Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

1. What steps she is taking to ensure the provision of adequate funding for pupils to study the International Baccalaureate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

Funded institutions for those aged 16 to 19 have the freedom to decide how to use their funding for the provision they offer, including whether they offer the international baccalaureate.

[Alison Bennett]

Varndean sixth-form college in Brighton is the only state-funded IB provider in Sussex. It has warned that, without the large programme uplift, the IB will become financially unviable. Many Mid Sussex students have gone on from Varndean to study engineering, medicine and maths at leading universities. Does the Minister think it right that this world-class qualification becomes available only in the private sector, entrenching a two-tier education system? Will he meet me and Varndean students to discuss the benefits of the IB for state-educated pupils and why this decision must be reversed?

[Josh MacAlister]

The Government made big decisions at the spending review to increase the overall funding available to 16-to-19 courses. Next financial year, there will be an increase of over £800 million. That means that per-pupil funding is going up substantially. The large programme uplift sits on top of that, and the Government have made the decision to prioritise the large programme uplift for students doing multiple A-levels in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. We still support the international baccalaureate and recognise it as a programme that can work for many students.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

Parents do everything for their children, especially when they have special needs. That is why I am fed up with the demonisation of parents. They are blamed for gaming the system, for having failed as parents, for being too soft, for not putting in boundaries, for bothering overstretched teachers; they are blamed for going private, but also for costing the state too much money. The crisis in SEND is not the fault of parents. As Catherine, a Mid Sussex parent, said to me:

“They need to see what it is like for parents twenty-four hours a day whose children are at a mainstream school that does not have the SEND facilities and teachers that it needs to meet the demands of its pupils. Teachers have enough to do. Why would any parent try to play the system for SEND, when it’s so much paperwork and time? You just would not do it.”

Please let us listen to the voices of the parents who gathered outside earlier today. They know their children, they know what they need, and they know that the current system is failing not only their children but society at large.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Lewell. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank hon. Members who supported my application.

The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund has, since 2015, been a lifeline for families who are raising children who have endured immense hardship and trauma. I welcome the announcement this morning—nicely timed for this debate—that the fund will continue into the next financial year, giving families and providers a little more of a chance to plan and deliver therapy. It is also good news that the Department plans to engage with providers and families during the reform process. That shows that the campaigning of colleagues, families and providers—including those in the Public Gallery for this debate—makes a difference, and shows that we cannot stop now.

But while the extension is welcome, it does not properly address any of the fundamental issues that exist as a result of the cuts announced in April, such as the significant decrease in per child funding, or the lack of a long-term settlement for the fund. The fund was designed to provide children with the therapeutic support that they need to recover from trauma, neglect and abuse. It has enabled outstanding providers, such as Beacon House and Jigsaw in my constituency of Mid Sussex, to deliver life-changing therapy to vulnerable children. The fund also provides vital support to parents such as Rachel, who is here today and who speaks so powerfully about the importance of the fund and the irreversible damage its withdrawal does.

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

I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this specific issue, on behalf of us all. Providers such as Beacon House, which also serves my constituency, have been clear that proper assessments are essential; they are not optional extras. Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting funding for those specialist assessments means that therapy risks starting without the foundations needed for long-term healing, which is both clinically unsafe and deeply unfair to the families involved?

[Alison Bennett]

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. She is absolutely right. I will address her point in due course.

When I saw Rachel this morning and told her about the one-year renewal of the fund, she told me that she had come out in goosebumps as a result. That is how much this fund matters to adoptive families. I have seen for myself the difference that the fund makes. One parent told me that her gratitude for the ASGSF was immeasurable, and that she would never have been able to be an adoptive parent today without it. She spoke about two professionals whose

“deep understanding, profound compassion and reflective empathy”

had supported her and her children through multiple crises and out the other side. Such stories are not rare. Every year, Adoption UK’s adoption barometer shows consistent results: 85% of families who access the fund say that it makes a positive impact; 94% say that they would use it again. So, yes, it was a relief in April when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) secured a commitment from the Minister that the fund would continue, but that relief came only after weeks of absolutely unnecessary anxiety. Families were left in limbo, and providers unsure if they could keep going. Even now, huge problems and unanswered questions remain. The profound concern that I am hearing from families, therapists and charities working with adoptive and kinship families is about whether the Government are going to learn from the shambles of the spring and not repeat those mistakes.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. In my constituency of Surrey Heath, my constituent Matt and his husband adopted their son in 2023. He is a child who had already endured appalling trauma in the past. This fund has enabled Matt and his son to seek the therapy they needed from the Cherrycroft practice in the village of Bagshot. Does she agree that—despite the one-year reprieve—without long-term sustainable funding and guarantees, sustainable therapies will not be available in the long term, and that we will also risk putting people off the act of adoption all together?

[Alison Bennett]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an excellent point. A lack of long-term funding will put people off adopting children or taking children into kinship care. It also risks putting providers off providing support.

Ministers have insisted that the fund has not been cut, but that is because the overall pot has remained unchanged. For children and families, however, the reality is very different. Individual allowances have been reduced. The per-child therapy limit has been slashed from £5,000 to £3,000, which is a 40% cut, and the separate £2,500 allowance for assessments has gone. Match funding for complex cases has ended.

Families now face impossible choices; they can have therapy or assessment, but not both. One provider put it bluntly, saying:

“It’s like asking a garage to fix a car without first checking what the problem is.”

This situation is a waste of time and money, and the consequences are already being felt. Children have had their therapy stopped abruptly while applications were resubmitted. Families have endured months-long gaps without support. Parents describe sharp declines in mental health, rising violence in the home, and children losing trust in professionals. One provider told me of a young child who was heartbroken to learn that their therapy was ending. They asked:

“If I save up my pocket money, can I keep seeing you?”

That question should haunt us all; it certainly haunts me. It shows just how fragile trust is for children whose lives have already been shattered by trauma, and whose early years have been defined not by making the secure attachments that are so important for getting the right start in life. Relationships are everything; to pull away support is profoundly damaging.

The data backs that up. This year’s adoption barometer found that 42% of families reached crisis point in 2024; 77% said that it feels like a continual struggle to get the help their child needs; and 65% experience violent or aggressive behaviour from their child. I know that there are parents behind me in the Public Gallery who have experienced violence from their children this very week. And in Kinship’s 2024 survey, more than one in eight kinship carers expressed the fear that they might not be able to continue caring for their children.

Meanwhile, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy has warned that these 40% cuts per child will have a

“negative and long-lasting impact.”

That seems to be putting it mildly. Families, providers, experts and children themselves all say the same thing—these cuts are devastating. It is not just the children and their families who will pay the price; the Treasury will, too. There will be placement breakdowns, more children in care, more exclusions, more antisocial behaviour and more long-term damage. All these things cost the state money. The cost of withdrawing support is far higher than the cost of sustaining it.

On top of the cuts there is the uncertainty, even with the extension announced today. Providers cannot plan and families are turned away. Experienced therapists have warned me that that will

“replicate the cycle of deprivation and abuse”

that these children have already suffered. What message do we send if we withdraw the one source of essential therapeutic support that children and families rely on?

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for the passion with which she speaks about this subject.

I wanted to raise the case of my constituent, Jean, an adoptive mother who cared for a son who has foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and developmental trauma. I wanted to raise her case because, very sadly, Jean has died. Before she died, she had managed to arrange long-term support for her son. She obviously does not know it, but her son will lose that support in a year’s time. My question, on behalf of Jean and others in a similar situation, is this: what happens to her son, and to children in a similar situation, now?

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend makes a profound contribution about how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. I do not think I have the answers to that question, but I thank him for raising it.

Adoption England has suggested reform to the fund. Devolving it to its regional agencies or local authorities is a possibility, but no consultation has taken place and pilots have not even begun. It would be reckless to make major structural changes before the evidence is in, and it would risk leaving children and families in deeper crisis. That is why we were particularly glad to hear this morning that the Department will engage with families and providers.

Charities such as Adoption UK, the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK, Coram, Kinship, Barnardo’s and the Family Rights Group are calling for urgent action. They are calling for, first, a permanent ringfenced fund; secondly, a comprehensive review of the April changes; thirdly, a full public consultation on any future reforms—the engagement promised must be meaningful; and fourthly, a two-year moratorium on further changes so that reforms can be evidence-based, not rushed. We should be supporting vulnerable children and encouraging adoptive parents to keep doing what they are doing by providing the necessary support for therapy—not least because in 2021 alone adoptive parents saved the UK economy £4.2 billion.

I will end with four questions for the Minister. First, what concrete reassurance can she give children, families and providers about the long-term future of the fund? April’s announcement came too late and caused avoidable harm, and today’s remains short term. Will the Government commit to doing better this time?

Secondly, can the Minister assure us that the equality impact assessment was considered as part of the development process for the changes made to the fund that were announced in April, as per the requirements of the Equality Act 2010? Will she undertake to share the relevant documents to support that?

Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the decision to cut funding available through the ASGSF aligns with the Department’s wider efforts to increase the uptake among eligible kinship families and grow the use of the kinship care arrangements?

Fourthly, will the Minister acknowledge that cutting the support will cost far more—socially, emotionally and financially to the taxpayer—in the years to come? The adoption and special guardianship support fund is a vital lifeline for vulnerable children and their adoptive families. It is not a luxury. The Government must change course.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for the hard work she has undertaken on the Select Committee. She will know that we will deliver on our commitment on mental health support teams in the course of the next few months and years. By 2026, we estimate that 60% of pupils in schools and learners will have access to national health service tests—NHSTs—and I will take her suggestion back to the Department.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Good mental health at school is sometimes bolstered by out-of-school support, especially for the most vulnerable children. Last week, I met Vicky and her team at Jigsaw Occupational Therapy in Burgess Hill, and I spoke to the families they help. Roughly a quarter of their work involved supporting kinship and adopted children and helping them to regulate following profound trauma. Vicky described the impact on their children of the Government’s cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund as “heartbreaking”. Can the Minister offer any words of comfort to Vicky and the families she helps?

[Stephen Morgan]

We are maintaining the support available to children to ensure that there is reasonable support in place, and providing more funding to local authorities. This Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity so that every child can succeed and thrive, and that is what we are getting on and delivering.

Further Education Institutions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon]

I commend my hon. Friend for being such a champion for Bolsover and wanting to secure opportunities for her constituents to get the education that they deserve. I am sure that the Minister heard her words.

By improving education across the board, including further education, we can increase social mobility and address the stark regional disparities across the UK. Social mobility is a core Labour value.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

rose—

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

Absolutely; it is vital that we get more capital as well as more revenue funding into FE.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I want to mention Haywards Heath college, which closed but was then able to reopen in 2020, thanks to the work of Mid Sussex district council and the previous MP. Does the hon. Lady agree that extending the pupil premium into further education colleges would make their financial sustainability more secure?

SEND Provision: South-east England

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this important debate.

In my constituency of Mid Sussex, families with children who have special educational needs and disabilities are being let down by a broken system that is exhausting parents, bankrupting councils and demoralising teachers. We have heard rumours of changes coming to the SEND system, but let us be clear: if we have learned one thing from how the welfare Bill was handled, it is that what politicians call rolling the pitch causes fear, confusion and anxiety for those who may be impacted.

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

I sure that, like me, the hon. Member has taken up many cases with her local education authority on behalf of parents and children. I have not heard a single parent or child say to me that the current system is working; I keep hearing them say that the system is broken. The Government have been clear that a legal right to additional support for SEND children will be maintained, but that we have to reform the system. Surely she agrees with that?

[Alison Bennett]

I thank the right hon. Member, but there are questions and uncertainty because the future of EHCPs and what may replace them has not been made clear. That is causing genuine concern for campaigners and people who have children with special needs.

In West Sussex, approximately a third of children with an EHCP require transport to and from school. SEND transport is budgeted to cost the county council £31.3 million this year, which is up from £13.5 million five years ago—every year, it spends more than its budget in this area. Managing that provision is hugely complex for councils and requires judgment on the individual needs of a child, including their need for an escort and/or private transport, as well as the individual home-to-school route that they travel. Does the Minister agree that that is one of the less considered pressures on council budgets in relation to SEND provision, particularly in larger, rural county council authorities? Does she also agree that the Government need to consider how to mitigate those costs in any review of SEND provision in order for the reforms to be successful?

The system is not delivering for children, families or local authorities. Any changes must be rooted in children’s rights and common sense, and not in arbitrary cost-cutting exercises. One example that instils hope and sets an example is Woodlands Meed in Burgess Hill, which provides an education for those with special needs. After a decade of delay because of a string of broken promises from the Conservatives on West Sussex county council, years of tireless campaigning by governors, teachers, parents and local Liberal Democrat councillors led to Woodlands Meed finally being completed with the opening last year of the new college building.

I visited the new college site a few months ago, and saw at first hand what a brilliant and inspiring environment it provides. It means that pupils can seamlessly transfer from the school to the college, avoiding the loss of friendships and long journeys to other providers. Prior to that, the school had to make very difficult decisions each year about whether it could continue to meet the needs of the children moving from the school to the college. In some cases, children had to be sent to a school away from their friends and community. That would, for example, affect a child with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who could thrive at the school intellectually but would have to be moved to a site with the hygiene, therapeutic and accessible facilities that they would have needed for their physical disabilities.

The building of a local facility at Burgess Hill saves money in the long term, and provides a better experience for students and families. We need more examples like that, and more fantastic places like Woodlands Meed. Families have waited too long for a system that works, and change is overdue—it is time we delivered that change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

The difference is that we are delivering it to every school in our country to make sure that every child can succeed and thrive.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

My constituent John Clifton chairs the West Sussex Parent Carer Forum. Last week John wrote to me and all West Sussex MPs outlining a number of the forum’s concerns, including the provision of mental health support for children who have special educational needs and are neurodiverse. How will the Minister ensure that the support that will be provided is inclusive for all children, regardless of their needs?

[Stephen Morgan]

The Secretary of State has recently met the parent carer forum to discuss these issues and will continue to do so. We are committed to introducing more mental health support workers across the NHS and creating youth mental health hubs in all communities.

Adoption and Kinship Placements

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

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

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

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

[Alison Bennett]

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

[Janet Daby]

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

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

For clarity, I have not said that we are looking to expand the fund—that is important. However, we are delighted to confirm £50 million for the fund, and it is available to kinship carers as well. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that there is a lot of focus from this Government on kinship care, and I would be happy to fill him in on further details on that.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

In Mid Sussex, Beacon House provides help to so many children. It was led to believe that only a small minority of families were eligible for continued ASGSF funding, but it appears that, in fact, more than half of its service users were eligible. It would have known that had timely and detailed advice from the Government been forthcoming.

We must not forget that at the heart of this are the children and families affected. My constituent Joe has had to explain to their distraught child why their therapy would not continue. As Joe rightly says, this is “cruel”. This is the fourth time I have raised the matter and the urgent need to continue the funding. I welcome today’s decision, but given that the Minister is clearly unable to answer my colleagues’ questions about whether the funding will continue in future years, would she like to apologise on behalf of the Government for the distress caused to those children and families?

[Janet Daby]

We have no intention of ending the funding. What I will say is that we are pleased that we can announce the funding for 2025-26.

Free School Meals

Alison Bennett Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis]

The hon. Lady made an excellent point, and I trust the Minister will address it later in the debate.

One headteacher in my constituency who leads a school of over 600 pupils told me the only way he would be able to resource breakfast clubs is to extend the teachers’ directed time and remove some of the vital continuing professional development interventions and clubs that support disadvantaged pupils. He worries that he will have to cut back on those initiatives to free up time to run breakfast clubs.

Mrs Strong, headteacher at Chander’s Ford infant school, told me that, although the cost of school meals has increased, the funding schools receive has not kept pace.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes a point that I want to draw out. Gattons infant school in Burgess Hill in my constituency is paid £2.53 per meal, but the caterers charge it £3.15 per meal, so there is a shortfall of 62p per meal per child per day, which amounts to £7,839 over a year. Added to that, the caterers now charge the school an additional £2,000 per year to take away all the waste from the meals. That is a colossal amount of money for a small infant school to sustain. Does my hon. Friend agree that schools should be compensated for the true cost of free school meals?

[Liz Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Schools are now being forced to subsidise meals from their already overstretched budgets, which takes away from vital resources such as staff salaries and school supplies.

For Chander’s Ford infant school, the cost of providing meals now exceeds Government funding by £1.11 per meal, forcing it to find another £31,468 out of its budget for the financial year. Schools should not be forced to cut services or make tough decisions to cover the cost of meals that should be fully funded.