Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of CCTV for safeguarding purposes in nurseries and early years providers.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stringer. I have now been a public servant for 15 years, initially as a local councillor and then as a local MP for nearly 11 years. A lot of people who see me doing my job will know about the bits relating to voting, legislation and making decisions on national policy, but most will not know about my casework. That casework is often on matters of life or death, whether helping women fleeing domestic violence, people fleeing persecution, or my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was imprisoned in Iran for a crime she did not commit.

Some of the most harrowing examples of my casework have been about children. Very early in my career, I dealt with a young boy who was abducted from his mother, and taken overseas by his estranged father. I then dealt with a man who was grooming his step-daughter, and had to step in to help get him away from her. Finally, I have dealt with parents whose children have been abused, either sexually or through neglect or cruelty, in nurseries. It is very difficult to put into words what those casework surgeries are like, because they are every parent’s worst nightmare. Parents have put their child in a nursery at a time when they are unable to speak, walk or talk and entrusted it to look after them, only to find that that very place, rather than being a safe haven, has abused that trust, and that their children have been subjected to violent acts or sexual cruelty.

For six years, I was a shadow Minister for early years and early education, and I am an absolute champion for the sector. I want to emphasise that every time I spoke to early years educators and practitioners, safeguarding was the focus of all their work and they wanted to make sure children were protected. Many of the conversations I had were about strengthening security so that nurseries could do their job properly, whether that was through the mandatory two person per child rule, ensuring that Ofsted can examine digital devices or having a proper whistleblowing system in case anything problematic was happening. In particular, those conversations were about whether mandatory CCTV should be a safeguarding tool for nurseries across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for all she has done over the years. In the short time I have been here, I have found her to be assiduous, committed and dedicated on all these issues. As she knows, I have tried to support her in all her campaigns. Today, she is talking about another massive campaign, and I commend her for it. Child safety is core and imperative, and every one of us—including me, as a father and grandfather—worries about our children and grandchildren. CCTV could be the norm in affluent areas, but does hon. Lady agree that all those who provide care, in all areas, should be able to access affordable systems to meet this need? There is a cost—a financial factor—but it is really important that the No. 1 priority is safety.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for all my campaigns throughout the years. He has hit on a point I will definitely comment on. However, as he said, we cannot put a price on a child’s safety.

I said that I have been a public servant for 15 years, but I have been involved in the world of politics for 25 years, and I know that campaigns and legislation cannot be done on a whim. We have to look at all sides of the argument, which is why I spoke to a lot of the nursery managers and early years practitioners in my constituency before the debate to ask what they thought about a mandatory policy of installing CCTV in nurseries.

Legitimate concerns were raised, and I want to discuss them because we need to be aware of the obstacles we will face if we want to implement this policy. One of those legitimate arguments concerned price and diverting resources. Another question was whether someone would end up exploiting what we were trying to do to safeguard children. For example, would the CCTV be hacked? Would someone use artificial intelligence on that material in a manner we would not want and distribute it illegally? Those are legitimate concerns, which I will address, because if we want to change the landscape, we have to tackle the obstacles head-on, including the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Educational Outcomes: Disadvantaged Boys and Young Men

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. He is absolutely right, and this is a massive issue in Northern Ireland, as I said to him earlier. There are a number of young Protestant males who do not achieve, are disadvantaged when it comes to free school meals and come nowhere close to achieving educational standards. Our Government back home have put a policy in place to try to address that, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should work on this matter collectively with the regional Administration? If there is a disadvantage, not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, it is time to work on that together.

[Alistair Strathern]

The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the particular challenge faced by disadvantaged young men. While there has rightly been a lot of focus on challenges holding back all boys and men across education—the Education Committee was due to hold an inquiry into that during the previous Parliament—the compounding impacts of socioeconomic inequality and gender are often less explored.

Local Authority Children’s Services

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for setting the scene incredibly well. Our children’s services are so important, and the story he told has been well illustrated in the papers. It is almost inconceivable how that young child went through such brutality and violence. The story moved us all, and I thank him for sharing it with this Chamber; it is important for what we need to achieve. It could have been prevented, which is why this issue is incredibly important.

Local children’s services are essential to support, protect and improve the wellbeing of children, young people and families before any minor or moderate problems escalate into crisis situations. The early help approach has important benefits for parents and the community. I always try to give a Northern Ireland perspective to debates. I am mindful that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I like to add some comments to illustrate the problems we have and some of the helpful things we are doing. I will try to be on the positive side.

In Northern Ireland, and especially in my Strangford constituency, numerous services go above and beyond at all levels to serve children. The Ards Arena youth resource centre provides activities for confidence building, peer interaction and safe community engagement. There is also multi-agency support through the Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership, which brings together statutory, voluntary and community organisations to improve outcomes for children and families.

That is not to mention the Newtownards child social services team based in James Street in the town centre of Newtownards, the major town of my constituency. I know many of the staff personally, and the contribution they make to the lives of young people does not go unnoticed. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) referred to staff and what they do. It is important that we remember the many staff members who make fantastic contributions, and their focus must be on the perpetrators, as he rightly said, to ensure that issues are addressed.

As of 31 March last year, 22,243 children were known to social services as a child in need, which means they are assessed as requiring services to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development, or to prevent significant impairment. The pressure on local children’s services is intense, and support can range from marital break-ups to missing children and children with deteriorating mental health, or even children who have had to be removed from the family home. Some of those are desperate cases that certainly worry us.

Protecting children’s wellbeing and ensuring the necessary support is there before a crisis is critical to ensuring that young people feel safe and do not reach a point where they require an emergency service. We must strengthen families and provide services to keep young people’s lives stable. Research suggests that preventive services, community youth centres and support programmes improve health, education and social outcomes, so let us do our bit to ensure that those services are sustainable and fit for purpose.

Local support and children’s services play a proactive role in ensuring that children in my constituency and across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can thrive. Modern society and social issues can be hard enough for young people to navigate. The pressures on young children and families are incredible, so we must ensure they have the support they need. I want to do that, other right hon. and hon. Members want to do that, and I know the Minister wants to do it too.

I look to the Minister for a commitment to children’s services across the United Kingdom. Perhaps he can have some discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly to see how we can do things better together.

Education Funding: Distribution

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the distribution of education funding, because it goes to the heart of what kind of education system we want. As Liberal Democrats, we want every child to be provided with the opportunity to succeed and reach their full potential. However, I am sure that the Government and MPs from across the Chamber would agree that the current system is not working as well as it should.

Now is the time to tackle the historical unfair distribution of education funding. Every child should have access to the same resources and opportunities, regardless of where they live or their level of need. That unfairness in funding across local authority areas shapes what local schools can offer and how quickly children receive support, and ultimately affects whether families experience education as a source of opportunity or a source of constant struggle. That is wrong.

The national funding formula and the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant were intended to bring fairness and transparency to school funding, but historical proxy factors remain embedded within them. Those factors lock in funding patterns from decades ago, protecting some areas—regardless of how they have changed—while capping others, even as pupil numbers rise and needs become more complex.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is absolutely right to bring this incredibly important issue to the House. It does not matter where we are in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the problems are the same. Over the past couple of years as an elected representative, I have seen a rise in the number of people with special needs requirements, while schools are deteriorating and need work done. These problems seem to be a burden upon education authorities. Does she agree that now is perhaps the time for the Minister and the Government to review how they allocate their funding? By doing so, it could bring about something positive for all schools.

[Pippa Heylings]

I agree with the hon. Member. It is exactly why we need this debate at the national level. I recognise the work undertaken by the f40 fairer funding campaign, which has provided comparative historical data for the whole country, exposing the huge variations in funding allocations per pupil by local authority. Nowhere is that unfair disparity more clear than in my constituency. Cambridgeshire remains in the bottom quartile nationally for the dedicated schools grant and for high needs block funding per pupil. We rank 133rd out of 151 local authorities in 2025-26. That ranking has been the same for more than a decade, despite the unprecedented growth in Cambridgeshire. The consequences are stark.

If Cambridgeshire schools were funded to the same level as Lincolnshire—a shire county funded close to the national median—they would receive an additional £23.8 million every single year. That equates to roughly £118,000 a year for a typical primary school—think of that. Equally, if Cambridgeshire were funded to the same level as neighbouring Peterborough, schools would receive around £33 million more annually. That is the scale of the gap we are talking about, and it is impossible to justify. This chronic underfunding interacts directly with the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland there is only a 52% uptake in flu vaccinations. There are two reasons for that: first, parents want to be sure that it is okay and safe for their children; and secondly, schools sometimes show reluctance to let it happen. Will the Minister share the policy that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) just outlined with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan, to ensure that we can do better in Northern Ireland?

[Olivia Bailey]

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I will be meeting with the Minister he mentioned later this week on a visit to Northern Ireland, and I will be happy to discuss this matter with him.

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for setting the scene incredibly well. I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate. Education is devolved; the Minister is not responsible for it, but the issues are the same for us in Northern Ireland. There is also the fact that 30% of Northern Irish students go to university here on the mainland and only 4% from the mainland study at our universities. The issue for parents in Northern Ireland, with 30% of their students on the UK mainland, is therefore pertinent to this debate.

I want to speak holistically about the needs of students across the United Kingdom, despite our differing education systems and educational devolution, because the issue that the hon. Member has brought to our attention today applies everywhere, irrespective of where someone lives in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that a statutory duty of care would clearly define legal obligations for universities, students and teaching staff so that they can follow up—a regulation, or a way of responding to every case brought to their attention. I want to address that, and I will also focus on what students and parents can expect, reducing ambiguity and uncertainty.

There is no doubt that the mental health and resilience of our young people is not where it once was. I am not saying that we were stronger back in the ’60s, or maybe even further back, but as an elected representative I have never seen anything quite like how it is today. Certainly, in my years as an elected representative I have seen it getting worse, more acute and more serious. That is probably where we are.

The landmark youth wellbeing prevalence survey of 2020 found that 12.6% of children and young people in Northern Ireland were likely to meet

“established criteria for a common mood or anxiety disorder.”

I know that we are talking about universities, but I have parents and constituents coming to me whose 10-year-old children have anxiety and mood issues. That should be a time of fun, with no worries or burdens hanging over their head.

The figure was noted as being approximately 25% higher than rates in other UK nations, so we in Northern Ireland seem to have a bigger anxiety issue. A 2023 survey by the Mental Health Foundation found that some 39% of young people aged 18 to 24 in Northern Ireland—nearly four in 10—reported that

“anxiety had affected their day-to-day life to a great or moderate extent.”

The 2023 Young Life and Times survey reported that

“45.2% of 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland had probably mental ill-health.”

It is clear that certainty and support are integral parts of education and must be a foundational principle.

My thoughts for the Minister are that even though education is a devolved matter, when it comes to discussing these issues it does not matter where someone lives, be it Edinburgh, Penryn, Bournemouth or Coleraine; the issue is the same. So can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can work on this collectively across the United Kingdom?

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity is required and that, in any statutory duty of care, account must be taken of the potential seriousness of the problem for those affected? Does he agree that we need to do it in a way that does not impose an extreme burden on universities to implement any statutory duty of care, so that it becomes a win-win for both students and their concerned parents?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is right. The best way to approach this may be in a pastoral way, reaching out and noticing things—not that I am better than anybody else, but I do tend to see the person and perhaps see what the issues are a bit more deeply.

In Northern Ireland, results day for the transfer test—the cognitive abilities test, as it is known—is coming. Increasingly, parents who are considering which secondary school to choose for their children are not simply looking at academic grades, after-school clubs or links to vocational education. Parents are prioritising pastoral care for children as young as 11, because they are aware of the mental health pressure on their child from a young age. How much more pressure is there when they fly the nest and head to university? It can be a very lonely place. Sometimes, in life, the person who laughs the loudest and looks like the life and soul of the party is not necessarily without anxiety or mood issues. They could be the person who hangs their fiddle at the door, as my mother would have said: they seem like a person with no worries when they are outside, but when they close that door and go into their home, things can overtake them.

University is certainly the stage at which we advocate for independent thought and study, but independence is not the same as isolation. I believe that a duty of care would help to address drop-out rates. Precise figures for the number of Northern Ireland students who leave university due to mental health issues are not publicly available, because universities generally track overall drop-out rates in official stats but not the specific, self-reported reason for leaving. But one survey found that 29% students have considered leaving their course, with mental health cited as the most common reason. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who set the scene so well, cited an example of that.

None of us is looking for universities to take on parenting roles; it is not about that. It is about pastoral care, and that is where I would like to see the focus. Support is a different matter, and I hope that this proposal will provide a structure for greater student support to be a standard. I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and all those who are participating.

Higher Education: Government Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate on Government support for higher education. The UK is home to some of the world’s most respected universities and we all benefit from the opportunities, knowledge and growth they create—whether it is for young people pursuing exciting academic ambitions, members of staff supporting students through their studies or small businesses capitalising on the busy trade of a university city, the value of our higher education institutions is undeniable.

In my constituency, residents have enjoyed the opportunities for social mobility and the economic contributions of the University of Essex’s campus in Southend for the past 18 years. During that time, thousands of students have graduated, going on to fuel regional and national economies and finding fulfilling careers in the process. The university’s nursing, midwifery, dental hygiene and social care courses are particularly popular and often oversubscribed. Many of those enrolled grew up in south Essex and go on to work within the area after graduating. The campus is also a major employer of residents, some of whom have worked across catering, student support services and teaching for almost two decades. However, that is soon set to end.

Just before Christmas, the University of Essex announced that it would be closing its Southend campus this summer, throwing the futures of the 1,000 enrolled students into uncertainty and putting 400 jobs at risk. The proposed closure will see a direct loss of £101 million from the city’s economy.

In the wake of the announcement, I have spoken with dozens of staff, students and stakeholders impacted by this decision. I have heard from students like Lulu, a first-year marketing student who was just two months into her course when she was informed of the closure. Lulu describes herself as

“a bright individual who has always enjoyed studying and does not want her educational journey to end”.

There are also stories of dedicated student support staff like Judy, who has worked in the campus accommodation department for the past eight years and now faces the devastating prospect of redundancy.

I have spoken with internationally headhunted lecturers, many of whom came to the UK on skilled worker visas, which could be revoked if their roles disappear. I met one Brazilian lecturer who spoke about the impending impact of the threat of compulsory emigration on her young family. If her job was lost, she would have just 60 days to leave the country. To her, the threat of deportation is a frightening reality.

The Forum, Southend’s central library and a well-used community hub, could also be at risk following the closure of the campus.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand to get the thrust of his comments. Does he agree that universities must cut domestic undergraduate numbers to absorb funding cuts, limiting local access to higher education, which is exacerbating the existing trend of young people leaving university across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, depriving the economy of skilled graduates? That cannot be allowed to continue if we are to reap the benefits of our first-class education system for future employees and workers.

[Mr Alaba]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and welcome his comments. Indeed, the business model that a lot of universities have used over the past 14 years has meant that they have focused on international students, which is one of the reasons that we are having this debate.

Passionate staff fear that if the university’s share of the Forum library is sold, the result would be significant financial pressure on the remaining partners. They understandably fear the knock-on impacts of the campus closure.

East 15, one of the UK’s leading performing arts schools, is set to cut its Southend courses as a result of the closure. Students training with East 15 contribute to the cultural character of the city long after they have graduated, providing Southend with links to arts and entertainment industries further afield. I share residents’ pride in the success of talented Southend East 15 alumni, such as the comedian Maisie Adam. There are also significant concerns that the suggestion that 800 students can relocate to the university’s main campus in Colchester has been overstated. What’s more, following dialogue with staff and students, the suggestion that 200 students will be unable to complete their courses at all appears to be an underestimation.

This is simply not good enough. I am working with the leader of Southend council, Councillor Daniel Cowan, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) to ensure that if an alternative provider can be found for courses not available in Colchester, students will be able to complete their studies in Southend. Can the Minister provide any reassurance to these students, who rightly feel confused and concerned about the future of their studies?

While questions remain unanswered about the university’s decision making and communication in the lead-up to the announcement, the planned closure is not an isolated event but a devastating symptom of 14 years of under-investment in higher education by the previous Conservative Government, which left universities and colleges across the country struggling to stay afloat. That Government slashed direct teaching grants for universities, making tuition fees the primary source of income for institutions. At the same time, they capped tuition fees, leading to an unsustainable business model that saw income tied to an ever-increasing number of enrolled students. The impact of that cannot be ignored.

Elsewhere in the UK, the University of Nottingham is planning for job losses of 350 staff members, the University of Strathclyde is looking for £35 million in savings, and the University of Edinburgh is set to move towards a sweep of compulsory redundancies.

Village Schools

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered village schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I sought the debate because of the importance of village schools to the lives of many of my families in the Stratford-on-Avon constituency living in rural communities. For many villages, the school is part of the fabric of rural life. It is what keeps a community thriving. It gives children a place of belonging, it brings parents and carers together and it sustains village identity and community cohesion. Many families choose to build their lives in rural south Warwickshire precisely because the village school is there.

Once a village loses its school, something irreplaceable is lost with it. I speak not only as a constituency MP but as someone who has served as a school governor of a small rural school for many years and whose own children attended a village primary. I know how much a child’s early learning environment matters, and for many children a small village school provides a sense of safety and familiarity that lays the foundation for confidence and aspiration. The relatively small size of a village school allows teachers to develop close relationships with pupils and families, to intervene early, and to support children who may otherwise feel lost in larger settings. For children with additional needs or those who struggle with busy environments, that can be transformative.

Rural schools, however, face a particular challenge with fluctuating pupil numbers. Housing developments take time to materialise. A quiet admissions year should never be misinterpreted as evidence that a school lacks potential. With the right support, schools can thrive at the heart of their communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. Not one of us does not have a small rural school; that is really important. I think of Loughries in my constituency—I mentioned it to her before the debate—which is a small hamlet just outside Newtownards. A few years ago, Loughries primary school was under some pressure financially, but it became an integrated primary school whereby it has been able to provide small classes focusing on providing education to rural children and promoting social development.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Department for Education must always ensure that village schools have the funding and support they need so that children and parents in villages can rely on them to get a good education? We must also ensure that any risk of closure through poor funding is never allowed.

Creative Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Opher]

I totally agree. In fact, there is evidence that creativity outside is even more effective for people than inside. This is clearly about access to natural spaces.

I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on creative health. There is really strong evidence that creativity reduces mental health problems in children.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate; he is right to do so. Creative education is so important. Creative education will give thousands of children the opportunity to thrive, and will be the tool that gets them the careers for the future. Those children who have special educational needs must have additional opportunities so they are not left behind, and must have the opportunity also to succeed. Does he agree that helping those people who are less well-off educationally and at a disadvantage is important, and that the opportunity is here, in the creative industries, to do the best for them?

[Dr Opher]

It is interesting that creativity is particularly important for children with special educational needs. Indeed, there is some evidence that including creativity can actually make them attend school on a more regular basis.

I have visited loads of schools in Stroud over the last 18 months, and one common theme has been the rise in mental health problems in young people, who are under countless assessments and the pressure of living in a 24/7 social media world. I do feel that this is pushing a lot of children to the brink, and that creativity may be a way of repairing that. One in five young children has a probable mental health condition, and this figure is rising every year. As a GP, I have been using art to treat mental health in children and adults for about 26 years, quite often with really spectacular results. The lack of art subjects has contributed to this pandemic of mental health problems. The Southbank Centre just across the river is doing a project as we speak around introducing creativity to children who are on the child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists. It will be quite exciting to see whether that can make them better as well.

Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on statutory support for self-employed adoptive parents. Self-employed adopters are currently excluded from any statutory parental pay. For far too long, this exclusion has been overlooked as too niche a problem, but in fact it exposes a much deeper inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works—one that affects not only adoptive families but the wider functioning of the adoption system in England.

This debate comes at an especially challenging time for adopted children and adoptive families. Demand for post-adoption support is rising, including for mental health services, therapeutic help and emotional support, while the availability of those services has become more uncertain, uneven and under-resourced. A recent investigation by the BBC uncovered systemic issues within post-adoption support, highlighting challenges I will cover later in my speech, and which we will no doubt hear about from other Members.

First, though, I would like to address the issue that has led to this debate. There is currently a deep inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works for adoptive families. At present, employed birth parents can access statutory maternity leave and pay; self-employed birth parents can access maternity allowance, which is equivalent to maternity pay; and employed adopters can access statutory adoption leave and pay. Self-employed adopters, however, cannot access any form of statutory adoption leave or pay. The consequence is that self-employed adoptive parents face a uniquely disadvantaged position, with no statutory mechanism enabling them to take time away from work to support a child entering their family—a child who we know is more than likely to have experienced trauma, loss or disruption.

Self-employment now makes up a large part of the workforce, with around 4.4 million people working for themselves across the UK. It is estimated that self-employed adopters make up 10% of adopters annually; given that just over 3,000 adoptions took place last year, that means that hundreds of families a year are being left with no statutory financial support at the moment that they take legal and parental responsibility for a child.

It is important to be clear about what adoption pay is actually for and why it exists. Unlike maternity provision, which has historically been justified by the Government on health and recovery grounds, statutory adoption pay exists for a different purpose altogether. In 2022, the previous Government stated in a written answer that statutory adoption pay is essential to the success of an adoption placement in order that an adopter can take time off work to care for and, most importantly, to bond with their child.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate; I spoke to her beforehand to ask her permission to intervene and to very quickly give her a Northern Ireland perspective. In Northern Ireland, shared parental leave and pay—SPL and ShPP—are entitlements as financial support for adoptive parents. If one adopter qualifies for statutory adoption pay, couples may share leave or pay under SPL, but that presumes employment under a qualifying employer. Does the hon. Lady agree—I think this is what she is trying to achieve—that under all legally binding work contracts, all employers should be incentivised to ensure that employees can qualify for shared adoption leave, and that there should in fact be an onus on them to do just that?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and particularly for highlighting the case in Northern Ireland. Parental leave and shared parental leave for adopters was something that the previous Government fought hard to bring in, so I agree that that is something that should apply across all our isles. Ultimately, though, that will be for the Minister to talk about; I am guessing it is probably a devolved issue, but no doubt it will come up in his remarks a bit later.

As I was saying, in 2022 the previous Government stated that it is essential to the success of an adoption placement that the adopter takes time off work in order to care for and bond with their child. That principle must be fairly applied regardless of whether a parent is employed or self-employed.

For self-employed adoptive families, the negative consequences of this disparity are clear. Evidence gathered by Home for Good and Adoption UK through the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence found that 60% of self-employed adopters reported that the absence of financial support directly limited the amount of leave they could take at the start of adoption, and in some cases it prevented them from taking leave altogether following the adoption. In practical terms, that means returning to work within days or weeks of placement, despite being advised by professionals that it is best for them to take time off work to be able to support their child once they are placed. One self-employed adopter summed up the pressure, saying:

“We have been through two separate adoptions. The second time I had no choice but to keep working. I sometimes took my son with me. It was very hard.”

The APPG’s research also found that around two thirds—63%—of prospective self-employed adopters said that the lack of statutory provision played a major role in delaying or preventing them from proceeding with adoption in the first place. Nearly half of self-employed adopters said that it prevented them from adopting again, while others explained that they could not consider adopting their child’s sibling because the financial impact of taking extended time away from work was simply too great. As a result, children are being unnecessarily separated from their siblings. One family said:

“We have already been approached to adopt another sibling and had to say no because there was no financial package available to help.”

Further research from the APPG found that the majority—59%—of self-employed adopters reported stopping work altogether for a period once a child was placed with them. They did so not as a lifestyle choice, but because the intensity of needs made continued self-employment impossible.

For many families, the absence of statutory provision creates profound pressure at precisely the moment the emotional and practical demands of adoption are at their highest. As one parent explained:

“Not having an equivalent to maternity allowance meant the pressure on us was increased, at a time when the pressure on our family was already very high. We didn’t have access to the kind of mental or financial ‘breather’ that a secure income for a set period might have given us. Inevitably it made the whole early placement period more stressful.”

That strain is reflected in reported anxiety levels among prospective self-employed adopters, who on average rated their financial worry during the adoption process a seven out of 10. Established self-employed adopters also report elevated anxiety, rating it a six out of 10, showing that stress does not end once placement is secured but often continues long afterwards in the absence of statutory support. Those findings must be understood within the broader context of adoption pressures; it is not just about parental leave.

As of September this year, 2,940 children with a placement order were waiting to be matched with an adoptive family in England, and average waiting times from entering care to placement with a family exceeded 20 months. If Government policy is deterring capable families from coming forward to adopt, this does not only disadvantage adopters themselves but, most importantly, directly affects the life prospects of children, who remain in temporary care arrangements for longer than necessary. That is in part because the system has made permanency through adoption unaffordable for too many who would otherwise open their home.

As I said at the start, the lack of statutory support for self-employed adopters cannot be considered in isolation from the adoption system as a whole. I am concerned that adoption is still treated as something that ends at placement, rather than as a responsibility that continues for a lifetime. Nearly all adoptive families say that more must be done to ensure that children feel safe and secure as they grow up, and over half report that support drops away once the adoption order is made.

There is cross-party recognition that adoption cannot be treated as a single moment in a child’s life. It is not simply a legal process that ends with an order; it is the beginning of a lifelong journey for both the child and the family that welcomes them. When we reduce adoption to a one-off placement, we overlook the ongoing needs that often emerge long after the order is made.

If we are serious about giving adopted children the best possible start, we must be honest about the nature of adoption itself. It is a lifelong commitment that requires consistent, compassionate and accessible support. Families should not have to fight for the help that allows their children to flourish. Adoption should be backed by a commitment from all of us to stand with these families not just at the beginning but throughout the years that follow.

Current practice too often fails adopted families at moments of vulnerability. Many adoptive parents report long waits for mental health services, difficulty accessing meaningful support, inconsistent local authority approaches and a lack of trauma-informed provision in schools. We need an adoption system that sticks with adopted children and their families over the long term and is flexible and responsive to their changing needs as they face challenges across these areas. These problems affect all adopters, employed and self-employed alike, but their financial impact is unevenly distributed. All of that is being compounded by the sudden and unexpected changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund announced in April, which significantly reduced the post-adoption support many adoptive families reply on, including families in my constituency, contributing to a growing sense of uncertainty and a weakening of trust towards the system.

For families who cannot afford private help, the situation becomes even more difficult, and the financial strain quickly grows. Many simply have no way to cover the costs of therapy on their own. For the self-employed, the pressure is even greater because this burden arrives at the same time as the lack of statutory pay, leaving them with fewer options and even less stability. For self-employed adopters, the impact is even heavier, because any time taken away from work to help support children can immediately affect their income. When post-adoption support is withdrawn, they cannot rely on payroll to cushion the loss. Instead, they absorb it through missed work, reduced earnings and unpaid days spent trying to manage crises on their own.

Self-employed adopters are navigating a range of interconnected pressures that overlap, intensify each other and shape every part of their experience. Local authority practice reflects the same fragmentation. Support for self-employed adopters varies wildly depending on where families live. Freedom of information requests reveal that one third of councils have no policy in place at all to support self-employed adopters, and the remaining councils referred to using a means-tested approach to assessing the need for financial help. In those council areas, 90% of adopters were not informed that local support might be available. This produces an arbitrary system in which families adopting can experience different outcomes depending on postcode rather than need.

This Adjournment debate follows a recent Westminster Hall debate brought about by an e-petition on maternity and paternity pay, where Members, including me, explicitly raised the position of self-employed adoptive families. The Government have indicated that a review of parental leave and pay is under way and that the issues raised through the recent parliamentary debate will inform this process. If that review is to be taken seriously by adoptive families, it must look properly at the position of self-employed adopters, rather than letting their needs disappear into maternity and paternity reform more generally. Clarity is essential.

Adoption pay cannot be an optional extra. It ensures that adopters can establish stability, attachment and routine with a child who may have experienced disruption, neglect or loss. It enables parents to be present, rather than forced to divide their attention between the urgent demands of work and the equally urgent demands of care.

I know that the Minister cares deeply about these issues, which is why this debate is a good opportunity to raise them. First, will the review formally assess the position of self-employed adopters as a distinct category within the parental leave and pay review? Secondly, will the Government evaluate the introduction of a statutory entitlement equivalent to maternity allowance for self-employed adopters? Thirdly, can he provide an indication of the timescale for publication of the review’s findings? Finally, I urge the Government to reverse their disastrous decision to reduce the funding available through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Policy choices must support adoption and adoptive families. Enterprise and self-employment should also be encouraged. Self-employed adoptive families should not be penalised. The removal of avoidable barriers to adoption, while enabling business to flourish, must be a priority.