Foster Carers: Allowances and Tax Arrangements

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 625515 relating to allowances and tax arrangements for foster carers.

This e-petition asks the UK Government to review and increase both the allowances paid to foster carers and foster carers’ tax exemption levels, so that they can reflect the true cost of caring for a child. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I appreciate that we are a little light on numbers attending, because of the seriousness of events in the main Chamber, but I hope that I can do justice to this case.

I am also delighted to be leading this most important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, because the work of foster carers, and the full costs of caring for a child in foster care so that they can thrive—not just survive—have for too long been given neither enough attention nor the deserved recognition. I must admit that this is the kind of profession that I personally would be terrified to even begin to enter into, and my gratitude goes out to the people who take it on.

The issues raised in the petition have several complex aspects that I will come on to, but let us start at the beginning. The petition came about because of the results of the 2022 cost of living survey carried out by FosterTalk, which is

“the Centre of Excellence UK for the Martin James Foundation”

and has for two decades been supporting those who care. The response to the survey was the largest for all surveys launched by FosterTalk to date, and its findings were stark.

The headline figures were that because of financial pressures, 43% of carers may leave fostering in the next two years; 56% of carers had not received an uplift in allowances over the previous six to 12 months; 90% of those who had felt that it did not cover the cost of caring for a child under the rising cost of living; 38% of carers had experienced mental health issues due to the cost of living crisis; and 92% of carers felt financially worse off compared with the previous year. Those are stark findings.

Of course, behind the headline figures are people—dedicated, compassionate and vulnerable people who care and are cared for—and their individual stories. The headline figures do not demonstrate the main consequential impacts, which are that more foster carers are leaving the role than joining and that the numbers are declining against a backdrop of record numbers of children who need foster carers. That is borne out by statistics published in November last year by Ofsted in relation to fostering in England, which revealed that significantly more foster carers had chosen to leave the role in 2023 compared with the number joining.

Sarah Thomas, chief executive of the Fostering Network, the leading organisation for foster care, has said that

“the Ofsted data shows the immense pressure the fostering system is under—and there simply aren’t enough foster carers to meet the rising number of children coming into care.

For the second year in a row we are seeing a net decrease in the number of foster carers available…Recruitment of foster carers is the most crucial issue facing fostering services across”

the UK. The Fostering Network is

“calling for a UK-wide strategy to address…the urgent need to”

both

“recruit and retain foster carers”,

because the indication is that

“these annual losses will continue unless urgent action of a much greater scale is taken.”

The Fostering Network is not alone in that opinion. The vice-chair of the Martin James Foundation, Daniel Croft, who was recently awarded an MBE for his services to fostering, has said that

“current financial pressures on our foster carers have never been greater and if we do not act, we are at risk of losing the largest dedicated workforce for children in the U.K.”

We simply cannot allow that to happen, so let us examine the hurdles that must be overcome—and how they can be overcome—to prevent a worsening of the existential crisis in fostering by effecting urgent action on a much greater scale.

As a lay person to the foster care debate, ahead of this debate I met experts from FosterTalk, the Fostering Network and CoramBAAF, the UK’s leading membership organisation for professionals working across adoption, fostering and kinship care. Those experts repeatedly highlighted similar complex aspects, and I want to raise the allowances paid to foster carers—foremost, the inconsistency of how national minimum allowances are applied.

The national minimum allowances for foster carers are set by each of the UK Governments. They vary depending on where the foster carer lives and the age of the child they care for. Notably, Scotland was late to the table and introduced national minimum allowances only in August last year—I will say more about that shortly. I can understand that the different age bands of children is relevant. Babies, for example, have different needs from teenagers. Historically, social security allowances for children recognised that and the Fostering Network continues to broadly follow that model. However, varying amounts according to where someone lives is something that I cannot understand. It is a classic example of an extremely unfair postcode lottery.

According to the most recent weekly fostering allowances report for the financial year 2023-24 that the Fostering Network published last September, children’s experiences of the application of allowances, even within the same nation and for the same age bracket, is far from consistent. For example, allowances paid in respect of children four years and under in Wales varies between local authorities by up to £43.96 per week; and in England, it varies by up to £92.34 per week, equating to an astonishing maximum difference of £4,801.68 each year.

In Scotland, the same allowance varied by up to £89.24 a week. However, as I have mentioned, I am pleased that the Scottish Government recognised this inequality and introduced, for the first time, a set rate that all local authorities must pay for foster and kinship carers. I hope that that move will reduce the future level of variance in Scotland. The new Scottish-recommended allowance was backdated to 1 April 2023 and has benefited more than 9,000 children. If local authorities in Scotland happened to be paying above the recommended allowance, the higher amount stayed in payment so that no one was worse off because of that commitment.

The Fostering Network welcomed that positive move. None the less, it has calculated that the allowance levels across all four nations still fall short of the true cost of caring for a child in foster care. The example I gave of allowances paid in respect of children who are four years and under is by no means the worst. The difference in allowances paid in respect of children between the ages of 11 and 15 in England amounts to a whopping £8,470.80 over the 2023-24 financial year. Additionally, in England, there are different minimum weekly allowances set, depending on whether someone lives in London, the south-east or the rest of England.

Notably, Northern Ireland is the only nation where all trust foster carers, including kinship carers, receive the same rate of allowances to cover the cost of caring for a child in foster care. I commend Northern Ireland for its consistent approach, which is administered by a central service, not local authorities. Unfortunately, however, Northern Ireland’s national minimum allowance is the lowest paid across all the UK nations.

On top of the inconsistency of how national minimum allowances are applied, there is also the disparity of whether additional allowances are paid to foster carers. These can be provided for things such as holidays, religious festivals, birthdays, school uniforms, an initial stock of clothing and mileage to fuel mum or dad’s taxi. We all know that those things can have an added pressure on household finances at the best of times, let alone during a cost of living crisis. Indeed, one carer who voiced concerns in FosterTalk’s cost of living survey said:

“I worry that energy, fuel and food prices will keep going up and we get more strike action, more disruption and it all impacts negatively on our foster children who already have had too much worry and negativity in their lives.”

That strikes at the heart of the problem. The inequality created by the current system for children in foster care means that some are not being given the opportunities to recover from the upheavals that they have experienced, to enable them to go on to achieve their aspirations.

A significant number of the local authorities that completed freedom of information requests that informed the Fostering Network’s most recent report on weekly fostering allowances stated that everything is included in the national minimum allowance. How can it be fair that a child can benefit from an additional allowance in one local authority when another child in exactly the same circumstances in a neighbouring local authority cannot? I have even heard anecdotal evidence of foster carers moving between local authorities so that children in their care can benefit from more generous allowances.

Additionally, different local authorities offer different discounts on rates of council tax to foster carers, ranging from zero to 100%. It is utterly unjust. On what level is it acceptable that 3% of those who responded to FosterTalk’s cost of living survey had used a food bank to support their family? Now, 3% might not seem like a lot, but that amounts to 130 families who took the survey and who have taken on the responsibilities that lie with their local authority to care for and nurture those children. Remember, too, that the 3% is from the 4,349 foster carer respondents, which does not account for the wider expanse of fostering households, of which there are 43,405 in England alone, as at the end of March 2023. A reasonable appraisal is therefore that the number of families having to use a food bank could be increased, perhaps tenfold. No wonder the number of foster carers is declining.

The Fostering Network has proposed a fairer funding framework for foster carers that is simplified as well as consistent. Taking account of Loughborough University’s minimum income standard for the UK and of Nina Oldfield’s “The Adequacy of Foster Carer Allowances”, which identifies the additional costs of caring for a child in foster care, the Fostering Network collaborated with Pro Bono Economics to calculate suggested rates of foster care allowances that

“include funds to enable foster families to save for birthdays, holidays and cultural or religious festival payments with the intention that foster carers can control and spend these additional funds as they see fit.”

That is a sensible proposal to eradicate the inequality that the system creates.

Another inequality in the system is that there is no national minimum allowance for young people aged 18 years and over to remain living in their foster family environment until they are ready to live independently. According to the most recent fostering allowances report, the difference in allowances paid to the 18-plus group across the UK nations is the most extreme, amounting to a staggering sum of £12,044 annually. That deficiency must be addressed, as young people’s needs do not stop because they turn 18.

The Fostering Network’s suggested rates of foster care allowances were underpinned by the principles of being child-centred, efficient—as well as sufficient—trusting, aspirational and, last but not least, consistent. Those seem to me to be quality principles. Will the Minister consider the Fostering Network’s recommended rates so that the full cost of caring for a child is covered? Will he look at addressing the needs of young people who turn 18 so that the best outcomes for care leavers are enabled? Will he also advise if the routine uplift to the national minimum allowances is ringfenced?

I must make one final and important point: the disparities that have been highlighted today would not have come to light without the monitoring that is carried out by the Fostering Network every year, and I thank it and FosterTalk for making today’s debate possible. I also thank both organisations for taking time away from their important work to meet me.

The Fostering Network, however, can only obtain information through freedom of information requests to local authorities because they are public bodies. Information from independent fostering agencies, which are not obliged to respond to freedom of information requests, is missing. Will the Minister therefore examine the possibility of the monitoring of all foster care providers being undertaken by a Department? Such a move could also address further disparities in the rules and regulations that exist in the foster care system, such as carers receiving payments between placements or how carers can receive support when an allegation has been made against them—statistics show that a majority of people against whom allegations have been made are completely exonerated.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation that he has set out with the handling of complaints is a symptom of the fact that, because they are not employees, foster carers cannot be members of trade unions and, as a result, cannot seek support by a route that would be available to most typical employees?

[Martyn Day]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. Foster carers are all self-employed and have to deal with all the complexities of that, including tax returns, as well as with the vital role of caring.

At the very least, a review of how allowances are applied to foster carers is urgently needed. Foster carers must receive a payment that takes account of the full cost of caring for a child, now and into future years. Foster carers need to be recognised for the work they do, and children deserve better.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing this debate, and I pay tribute to everybody who took the time to sign the petition, including 48 residents in my constituency of Stretford and Urmston. Like those people, I care passionately about ensuring that foster carers are recognised and supported.

In preparing for the debate, I was fortunate that a member of my office staff, Emma Hirst, had been a foster carer for over 20 years, up until very recently. In that time, Emma provided a loving and supportive home to countless children, including refugee children, many of whom had been through immense hardship. I place on record my thanks to Emma, and to all the foster carers in Stretford and Urmston and more widely, for the life-changing impact that they have had on some of the most vulnerable people in my community and across the country. My comments will be shaped by Emma’s experience.

Emma told me that, during her 20-year spell as a foster carer, the role became increasingly challenging. When she started, the children who came into her care were often traumatised, but back then they were able to access mental health support, pastoral care at school and youth services, all of which were vital for their education and wellbeing. A decade of Conservative austerity has eroded those services, and the children who came into her care in later years faced increasingly lengthy waits for any kind of support.

The focus of today’s debate is financial support for foster carers, but inadequate financial support must be seen in the broader context of the decline of the public services that foster carers once relied on to make their jobs easier, which is a key reason for the recruitment and retention crisis in fostering.

Despite the pressure she was under, Emma, like foster carers across the country, was registered as self-employed and was therefore unable to access sick pay, payment for time off or any real employment rights. As I mentioned, like other foster carers, she also was not able to be represented by a trade union. Ultimately, it all became too much; Emma was burned out, and she recently took the decision to stop fostering. Like any true foster carer, however, she made time over Christmas to take a baby on an emergency basis, because foster carers are always there to look after children in desperate need.

Although Emma’s decision is understandable, it is a huge loss to fostering services in my community. Her example shows the importance of putting the right support in place for foster carers. Naturally, there is a financial element to that. The altruistic nature of fostering means that conversations about money are often shied away from, and our admiration for foster carers does not pay the bills, so it is right to discuss these allowances, tax arrangements and fees. That is not least because, as the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned, the fostering allowance does not cover the full cost of providing foster care to a child.

I will give credit where it is due: in December, the Government announced a 6.88% uplift to the foster care national minimum allowance. I also welcome the changes made last year that mean that most foster carers will no longer pay tax on that income. But I wish to focus the majority of my comments on those fostering allowances, because I note that the increases to the minimum allowance still fall short of the recommendations made by the Fostering Network.

I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what assessment his Department has made of the affordability of the national allowances called for by the Fostering Network. Moreover, I would be grateful if he would clarify where the funding for the 6.88% uplift will come from. I am unclear whether local authorities will have to find that money from existing budgets. Given the perilous state of local government finance, that may prove unmanageable for councils across the country. I am sure the Minister intends to fund the uplift from an alternative source, but I would be grateful for his reassurance on that point.

Another crucial point is that the fostering allowances are a postcode lottery for many people. In England, only 26% of local authorities pay the national minimum allowance at all the age bands. That results in discrepancies: for example, the maximum difference in allowance rates payable for 11 to 15-year-olds in England is as great as more than £8,000 per year. When we all agree that all children’s lives are of equal importance, that cannot be acceptable. Will the Department consider monitoring compliance with the national minimum allowance and look into reviewing fee payments so that there is more consistent compensation for the time, skills and experience of foster carers?

If we needed a reminder of the importance of getting this right, it came with Ofsted’s data on foster care for 2023, which showed a 6% fall to 35,000 over the past two years in the number of mainstream households in England who are fostering. The data also showed that the number of applications to become foster carers fell by over 3,000 between 2021 and 2023. This recruitment and retention crisis comes at a time when the care population continues to grow; it now stands at over 83,000.

The value of foster carers is in allowing children to be placed in environments that feel more like a real home, rather than in the less natural environment of a care home. It is also in the financial savings to local authorities, because many placements in care homes and other settings can be incredibly expensive. These trends are simply unsustainable; for the good of vulnerable children and the foster carers who are so dedicated to them, we must address them. I look forward to hearing more about how the Government intend to do that when the Minister responds.

Safety of School Buildings

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I am grateful to the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue, which is of urgent concern across the country. The Education Committee has requested Ministers to attend a session, and I am glad to report that we will have a Minister attending the Committee the Tuesday after next to give evidence on this important issue.

I want to raise some of the specific concerns we are hearing from school leaders about the way in which the announcements came about and their timing. I think we all agree that it is deeply unfortunate that changes had to be made so late in the school holidays, and before. I understand from conversations that I have had with Ministers today and from public statements that some of the information came to light only very recently. The Select Committee will push for a more detailed timeline on when information came to light and when decisions were made.

I heard many times when I was a Minister the concern of heads and leaders in education about announcements made late in the holidays, just before schools return, and I think we all agree on that. It is deeply unfortunate and troubling in this case. However, I do understand Ministers taking a zero-risk approach on roof collapses and children. From what I have been told, it seems that the estimation of risk—the idea that there were lower-risk and higher-risk forms of RAAC—fundamentally changed. It is important that we get more detail on that so that we can scrutinise the decision making.

On the consequences for schools, we now need to ensure that there is the minimum disruption. I welcome some of the steps set out by the Secretary of State in that regard. I welcome the fact that there are dedicated caseworkers working with those schools where issues have been identified and that more surveys are taking place where there is uncertainty. I would gently say that there is deep concern over the fact that responsible bodies are many and various in this respect, and their capability in understanding their buildings is highly varied. What works for a large multi-academy trust or a local authority managing a number of schools and has a dedicated estates team can be different from a more isolated school and single-academy trust. In particular, small primaries will not necessarily have the expertise to manage these issues. I seek assurance from the Secretary of State that there will be extra support for those more needy schools and that the Department will cover the costs where there is uncertainty of surveying. It is important that we have that assurance in the coming weeks.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) that I was able to join that Committee’s session on school capital before the summer and to question the permanent secretary at the Department for Education over RAAC. At the time, it seemed that visits relating to RAAC and the gathering of information were being accelerated, but given what we know now, in the light of the risk changing, it is a great shame that all those visits had not been completed by that time and we did not have a more complete risk picture. An update on the figures given to that Committee would be useful. I look forward to joining the Public Accounts Committee in our scrutiny of this issue when it meets next week.

There are many more questions to ask. Crucially, we need to ensure that lessons are learned from this for the long run and that when we build public buildings, we do so with materials that have a life that will match their use. That means multiple generations, not 30 years or 50 years.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I will give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to conclude shortly.

[Andrew Western]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given the concern he is now expressing about how public buildings were built in the past, does he stand by his comments about Labour’s motion on school buildings in May that he described at the time as scaremongering?

[Mr Walker]

That motion was similar to this one—a Humble Address—which, for the reasons already set out, I do not think is an effective way of going about getting the relevant information. I think that proper parliamentary scrutiny is the way, and I absolutely intend to provide that proper parliamentary scrutiny. There are huge risks in the approach that the Opposition are taking with repeated Humble Addresses, undermining the confidentiality of advice given by officials to Ministers. The idea that a future Labour Government would want to disclose all submissions in spending reviews is, I am afraid, for the birds. We have to be realistic about making sure we have a proper process of scrutiny.

I will hold Ministers to account on this, and as Chair of the Select Committee I have a lot of questions to ask. My members do as well, and I know that a number of them have affected schools in their constituencies. We will want to press Ministers on those issues. I do not think that a Humble Address is the right way to go about it, and that is why I will not support the motion, but I do fundamentally believe that we must ensure there is more investment in replacing school buildings and increased investment in the quality of the school estate. Yes, that is to address issues such as RAAC, but it is also to address issues that have caused real harm, such as asbestos, which we may not have much time to talk about in the debate. It is important to take into account the point made by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), in that respect as well.

I will not detain the House longer because I will have my opportunity with the Select Committee to ask Ministers much more. This is a hugely important issue and we need all Governments to get it right. I urge Ministers in the UK Government to work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that they can take the proactive measures needed to make schools across the UK utterly safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

In the week of the first anniversary of a prime ministerial reign that was outlasted by a lettuce, we again see laid bare the staggering incompetence of this Conservative Government. Mortgage holders, private renters and those looking to get on the housing ladder bore the brunt of that debacle; this time it is children, parents and teachers who are paying the price for the Government’s failures—and failures do not get much bigger than this.

The Prime Minister’s decision to slash the number of schools to be rebuilt, reportedly against the advice of officials, has left classrooms up and down the country unsafe to learn in. Taxes on many parents have never been higher; it is not unreasonable for them to expect that their children could go to a school that was not at risk of crumbling around them, yet the Conservatives seemingly disagree with that not especially lofty aspiration. They want my constituents to thank them for doing a good job as vital public services are quite literally run into the ground.

My experience of the Conservatives’ school shambles came at quarter to 5 last Friday, when I received a letter from the same Secretary of State who wants to be patted on the back for doing a good job because she knows where the affected settings are. In that letter, she advised me that an education provider with many sites across Greater Manchester had a confirmed case of RAAC at its site in my constituency. Assuming an error, as I was previously unaware of any issues, I called the MPs’ hotline to confirm whether the affected site was indeed in my constituency. The adviser was adamant that it was, despite my protestations. It was only when I spoke to the principal of the site in my constituency that it became clear that the site was completely fine, and that there was no RAAC involved at all.

The Secretary of State is nodding. The site referred to was 15 miles away in another constituency and was a different part of the same group. For this to happen once would be bad, but for it to happen twice in the same letter—this is a comedy of errors from a Secretary of State who supposedly knows where the affected buildings are—is deeply concerning. Of the four schools that I was notified were at risk from RAAC, one is not even in my constituency. This is just a glimpse of the chaos and incompetence that has characterised the past week. If the Secretary of State is leaning into her knowledge of where the problems are as an example of her efficacy, I suggest that she rethinks her strategy.

Countless schools are now in limbo, with headteachers being told that they have suspected issues with RAAC but will have to wait weeks for a survey to confirm it. What a horrible position to put school leaders in. Should they tell parents about suspected RAAC issues and risk causing unnecessary panic, or should they say nothing to parents about their children learning in a potentially unsafe building? Had the Conservatives not cancelled Labour’s school rebuilding programme in 2010, every secondary school building in England would have been significantly refurbished or rebuilt by 2020. Instead, the defining image of this Government will be children sitting in unfit buildings, worried that the ceilings could literally crumble above them.

If the Conservatives want any credibility on education, they should vote with Labour today to release the documents showing what the Prime Minister knew, when he was Chancellor, about the risks posed to children from RAAC before he slashed school rebuilding programmes in 2021, and when he knew it. For Members who think that parents, children and school staff deserve answers on who is responsible for this mess and have a right to know the true scale of this crisis, there is only one way to vote today, and that is to support this motion.

Higher Education Students: Statutory Duty of Care

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for compellingly introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I first became aware of today’s debate by chance, just a few hours after meeting with my constituents, the parents of Naseeb Chuhan, who took his own life at the end of his first year at Leeds Beckett University in June 2016. They have campaigned tirelessly ever since to secure a statutory legal duty of care for students in higher education. I can appreciate that this is a complex matter—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) set out some of the reasons why—but it is on their behalf that I want to support the aspirations of the petition, and to do so by sharing a little of Naseeb’s story.

There were clear signs that Naseeb was struggling. At the time of his death he had eight outstanding pieces of university work, yet it appears that no welfare checks were made to follow up on his missing work or his attendance issues. The day before his death, he visited the university wellbeing service, where he was honest and up-front about how he was feeling. Naseeb’s parents have looked into that interaction and are clear that, in their view, the service failed to adequately identify, assess and respond to risk.

Following Naseeb’s death, his parents sought to make a complaint about the university’s handling of his case and its lack of effective pastoral care and support for him. They discovered that complaints by parents are not routinely accepted by universities without the consent of the student concerned. In fact, this is discretionary, despite consent being impossible in such tragic circumstances as the student has already passed away. That is an absurd position for grieving parents to be in and is a result of the lack of regulation in this area. There simply must be a statutory duty of care placed on universities to support their students properly with any mental health issues that they face—a duty of care that already exists for universities regarding their staff and for under-18s in higher education.

Naseeb’s parents have since produced a report, which I have circulated to a number of parliamentary colleagues, calling for a series of changes in the light of Naseeb’s death. Specifically regarding universities and student wellbeing services, the report makes the following recommendations: university and student wellbeing services should be accountable, with an independent complaints procedure accessible by parents automatically if a student dies; universities should monitor and follow up student attendance and performance to check on the wellbeing of anybody who is struggling with these issues; university staff should be trained in suicide risk and prevention, along with mental health; students should have a clear pathway if in academic crisis; universities should work with coroners and keep records about student suicide; student wellbeing services should have training on suicide and keep appropriate records.

Those recommendations should not be too much to ask for. They are reasonable and proportionate and would almost certainly fall within the requirements of a statutory legal duty of care of universities to their students, which I why I am so supportive of the petition that we are here to debate.

I note the Government’s response to the petition, but I must say that, much like my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), I find myself considerably frustrated by the response that was submitted along with the details of the petition and today’s debate. The response appears to fall somewhere between the “nothing to see here” approach—that this would be a disproportionate response as suicide rates among students are relatively low—and the “why regulate when this happens anyway?” argument.

If it happens anyway, what is the problem with regulating existing practice? Of course, in Naseeb’s case—and, from talking to other parents in similar situations, I suspect in the case of many students—this is not what happens in practice. It is for that reason that I hope the Minister will listen to today’s debate and respond positively to the arguments made. For that reason also, I thank everybody who signed the petition, and pay tribute to Naseeb’s parents for their campaigning in the face of such devastating personal tragedy.

Reform of Children’s Social Care

Andrew Western Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

My hon. Friend always champions the cause of improvements in his local area and to his local council. We will work with poorly performing councils through our regions group. We have done a lot of that work, which since 2017 has more than halved the number of inadequate children’s services from 30 to 14. Where services are poor, we will continue to act until we get them up to the standards required.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The proposals include a significantly increased focus on early intervention and prevention so that young people can stay in their family home for as long as possible. That may well be a noble endeavour, but it raises questions about the pressure that it will put on frontline social workers to leave potentially vulnerable children in their home for longer. What additional training will there be for frontline social workers to ensure that robust and appropriate decision making is in place around intervention thresholds, so that any child who is too vulnerable in their family home will be placed into safety?

[Gillian Keegan]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to focus on families and ensure that we give them every opportunity to stay together, so we will have family hubs, the Supporting Families programme and a real focus on early help, but he is absolutely right that the decisions that social workers have to make are immense. We want to give them more support, so we will bring forward an early career framework. We will also work in a multi-agency way so that police, education professionals and many others are always there to help with the difficult decisions and make sure that the data is shared more effectively.