Draft Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026.

Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this Committee. Teacher training quality is critical across all phases of education, from early years through to adult education. In October 2025, the skills White Paper set out the vision for England’s skills system. The further education sector is central to that vision and requires high-quality teacher training to drive progress. The Government are acting to secure and improve the quality of FE teacher training; a high-quality, accessible and attractive teacher training offer will improve recruitment and retention in further education, support the commitment to recruit an additional 6,500 teachers and demonstrate a commitment to raising teaching standards across schools and colleges.

These regulations introduce a system across all types of providers of FE teacher training: universities, colleges, training providers and any other organisation offering specified FE teacher training courses. The regulations are based on clear expectations and quality standards and align with Ofsted’s initial teacher training education framework, which has been extended to encompass all publicly funded FE ITT.

Historically, the Government have regulated primary and secondary teacher training, but that has not applied to further education. Excellence does exist in parts of the system, but provision is inconsistent and some poor practice has been identified in recent years. Trainees in further education teaching have not always had the high-quality preparation that they require and employers cannot always be confident that their new teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their role.

Providers of FE teacher training courses specified by Government in this statutory instrument will be required to have regard to guidance on curriculum content and on delivery standards, to register with the Department for Education and to submit regular information and data to the DFE. We want the standards to be proportionate, but meaningful in terms of the shift they deliver. For the first time, Government, employers and prospective teachers will have transparency over what training is offered, where it is offered and who is offering it—transparency that supports a quality focus in the further education ITT system.

We want evidence-based standards that will help to drive consistency and improvement. Regulation will not constrain innovation and providers will retain flexibility to exercise professional judgment and expertise, as they do in initial teacher training in the schools space. The Department has engaged extensively with further education colleges and teacher training sector stakeholders; public consultations, a call for evidence and ongoing engagement have shaped the measures and there is broad consensus that the approach will drive up standards and maintain necessary flexibility. I give special thanks to the expert advisory group chaired by Anna Dawe OBE, principal of Wigan & Leigh college, a technical excellence college, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

There is an opportunity here for a brief respite from what might be happening in the rest of the building and to share some cross-party agreement, so let me say that we were delighted that the previous Conservative Government, and before them the coalition Government, continued many of the reforms that the former Labour Government initiated in the academies programme and the focus on evidence. Across the House, there has been some solid progress in the education system, which has benefited many young people. I hope this is an area where we can continue to work on a constructive, cross-party basis.

The focus on what is perhaps a less exciting political debate, the content of teaching for those who teach, is so important; it is probably one of the biggest single drivers of performance in our education system, whether in primary school, secondary school or colleges. It is right and timely that we are now making those changes in the further education system that have led to positive progress and made a difference in our schools system. I thank members of the Committee for their consideration and you, Dr Huq, for chairing the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. To begin, I would like to take this opportunity briefly to explain that in the explanatory note for the statutory instrument, there was a discrepancy, in that it stated that the percentage increase for 2026-27 was 2.7% when it should have stated 2.71%, and that the percentage increase for ’27-28 was 2.8% when it should have stated 2.68%. I can reassure hon. Members that a correction slip has been arranged regarding that, and the other figures in the draft SI—the consequential figures in monetary terms—are not affected. The SI, which was laid in draft on 5 February, increases the limits on tuition fees that higher education providers can charge students studying undergraduate courses at “approved (fee cap) providers” in the ’26-27 and ’27-28 academic years.

Our higher education sector is critical to delivering a key mission of this Government—economic growth. It does that through world-leading research and innovation, supporting businesses up and down the country, and by equipping people with the knowledge and skills that they need to thrive. In one way or another, higher education plays a part in the lives of most people in this country, whether through direct participation in university, through research or through its role in our local communities. We are all impacted by universities.

The sector is also crucial to our future prosperity and wealth as a country, but now it is facing severe challenges. Office for Students analysis suggests that without mitigating action, 45% of institutions face a deficit in ’25-26. English providers are attempting to manage significant financial pressures, including the £1.7 billion loss, in aggregate, on domestic teaching and the need for providers to draw on other income to cover it. Such challenges have been unaddressed for far too long, and seven years of frozen tuition fees, plus over-optimistic strategic and financial planning and potential issues with governance, have contributed to the financial challenges facing providers.

The Government have not shied away from these decisions. We started to fix the foundations by increasing fee limits for ’25-26 and boosting the sector’s income, but we must go further if we are to put the sector on a stable footing and provide it with the greater financial certainty that it needs. That can be achieved by boosting incomes, with conditions about improving the teaching quality.

That is why, through this draft SI, we intend to raise fee limits for a further two years. That is necessary to ensure that the sector can face the challenges of the next decade and that students today and in the future can receive a world-class higher education. It will mean that for the ’26-27 academic year, from 1 August ’26 onwards, tuition fee limits for undergraduate courses will increase by 2.71% and, for the ’27-28 academic year, from 1 August ’27 onwards, by a further 2.68%, in line with forecast inflation based on the RPIX inflation index. That means an increase to £9,790 for a standard full-time course in ’26-27 and to £10,050 in ’27-28. It means an increase to £11,750 for a full-time accelerated course in ’26-27 and to £12,060 in ’27-28. The fee limits that apply to lower fee foundation years for classroom-based subjects, such as business, social science and humanities, that begin on or after 1 August ’25 are preserved at ’25-26 levels for ’26-27 and ’27-28.

I recognise that people have concerns about the student finance system and the affordability of higher education. We inherited a broken system and we take borrowers’ complaints seriously. We have already committed to reintroducing maintenance grants and to future-proofing our maintenance support offer by increasing loans for living costs with forecast inflation every academic year from ’26-27. We will continue to look for ways to make the system fairer. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that access to higher education is based on ability and aspiration, not financial means.

Eligible students can continue to apply for up-front fee loans to meet the full cost of their tuition. Given the inherited fiscal situation, we are making those necessary decisions to protect taxpayers and students. The Government continuously review student finance to ensure that it remains fair, sustainable and supportive of students from all backgrounds.

We have an expectation of the higher education sector too. We expect it to do more to improve access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to focus on efficiency and specialisation to deliver the very best value for students and for the country. We will make future fee uplifts conditional on higher education providers achieving a high-quality threshold through the Office for Students quality regime. That will protect taxpayers’ investment in higher education and reward providers for high quality. We will set out further details on future changes to tuition fee caps in due course.

We are clear that the diversity of the sector is a strength, but each provider needs to be clear on their distinctive role in the system and to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. Each provider needs to be well run, delivering the very best value for students and operating as efficiently as possible. To conclude, the draft SI will put our higher education sector on a more secure footing, giving it greater financial certainty and therefore enabling it to deliver the world-class higher education that current and future generations deserve.

[The Chair]

I am minded to allow consideration to continue, notwithstanding the fact that the explanatory note is in effect inaccurate. I appreciate the Minister’s courtesy in correcting that, but in future those things should be done in advance and in writing, and put on the Table so that all members of the Committee can see. I shall be saying to my fellow Chairs that that should be the rule that we adopt. For the convenience of all Members present, I shall now let us proceed with our consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Minister, I assume that the correction slip that you drew the Committee’s attention to is going to be produced and delivered today.

[Josh MacAlister]

It should have already been submitted.

[The Chair]

Okay. I call the Minister to wind up.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank Committee members for their contributions today. I will endeavour to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Rutland and Stamford and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, but before I do, let me reiterate the importance of this statutory instrument for putting our higher education sector on a secure financial footing and providing the financial certainty that it needs. I have not heard how either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would propose to do that in the absence of this statutory instrument for the financial years under discussion.

There are few phrases to describe the position of the Conservative party other than “crocodile tears”. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford highlighted repayment thresholds. I have not had the chance to look at her speeches or voting record from the time, but from 2012 onward the Conservative Government of the day designed and introduced the very system that she is now criticising. In the year that the system was introduced, they made a commitment not to freeze thresholds but to increase them. However, in their very first year, they froze the thresholds.

[Alicia Kearns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Josh MacAlister]

I would be delighted to give way if the hon. Lady will answer this question: how many other times were thresholds frozen by that Government?

[Alicia Kearns]

I do not want the Minister to unnecessarily age me in this debate, so I want to put on record that, unfortunately, I cannot give him that data on my voting record because I was just finishing university then and was still enjoying the joys of life.

[Josh MacAlister]

I am pleased to hear that that is where the hon. Lady was at that time. The Conservative Government and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition froze thresholds 10 times.

[Ian Sollom]

The Minister has made that point in several debates. I would just like to explain that the commitment was to raise thresholds from when the first cohort graduated, which was in 2016. That was indeed why Martin Lewis investigated the issue and considered judicial review in 2016. There was no freezing of thresholds prior to that. They were due to rise from 2016. I am sure the Minister did not mean to misinform us.

[Josh MacAlister]

Certainly not. In fact, the current student loan system—I believe it is plan 5—which is due to come online with the first graduates this year, has been increased in line with inflation by this Government. The point stands that the choice of the Government back then was to maintain the threshold where it was and effectively freeze it, capturing many more people into the system. The cumulative effect of 10 threshold freezes in a decade where inflation was ticking up is being felt by students now.

It is somewhat galling to hear that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are outraged that this Government, who were able to find the money to lift the threshold in our first year in office, are now balancing difficult decisions so that we can make sure that we have the funding needed for further education, since over half of students do not go to university and need a well-resourced skills system. Both parties seem now to be walking away from their responsibility to make a system that they designed work effectively, which is unfortunate.

The Committee will know how crucial this sector is for our economic growth—I am sure this is felt across the House. Members will recognise its importance in contributing to research and innovation and the impact that it has on local communities and the lives of students. Challenges in higher education have been left unaddressed for far too long, and providers have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income.

The Government have not shied away from the decisions that are needed. We took action to raise the fee cap in 2025-26, and we have committed to bringing back maintenance grants and future-proofing maintenance loans for students, but we need to go further so that that our higher education sector can continue to deliver the world-class education and research that this country and future generations deserve.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I want to make a short intervention, as we may divide on this instrument. Although the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not have a leg to stand on in this debate, I have to take issue with the idea that by simply increasing the fee structure, we put universities on a secure and stable footing. They rely on cross-subsidy from international students, and it is widely debated outside this place as to whether the funding model in chaos and crisis.

In the end, we have a stonking great majority in the House of Commons, and we need to be thinking about reform that goes much further so that the university sector is fit for the modern day—especially for the AI revolution that is coming.

[Josh MacAlister]

I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing the Committee’s attention to the wider debate around higher education funding at the moment. It is true to say that fee income is only one line of income for universities and that they are facing a whole bunch of pressures in a competitive environment. The Government are committed to looking at the student loan system and making it fairer. I have made that commitment, as have the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary.

One urgent point that I would draw the Committee’s attention to is that a number of years of freezes on the tuition fee cap has eroded the income value, which is a significant income stream for universities. If that were to continue, it would further heighten the situation. As a Minister, I have spent time listening to MPs making very powerful representations about the challenges that universities in their constituencies face because of the legacy of the erosion of the value of the fee income. If we were to not increase fees in line with inflation, which is what we are talking about here, it would further add to that funding challenge that universities face. I do not think it would be responsible for us to do that, given that the financial years we are talking about are pretty imminent.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Minister has opened the box on the topic of funding for universities by mentioning how central that funding is. One of my gravest concerns is the amount of money that is coming from the Chinese Communist party into our universities. Does the Minister believe that by taking this action today, the Government will be able to focus on cracking down on those universities that seem to think there is no problem with taking vast sums from China, which then threatens MPs by saying that it will not take the children of sanctioned MPs at its universities or that it will withdraw all funding from universities if the Dalai Lama speaks at them or there are efforts by Hongkongers or others? Given that the Government are taking action to make sure that universities have a more valid footing, will he make sure that those funding streams are cracked down on?

[The Chair]

Order. We are not debating how universities are funded by overseas territories, but I will let that go. Minister, you may respond very briefly on that point, and then we will move on.

[Josh MacAlister]

I am sure that the Committee will be delighted that I will give a short answer, and I can provide a point of reassurance. Of course, universities have responsibility to ensure that they contribute to upholding human rights and freedom of speech, and they have an important role to play in that. We have plans to strengthen their role and responsibility in that respect along with the role of the Office for Students. It is an important point to highlight, even though it is not directly relevant to this SI.

Question put and agreed to.

Post-16 Level 3 and Below: Pathways

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Written Statements

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

The Government’s reforms to technical and vocational qualifications for 16 to 19 year olds in England represent once-in-a-generation reforms to vocational education, transforming the vocational landscape for millions of 16 to 19 year olds and supporting the Prime Minister’s ambition for two-thirds of young people to study higher level learning whether academic, vocational, or technical, by age 25.

Driving economic growth is a top priority for this Government. In October 2025, we published the post-16 education and skills White Paper, which set out our reforms to the skills system in England which will develop the skilled workforce our economy needs. The challenge is huge—nearly 900,000 more skilled workers needed in our priority sectors to 2030, nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and the ever changing impact of technology and artificial intelligence.

Today, the Government publish their response to the post-16 level 3 and below pathways consultation, which received over 750 contributions. Our response, building on the recommendations made in the curriculum and assessment review, sets out our vision for a reformed 16 to 19 qualifications system that ensures every young person has a clear choice of education pathways that support them to succeed in work and in life.

The Government will create a high-quality, coherent and future-proof system of technical and vocational qualifications that gives every young person clear choices and strong routes into further study, apprenticeships and employment. The reformed landscape will allow students to specialise if they choose to do so, or to study a broader programme if they wish to explore options. Students will be able to study a mix of academic and vocational learning, reflecting the increasingly diverse and portfolio-based nature of modern careers, and to adapt quickly to changing economic and technological needs. By linking qualifications to occupational standards, improving clarity and comparability across pathways, and ensuring all qualifications support meaningful progression, the system will ensure learners are engaged, retained in learning, and equipped to thrive in a modern labour market.

In response to wide support for clearer pathways, there will be three key changes to post-16 pathways for students. This will end the assumption that the only way to get on is academic progression and acknowledge the value and prestige that a strong vocational pathway can have.

V-levels—our new flagship vocational qualification that will sit alongside A-levels and T-levels. V Levels will be the same size as an A-level and can be taken alongside them to create a broad study programme appropriate for a young person who wishes to progress to higher level study without specialising in one particular area. V-levels will feature engaging applied teaching, learning and assessment designed to develop real world skills. V-levels will be linked to occupational standards, strengthening employer confidence in vocational qualifications and helping to meet the country’s long-term skills needs. In specific and limited cases, we will allow a partnered set of V-levels, in a similar way to the model of maths-further maths A-level, which will enable overall depth of study in a linked area with the ability to study another subject. We will not allow V-levels to be combined in ways that recreate a large technical study programme within a single route where a T-level exists, in order to avoid overlap.

T-levels—we are bringing forward improvements to T-levels, the technical offer for students who want a sector-focused post-16 choice. The T-level will be the only large qualification for 16 to 19 year olds at level 3. We will make changes to placements and assessment to support the accessibility and scalability of T-levels whilst maintaining quality. We will also introduce new T-levels in new subject areas that are designed with the understanding of sector needs and based on occupational standards to support progression into skilled, technical occupations. Together, these changes will support more students to benefit from these qualifications and the strong progression opportunities they provide.

Level 2 pathways—we are introducing two new pathways for young people who need to continue learning at a level equivalent to GCSE—level 2—at age 16. They will have a choice of two pathways—further study, which will help them to progress into a study programme of A-levels and, or V-levels, or a T-level—or occupational, which is a two-year programme that supports progression to a good skilled job.

A-levels will continue to be the level 3 option for students who want to study academic subjects and progress to higher education.

To maintain stability during this transition, and to give providers more time and scope to engage with the reforms, we will not remove funding from qualifications in the academic year 2026-27—including in health and science and digital routes—as previously set out.

From the academic year 2027-28, funding approval will be removed for large qualifications—those with 1,080 guided learning hours or more—in existing T-level subject areas, except for large health and social care qualifications, which will be removed from 2028 to coincide with the introduction of a T-level in social care. As more T-levels are introduced, funding approval for unreformed qualifications with 1,080 guided learning hours or more in those subject areas will be removed in the same year.

The Government have published their timeline for changes to funding approval for qualifications, and the provisional timeline for introduction of new qualifications in routes from the academic year 2027-28, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/post-16-level-3-and-below-pathways

The Government have today published a transition document for providers to support them with the transition arrangements to the new qualifications system.

The Government have also today launched a consultation on new 16 to 19 level 1 English and maths qualifications for students with prior GCSE attainment of a grade 2 or below. We know that good English and maths skills are hugely important for further study, work and life. The new qualifications will enable these students to secure the key knowledge and skills needed to achieve a grade 4-C or higher at GCSE to help ensure that students only retake exams when they are ready to make progress.

Next steps

By June 2026, the Government will publish an implementation plan. This will set out the subject lists for the phased roll-out, the updated approach to T-level development and delivery, assessment and grading arrangements, non-qualification activities, and further details on transition.

The Government response to the post-16 level 3 and below pathways consultation and a supporting document to support providers to transition to the new landscape will be available on gov.uk. Copies of the Government response will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1390]

Kinship Zones

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Written Statements

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

Kinship care ensures that children who cannot live with their birth parents are able to grow up in homes filled with love, stability, and a sense of belonging, often at times of crisis and without preparation. The Government recognise the vital role that kinship carers play in keeping children safe within their families and communities and are committed to improving the support available to them.

Today I am announcing the launch of new kinship zones, designed to test how co-ordinated, locally led support can improve outcomes for kinship families and the children in their care.

Kinship zones will bring together local authorities, the national kinship care ambassador and central Government to provide joined-up support to kinship families. The ambassador will be working with the participating local authorities to develop their delivery plans for the pilot, including how they could repurpose any existing expenditure on allowances towards support for family networks and to develop their kinship local offer.

The kinship zones pilot will operate in seven local areas across England from 1 April 2026 for three and a half years, the final two years subject to approval at the next spending review, with an investment of over £126 million of Government funding. In addition to providing a financial allowance to kinship carers, each kinship zone will respond to local need, while contributing to a shared evidence base on what works best for kinship families. Eligible financial allowances made under the pilot scheme will be income tax free, ensuring kinship carers get the full financial benefit of the support offered.

This pilot builds on the Government’s response to the independent review of children’s social care, which highlighted the importance of family-based care and the need to better recognise and support kinship carers. It also aligns with the ambitions set out in “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, which reinforced the importance of strengthening family networks and providing early, joined-up support. Alongside other reforms, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the kinship zones programme will help test approaches that could inform future national policy.

An independent evaluation will assess the impact of the pilot on outcomes for children and families, including placement stability and carer wellbeing. Findings will be used to inform further decisions on the future of kinship support.

[HCWS1374]

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

21. What steps her Department is taking to improve the student loans system.

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

We will consider ways to make the student loan system fairer, as the Prime Minister said last week. This Government have already reintroduced maintenance grants and raised the repayment threshold to above average graduate salaries, and we are acting across the board on the cost of living by bringing down inflation and tackling transport, energy and rental costs.

[David Chadwick]

Many graduates feel as if they are drowning in debt and that they were sold a promise—that a university education would help them to pay off their debts quickly—which has not come true. Their debts continue to mount. Will the Government consider scrapping the planned freeze of the repayment threshold?

[Josh MacAlister]

We had a Westminster Hall debate about this last week, and it is good to see that the debate continues. We will consider ways to make the system fairer; there are a range of options. The threshold freeze raises £5.9 billion next year, and it is incumbent on any party that is serious about fiscal prudence to set out how it would pay for changes.

[Mohammad Yasin]

Student loan problems long predate plan 2 loans. I welcome the Government’s commitment to making the system fairer after previous Governments ruined the university funding model. It is wrong that generational inequality is baked into the system, which leaves young people with debts for which they can service only the interest. Does the Minister agree that tinkering is not enough, and that fundamental reform is now urgent?

[Josh MacAlister]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s description of recent history and how we have ended up where we are today. We will consider ways to make the system fairer. As I say, there are a range of options, and we need to do it carefully.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Sammi from Keyingham in my constituency, who was one of the first in her family to go to university, graduated in 2016 after borrowing £40,000. She has now been working in the medical field for over four years, but that £40,000 has grown to £46,000. I was glad to hear the Minister’s previous answer, but Sammi and others want to hear that there will be concrete action to stop the outrageous interest, which is higher than one would expect for a personal loan or a mortgage. Will the Minister do something about it?

[Josh MacAlister]

I hope the right hon. Member started by apologising to Sammi in his correspondence, because the last Government froze the threshold on 10 separate occasions. I could list them all. They started in the year that the policy was designed and introduced—the same year in which the commitment was made to increase the threshold in line with inflation, which the Conservatives did not do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Concerns raised in recent weeks about plan 2 student loans, including unilateral and unexpected change in the repayment terms and repayments based on the consumer prices index, are about the promise of higher education: whether working hard for an undergraduate degree really does result in a good quality of life when graduates face 30 years of student loan repayments on these terms. In the light of these escalating concerns, can the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with the Treasury on this issue, and when we can expect to see the work that he promises to make plan 2 loans fairer for students?

[Josh MacAlister]

I know the Chair of the Education Committee is looking at these issues and the Government will be very interested in that work. We will set out the details of our work soon. My hon. Friend is right to highlight how transformational higher education can be. I would not want any young person outside this place who is listening to this debate to take away from it that they should not make every step forward to follow their talents. The Brit awards were just a few days ago and including some brilliant British talent, many of whom were on creative arts courses at university.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

On “Newsnight” on 23 February, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the student loan system is not perfect, but justified no change by saying the Government face huge pressure and must make tough choices. Given spending choices made since this Government came to power, is not the truth that the political choices that the Minister’s colleagues are talking about include balancing their “Benefits Street” Budget on the back of aspirational graduates?

[Josh MacAlister]

I would like to think there is cross-party agreement that tackling educational inequality is one of the most important things that we can do. It is a shame on our country that we are one of the most unequal when it comes to the relationship between how well a child can do at school and how much money is in their parents’ pockets. The Labour party is all about addressing such inequalities, and that is what this Government are doing. That is in no way at odds with finding ways to make our student loan system fairer and fixing it after the 10 years of freezes on thresholds by the Conservatives that hit working graduates.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

9. What steps she has taken to help improve nursery provision in Greater London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. The brilliant Burnley college has bid to become one of the UK’s four new advanced manufacturing technical excellence colleges. Its bid is the only one from Lancashire. It is backed by the North West Aerospace Alliance and the Northern Automotive Alliance, our big local world-class manufacturing employers, neighbouring colleges across the north-west and Yorkshire and—of course—me. Will the Secretary of State do her best to look fondly on the bid, and will she back Burnley’s technical excellence?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for a technical excellence college in his constituency. We have launched the applications for 19 of those. They get to the core of what this Labour Government are about, which is creating opportunities in every corner of this country.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T4. Instead of the Secretary of State’s cap on the number of branded items of school uniform, will she substitute that for a monetary cap, which would afford much greater flexibility to schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Scottish colleges are struggling to cope with huge cuts to staff and funding, including West College Scotland in my constituency. The Scottish National party has cut funding by 20% in five years. What can the Minister do, working with other Departments such as Defence, to ensure that Scottish colleges become engines of growth and opportunity again, particularly for the young people of West Dunbartonshire?

[Josh MacAlister]

The SNP’s track record on education is so poor they needed to pull out of the programme for international student assessment—or PISA—league tables because Scotland was plummeting so low. There is a chance to fix that in the elections later on this year. Skills policy is devolved, but as part of our defence boost we are seeing fantastic opportunities to bring colleges in Scotland along on that journey.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that we should prioritise the promotion of British heritage in schools? If so, will she bring in a policy to ensure that every school flies the Union Jack outside its premises, and that a different pupil gets the chance to raise the national flag every morning?

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Given that this is Colleges Week, may I take the opportunity to mention Stafford college, which is widely accepted to be the best college in the country? It already has 1,150 students on manufacturing courses, and works with 250 local employers in the sector. Does the Minister agree that if Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group were made an advanced manufacturing technical excellence college, it could build on its excellent relationship with manufacturers locally?

[Josh MacAlister]

I gladly congratulate Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group on its recent Ofsted rating, which is fantastic, and I note my hon. Friend’s support for its application to become a wave 2 technical excellence college. The applications closed on 16 February, and we expect to make and announce a decision next month.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Alderley Edge school for girls, in my constituency, has just announced its closure, blaming increased costs, such as national insurance costs, and, most significantly, VAT on school fees. Given that the Secretary of State is responsible for its closure, what will she do to help minimise the disruption to pupils who are now being forced to change school against their wishes, and to look for places in schools in the Cheshire East area that either no longer exist or are full?

Bereaved Children: Government Support

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government to such a constructive and heartfelt debate. I thank everybody for their contributions, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing it and for her opening speech, in which she reflected not only her own personal experience but her long-standing efforts to champion these issues on behalf of so many children and families outside this place. This House is better for it.

I will turn to a few of the contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) highlighted the brilliant work being done by Vanessa Thomson and her team at Oakwood primary school in her constituency, which reflects the importance of what happens in classrooms and the essential role that teachers play. I will say a bit more about that later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) spoke about his experience of meeting petitioners Mark and John and the power of people sharing their experiences, which is probably the thing I will take away from this debate more than anything. He also shared his very painful experience of losing his younger brother. I am sure that his brother would be very proud of him, hearing the speech he gave today.

Finally, the hon. Member—my hon. Friend—for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) talked about her personal experience and those of her children, and in particular the long tail of the effect on families of losing a loved one, needing to navigate that alone and the isolation that must come from that. The point that she made on bereavement support was valid and well made. That is not within my gift as a Minister at the Department for Education, but I would be very happy to facilitate a meeting with the Minister who is responsible for those issues.

As we have heard, bereavement cuts across all our lives and is something that we will all experience—it is universal. Responsibility for bereavement crosses boundaries between Departments, and I am pleased to be responding to the debate on behalf of the Government as the Minister for Children and Families. Grief comes to all of us, although we experience it uniquely and at different times. Loss can be particularly hard for children. It is therefore vital that young people are helped and have someone to turn to for support when they need it.

Given my role as a Minister at the Department for Education, I will start and focus most on the role of schools, where the Government have taken important steps to support bereaved children. On 15 July last year, we published revised relationships, sex and health education curriculum guidance, with a focus on supporting young people to develop resilience and to live healthy, full lives. During the consultation process, we heard that the RSHE curriculum should do more to recognise bereavement. We have listened carefully, including to many of the organisations referenced by Members today. As a result, for the first time, the guidance contains new content about coping strategies for dealing with issues such as anxiety, and specifically covers issues such as loneliness and bereavement.

As a society, we should become more open to discussing loss, as Members have said, and the guidance is an important step towards opening up that conversation with our young people in a sensitive and early way. Teachers can also draw on a wide range of external expertise and resources to help tailor their lessons. I want to express my gratitude to organisations such as the Anna Freud Centre and the National Association of Funeral Directors that provide invaluable support to children and young people coping with loss and bereavement.

In developing the guidance, we worked closely with experts on childhood bereavement, including the Childhood Bereavement Network. I am extremely grateful for its help, as well as that of all the other organisations and individuals who contributed to the guidance. I also want to thank individuals including Caroline Booth, who my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) drew to my attention.

Schools can choose to adopt the revised RSHE statutory guidance now and, in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, will be required to teach the new content from September this year. The roll-out of the new guidance has been supported by many of the organisations that helped to develop it, which are working on quality materials for teachers to use in our schools. Schools also have a wider role to play in supporting the resilience and mental health of children and young people. That is why we have made mental wellbeing, as well as health education, compulsory for all pupils in state-funded schools.

Pupils should be aware that change and loss, including bereavement, can provoke a range of feelings, that grief is a natural response to bereavement, and that everyone grieves differently. Pupils are taught how to recognise and talk about their emotions, including having a varied vocabulary of words to use when talking about their own and others’ feelings, and how to judge whether what they are feeling and how they are behaving is appropriate and proportionate. Pupils are taught to discuss their feelings with an adult and seek support. They are taught where and how to seek support, including whom in school they should speak to if they are worried about their own or someone else’s mental wellbeing or ability to control their emotions. The Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, and will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school by expanding mental health support teams, so that every child and young person has access to early support to address problems before they escalate.

Of course, for whatever reason, young people may not always want to access support at school, so it is important to look for ways to better help young people to access alternative sources of support, including the fantastic support available in the charitable sector. Members have mentioned a number of organisations, which I congratulate on the work that they do across the country. To name just two that have not so far been mentioned, officials in my Department recently met representatives of Scotty’s Little Soldiers, which provides support to children and families of the armed services, and Sibling Support, a UK-wide charity providing critical help to children who suffer the heartbreaking loss of a sibling. Last year, we added new links to key gov.uk pages for those who have suffered a bereavement that previously included no reference to children. I thank the Childhood Bereavement Network for its support, with the Department, in ensuring that that happened.

The shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), mentioned the importance of cross-Government working. We have continued to ensure that consideration of children remains a priority for the cross-Government bereavement working group, which is chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and takes its membership from a broad range of Departments. The group meets quarterly and continues to consider options for improving services for all bereaved people, including bereaved children.

The group was formed following the UK Commission on Bereavement report in 2022, “Bereavement is Everyone’s Business”. In November 2025, the UKCB steering group, including members from the Childhood Bereavement Network, attended a meeting of the cross-Government bereavement working group to share progress on its report’s recommendations and discuss further work. Furthermore, during National Grief Awareness Week in December, Baroness Merron attended the annual meeting of the UKCB commissioners, which was chaired by the now Archbishop of Canterbury, Dame Sarah Mullally, to discuss progress on implementing the report’s recommendations and hear from adults and children with direct experience.

In summary, bereavement will come to all of us—very sadly, for some it will be when they are still young and figuring out the world. I know that all those who have spoken today and the many experts and charities working in this area share a commitment to ensuring that every child is aware of and able to access the support that they need to navigate some of the most difficult times that they will ever experience. I thank everyone for contributing to the debate, and for being prepared to share very personal and moving stories; I hope they feel that everyone in the Chamber was willing them on to do so. Again, I pay tribute and give deep thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for her passion and her continued campaigning in this area. I look forward to working with her in the future to make progress in this essential field.

Student Loan Repayment Plans

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing today’s important debate on student loan repayments.

I would like to take a moment to collectively celebrate higher education and the transformational impact it can have for so many young people. We are right now in the peak UCAS application season. Although there are debates in this place about the merits and limitations of the current student finance system, I would not want any of these debates to put off those who have talents that university can accelerate and amplify. I acknowledge the interest shown in this debate on an issue that the Government will be looking at—I want to be clear about that up front. I recognise that many Members wanted to contribute, share personal stories and extend the arguments, but, because of time limits, we have not been able to hear the full breadth of the debate today. However, I doubt this will be the last time that Parliament considers this. The Minister for Skills in the other place, Baroness Smith, and I are alert to the issues.

I want to start by establishing some facts about the history of the plan 2 student loan system.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

As a plan 2 graduate myself, before the Minister proceeds will he put on the record an acceptance that, with the misstep on the tuition fee repayment level, the cat is out of the bag? We need to deal with it in this Parliament. I urge him to reject the tedious, time-wasting suggestions from the Lib Dems and get on and deal with it with Labour values.

[Josh MacAlister]

I can confirm, as the Secretary of State for Education said earlier this week, this is an issue that we will, of course, look at. The plan 2 system was introduced in 2012 by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in coalition. At the time, my party raised concerns about the design of that student loan package. When it was introduced, the threshold for repayment was only £21,000. Having said they would increase the threshold, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats then froze it. They froze it in 2012, its first year; they froze it in 2013, in 2014 and in 2015: four years of Liberal Democrat and Conservative freezes to thresholds. The Conservatives then froze it in 2016. They froze it in 2017 and then again in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. In total, there was a decade’s worth of freezes by parties who designed the model that they now stand here criticising. There is one phrase for that: crocodile tears.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

The Minister talks about the history of the student loan, and it is helpful for us all to understand that, but at the moment the students on plan 2 face a freeze—the very thing, along with previous Governments, that the Minister is criticising. It seems bizarre that he is criticising something on the one hand when he has taken action to do the same thing himself.

[Josh MacAlister]

That is a very timely intervention, because when we were elected we recognised the pressures and acted. In this Parliament, the Government are lifting the plan 2 repayment threshold to £29,385, ending a four-year freeze. We have acted to ensure that the threshold rises to above average graduate salaries, because that was the right thing to do, despite the fiscal pressures we faced. Due to the enormous pressures on budgets and the need for fairness across the education system, especially in further education, and to support the long-term sustainability of the student loan system, we announced at Budget 2025 that the Government will freeze plans for repayment thresholds at £29,385 for three years from April 2027. I note that, even with that freeze, a borrower earning £30,000 will repay around £4 a month and the average plan 2 borrower will repay about £8 more a month.

The freeze will generate £5.9 billion—money that this Government are investing back into young people. We are making improvements to the education system, and the threshold freeze contributes to that. The improvements are happening both in higher education and in the wider skills landscape. We will be investing £1.2 billion more in skills training per year by 2028-29, ensuring that we develop and nurture the skills that many young people who do not go to university need for the future. We are supporting colleges, apprenticeships and technical training, areas that have too long been neglected by other parties, with record funding. I see the benefits of much of that in my constituency, where many young people choose to pursue education through vocational and technical routes. We are setting up technical excellence colleges, ripping out the red tape from the apprenticeship system, and ensuring that more foundation apprenticeships get young people into trades and careers that give them a brighter future.

Politics is about choices. When a Government come in and all public services are in a mess, they have to work through their priorities. Just this week, we have announced generational changes to the special educational needs system. Just today, the Government are announcing major changes to ensure that people can see timely justice in the courts. We are also making changes to improve the student finance system. First, from January 2027, the lifelong learning entitlement will enable learners to use student loans more flexibly than ever before. Secondly, from the 2028-29 academic year, we will introduce targeted, means-tested grants, which, again, were scrapped by the previous Government. Thirdly, to support students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, we are future-proofing our maintenance loan offer, with loans for living costs increasing in line with forecast inflation every academic year.

This Government recognise the strength of feeling on the student loan system, particularly plan 2, and we will always look at issues that are important to the public. We will continue to keep this system under review.

[Sarah Russell]

The Minister has spoken very well about plan 2, and we are grateful that he will be looking at it, but so far as I can tell, plan 3 thresholds have remained frozen for postgrads at £21,000 since their inception. That is deeply unjust. Will he commit to looking at plan 3 as well as plan 2?

[Josh MacAlister]

As the Secretary of State said earlier this week, we will look at these issues.

Across the board, we are acting as a Government to support people with the cost of living: investing in free childcare, freezing rail fares, cutting energy bills—there is welcome news on that today—and introducing measures on rights at work and protections for renters. We understand the pressures facing young professionals and young graduates. As the Secretary of State has made very clear, we will of course look at this system in the round and at how it can be improved. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.

Foster Care: Recruitment and Retention

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank both the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing the debate and other Members for their interventions. This is my first opportunity to talk about the fostering action plan in Parliament, so I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to set out some of the details and to respond to the points she rightly raised.

Since my appointment last September, I have made renewing our fostering system my No. 1 priority as the Minister for Children and Families. Through extensive engagement and discussion, we have pulled together a bold plan, recognising the urgency of the problem that faces us. Earlier this month, we published our action plan, six-week consultation and call for evidence to renew fostering and create 10,000 additional foster care places by the end of this Parliament. We have done this 100 years on from the Adoption of Children Act 1926—the centenary of adoption and fostering as we know it—which created much of the framework that we now work within.

Now is the time to renew our fostering system. Foster care numbers are in decline: the total number has dropped by 12% since 2019, and we face a major demographic challenge because around one third of current carers are over 60, which will compound the problem in the years ahead. There are currently appalling conversion rates and unacceptable delays in approving carers. The 150,000 inquiries made last year only saw 7,300 newly approved foster carers, and 59% of fostering assessments in local authorities take more than six months.

All that is driving pressure on residential care, resulting in children living in residential care settings when they could—and should—be living in family-based homes. There was a 24% increase in children living in residential care between 2020 and 2025, with the number now at over 18,000 children. Yet research looking at children’s needs shows that 45% of children in residential care have the same level of need as those in foster care. The result of that pressure on many foster carers is poor matches, a lack of support and an outdated rulebook that signals a lack of trust and respect. The total impact of all that on our children is that too many are forced to live away from their school, friends and family. There are too many matches that mean they do not get the connections they need, and too many are in residential care when it is not the right fit for them.

The status quo and fostering decline run at complete odds with our wider reforms to children’s social care. It means that we are breaking rather than making lifelong, loving relationships and driving the cost escalator towards ever-expanding residential care, and there is evidence of profiteering. Between 2020 and 2025, spending on residential care doubled to £3.7 billion. Our wider reforms will keep more families safely together and mean greater support for kinship options. They are backed by a major reform programme and £2.4 billion of additional spending. Even with all that, renewing our fostering system demands real focus, national leadership and ambition. I will set out the actions we are taking to give thousands more children in care the choices they need to have the enduring relationships that must become the obsession of the care system.

First, to make sure that the whole of the English system is galvanised by the target that we have set of 10,000 care places, we are renewing local authority fostering teams and expanding fostering hubs that have made meaningful progress to take on the full end-to-end process. We are pushing fostering hubs to take on the whole process rather than just the initial inquiry stage. According to our plans, the majority of local authorities in England this year will recruit and train foster carers in end-to-end hubs. Those hubs will be held to account for rolling out the most effective features of existing hubs, so that we can get the conversion rates up. We will also launch new hubs in the coming weeks.

Further to that, we will create the second wave of regional care co-operatives with greater clarity: they will not simply be commissioning bodies but directly create provision and be tied to fostering hubs. To respond to the points raised around IFAs by the hon. Member for South West Devon, the RCC’s role is in many respects to strike a better relationship with the not-for-profit and profit-making sectors in both fostering and residential care. Throughout the whole process of building the plans I have engaged with independent fostering organisations and will continue to do that. They have value to add into the process and can bring innovation into it. But I want to add a word of caution: there is evidence from Competition and Markets Authority studies that profit-making independent fostering bodies cost more on average than local authority fostering, and it is being done for profit.

With the direction of travel that we have seen the residential care system going in, we are now at a point where about 90% of all residential care is run on a for-profit basis and where the largest companies demonstrate behaviour that amounts to profiteering. I do not want to see that replicated in the fostering system, so we need to grip it before that happens. Market failure will be the result of inaction from the Government in this field, and I will not tolerate that.

All other local authorities that are not in an RCC or a fostering hub will be set stretching targets to approve, and we will set new standards on the process overall. Ofsted will update its inspection framework to hold those local authorities to account. We are also consulting on whether the role of fostering panels for approvals should be changed, and whether that adds value to the process commensurate with the time and cost involved in those fostering panels. We will launch a digital platform to speed up the process. All of that should speed up conversion rates and get more approved carers as soon as possible.

[Rachael Maskell]

Could the Minister say a little more about how foster carers from within families will be handled in this process? That is really important. Also, how will the reunification process work, so that we can reunite a child with their birth family?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is at risk of taking me off down two very important subjects that I would love to spend an entire Westminster Hall debate talking about. Briefly, I want to see the fostering approval system change so that it is sensitive to the differences between approving, for example, a known person to that child who will only ever foster that child, and approving foster carers who are doing it through the more conventional route. The problem at the moment, as I have heard from many kinship carers, is that they are held to standards that are just not appropriate. Grandparents are being given a hard time because they vape, or because they have only one spare room and they are wanting to look after two grandchildren. I want all that swept away so that we can have a common-sense system that gets behind the people who are already in that child’s life and love them, so that that becomes the central focus of how we structure the care system.

Similarly for reunification practice, it is important that people recognise more widely that the route from living with parents to living in care often involves going back and forth many times, and it should not. We need to build a care system that can wrap around families and parents who might be struggling. The option of part-time foster care or family fostering can offer real value. I did a radio call-in this morning on that very point and spoke to a young care-experienced person called Mary who had that experience of moving in and out of care. I think she said her mum was bipolar. Mary’s mum loves her and can offer some care and support to her, so it would be great if the care system could bolster Mary’s family rather than replace Mary’s family, if it is safe to do so. That is what we should try to do at every step with the care system.

Secondly, we will scale and support innovation to get new carers and look after the ones who are already caring, because retention is as important as recruitment. We will double down on Mockingbird, the programme of support for existing foster carers, funding another 100 constellations. We will also set new standards of support for all carers so that they can benefit from the features that make Mockingbird such a success. We will take Room Makers, first started in Greater Manchester—a programme that sounds very similar to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon—to national roll-out. At least £25 million will fund extensions or renovations so that children can stay connected for longer, or grow up with their brothers and sisters in the same house. We will launch a fostering innovation programme to bring forward even more new thinking, with a focus on new and flexible models of care, like weekenders, step down, and specialist care and support for retention.

Specifically, I have been delighted to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to set up a new programme to scale up remand fostering so that children do not unnecessarily enter young offender institutions. Through all of that, we will encourage partnerships between fostering hubs and independent fostering associations, as the hon. Member for South West Devon has highlighted. Renewing fostering means opening up to new models of care and new families. The Government welcome that innovation.

Thirdly, we will rewrite the rulebook around fostering, prioritising making foster care feel human, loving and normal for children, and respected and supported for carers. We have launched a rapid consultation on changes to the allegations process, which has been a source of complaint for many years. We are doing that so that it is fairer for carers and does not unduly rock existing strong relationships.

We have launched a call for evidence on a range of issues, including a foster care national register and consistency of allowances. We will be setting out a process of analysing the variation of allowances across the country in order to highlight the point that hon. Members have raised. We will make some changes around the distinctive role of kinship and connected carers in fostering, and the training and support that they need. That will lead to a rewriting of national minimum standards and other statutory guidance for fostering at the earliest opportunity. We will take immediate steps to clarify that foster carers must be respected in conversations about their child among professionals. We are also immediately taking action to clarify that the day-to-day decisions about children, such as permissions to get haircuts and overnight stays, should be made by foster carers by default, not exception.

We are rewriting the rulebook to put long-lasting relationships first, and that will be part of wider action to take on myths about who can and cannot care. Our vision is a fostering system built on relationships that last. By recruiting and retaining more carers, acting regionally, innovating, supporting families and simplifying the rules, we will create thousands more foster families across England that are closer to children’s communities and schools. We know we can do that because the appetite is there in the country; we are just failing to convert it. We have done it in recent history: the Homes for Ukraine scheme showed what we can do when confronted with a problem. Civic society and Government can be mobilised in harmony towards a shared goal.

This is a decisive moment for fostering in England; together we will ensure that every child who could thrive in foster care has the option of a home to grow up in, with the love, stability and opportunity that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Kinship Carer Identification

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for securing a debate on this important matter. Like him, I recognise the enormous contribution that kinship carers make to children’s lives. This Government are committed to helping more children grow up in safe, stable and loving homes within their family networks, wherever it is in the child’s best interests.

I want to begin by acknowledging the incredible commitment and generosity of kinship carers. By opening their hearts and homes to some of the country’s most vulnerable children, they are transforming the future generation. We should not underestimate the life-changing difference that kinship carers make every single day to children across this country. Kinship children and families need support to navigate the very challenging circumstances they find themselves in.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The Minister is giving a comprehensive answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins). My constituent Natalie had seven nephews and nieces brought to her door and was told by the police and social services that it would be really good if she could take them in. She was then told that she was not entitled to any support whatsoever because it was a family arrangement, but she had not made the arrangement herself. She is a hero for taking those children in. I accept that multiple campaigns state what kinship carers should be entitled to, but would the Minister agree that in this circumstance with these unambiguous details that she absolutely should get the support that she is entitled to?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is because of stories exactly like that one—from aunts, uncles, grandparents and other relatives across the country who often step into these children’s lives at sometimes no notice, waking up one morning to find that they are now responsible for very young children, sometimes babies and newborns—that I recommended a whole series of changes when I undertook the independent review of children’s social care in 2022. In that review, I described kinship carers as the “silent and unheard majority” of the care system.

Under this Government, they are now being heard.

I will set out a few of the things the Government are taking forward now and in the coming weeks to change the situation for kinship carers across this country. To ensure that family networks and kinship care are always fully explored—there are good examples in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, and elsewhere in the UK—we are legislating right now to require all local authorities to offer a family group decision-making process such as a family group conference to all parents, or those with parental responsibility, whose child’s case has reached the pre-proceedings stage. That will bake in the need for services to engage proactively with the whole family network, not just parents, to establish whether the family themselves have a better answer for looking after that child than the care system. That, more than anything else, will probably be the factor that shifts the culture within children’s social care to put the initial focus on kinship networks.

That will be backed by the roll-out of family network support packages so that councils can fund some of the more informal arrangements that are a way of avoiding the need for children to enter the care system.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend was a big advocate for kinship carers before becoming a Minister, and he still is. Kinship care is incredibly hard for everyone involved. It often arises from really difficult circumstances, and the family members who make that commitment often give up a lot to do so. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Sue Nash, a local volunteer in my constituency who runs the Peterborough Kinship Care Group, which provides support to kinship carers all across Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire and assists them in sharing best practice and learning among one another?

[Josh MacAlister]

I would be absolutely delighted to recognise Sue Nash and the amazing work that she and so many others are doing across the country through kinship support groups.

The Government have supported the charity Kinship to run 140 peer support groups and training packages across England so that kinship carers have a platform to support one another and navigate the complex systems that sit around the kinship family system. We widened therapeutic help for children through the adoption and special guardianship support fund, for which I recently announced an extension of two years and a 10% increase so that we can continue to meet the needs of adoptive and special guardianship families. We have introduced the first national definition of kinship care, published statutory guidance and appointed a national kinship care ambassador.

We will continue to go further. I know that many kinship carers face financial hardship. That is why the Government will very soon launch a large trial, which will represent the largest single financial investment in kinship carers this country has ever seen, to test the impact of providing a weekly financial allowance equal to the national minimum allowance for foster carers in a number of local authorities across the country. The allowance will not be means-tested and will not impact benefits such as universal credit.

[Melanie Onn]

I thank the Minister for the serious consideration that has been given to this pilot. It is exceptional. We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) what a difference financial support makes. I congratulate the Minister on making sure that this happens for these families, who are not asking for the earth—they’re really not. They just need a little bit of help, and they want that money to go towards the children they are looking after.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that. The tireless campaigning of so many kinship families over the years has led the Government to the point of setting in train these changes, which will be announced in full very soon. The fantastic work done by the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, which my hon. Friend chairs, means that we are now in a position to take these steps in the next few weeks.

Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are legislating to require every local authority to publish a clear and accessible kinship local offer setting out the support available to kinship carers and children. The national kinship care ambassador will provide support and expertise to help local authorities to implement that new national duty, and will shortly release a national report summarising learning generated through engagement with the sector. That is the first step in creating a national kinship standard for a consistent kinship care framework across the country, tackling directly the current postcode lottery in support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester raised the importance of kinship carers having employment leave rights equal to those of parents who are adopting. I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government are considering that. We have launched a review of the parental leave system, and it is clear that kinship carers, and the parental leave to which they are entitled, are within the scope of the review. I thank all the carers who have taken the time to respond to the review. We will also improve data by adding a kinship indicator to the schools census in autumn 2026, and launch the first national study focused on children’s experiences in kinship care.

It is vital to ensure that children have someone advocating for them in education. We will ensure that the virtual school head role has statutory footing for children in kinship care in 2027. Of course, the generational reforms to special educational needs and disabilities announced today will support many children in kinship families. We know that the legal routes through which kinship care arrangements are made can be confusing, and carry different assessments and entitlements to different forms of support, which is why we have asked the Law Commission to review the kinship legal frameworks. Together, those actions show how serious the Government are about ensuring that kinship carers, children and families are recognised, supported and valued.

On the specific issue of identification for kinship carers, I am aware that there is an existing campaign promoting the need for kinship carer ID, led by Kinship Carers UK. I thank that organisation for the work that it has undertaken to shine such an important spotlight on the issue. It is of the utmost importance that our national health service and other public services have robust systems in place to ensure that parental responsibility is recognised quickly and efficiently in all situations in which a child is no longer being cared for by their parents, whether temporarily or permanently. It is concerning to hear of instances in which vulnerable children have been denied access to appropriate and timely medical treatment because of a combination of existing processes failing and a lack of understanding by professionals about kinship care.

The issue of professionals not understanding kinship care is not unique to health services. Just last week, I was in Newcastle speaking to kinship carers who told me about their experience working with their children’s schools, and the continued need to re-explain the status of their special guardianship order. I have also heard of cases in which kinship carers have copies of their SGOs, but professionals still seek further verification of the validity of those documents. The challenge is not simply to have a document that sets out parental responsibility or the role that a carer has in a child’s life, but to ensure that services understand the nature of the orders. I agree that we need a clear way for kinship families to demonstrate where they have parental rights, and that it is a recognised and accepted process wherever it is needed. However, the more pressing concern is ensuring that professionals across all our services recognise and understand kinship care.

I am committed to having conversations with Kinship Carers UK, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice, and local authority colleagues to explore the best way to ensure that the situation of kinship children and their carers is recognised and understood, and that they get the support they need in a timely manner, ensuring that public services do not add more stress during what can already be extremely stressful times. Across the House, we agree that kinship carers are remarkable people who step in during extraordinary circumstances and times to give their kin a safe, stable and loving home within their family network. We all agree that it is not acceptable that there are situations in which children are experiencing unnecessary delays in receiving important medical treatment or other public services, due to challenges in providing the legal status of the guardian.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution to this debate. He is a strong advocate for kinship care, and I thank others for their interventions. I look forward to speaking to my hon. Friend in future about the progress we are making for kinship children and families, and to working with him on the specific issue of ensuring that kinship carers and family members are able to prove parental responsibility as easily as possible, so that they can step up and step into the lives of those children readily and easily.

Question put and agreed to.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing that the adoption and special guardianship support fund will be extended until March 2028—the end of the current spending review period—and that the budget will be increased by 10% to £55 million for 2026-27. I recognise the importance of setting out a holistic, evidence-based vision for long-term adoption support. That is why I am also launching a consultation on the future reform of adoption and kinship support, including the ASGSF.

This work builds on significant reform across children’s social care already under way that benefits adopted and kinship children and their families. These include the £2.4 billion Families First Partnership programme over the next three years—funding that is equally available to adoptive and kinship families—and wider reforms to children’s social care and mental health services that aim to improve early intervention and strengthen joint working across systems.

This statement outlines the context for that consultation, together with the funding we are providing while it is under way.

The current system

Many adopted and kinship children thrive thanks to the love and care they receive, and a great number do so without any additional support. However, when additional need occurs, because of those difficult childhood experiences, help is often fragmented across services and access to support varies significantly between local areas. For too long support for adoptive and kinship families has been inconsistent, difficult to navigate, and not always aligned with the evidence on what delivers the best outcomes for children.

We know that children’s needs change over time, yet current arrangements do not always provide timely, co-ordinated help at key stages. We also know when children are most likely to present additional needs—namely, when transitioning to secondary school and when entering adolescence. These challenges underline the need for a more coherent, sustainable, and evidence-based framework for adoption and kinship support—one that ensures families receive the right support, at the right time, wherever they live.

Innovation and improving our understanding of what works

Where we think there is a strong case for intervention now, we must make changes to improve support offered to children as soon as possible. That is why from summer 2026, we will introduce a new parent support offer, delivered through Adoption England, for adoptive parents and special guardians whose children are entering secondary school.

This programme will provide practical support while laying the groundwork for wider systemic reform to adoption and special guardianship support. It addresses the well-evidenced challenges children face during the transition from year 6 to year 7, and will include universal, targeted and peer-led help.

The aim is to provide early support to provide consistent support to strengthen families, and prevent escalation into absence, exclusion or placement strain. This forms the initial step in a broader, long-term model of support. Further information will be available in due course.

In 2026-27, we will invest to strengthen regional adoption agency multidisciplinary teams. Regional adoption agencies will strengthen multidisciplinary teams in 2026-27 to provide co-ordinated, holistic support for adopted children and families. Bringing social care, health, and education professionals together will streamline decisions and ensure timely, evidence-based help.

Additionally, the Department of Health and Social Care has launched a three-year pilot to enhance mental health support for children in care and their families. The Department for Education will collaborate to ensure adoptive families are included, starting with one geographic area. This pilot will test a fully integrated mental health support model to ensure children and families receive co-ordinated, accessible help when and where it is needed most.

Consultation

The “Adoption support that works for all” consultation will run for 12 weeks and is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/adoption-support-that-works-for-all The consultation sets out a bold and ambitious vision for adoption and (eligible) kinship support. Rather than continuing with a predominantly reactive and centrally administered fund, we propose moving towards a more integrated, evidence-based, and locally led system. This model would place stronger emphasis on early help, consistent and holistic needs assessments, support at key stages, and closer integration between children’s social care, health services, and education.

Taken together, these initiatives deliver practical, immediate action, while laying the foundations for wider systemic reform within a new model of adoption and special guardianship support that prioritises early help and evidence-based intervention.

As we take forward this work, our ambition is clear: every adopted and eligible kinship child should receive the right support at the right time, delivered through a system that is coherent, compassionate and responsive to their needs. The voices of families and experts will be central in shaping this future. I urge all those with experience and expertise to respond to the consultation and help us build a stronger, more integrated support system—one that gives every child the stability, opportunity and security they deserve.

I will deposit a copy of the consultation document and equalities impact assessment in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1320]