing therapy. The number of children accessing the fund has increased by 2,000 year on year. The equalities impact assessment is kept under review, and my officials update it regularly to better understand the impact of any changes on vulnerable children. The Department also publishes annual data on the adoption and special guardianship support fund.
Rachael Maskell
Does the hon. Member share my concern that if we are going to make the investment for the long term, we have to look at the number of children in care? In 2010, there were 64,000, and in 2024, 83,630. That places significant demand on the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Will she look at the work that York council is doing on halving the number of children in care? Surely that will reduce demand on the fund.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for all her comments. Over the last decade, the number of looked-after children in care has increased by 22% to 84,000. The previous Government have a lot to answer for. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are trying to make sure that we do intervention and prevention work early so that we support more families as early as we can. Through family group decision making, we are supporting support families and friends to come forward to provide a home for a child where that is the right thing for them.
More needs to be done. We are getting on with and trying to do a lot, but there is still so much more to address.
Tom Gordon
In an Adjournment debate on 3 April, the Minister said:
“This debate has given me the opportunity to talk about our plans to ensure that all adopted children get the support they need”.—[Official Report, 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 558.]
Just a week and a few days later, she went on to cut the support fund and the fees that people could access through it. At the time of that debate, did she know that those cuts to the funds and access were coming?
Janet Daby
Just for clarification, at that debate I always said that more information would follow in due course. As soon as the decisions regarding the fund had been made, that information was laid before the House.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must continue to be grateful to the parents and carers of adopted and kinship children, in particular for the compassion and dedication they have shown in giving vulnerable children the chance of having a happy, stable home. I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ remarks, and I will continue to do so. I know the importance of this debate to many families outside this House. I and my officials will continue to work closely with families and sector representatives over the coming months to understand what support should be provided at a sustainable level.
Future of Terrestrial Television
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. We are here to debate a hidden threat to a vital service that most of our constituents use every week, and that service is digital terrestrial TV, commonly known as Freeview. So that we are absolutely clear what we are talking about, it is a TV signal that is picked up through the aerial on our roofs. It lets us access broadcast TV channels from the likes of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, including ITV Border in my constituency, STV in the rest of Scotland, and S4C in Wales, as well as over 100 more channels serving a range of interests.
Freeview is a universal service reaching 98.5% of the UK population, including those in remote and rural areas. It is available at no additional cost over and above the licence fee. This is a crucial point: people do not need to pay any additional monthly bills to watch terrestrial TV; all they need is a TV set and an aerial.
The options for watching TV have broadened in the last few years, with the arrival of TV streaming over the internet, or IPTV, as it is known. Many of us enjoy those services, but the fact is that to do so, someone needs a high-speed fixed broadband subscription of sufficient speed and reliability, and not everyone has that.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I know he is acutely aware that many communities that he and I represent in the Scottish borders rely on that television service. At the same time, they do not have access to a high-speed, high quality broadband connection unless they pay significantly for it. Does he agree that we need a commitment from the Government to extend the Freeview service to reassure residents in those communities?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and throughout my speech I will make the point that nobody should be required to pay to watch television. As he said, it is particularly an issue in rural areas, where broadband services can be extremely patchy and speeds highly variable. In more urban and suburban areas, broadband outages are also far from uncommon.
Terrestrial TV has a reliability of close to 99%, which broadband does not. Almost half—45.1%—of broadband customers experienced an outage lasting more than 48 hours in the past year. Indeed, Biggar and the surrounding communities in my constituency experienced an outage of 36 hours. Even as high-speed coverage increases through initiatives such as Project Gigabit, take-up is entirely a different matter.
Research from the consultancy EY estimates that by 2040, some 5.5 million premises will not have taken up a high-speed fixed broadband subscription. Today, some people cannot access fixed broadband because the signal where they live is not fast or reliable enough. Other people simply cannot afford to pay for fixed broadband subscriptions on top of other bills. Millions of people are relying exclusively on mobile for access to the internet. Indeed, data from Citizens Advice suggested that, in 2022 alone, up to 1 million people cancelled their broadband subscription because of the high cost of living.
That is why terrestrial TV remains essential—because it is universal. Indeed, it is the guarantee of universalism in British broadcasting, and that is a priceless asset. For terrestrial TV to provide that bedrock guarantee of universal access, complementing internet streaming, gives the UK the best of both worlds. It is a hybrid model that is so much more robust than putting all our eggs in one basket and relying on a single point of failure.
In addition, the service remains hugely popular and widely used. More than 80% of BBC and ITV content is watched on linear broadcast TV—that is, live on channels such as BBC One or ITV2. Of that viewing, about half—a huge amount—is through terrestrial TV. Indeed, it remains the main way TV content is consumed in the UK.
The reason why we are having this debate today is that despite being a widely used and, in my view, essential service, it is currently under threat of being switched off within a decade. The licences that support terrestrial TV expire in 2034, and the Government have so far not provided a long-term commitment. Yet there is no need to consider switching off terrestrial TV in the mid-2030s, be that for political, technological or financial reasons.
The Government have the opportunity to announce that they support terrestrial TV’s role for the longer term. Nobody, or not very many people, is suggesting that the BBC should be switched off when its current charter concludes in 2027. The projections suggest that terrestrial TV will continue to make a crucial contribution and serve millions of viewers well past that date. However, there are some voices calling for an end to terrestrial TV by the mid-2030s and a transition of all viewing to online streaming only. The BBC director general, Tim Davie, recently said as much, and there are those in parts of the broadcast and telecoms sectors who would certainly welcome it.
Ministers have a decision to make, and I am delighted to see this Minister with us today to respond to the debate. I know she encourages debate and discussion on this issue, and I particularly congratulate her on tackling the issue head-on with the forum that she has convened on the future of TV distribution. I hope that, in her remarks later, she will be able to tell us more about the work of the forum and how it will feed into her decision making, as well as about the timescales she anticipates for that.
I know from my meetings with ITV and Sky that broadcasters are eager to hear from the Minister too. This issue has flown a bit under the radar so far, and any decision could have profound consequences for people across the UK. Indeed, the principal reason why we are having this debate is to raise awareness about the potential end to terrestrial TV, which is too little understood. Recent research from the Digital Poverty Alliance, which I commend to Members, revealed that 69% of the public were completely unaware that the future of terrestrial TV was under threat at all, and 73% of people polled believed that terrestrial TV should be protected well beyond 2035.
That is really my message today—any talk about a switch-off of terrestrial TV in the 2030s is completely premature and unrealistic. The Government have the opportunity to take that possibility off the table and give certainty for the service into the 2040s. We could use various analogies to exemplify the point about a hybrid model of delivery being best. I would make the analogy with the debate about access to cash, on which I have long campaigned. The creeping withdrawal of banks and free cashpoints, especially from smaller towns and more rural settings, means that we are sleepwalking to a cashless society. Many people value the ability to make cashless transactions, and no doubt the convenience of digital payments will continue to expand, but the fact is that many people still want to be able to access cash, and the Government rightly stepped in to provide a guarantee that cash would remain available.
Exactly the same argument applies in respect of terrestrial TV. Indeed, it is an even stronger argument, because the viewing rates for terrestrial TV are far higher than the rates of use of cash. Even as more of us stream more content online, it is terrestrial TV that guarantees universal access and that is there when fixed broadband fails. The same research I cited earlier revealed that 70% of the public feel reassured by knowing that terrestrial TV is available as a fall-back option, even if they do not use it on a daily basis.
I am sure that we will hear during the debate about a range of factors that Ministers need to consider as they make decisions about the future of terrestrial TV. What cannot be denied is that any move to switch it off would hit the most vulnerable people the hardest, including those struggling with the cost of living, many older people, people living with disabilities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) highlighted, those in remote, rural and island communities. They all rely on terrestrial TV to stay connected and, in many cases, do not have the choice of simply switching to streaming.
Debates about broadcasting are often dominated by perspectives from what might be called a media elite, by which I mean those who tend to be in and of the big cities—London, but not just London—and a bit more middle class and a little younger. That is no criticism of those individuals, but we have to be aware that not everyone sees things from their perspective, and we, as legislators, need to be focused on ensuring that we serve the whole country, including those whose lives are quite different. When the Minister is being told by broadcasters and others that the direction of travel is away from terrestrial TV, cash payments or many other things, I urge her to bear in mind, as I am sure she will, that so many of the people we represent see things differently.
Some may argue that we just need to accept that more and more services are moving online. Some in the industry have even suggested that the threat of losing access to TV is a good way of forcing people who are not online to get online. However, as Elizabeth Anderson, the chief executive officer of the Digital Poverty Alliance, has said:
“What would be unconscionable…is to use any threat of the removal of the terrestrial TV service as a coercive stick with which to force people to take on new and unwelcome financial burdens simply to continue being connected to shared televisual experiences. The millions of people who watch terrestrial TV every day as their preferred mode of TV viewing deserve more respect than to be treated in that way.”
It is simply a fact that a large category of people who today enjoy accessing TV through the terrestrial service would be excluded if the service were switched off in the 2030s.
Let me be clear: guaranteeing the long-term future of terrestrial TV is by no means anti-digital, as some may claim. In fact, protecting the future of terrestrial TV is what makes our media industry one of the most digitally diverse globally. Losing terrestrial TV could damage the viability of UK-wide broadcast networks, which are relied on by a range of other sectors, including radio.
I expect that the Minister will refer to the financial viability of the service. In fact, terrestrial TV represents a very modest cost to broadcasters right now—less than 3% of the licence fee to fund a universal service. Indeed, research by the consultancy EY indicates that the costs of terrestrial TV could be reduced substantially in the future if it has the certainty of a longer life span to justify investment.
The financial implications of any switch-off also need to be factored in. As I have already explained, there would be new costs for viewers who would need to take out high- speed fixed broadband subscriptions; on average, the cost for them would be an extra £214 a year. It would also mean new costs for the Government, who would potentially have to fund the upgrades necessary to make the internet infrastructure suitable for a huge surge in demand. EY estimates that that cost would be £1 billion annually as an ongoing—indeed, permanent—subsidy. In reality, there would be a shift in the cost burden of TV distribution, away from the broadcasters and on to the shoulders of viewers and taxpayers. As things stand, we would lose a vital service and we would all pay more for less. Clearly, that looks like a good deal for the BBC and other broadcasters; what is less clear is whether it would be a good deal for my constituents and those of other MPs.
Broadcasters should be careful what they wish for. As I have already said, the reality is that only a tiny percentage of the licence fee goes on paying for terrestrial TV. For the price of the licence fee, the BBC guarantees universal, free-to-air access to broadcast TV content to virtually everyone in the UK. Without that universality, it might be a lot harder to make the case for the licence fee as a flat tax on TV ownership.
I say again that we should get some clarity from the Government and that the possibility of losing terrestrial TV in the next decade should be taken off the table. Instead, let us give viewers the guarantee of universal access to Great British broadcasting through the best-of-both-worlds model that we have today, retaining it well into the future.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate and for the hard work that he has already put into this area.
I am very pleased that broadband coverage in my Isle of Wight West constituency is improving—it was at 94.2% in 2022 and is projected to reach 99.4% by 2040—thanks to our very own fibre company, WightFibre. However, actual take-up tells a different story, and it is one that we cannot ignore. Only 63.5% of households were using high-speed broadband in 2022, and even by 2040 only 76.1% of households are expected to be using it. That means that in 15 years’ time, nearly a quarter of households still might not be online. For such households, terrestrial TV is not a back-up; it is their primary connection to news, entertainment and public service content—and not just reruns of “Mrs Brown’s Boys”. That is especially true for older residents, those in rural areas and families facing financial pressures.
As hon. Members have already said today, terrestrial TV is free, reliable and accessible. It does not require expensive subscriptions or high-speed internet. It just works. At a time when loneliness and isolation are growing, it plays a vital role in promoting wellbeing, inclusion and a sense of community. Three quarters of people say that terrestrial TV has helped to reduce loneliness, and among those aged 65 and over the figure rises to 87%. Additionally, I worry that any decision to switch off terrestrial TV could further exacerbate the cost of living crisis and deepen existing inequalities in our communities.
I know that not everyone on the Isle of Wight has the means to afford high-speed internet or multiple streaming subscriptions. For many households, especially those on fixed incomes or struggling with rising bills, terrestrial TV is not just a preference; it is a necessity. Asking such families to transition to online-only services could mean they face additional costs of hundreds of pounds a year, not only for subscriptions but for upgraded devices and internet packages. That is a burden that many of those families simply cannot bear, and it is imperative that we do not impose it on them.
It is also important to realise that any imposed switch-off would not have a limited impact; it would be deeply felt across our communities. The reality is that some people would be left behind, and many people would feel a greater sense of entirely avoidable social isolation.
This shift is not just a technical one, but a social one. If we move too quickly or without providing proper support, we risk entrenching inequality, whereby access to media and public service content becomes a privilege available only to those who can afford it. Terrestrial TV helps to level the playing field. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their income or their location, can stay connected to other people around the world—and that is worth protecting.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Before I call Sir John Whittingdale, let me say that I do not intend to impose a time limit, but if you keep to about four minutes, we will get everybody in.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Twigg; I will do my best to keep to your limit.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on obtaining the debate. This is an important issue, and he is absolutely right that not enough discussion has taken place. Even though the potential for switch-off is a number of years away, it is an important issue that we need to start considering now. However, I will take a slightly different line from my right hon. Friend, although I will try not to fall into his category of media elite—I do not think I would include myself in that.
Twenty years ago, I became Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the first report that we conducted was into analogue switch-off. Older Members may remember that there was a time when television was broadcast in analogue, and it was decided to switch off the analogue signal and move fully to digital. There was real concern about the consequences: blank screens would feature across the nation and reliance on the digital network was going to undermine the universality of the service. A lot of money and time was spent to meet that. Now, of course, nobody would ever suggest going back to analogue transmission of television.
Internet protocol television is growing. Obviously, take-up of streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney is possible only through smart television sets that are capable of receiving streaming services. As we know from Ofcom, more and more people are turning to those services. Four years ago, I purchased a Sky Glass TV. I think it is still the only television that has no digital terrestrial television receiver in it at all; it operates only on IPTV and, without wishing to give too much of a plug to Sky, it is very good. I think that is where we will eventually head. Switching off the DTT signal and moving purely to IPTV is, I think, inevitable, but it is a long way off. For that reason, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s initiative in starting the discussion publicly now.
There are benefits to switching off for consumers, and indeed for taxpayers. It opens up the possibility of using the existing DTT spectrum for something else. We can speculate about what that might be, but the spectrum is already under pressure from mobile services, the internet without things and all those things, so spectrum is a valuable commodity. It will save the broadcasters a bit of money, because at the moment they have to meet the cost of simulcasting on DTT and online. I think there will be advantages and, as Ofcom said, there will come a tipping point when it really becomes no longer economically viable to continue to maintain a DTT service.
The other reason why I think a switch-off is worth considering is the future of the BBC. Fewer and fewer people each year choose to pay the licence fee, and we need to look at alternatives. Lots of people say, “Well, in that case, why can’t we just operate like Netflix or Amazon and charge people?” The reason is that the BBC cannot, unless it has streamed services with conditional access that allows people to choose not to receive it. That is also an important part of the debate.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are real challenges. The cost has already been referred to. In government, I had responsibility for Project Gigabit—the Minister will be all too familiar with that—and the initiative to extend gigabit broadband coverage across the country. We still have some way to go. It would be unthinkable to turn off DTT before we reach the point at which gigabit broadband is universal.
In addition to reach, there is also the question of cost. We are reaching a moment at which it will be very difficult to operate without access to broadband because more and more services are going online. We need to look at all those issues before we decide to turn off. I personally think that the date that has been set as a guarantee for DTT continuing—2034—is about right. I would not want to go further than that; I am not saying that we should switch off in 2034, but it is still nine years away, and at that time the world may look very different. I think the moment will come when it clearly makes sense for broadcasting and for consumers that we move to pure internet protocol television.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for the opportunity to speak today about a matter of growing concern: the potential future switch-off of digital television broadcasting and what it means for millions of our citizens.
In an era of rapid change, it is easy to focus on innovation and overlook the basic systems that still serve as lifelines for many. Traditional scheduled TV is one of those systems. It is not flashy or new, but for a significant portion of our population it is essential. Digital broadcasting represents a lifeline of connectivity and inclusion, particularly for older and poorer individuals. These are often the people who do not have access to the latest smart devices or high-speed internet, or who may not feel comfortable navigating streaming platforms, apps or digital menus.
For many older people, especially those living alone, the television is not just entertainment; it is a companion. It is a reliable, familiar voice in the room, a source of news, information and even reassurance. It gives them access to the world outside their four walls, and that connection is something we should never take for granted. Data from the regulator predicts that up to 5% of the population may still be reliant on linear digital television into the 2030s, and I am certain that those people are likely to be the oldest and poorest in their communities. They may not be well represented in debates about media policy or digital inclusion, but they are in the millions, and they matter.
Many of those people live on limited incomes and cannot afford the devices, subscriptions and connectivity required for digital-only media. If we allow linear broadcasting to be switched off entirely in the 2030s, we risk creating a digital divide. We risk isolating those already most vulnerable to loneliness. We risk cutting people off from national news, emergency broadcasts, cultural programming and the simple companionship of shared live viewing experiences.
I understand the pressures from mobile operators to release parts of the digital spectrum that are currently reserved for TV broadcasting. To them, I say that digital transformation should never come at the cost of social inclusion. We must ensure that progress is inclusive, that innovation serves everyone and that we do not leave behind those who built the very society we now take for granted.
We must also consider the potential cost to consumers of such a switch-off. Many households will already be keenly aware of how the costs of multiple online streaming subscriptions can mount up. Our technology must change with the times, but we must ensure that no household is left behind in this process, and that changes to these vital services do not lead to a fragmented system of individual subscriptions to access each and every national broadcaster.
I call on the Government and broadcasters to resist pressure from mobile operators and the cost savings that an early switch-off might provide to broadcasters. For the time being, we must maintain linear digital broadcasting to ensure that nobody is left behind in the technological revolution we are all living through.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there is a guideline of four minutes for speeches.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) has set out, the future of terrestrial TV is uncertain once current licences expire in the 2030s. While some industry figureheads advocate for switch-off, I call on the UK Government to ensure that terrestrial TV retains its place as part of a hybrid approach that places the needs of our communities first, rather than business profits and that all-important bottom line. That is because switching to a digital-only model will not be easy for many people in our communities, including older people, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) said. In Wales, more than a fifth of our population is over 65. As it stands, 21% of those over 65 have no internet access at home, and 23% of Welsh homes rely solely on terrestrial to watch TV, lacking any other means to do so.
Let us not forget why people watch television in the first place. Beyond its importance in providing trusted news and information, 75% of people in the UK say that the availability of free-to-air terrestrial TV helps to reduce loneliness or isolation, which is a significant challenge in older, more rural areas such as my constituency. That rurality does make a difference. I was quite jealous when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) said that 99.3% of his area had digital; I think we are at 49% in my constituency.
According to Ofcom’s 2024 “Connected Nations” report, full-fibre broadband was available to 71% of all urban premises, but only 52% of rural premises and 48% of rural premises in Wales. As of January 2025, the figure is only 49% in Caerfyrddin. We do not have that digital connectivity, and many are unable to get decent broadband at all.
Storm Darragh at the end of last year made our vulnerability crystal clear, when 745,000 homes were impacted across south and west Wales. Thousands were without power and water for a whole week. Communication issues in the storm’s aftermath were particularly shocking. Constituents had difficulty using alerting systems and receiving news and information that would have historically been provided by local radio stations, since turned digital. That drilled home the importance of non-digital infrastructure when things go wrong, including critical national infrastructure such masts.
With numerous sites in Caerfyrddin alone, including Carmel, which serves 72,000 homes in my constituency, the terrestrial TV network has become a vital link for critical services such as emergency communications and utilities. The economic operational viability of this infrastructure should not be put at stake. Terrestrial TV should be made part of future emergency planning.
I reiterate the calls made in this debate and ask for the UK Government to provide concrete certainty for terrestrial TV beyond 2034. It is clear that a hybrid TV model remains the best option, and one that works for everybody.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate and giving Members the opportunity to highlight the continuing impact and importance of terrestrial television in the modern day.
While there is undoubtedly a growing reliance on digital television and streaming services, a significant number of people across the United Kingdom remain reliant on terrestrial television. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government plan to keep those people in mind when decisions are made in the coming months and years.
Earlier in the year, I had the opportunity, at the invitation of Arqiva, to visit the Black Hill transmitter station at Kirk o’ Shotts, near Salsburgh, a great industrial village in the Airdrie and Shotts constituency. To say I was impressed with the transmitter’s range of coverage, the number of people reliant on it and the skills on show by those who operate it would be an understatement. The Black Hill transmitter provides DTT coverage to approximately 940,000 households across the central Scotland region, serving Glasgow and Edinburgh and everything in between. It is an excellent resource that delivers a vital public service.
Indeed, according to Ofcom data from 2025, more than a quarter of Scots rely solely on terrestrial television, with no other means available to them. The figure goes as high as almost 50% in Northern Ireland. It is thought that across the United Kingdom there remains a socioeconomic aspect to this that Ministers will need to consider, with the percentage of those without access to the internet being over seven times as high in our most deprived areas than in our most affluent. Reliance on the internet in a world without terrestrial television would be hugely significant. We know that there are still gaps in progress, that almost one in five people uses the internet solely via a smartphone and that our elderly population, particularly in rural areas, feels digitally excluded. In the town of Shotts, the villages of Salsburgh and Harthill, and the villages that surround Airdrie, the elderly population in those villages still relies on terrestrial television for the news, weather and entertainment. Although I share the Government’s ambition for a modern, vibrant and digital society, I question whether a service with such significant reach and reliability needs to be taken away before the 2040s.
I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale for securing this debate and look forward to the Minister’s response. Terrestrial television has great value and impressive reach, and provides a safety net where there is a risk of gaps in internet provision. We can be a modern society that embraces technological advancement and change, while also protecting the sort of provision that has served and continues to serve us well.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Supporters of the switch-off argue that most homes will have gigabit broadband by the 2030s, but of course theoretical access does not guarantee adoption by households.
Around 13 million to 19 million adults are estimated to be living in digital poverty, and the switchover risks pushing more households into such poverty. We know that it is not just older people and people living in rural communities who do not have or will not be able to access digital television. We also know that one in five children is affected by digital poverty, which can have a huge impact on their educational outcomes. So I really am concerned that the proposed switch-off risks extending the digital divide, with unequal access to entertainment and educational resources, as well as to unbiased news.
We need to be clear about the cost of the switchover. Terrestrial television currently accounts for just 3% of the licence fee. By contrast, switching entirely to internet-only delivery could cost £2.1 billion up front and £1 billion annually. I want to ask the Minister who is fronting those costs. For the 4.3 million households who rely exclusively on terrestrial TV, it could mean an extra £218 per year simply to access content that today is free to air. All this comes at a time when one in four households already struggles to afford their communication services, and when millions have had to cancel broadband contracts to make ends meet during the cost of living crisis. Once again, the switchover has risks.
I think we can all agree that in the current world, terrestrial TV has an important role as a trusted source of information. Research shows that 96% of people trust the information that they receive on terrestrial TV. In this age of misinformation, that is not a luxury; it is a necessity in a healthy democracy and civic society. Broadcast television is a shared civic space where the nation comes together, whether it is for the coronation, the Olympics, the “Gavin and Stacey” finale or the women’s Euros, which reached more than 22 million on the BBC alone.
Terrestrial broadcasting is not just about culture. It underpins our critical national infrastructure, supporting radio, emergency alerts and communication during crises. Are we comfortable discarding such resilience in our world, which is sadly encountering growing global instability and increasing informational interference from hostile foreign Governments?
I am not arguing against digital innovation. Streaming offers flexibility and choice for those who can afford it, but it needs to complement, not replace, terrestrial broadcasting. That is why Ofcom has recommended a hybrid model combining digital, terrestrial and IPTV to give guaranteed universality and resilience. I ask the Minister: who will bear the burden of the annual cost of switching off terrestrial television? Will it be taxpayers, the vulnerable or both? How will the Government preserve emergency broadcasting if the network is dismantled? Does the Minister acknowledge that abandoning terrestrial TV risks widening the digital divide, raising household costs and potentially weakening our national resilience?
Terrestrial television remains one of the last universal and accessible public services, and we should not dismantle that before every household has a real, affordable alternative.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate. Early in my career, prior to my election here, I spent 15 years working at the BBC, so I remember well the UK digital-terrestrial switchover campaign that the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) referenced.
I want to make a couple of points about terrestrial television. It is not just about broadcast infrastructure, but much more. Terrestrial TV is about the scheduling of programming, content curation and providing a service that opens audiences to new experiences. It offers choices and access to material that viewers otherwise might not see. That can be much harder to achieve with streaming services because of the way the algorithm works, which encourages people to binge watch content similar to what they had been watching before. We can see some efforts by the public service broadcasters—PSBs—in their online offering to try to address and match the similarity of terrestrial television and its experience.
In conclusion, the future of terrestrial television is about much more than the delivery mechanism. It is important that we remember that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing today’s debate on this issue. It is right to start this conversation, which needs to be heard. I will follow what others who wish to see terrestrial TV retained have said—with one exception, but I do not think they are really against us. The future of TV is ever advancing, with countless new streaming services available each year, but it is important we remember the Freeview channels that are already available. Millions of people still take advantage of them on a daily basis.
Terrestrial television offers free access with no multi-subscription fees and wide channel availability for so many. For the United Kingdom, it also offers local and regional channels and homegrown programmes. I love the ones that they do back home because they go into some of the rural areas that people do not often hear about or see. I love those programmes. I understand “Mahon’s Way” is coming to Ballywalter, which we will get to explore. I want to see what he has got to say about it. When it comes to the local news headlines, it also requires no internet and no broadband, so it is an ideal option for low broadband areas.
There is no doubt that there is uncertainty over the future of the BBC. It is clear that more people are becoming opposed to the drastic TV licence payments. Perhaps the BBC could look at other Freeview channels that make money through advertising. That could give the likes of pensioners that little bit extra in their pocket.
There are millions of people across this United Kingdom who use streaming services such as Netflix, Disney Plus and Paramount+ to watch films and series, but I must admit that, in my home, it is my wife, my children and I suspect my grandchildren who have the knowledge of how it works. I could not say how it works at all. Maybe that is just me being old fashioned. Maybe I never caught up. Whatever the reason, I do not use them, even though everybody else does. I want to speak for those who do not and those who do not have that opportunity.
I know that there are many like me who take advantage of these TV services every day. My brother Keith had a serious road accident some 20 years ago, which left him with mental issues and unable to do things. The carers come in four times a day, and he has the ability to interact, but for him the TV is the No.1 subject matter in that house, because of his disabilities. It is so important not only to him but to other disabled people. For elderly and vulnerable people, if they did not have their TV—and let’s be honest, their wee dog or their cat—they probably would not have very much. The TV is so important, so I want to speak up for those in rural areas and communities and older viewers to ensure that public broadcasting remains as accessible as possible.
I note how much these main channels contribute to daily life. I often reflect on my family being glued to the news on the BBC or ITV, with news of the Queen and her passing or a royal wedding. Those channels are pillars, providing breakfast news, breaking news and news that is important to us, which not everyone has access to on social media. They should be protected and preserved to that extent.
Technological advancement is wonderful in society—so many take advantage of it—but we must not ever forget the services that are available to us on terrestrial TV. We must also protect that. I look to the Minister for a commitment to deliver just that.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
I entirely agree that we must do all we can to protect digital terrestrial television for as long as it is needed. As a former radio presenter, I would argue that free radio could do with the same future protection. Colleagues have rightly made the case for the broadcasting medium; I want to make the case for the retailers, the engineers and the aerial installers—the people who deliver, set up and explain.
My family has been in that line of work for nearly a century. My brother Michael runs Radio Music Store in Bannockburn, helped by Pam and Logan. He took over from our father, who retired last year. My father took over from his father in the ’70s, and my grandfather started the business in 1932, five years after the first BBC radio broadcasts came to Scotland. The store rented out its first television set in time for the very first TV broadcast in Scotland in March 1952. It was 7.30 pm, and people crowded around small, low-resolution screens to watch pictures of this place—the Houses of Parliament—and the River Thames, which were the first things to be seen. Only 2,730 television licences had been issued in Scotland at the time.
By the 1980s, when I was a teenager helping out in the school holidays, televisions were everywhere. Rental remained popular because sets were costly and the analogue technology was forever blowing valves, tubes and circuits. But every town had engineers who could repair them. Most shops had backrooms that looked like laboratories, with people soldering components and bringing sets back to life. It was a skilled trade, common across the United Kingdom. Most of the businesses were small, family-run shops. Many were part of the Radio, Electrical and Television Retailers Association. Some were larger chains, but most were independents, rooted in their communities. Those communities were stronger for their presence.
Today it is a different picture. Fewer retailers cover larger areas. Many are part of Euronics, a co-operative of independent retailers, my brother’s store among them. They are still embedded in their towns, but fewer in number and serving much larger areas. It is one thing to support the continued broadcasting of terrestrial signals, but what use is that if people cannot get hold of a television? What use is that if nobody is available to realign their aerial after a winter storm? What use is that if manufacturers insist a new set cannot be set up without connecting it to the internet first?
My grandfather would have been horrified at how easily televisions worth hundreds of pounds are written off for want of a 50p fuse. Once upon a time, engineers repaired components. Now entire circuit boards are thrown away, as often are the televisions that they are in. Right-to-repair legislation has gone some way to address this, but where once we had a network of engineers in most towns making a living, now we have a handful of larger companies in urban areas and a patchwork of volunteer-run repair cafes. This is not just about nostalgia for a golden age of repair shops. It is about resilience. It is about making sure that older people, rural households and those without reliable broadband are not left behind. It is about ensuring that communities from Bannockburn to Bolton have someone nearby who can get them connected again when their set goes dark.
Yes, let us protect terrestrial television broadcasting. But let us also support the ecosystem that makes it receivable: the shops, the engineers, the local support and the skills. Let us recognise that broadcasting also means receiving, and there are a lot of people needed to ensure that reception continues. Finally, a plea: shop local when you can because, like so much of the high street, you will miss it most when you need it and it is not there.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Before we come to the Front Bench contributions, we are due to finish at 4.30 pm. While there has not been a Division called yet, there is the potential of up to three votes in the main Chamber. If that happens, I will have to suspend for the duration of those three votes. I point that out to the Front Bench spokespersons before they start their wind-up speeches.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate.
Who can forget the historic moments that we saw on terrestrial television? We watched the fall of the Berlin wall, and the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana. We watched Gazza’s tears. We watched the moon landings. And we watched Del Boy fall through the bar on “Only Fools and Horses”. Such history.
Terrestrial television is a technology that has changed our experience of the world around us in our own living rooms. That is something very special. Despite the pace of technological change, terrestrial television remains the window to the wider world for so many people. It is a means of staying connected to news and culture. It is companionship, particularly for those who live alone. At its best, television is a source of national unity, whether during a royal wedding or on those occasions when our national sports teams do well.
We must, therefore, ensure that Britain’s broadcasting infrastructure is fit for purpose. As things stand, that is not guaranteed for too many households after the switch-off. Around 17% of British households—nearly one in five—still rely on digital terrestrial television, known as Freeview. Those households are disproportionately on lower incomes and disproportionately live in the north of England, in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland—all nations and regions represented in this debate. They are more likely to be older, disabled, living alone and female. That sets the context for the challenge that faces us and the Government. These are the people who risk being left behind if Freeview disappears without a proper plan for what comes next.
Ofcom’s 2024 report on the future of Freeview found that fewer people are watching television via terrestrial platforms. That is no surprise: many of us now almost never switch on to watch shows as they are broadcast, favouring on demand services instead. That trend is expected to accelerate, and the threats to public service broadcasters from many manufacturers’ approach to prominence are now well known and discussed. However, the very same broadcasters that are worried about that also worry about the cost of maintaining distribution infrastructure—much of it, for terrestrial television, dating back decades. We worry that eventually they will conclude that the benefits are outweighed by the costs.
The Ofcom report sets out three broad choices for the Government: invest in a more efficient, leaner Freeview system; reduce Freeview to a smaller, core service; or prepare for a complete switch-off in the 2030s. Further Ofcom research found that fewer than a quarter of participants believed they would struggle if Freeview disappeared—but a quarter is one in four. Instead, the main challenges reported were the financial barriers that other Members have mentioned today, including the hundreds of extra pounds that people have to pay for a good internet connection; the fact that a good internet connection may not even be available in their area; unreliable internet that already exists; and technical difficulties, which are a barrier to older people.
Like any other sector, the television industry must adapt to new technologies. It is already doing so at some pace, and it should be applauded for that. It must also be placed on a sustainable financial footing. However, although the transition will inevitably run at pace, it cannot be allowed to leave the poorest and most vulnerable without a lifeline.
That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must set out a comprehensive plan that ensures that those who are most reliant on Freeview are not left behind. This is not a controversial viewpoint, and it is one that has been expressed by Members across the Chamber today. It means ensuring affordable and accessible alternatives for those who currently rely on Freeview, or an extension of Freeview itself. It means offering practical support to people who may struggle with digital technology. It also means investing in reliable broadband, so that rural and disadvantaged areas are not cut off.
Those steps would ensure that vulnerable people, particularly the elderly and those living alone, continue to have that window to the world, so that they can see the news and weather, watch chat shows and be entertained—perhaps with their dog or cat on their lap, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. These principles are best illustrated by the BBC’s founding mantra: to inform, educate and entertain. Those words must guide us still today, whether or not we like what the BBC does every day.
This debate is not only about profit and financial sustainability, but about the fabric of our society. Disinformation is a real threat to societal cohesion, as we saw last year with the riots in Southport and elsewhere. If barriers to access mean that television ceases to be a shared cultural space, we will all be the poorer for it, particularly if fewer people are able to access reliable news programmes on regulated public service broadcasters.
For British broadcasting to remain a source of connection and pride, as it is in this country, our Government—whichever party is in charge—must not leave households staring at a blank screen. We must invest in a fair transition that safeguards the vulnerable. Television has defined our culture for generations. With careful planning, proper investment and fairness at the heart of what we do, we can ensure a smooth transition that keeps the most vulnerable in our society connected.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I want to begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for bringing us this debate and for speaking so eloquently. It is always good to see colleagues from across the House, particularly my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), contributing to an important discussion like this one on the future of television.
Terrestrial television matters. For generations, it has been one of the few services in public life that, subject only to payment of a licence fee, is free, universal and trusted by the public. Beginning almost a century ago, programmes were broadcast via radio waves through local transmitters to household aerials. Here in Britain, the British Broadcasting Corporation—the BBC—launched regular television services in 1936. Independent Television, or ITV, followed in 1955, breaking the BBC’s monopoly. Channel 4 followed in 1982, as did Channel 5 in 1997.
The commercial sector too has enhanced the choice and diversity available to consumers in recent decades. For more than half a century, free-to-air channels have helped to shape our national culture and to inform our shared experiences. The digital switchover, completed in 2012, expanded choice and picture quality, with terrestrial television remaining a vital, universal service, trusted for news, public service broadcasting and live national moments.
With the simplest of aerials and without any subscription or broadband package, families can switch on their televisions and know that they will find news, culture, sport and drama of the highest quality. That civic reach, as we have heard in this debate, is available to 98.5% of households. The current guarantee, provided by the last Conservative Government, for terrestrial broadcasting runs into the early 2030s.
Decisions will soon need to be taken about what comes next, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale sought this debate. Ofcom and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are considering whether to maintain, reduce or phase out digital terrestrial television—DTT. These are weighty choices, which will have real consequences for households up and down the country.
It is true that viewing habits are changing, and changing rapidly. Already, most households combine terrestrial, satellite and online streaming. According to Ofcom, 94% of households have internet at home, and 85% use video on demand services. It is not just younger people; older people do so too, but younger people are certainly doing it in greater numbers, and they of course will carry forward their viewing habits into the future.
This debate is not about technology in the abstract; it is about people. If terrestrial television were to be withdrawn too hastily, it is clear who would be worst affected: older people who rely on accessible services they are used to; our rural communities; lower-income households, for whom streaming subscriptions are often a stretch too far; and people with certain disabilities who continue to depend on reliable and familiar formats. Those groups are not small in number; indeed, many such people live in my constituency on the east of the Isle of Wight. Those are good examples of groups that could struggle if this is done too early or in the wrong way.
Maintaining the current system for a declining audience will not come for free. There will almost certainly be a need to upgrade transmission equipment by 2034 if DTT continues beyond that date. It will come at a cost to public service broadcasters too, and they may not be willing to bear that indefinitely. Managing the transition into a world without DTT, if that becomes the Government’s final decision, would need very careful planning, communications and support. The successful digital switchover in 2012 demonstrated what can be achieved when change is handled carefully. It was gradual and well supported, and no household was left behind. That must remain the principle today: whatever the future holds, nobody should be excluded.
This debate is not about nostalgia for the past, but about fairness, resilience and continuity. It is about ensuring that the march of technology does not leave anyone behind, and about giving broadcasters and audiences alike the reassurance that free-to-air television, in whatever form it takes, will continue to serve the whole nation. I would also urge the Government and public service broadcasters to ensure that in the internet protocol television world, when it comes, their content is made as freely available as possible on as many platforms as possible. There should be no walled gardens.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate on the future of terrestrial television. It is really welcome.
I will start by highlighting the important role that television still plays in our society. It is one of the most powerful and accessible ways to inform, entertain and bring people together across the UK. Whether they are global moments like the world cup and the Olympics, or the King’s speech on Christmas day—or indeed, as has been mentioned, “Gavin and Stacey” on Christmas day—or one of my favourite programmes, “Only Fools and Horses”, mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), these moments bring us together. They create shared cultural experiences. Television has the power to unite across generations, communities and nations.
I will of course address some of the points and questions put to me, but first I shall discuss some of the broad issues, and the action that the Government are currently taking. Public service broadcasters, commercial networks and independent producers all contribute to a rich, dynamic television ecosystem that is a huge source of national pride. Audiences can access world-class content that reflects our diverse society and upholds our democratic values. The system also underpins a thriving creative economy, generating thousands of jobs and driving innovation nationwide. It helps tell the story of the four corners of our United Kingdom, to ourselves and the world.
But the way we watch TV is changing rapidly. Over the past decade, we have seen significant shifts in how content is delivered and consumed. Increasing numbers of viewers are moving to internet-based platforms, both for on demand content and, increasingly, for live programming. That shift is being driven by viewers themselves. Ofcom data shows that over two thirds of UK households now use subscription video on demand services, which is a huge leap from just one in seven in 2014. However we access television in the future, it is clear that TV over the internet is increasingly playing a central role. As such developments gather pace, we must not lose sight of those who still rely on digital terrestrial television as their main way of watching TV. That is especially true for people without access to fast, reliable broadband, as has been discussed in this debate. That is why the DCMS is leading a major project on the future of TV distribution. As technology and viewing habits evolve, that project enables us to take clear evidence-based action with a strong commitment to universal TV access. I will outline the work of the forum in a moment.
Support for public service broadcasters is important as part of a diverse mix alongside commercial broadcasters and streamers. They must be able to innovate and thrive in a changing market. I heard that at first hand when I visited STV in Glasgow last week. I take this opportunity to acknowledge that ITV will turn 70 next week. I congratulate it on that anniversary. As media Minister, I have been pleased to work with and visit our PSBs including, of course, the BBC, S4C, Channel 4 and Channel 5.
Equally, infrastructure providers require certainty to make the long-term investments needed for digital terrestrial and internet TV. I heard that at first hand when I visited the Emley Moor mast with Arqiva a few years ago. It is a Yorkshire landmark just up the road from my Barnsley constituency.
As has been mentioned, DTT is guaranteed until at least 2034. Before making any decisions, we will carefully consider the challenges for public service broadcasters and, importantly, the impact on loyal daily viewers, especially those who rely on digital terrestrial services. Broadcasters want to focus their spending on content that truly reaches audiences. However, as digital terrestrial TV audiences fall, the cost per viewer rises, making it harder for channels, big or small, to sustain distribution.
I would like to directly address the issue put to me by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and others of why the Government do not simply commit to extending the licences past 2034. The cost of DTT to the PSBs is substantial. As fewer people rely on DTT, the cost per house is going up and will continue to do so. I am aware from my visits and meetings with providers that as part of the network reaches the end of life, investment would be needed to carry on even the current services. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), a former media Minister, referred to that tipping point. I say that while very clearly saying that no decisions have been made; these are complex issues.
We must ensure that the system remains viable so that audiences can continue to access a diverse and vibrant range of channels. Ofcom’s recent review of public service media made it clear: this is not just about how we watch TV; it is about the future of the UK’s cultural identity, creative economy and democratic life. That is why early strategic planning is essential and why DCMS has made that a priority. Of course, we need to bring that decision together with the BBC charter, ensuring that the BBC continues to provide universal services in a way that is sustainable for the long term.
TV distribution is a complex challenge with no easy answers. We are carefully assessing the costs and trade-offs of different distribution methods to make an informed, sustainable decision, ensuring that key stakeholders and robust evidence are involved in every step of the process. We also recognise that any decision on the future of TV distribution should encourage a competitive TV sector for public sector broadcasters and commercial channels and that the distribution method should, within reason, allow for any channel to be shown. There should not be an industry gatekeeper.
The Media Act 2024, which I and the right hon. Member for Maldon spent many hours in Committee discussing, was a major step forward. It ensures that public service broadcasters get the visibility they deserve on platforms via the internet, making it easier for audiences to find trusted, high-quality content in a crowded digital world.
I acknowledge the concerns about what a shift to internet-based TV might mean for audiences. I heard the issues and concerns that Members raised today. We know that there are groups of people who are more likely to be digitally excluded. They are often older, living in rural areas, more likely to be on lower incomes or living alone, or they may have a disability. Those are the people who rely most on television, not just for news and entertainment, but for connection and companionship.
Around 4.5 million households still face real barriers to accessing TV over the internet, whether due to a lack of broadband, unconnected TVs, or a preference for traditional linear viewing. To understand those challenges, we commissioned researchers who spoke directly with a representative range of viewers across demographic groups, from DTT-only users to hybrid users, who use both DTT and IPTV, and full internet TV adopters. Building on the University of Exeter’s research, this in-depth work shows that many are interested in IPTV once they understand it better, but concerns remain about cost, internet reliability and technical confidence, even among those with broadband. We are using those insights to understand how different groups are affected and to explore what the Government and industry can do to support fair and inclusive access to television.
Digital inclusion remains a top priority for the Government. It is essential for unlocking long-term economic growth and is being led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The DSIT-led Project Gigabit, the Government’s programme to enable hard-to-reach communities to access lightning-fast gigabit-capable broadband, is key to ensuring fair and inclusive access for all.
I want to answer some of the other points. Ofcom noted the importance of any decision, but it has not made a recommendation. It is part of our TV forum. DCMS is doing a full assessment of the costs of all the options, informed by our work with the stakeholder forum. We will publish that assessment when a decision is made.
Experts are at the centre of our work on the future of TV distribution. Our stakeholder forum brings together Ofcom, industry and audience representatives in a co-ordinated effort to explore the future of television delivery. It provides the space to identify challenges, discuss potential solutions and make real progress in shaping policy.
Running for at least 12 months, the forum meets quarterly, having already held four sessions with a final meeting planned for November. To support it, we have established three working groups, each focusing on a core part of the landscape: the TV sector, the infrastructure that underpins it, and the audience perspective. Together, these groups ensure that we are looking at the full picture—technical, commercial and, most importantly, viewers.
Membership spans the entire TV distribution ecosystem, from major broadcasters and infrastructure providers to trade bodies, advocacy groups and sector experts from across the UK. It includes organisations that represent people most likely to be unconnected or digitally excluded, such as the Digital Poverty Alliance, the Rural Services Network, Good Things Foundation and Silver Voices. This approach is producing a rich evidence base.
The forum plays a vital role in helping DCMS to test assumptions, understand practical implementation challenges and assess the technical feasibility of different approaches. It is not expected to reach a single view, but it will help to build consensus around the viable options and the evidence behind them before the Government make any decision. I am committed to transparency in this area: we will publish papers from this forum, set out clearly the evidence we have collected, and consult further ahead of any decision. Before any possible change, Parliament would be fully engaged and involved in any legislative process.
Let me close by reaffirming the Government’s strong commitment to a future for TV that is sustainable, innovative and inclusive; a future that supports our creative economy, protects access for every viewer, and encourages our broadcasters and platforms to keep creating world-class content for audiences here and around the world.
We also know this is not an easy decision. The choices ahead are complex and must be guided by evidence, and that is why we are taking the time to get them right, drawing on data, research and the views of people across the sector and across the country. We know this work cannot happen in isolation; it is a joint effort that requires extensive collaboration across Government, industry and audience groups—one that balances expertise and lived experience, that listens as much as it leads, and that keeps our clear commitment that no one gets left behind. As we look to the future, we must ensure that our television sector remains a cornerstone of British life: accessible to everyone, rich in diversity and confident in its place on the global stage.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
We are about to vote, so I would like to put the question as soon as we can, but it is up to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell).
David Mundell
I commit to concluding my remarks when the bell tolls.
I particularly thank the Minister for getting in a very full response before we have to conclude proceedings. It was very telling that when she read out the research that has been conducted, it was entirely in tune with what hon. Members had been saying throughout the debate—about the vulnerable, those who are remote and rural, and those who do not have good access to broadband.
While I would never want to characterise my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) as a member of the media elite, and I am sure that Sky Glass is an excellent product, I must point out that many of my constituents are unable, either practically or financially, to access it. That is very much what this debate is about: we have to focus on the people who are not in a position to do that.
The Minister can look back at the digital switchover, which was trialled in my own constituency a long time ago —the first switchover took place there. People who switched from analogue to digital were not then asked to pay a broadband subscription. The television service that they had was essentially changed, but they were not asked to pay anything for that to happen. Although the exercise was well managed, the analogy is not quite complete.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was actually the case that they were required to pay something. They had to purchase a set-top box, but the Government offered support to those who could not afford one. Perhaps that is an analogy we can follow in the future.
David Mundell
Well, we could go into the detail, because not everybody required a set-top box, but we are not going down that route. What we can agree is that, when that change was made, there was a huge intervention to allow it to take place smoothly.
I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) emphasised how much television helps wellbeing and reduces loneliness. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) hit the nail on the head when she said that for many people, the television in the corner is a companion. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made very good points about the infrastructure behind television services and supporting local retailers.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) set out the practical issues in relation to the transmitter network. I have seen the transmitter in his constituency many times—it is often a beacon on a dark night in central Scotland—and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to visit it. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) set out many of the same issues as I face in my large rural constituency. We must keep our focus on the people living in such areas.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) asked very clearly, “Who is going to pay for the switchover?” That, too, is very important. The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), bringing to bear his experience, made really important points, particularly about scheduling and all the things that terrestrial television brings as the core of the network.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Is the right hon. Member happy for me to put the Question, because a vote is about to be held?
David Mundell
Well, I would not want to leave without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his important contribution. Thank you, Mr Twigg.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.