Social Work Regulation in England: Independent Review

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Written Statements

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

On 5 November 2025, I informed the House that the Secretary of State for Education had commissioned Dame Annie Hudson to undertake the statutory independent review of the operation of part 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. I am now updating the House to confirm that the review has concluded and that today I am laying before Parliament Dame Annie Hudson’s review report together with the Government response. The review and the Government response relate to Social Work England and the regulation of social workers in England.

I would like to thank Dame Annie Hudson, the review team, and the many stakeholders who contributed evidence and insight to this important review.

The review was asked to assess how effectively Social Work England is discharging its statutory functions and delivering against its statutory objectives, and to consider whether changes are needed to support more effective regulation and improved standards in social work practice.

The review recognises progress since Social Work England was established, including maintaining the register, developing its regulatory approach and standards, completing its first round of inspections, progressing equalities work, and developing approaches to early resolution of concerns.

The review nevertheless concludes that there is a clear case for change to secure sustained improvement. It identifies the need for stronger performance in core regulatory functions, particularly fitness to practise; greater clarity about the role and remit of Social Work England; and stronger governance, sponsorship and accountability arrangements. It also calls for a more coherent standards landscape across professional regulation, qualifying education and post qualifying development; clearer expectations for employers and the wider system; and better use of data, transparency and equalities analysis.

The Government accept the review’s central conclusion that sustained improvement is needed in social work regulation in England. This is a shared improvement agenda. Social Work England has a central role in delivering effective regulation, but Government, employers and wider partners also have responsibilities. The Government response therefore sets out the action we expect Social Work England to take, the steps Government will take to strengthen sponsorship and system coherence, and the areas where further work with partners will be needed.

Social workers do vital work with children, families and adults, often in complex and challenging circumstances. Effective professional regulation is essential to public protection, public confidence and high professional standards. It is therefore important that Social Work England is focused on delivering its regulatory functions effectively and that improvement is practical, visible and sustained.

Fitness to practise is the most significant operational priority identified by the review. It is central to public protection and public confidence. The Government recognise that fitness to practise pressures are not unique to Social Work England, and that regulators across sectors are managing increasing case volumes and complexity. However, delays, poor communication and insufficient grip across the end-to-end process affect everyone involved: people who raise concerns, social workers under investigation, witnesses, employers and the wider public.

The Government are clear that urgent improvement is required in timeliness, communications, user experience and strategic grip across the end-to-end process. They therefore expect Social Work England to deliver, within six months, an externally supported, end-to-end fitness to practise strategic improvement plan, building on work already under way and bringing existing plans together into a single coherent approach. This must include clear milestones, revised forecasts and key performance indicators (KPI) on timeliness, methods to track progress and arrangements to recalibrate at pace where needed. The Department for Education will provide strengthened oversight, with regular reporting and ministerial visibility of progress, risks and escalation points. If Social Work England does not meet this six-month deadline, or if reporting shows inadequate progress against the plan, the Government will escalate intervention, including through governance, sponsorship and statutory levers available to the Secretary of State.

The Government response also sets out our position on legislative and procedural changes that may support a more effective fitness to practise process. These include issues relating to the lawful sharing and use of relevant information from private family court proceedings, accepted disposal powers, the role of the Professional Standards Authority, information sharing, suspension, and any further changes identified through the fitness to practise strategic improvement plan. We will consider these carefully, including the appropriate route and timing.

The review also makes important findings about the role, leadership and sponsorship of Social Work England. The Government agree that the regulator’s role must be clearly focused on core regulatory functions and remain distinct from professional representation or wider sector improvement activity. This does not prevent proportionate engagement, communications, data and equalities work where these support effective regulation.

Strong leadership, effective challenge and clear accountability will be essential to delivering the improvements required. The Government will work with Social Work England to ensure the board has the right expertise, including in social work and regulation. The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care will also strengthen joint working and senior engagement so that sponsorship better reflects both children’s and adults’ social work and supports clear accountability for progress.

The review also concludes that the standards landscape for social work needs to be more coherent. The Government agree that social workers, employers, education providers and the public should be able to understand clearly how different standards, frameworks and guidance fit together. The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care will work with Social Work England and relevant sector bodies to develop an overarching framework, reducing duplication, clarifying the status of different standards and guidance, and supporting a more coherent relationship between qualifying education, professional regulation, continuing professional development, and post-qualifying development. Where the review recommends longer-term changes to post-qualifying standards and assurance, the Government will consider the appropriate route, timing and deliverability, including policy, legal, funding and capacity implications.

As part of this, the Government support Social Work England reviewing its education and training standards including the knowledge, skills and behaviours, and clarifying how they should support assessment in practice placements. The aim should be a clearer and more practice-focused framework for initial qualifying social work education, which supports high and common expectations across children’s and adults’ social work.

The Government also agree that better data, transparency, and equalities analysis are essential to effective regulation and public confidence, particularly in understanding fitness to practise outcomes, differential impacts, and the experience of different groups.

The Government will work closely with Social Work England and partners across the sector to deliver practical and sustained improvement, with clear expectations, regular oversight and escalation where progress is not sufficient. Copies of the review report and the Government response will be available on gov.uk and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS208]

Access to Further Education

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this timely and important debate. I have not had the chance to speak to her since her powerful and moving contribution earlier. FE colleges are engines of economic growth and social justice. They are anchor institutions, bridging talent with opportunities. While often overlooked, they are central to our very success and prosperity as a country.

I know full well the power of further education from my own local college, Lakes college in Cumbria, which, with the power of the Dispatch Box, I will declare is the best in the country. It has a distinctive national specialism in nuclear skills and engineering. But it is essential that everyone—whatever their background and circumstances and wherever they live—can access the opportunities of excellent further education.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve, but the best colleges are in my constituency of Sussex Weald.

[Josh MacAlister]

I am just relieved, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were not ticking me off for something else. [Interruption.] Okay. It is a growing list.

It is essential that everyone, wherever their background and wherever they live, has access to excellent further education funding. That point was made by a number of Members in the debate. Just yesterday, the Government announced an additional £120 million for further education in 2026-27, rising to £365 million in 2027-28.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

This Government have rightly made capital investment decisions for the long term. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to properly plan further education provision with the skills and jobs needed for long-term growth in infrastructure?

[Josh MacAlister]

I do, and it is only possible with the funding that I was setting out that the Government have secured.

Funding per student aged 16 to 19 will have increased by over 12% in two years. That comes at a time of significant growth in student numbers. As a result, total 16-to-19 funding will increase from £7.6 billion in 2024-25 to over £9 billion in 2026-27, which is a material increase. This is timely because of the current challenge we face of the rising number of young people not in education, employment or training. The number is too high, and the consequences are serious.

The Government have a comprehensive plan for further education and post-16 education and skills overall to support young people into rewarding careers and tackle high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. As well as technical excellence colleges—specialist further education colleges in England designed to deliver high-quality training in priority sectors—we are introducing the new V-levels, which will sit alongside T-levels as the technical route and A-levels as the academic route, which Members will be familiar with.

The youth guarantee is this Government’s commitment to ensure that all young people can access education, training and apprenticeships, employment support or work opportunities. We are supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships and offering a £2,000 hiring payment for small businesses. This is complemented by the jobs guarantee, which provides eligible young people with a guaranteed six-month paid job, helping them gain work experience, skills and a route into sustained employment.

The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby highlighted the need for capacity in FE. Demographics mean that this is a national challenge, but we expect 67,000 additional 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to enter the post-16 system in 2028, which is very soon. That means we are investing £570 million to create the space that is needed in FE. Post-16 providers that are not in mayoral strategic combined authorities—I believe that the hon. Member’s constituency is not—have been able to bid for the construction skills capacity fund, the outcome of which will be revealed very shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) raised the variation in the cost of payments per pupil. High-cost 16 to 19 courses do receive more money. For example, engineering attracts 73% more funding than base cost classroom courses.

The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) was right to highlight the problems with the apprenticeship levy as was. We are making big changes to make it less bureaucratic for small businesses, in particular with the growth and skills levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) highlighted issues with transport, as did many other Members. He was right to say that bus access is integral to opportunities at further education colleges. I know that from my own constituency.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I would just like to highlight a point of inequity. Mayors sometimes subsidise buses for young people aged 16 to 19, which means that young people in urban areas are better set than those in rural areas where the councils cannot afford to do that and young people have much further to travel.

[Josh MacAlister]

As a Cumbrian MP, I know that problem all too well, and I know that many in Cornwall experience that too. We are building back our bus system in this country. There have been significant increases in funding for local authorities to build back that bus system. We do need to go further on it, and I completely recognise the connection that has been drawn by my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) asked about funding. About 70% of FE funding comes from the Department for Education through the funding for post-16 courses. Earlier in my speech I set out the 12% increase over the last two years. Because that is such a large proportion, I recognise the other issues with adult skills budgets, but overall FE college funding is going up as a result of all of that.

[Gareth Snell]

I appreciate that this is the responsibility of our noble Friend in the other place, but if the Minister’s officials could write with an answer, I would be grateful. It is reported that pension contributions in the college sector will likely drop by about 8% as a result of the funds doing very well. There is a rumour that some of the colleges’ dividend from having to pay less into pension funds will be clawed back mid-academic year as part of the Department’s negotiations. I appreciate that he cannot answer that now, but that would be incredibly damaging to colleges. Any way of mitigating it would be welcomed across the sector.

[Josh MacAlister]

I was about to turn to my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to recognise the limits of my knowledge, given that my noble Friend in the other place has responsibility for that issue. I will happily ask for officials to write to my hon. Friend about that concern. He is also right to highlight the need for care in handling the transition in qualifications—a point he has made many times and on which he has helped the Government get to a sensible place. I will also ask my noble Friend, given her responsibility for this brief, to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) about the issue in his constituency.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), rightly highlights issues around funding. I believe I have covered that in relation to yesterday’s excellent news on FE teacher pay, overall funding and the population at post-16 settings; there will be a 12% increase over the next two years. The hon. Member and I spend quite a bit of time exchanging ideas and comments about each other’s plans; I have stopped keeping a tally of spending commitments from the Liberal Democrats, because they are racking up.

I congratulate the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), on his first time at the Dispatch Box. I can tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) are of one mind on the need for a transformation in further education. I do not have time to tackle the hypocrisy of the Conservative party’s student loans plan, because I have been asked to wrap up.

With that in mind, let me finish by saying that further education colleges are a manifestation of so much that we value as a Government and as a country. We back them with the money, reform and status they rightly deserve. There will be more to come, but change is already afoot. I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby for securing the debate and all Members for contributing.

Antisemitism: University Campuses

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this important and timely debate.

I will turn to a few of the remarks made by Members in this debate, starting with my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). He is right to highlight the number of former student sabbatical officers in this place, present company included, and the important history of the Windermere children. I am keen to do what I can to support the case he is making to find ways to both rebuild the school and bring greater Holocaust education to the north of England, and I share many of his aspirations in that respect.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for praising the leadership of UJS, of which many representatives are here today, and for highlighting the leadership of Michael Necus. In setting out the historical context, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) reminded me of Baron Finkelstein’s excellent foreword to the UJS “Time for Change” report, highlighting that antisemitism can be taken as a warning sign of moral collapse.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly stated that we must not conflate the action of the Government of Israel with the Jewish community, and I thank him for making that point so clearly. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) powerfully brought to life the harrowing experiences of Jewish students, and I thank him for taking the time in his speech to make sure that their voices have been heard here.

Universities are places where ideas are tested, challenged and, where necessary, shown to be wanting, through evidence, scrutiny and debate. Exposure to different viewpoints, including those with which we strongly disagree, is an essential part of higher education. Students should leave university having had their assumptions challenged and their perspectives broadened. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are therefore central to the university experience.

At the same time, universities have a duty to ensure that all students can participate fully in university life without fear of intimidation, harassment or discrimination. That is particularly important in the light of the significant rise of antisemitism. Too many Jewish students have been subject to abuse, exclusion and hostility because of their Jewish identity.

Although robust debate, including on controversial political issues, is a vital part of academic life, freedom of expression is not a cover for antisemitic harassment, discrimination or abuse. Universities must therefore both uphold the freedom of speech and take effective action to ensure that Jewish students can study, participate and thrive, free from antisemitism. Our task is not to choose between those principles, but to uphold both. In a liberal democracy, we do not resolve disagreement by shutting down debate, nor do we accept intimidation as the price of free expression. Instead, we create the conditions in which robust debate can flourish and everyone can participate with confidence. That must be our ambition for higher education.

The rise in antisemitism reported by Jewish students is not simply a challenge for one community; it is a test of whether our universities can remain places of inclusion, academic freedom and respect for all. When Jewish students feel unable to speak openly, participate fully or express their identity without fear, something fundamental is at stake.

The scale of the problem is clear, and has been set out by many hon. Members in this debate. In 2025, CST recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in the UK—the second highest annual total on record. Antisemitism is not an historical issue; it remains a present and persistent threat, and we must challenge the ideas and narratives that give rise to these incidents.

Too often, antisemitism is expressed through familiar tropes and conspiracy theories: allegations of secret influence, dual loyalty, collective responsibility or hidden power. Those claims can sometimes appear superficially innocuous, but they draw on centuries-old racist myths used to marginalise, persecute and dehumanise Jewish people. We should be clear that those ideas are antisemitic and we should have the confidence to speak out against them, and the Government must provide leadership on that. It is never acceptable to hold Jewish people or Jewish communities responsible for the actions of a foreign state. Criticism of the Government of Israel, like criticism of any Government, is legitimate; holding British Jews collectively responsible is not.

Tackling antisemitism cannot be left to Jewish communities alone. It requires a whole-society response and education is among our most powerful tools in doing so. That is why we are investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism across education and helping schools, colleges and universities prevent incidents, respond effectively when they occur, and foster environments where Jewish students feel safe, welcome and valued.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the Minister agree that people who are trying to divide us will sometimes pit one community against another, and where one community is being rightly and legitimately supported, they will try to weaponise that in another community and create friction? Does he also agree that the steps taken by the Government can be replicated across communities, and that communities and leaders in each of the discriminated-against communities should work together so that the support cannot be weaponised?

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to make that point. To pick up one thread of today’s debate, a number of hon. Members have raised the power of algorithms, which feed off people’s fury and anger and the differences that exist between them. Many of the themes highlighted in this debate could equally apply to other groups in society where our attention is also needed.

Government-funded training is already supporting university staff and leaders to recognise antisemitism, support Jewish students and respond appropriately when concerns arise. Last week, we agreed to fund projects through our innovation fund to help students navigate misinformation, engage constructively with difficult issues and develop a deeper understanding of different faiths and communities. We are also developing a new community cohesion framework with students in partnership with the University of Salford and the National Union of Students. Alongside that work, we continue to support University Jewish Chaplaincy to provide pastoral wellbeing and practical support to Jewish students across the country.

In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked about the statutory framework. Given the time remaining, I will give the brief update that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is due to update its good practice framework for higher education providers in handling reports of harassment later this year. In addition, we are working with the sector to improve transparency and accountability for tackling antisemitic abuse. We are also working with Universities UK to undertake a rapid assessment of institutional disciplinary and incident reporting processes and we will develop recommendations and priority actions in autumn this year.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive answer. In my contribution, I suggested that when universities fall short of their obligations, their vice chancellors should be called in to answer to a parliamentary Committee as to why no action had been taken. Does the Minister consider that that would be an effective way of ensuring that universities protect Jewish students and those of Jewish faith? Could calling in vice chancellors be a way of squeezing universities—and squeezing them tight?

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the essential aspect of accountability. The Office for Students has been given additional powers in recent years. It is also true that the scale of the challenge that we see with antisemitism on university campuses, and the challenge that many universities are facing in meeting their obligations to uphold the freedom of speech while also creating the climate and culture necessary for freedom from intimidation, may lead a Select Committee to hold an inquiry on that. It would, of course, be a matter for Parliament and a Select Committee to do so, but if that were to happen, the Department for Education would be very interested in its findings.

We know that many of the conspiracy theories and hateful tropes that underpin antisemitism are also features of extremist ideologies. Left unchallenged, they can create an environment in which radicalisation becomes more likely. At their most serious, they can form part of a pathway towards terrorism. Prevent data shows that in the year to March 2025, there were 8,778 referrals, 21% of which were linked to extreme right-wing concerns and 10% to Islamist extremism. Although Prevent does not record antisemitism as a stand-alone category, those figures illustrate how antisemitic narratives can, and often do, form part of extremist worldviews that carry a risk of terrorism or serious harm.

Most antisemitic incidents fall well below the threshold for Prevent intervention. Nevertheless, the data demonstrates that, in the most serious cases, ideas rooted in historical antisemitic prejudice can become part of a trajectory towards terrorism. That is why, through our wider Protecting What Matters programme, we are taking action to challenge antisemitism and extremism wherever they arise. We are strengthening oversight of universities’ Prevent duties; updating guidance on external speakers and events, which is due to come out very soon; improving our ability to identify emerging extremist activity; enhancing whistleblowing protections; and increasing transparency around incidents of antisemitism.

[Mark Sewards]

Can the Minister give us a more specific timeline than “very soon”?

[Josh MacAlister]

I reviewed a draft of that guidance a matter of days ago, and it is due to be published very shortly. The issue is probably more that there is a queue of things to be published, rather than it not being ready to go.

We must remain alert to the actions of hostile state actors who seek to exploit social tensions, spread disinformation and undermine community cohesion. The Government are therefore strengthening their response to state threats through tougher powers to identify and disrupt hostile activity, greater transparency around foreign influence, and stronger measures against those acting on behalf of foreign states. Where there is evidence of unacceptable activity linked to foreign actors, including Iran, we will not hesitate to act.

Our message is simple and unequivocal: there is no place for antisemitism, extremism or hostile state interference in our universities or our society. We will defend lawful free speech, protect students from intimidation and ensure that campuses remain places where learning, debate and mutual respect can thrive.

Higher Education: Student Outcomes

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Written Statements

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

Our higher education sector has a world-leading reputation. The evidence shows that most graduates are significantly better off as a result of undertaking higher education, but we are determined to ensure that everyone can be confident of a good experience and strong outcomes from their investment in higher education.

We came into Government with a manifesto commitment to raising teaching standards in higher education. The post-16 education and skills White Paper last autumn placed quality at the heart of our vision for the sector.

We acted quickly to support financial sustainability for providers through the tuition fee increase. We are improving support for access and participation, re-introducing maintenance grants and supporting better pathways through the system. However, there is more work to be done to ensure consistent high quality across the sector. Too many courses are not delivering the outcomes students deserve.

New analysis published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that 25% of students do not see a positive return from their studies, with negative returns concentrated in certain subjects. I have today written to all higher education providers to outline further reforms to tackle the issues exposed by today’s IFS analysis and elsewhere, so that we can help all students benefit from everything our higher education system has to offer.

We will legislate to limit the growth of some courses that lead to poor earnings returns at some providers, when parliamentary time allows. This will not be a blanket cap on student numbers, but a focused measure to support the sector to prioritise provision where it delivers good value for students and the taxpayer. We will engage a wide range of stakeholders to inform the development of these options.

We also expect providers to include clear information about destinations and outcomes on their own websites, so that students can make choices that work for them. We are working with the Office for Students, UCAS (the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) and sector partners to make it easier for students to access the information available on Discover Uni, in time for the next cohort of students to consider their options in spring 2027.

Alongside this, our “Pathways to Priority Occupations” report, also published today, will support students to make informed choices about their courses. We are exploring how artificial intelligence can further strengthen the information available to them.

Finally, there must be robust standards to protect students and taxpayers from abuse. We intend to consult in the autumn on new minimum English language requirements for student finance, to provide greater confidence that recipients are able to benefit from their course. We will design this carefully, in collaboration with the higher education sector.

Together, these actions will help ensure that all students can benefit from the opportunities that higher education provides.

[HCWS150]

Bramhall High School: Condition of Buildings

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate and on his advocacy for Bramhall high school. As a former teacher myself, who spent years standing in front of young people in Oldham and in Stockport, I know from first-hand experience that spaces around lessons really do matter—the classroom environment speaks to children before any lesson begins. That is why tackling our crumbling school estate is imperative: to show children that their education matters and their future matters.

Now, as a Minister in the Department for Education, I am proud that we are calling time on RAAC and rebuilding Bramhall high school, so that children and staff have the high-quality classrooms they deserve. This Government are doing things differently to fix the failures of the past. We published a 10-year infrastructure strategy, which—coupled with long-term capital budgets, the modern industrial strategy and a commitment to investing in skills and training—presents a lifetime of opportunities. Investing in infrastructure will drive growth and raise living standards in every part of the UK. Infrastructure will support our modern industrial strategy, and it will improve public services by taking a long-term approach to improving the fabric of our country. That, of course, includes our schools and colleges.

We are maintaining public investment at the highest sustained level in four decades, supported by an increase in departmental capital spending of over £120 billion over this Parliament, compared with previous plans. This was only made possible by the decisions this Government have taken about the fiscal rules, which have supported a necessary step change in investment. We will increase and prioritise investment where it is most needed through maintenance, renewal and rebuilding programmes, and that is what we are doing for our schools. That is why we increased overall capital investment in education to £38 billion up to 2029-30—the highest level since 2010, when Labour was last in government.

With over 22,000 schools and colleges in England, the education estate supports 10 million children, but we inherited from the previous Government the RAAC crisis and years of decline in the school estate. After years of under-investment, too many children are learning in buildings that have deteriorated and are in need of repair. For too long, schools have had to patch and mend buildings that have already deteriorated beyond repair, instead of undergoing the rebuilds they needed at an earlier point. We are turning the page on years of decline in the school estate, fixing a legacy of neglect and removing RAAC for good. At the core of our strategy is a shift to more proactive management, long-term maintenance, and more renewal of the existing estate. That comes alongside rebuilding more schools and making sure there are high-quality places from early years to post-16.

Our 10-year plan for the school estate, which I published a few months ago, is backed by unprecedented long-term funding. By 2034-35, we will be investing almost £3 billion per year in capital maintenance to improve the condition of the school and college estate, rising from £2.4 billion in 2025-26. We are investing almost £20 billion through the school rebuilding programme. Over 500 schools are already in that programme, with well over half in delivery. Some 59 schools have already been rebuilt through the SRP, with 47 of those completed under this Government, and we will select a further 250 for the next stage of the SRP at the start of 2027.

The renewal and retrofit programme, backed by £710 million to 2029-30, will improve the condition of schools that are coming towards the end of their life, but where deeper renewal and retrofit can extend that considerably. RAAC has been permanently removed from 80 schools and colleges, and we have set out a clear plan to finish the job. By 2029, every school and college in England that is not being fully or substantially rebuilt will be RAAC-free, and every school with RAAC that needs to be rebuilt through the SRP will be in delivery by that point. That includes Bramhall high school.

As the hon. Member for Cheadle has set out, Bramhall high school has faced building challenges, with parts of the estate dating back to the 1960s and the presence of RAAC. However, what stands out is the positive and determined way in which the school community has responded to those challenges. It was a major operational challenge, but the school, Stockport council and the Department worked together to keep pupils learning safely and to minimise the disruption to pupils as much as possible. I recognise that achievement. Through excellent joint working between Stockport, the headteacher and the Department, all RAAC mitigations are in place. That means that pupils can once again use the spaces safely while we get on with the job of rebuilding the school.

This is about not just resolving a building condition issue, but delivering a lasting legacy for pupils, staff, families and the wider Bramhall community. I am pleased to say that delivery is under way with real momentum behind it. Willmott Dixon is the appointed contractor, and it has worked closely with the school and the Department to design an ambitious new build. We expect to have spades in the ground later this year, but it is more than just a construction project. The rebuilding work will also provide valuable T-levels and placement opportunities and support apprenticeships, creating local jobs.

A new modern three-storey building will give Bramhall high school the facilities it needs for the decades ahead. Every building apart from the maths block will be replaced. That building was built post-2000 and has solar panels on the roof and other modern features. Detailed surveys have been conducted, which show it is in good condition and does not warrant demolishing or rebuilding. We are working with the school to remodel the block to integrate it with the new buildings that will be created.

In response to the hon. Member’s point, 90% of the school will be rebuilt. I understand that when there is a new school project like this—I have visited a number of them—the desire is to have the whole shebang and for the whole school to be completely rebuilt. In the context of a schools estate of 22,000 schools across the country, it is important that public funds are not used to replace buildings that are still well within their lifespan. I regularly look at lists of schools from the ’60s and ’70s that are not yet in any school rebuilding programme. They are well beyond their lifespan, and we are doing the job of clearing up that backlog. It does mean, however, that we need to prioritise investment in those buildings that absolutely do need to be replaced.

Through the school rebuilding programme, Bramhall high school will benefit from 25 general classrooms and a full range of specialist teaching spaces. That includes 10 science laboratories, computing and ICT rooms, workshops, a drama studio and an art and design classroom. The plans include a dedicated area for pupils with special educational needs. Sports and leisure provision will also be improved with a new four-court sports hall, activity studio and changing facilities. That includes two multi-use games areas—one for school use and one intended for community use. This is a substantial and exciting investment into a school that is modern, energy-efficient and designed to support excellent teaching, learning and sport.

The hon. Member mentioned the fixtures and fittings of the school. All fixed furniture, fixtures and equipment are provided in a school rebuilding project. That means that schools receive a huge amount of money for new furniture and equipment. For example, the school will get a new kitchen, all classrooms will be integrated with ICT equipment, drama will get the lighting rigs that it needs, and so on. However, we do not normally provide new standard loose furniture, such as tables and chairs, as schools should have an ongoing programme to replace them as they reach the end of their life. That is part of a school’s normal management of capital.

I acknowledge the strong partnership that has driven progress so far. I thank the headteacher, Paul Williams, and his staff; the chair of the school’s governing body, Sarah Brown; Stockport council; and Willmott Dixon for the work they have done together alongside the Department’s programme management team.

I reassure the hon. Member that this Government remain committed to delivering a safe, modern and high-quality school in Bramhall. Together we have moved from the challenge of RAAC and fear about the future of the school building to delivering one of the most exciting school rebuilding programmes in the country, which the people of Stockport and his constituents rightly deserve. More important than anything else is ensuring that pupils have the inspiring classroom facilities they need for the future. I am sure that there will be matters that he will continue to want to raise with me, and I will be glad to speak to him. This is a good example of the investment that we are making as a Government and as a country because of the choices we have made.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister to move the motion, any hon. Member or official who wishes to take off their jacket has my permission to do so.

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 May. This statutory instrument is the first of three pieces of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement, or LLE, which establishes a new system of tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules that begin on or after 1 January 2027.

The LLE is a major reform to student finance, creating a single flexible funding system for levels 4 to 6 across further and higher education. It will support people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives, and will deliver one of the core commitments in our post-16 education and skills White Paper, underpinning the growth and skills missions. The concept of a lifelong learning entitlement stems from the recommendations made by Sir Philip Augar’s independent panel to the post-18 education and funding review back in 2019. Primary legislation enacted in 2022 and 2023 by the previous Government established the framework, and these regulations are the next step in delivering it—this is a true cross-party effort.

The regulations set out how tuition fee limits will apply under the LLE. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider can charge per year if it is subject to a fee cap. Currently, that limit is £9,790 for standard full-time courses. Those fixed annual fee limits suit traditional degrees, regardless of the volume of study undertaken, but do not work for shorter courses or modules. The regulations introduce a credit-based system to change that.

Credits are a widely recognised measure of learning, with one credit typically equivalent to around 10 hours of learning. To illustrate that, the standard fee limit for a typical higher education course in the 2026-27 academic year is £9,790, and a full year of study usually comprises 120 credits. Dividing £9,790 by 120 produces a per-credit fee limit of around £82. The regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course. That does not change overall fee caps—most students will not see any difference in what they pay—but applies them more fairly across full courses and shorter study, linking fees to learning volume.

Subject to Parliament’s approval of the regulations, we intend to lay two further instruments needed to establish the LLE. Those instruments, on student support and repayments, have been published in draft to give the House full visibility and to help the sector prepare. Both will be subject to the negative procedure. As they depend on the regulations before the Committee, they will be made only if these regulations are approved.

The regulations mark an important step in delivering the LLE and transforming our skills system. They put in place the new approach to applying fee limits, which is needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance that better serves young people and adult learners. That will allow people to study in ways that fit around their lives, support providers to respond to evolving skills needs, and help individuals across the country to access the education and training that they need to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank Committee members for their contributions to the debate. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can.

The first set of questions came from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Windsor, about face-to-face teaching. The system allows for credit funding flexibility, which is down to providers, but I recognise the importance of face-to-face teaching. That is one of the reasons why, earlier this week, my noble Friend the Minister for Skills set out the intention to link the outcomes of the teaching excellence framework scores to future access to fee increases. That is why, over different Governments, we have built a system that allows competition so that students can pick and select from a range of providers and, in essence, shop around for the best option. Greater visibility of the quality is important, and that should come from the teaching excellence framework.

A number of Members asked about the various impacts of the changes. Impact assessments have been published as part of this process. I will ask for copies of them to be sent to Members in the coming days. I hope that they will answer a number of questions.

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and I have had several exchanges about student finance and student funding. I have a great deal of affection for the Liberal Democrats, but it is a system that was partly designed by them in office. His Majesty’s Opposition had affection for the Liberal Democrats at a certain point in time as well, so perhaps that is something that we can share.

The changes described are cultural for the country, affecting how adult learners look to access lifelong learning and do courses that will be shorter or compressed. The regulations allow for that. I think they will take some time to bed in, so it seems reasonable to give a five-year time horizon, but of course there will be a great deal of scrutiny from Parliament and elsewhere on their implementation.

I am happy to come back to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire on foundation degree fees and our plans for them. The question on credit fee amounts was very detailed, and I thank him for his scrutiny of the rounding convention that we are using—there may well be a future dormant asset fund to be raided by a Government in 20 or 30 years’ time as a result of it. Again, I will write to him about why we are using a different figure from the one that he mentioned.

Finally, the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, was heavily involved in the inception of this measure and the review that led to its recommendation. Again, I am happy to share the Department’s assessments of behavioural impacts.

The Committee will know that this SI is a critical step towards delivering the lifelong learning entitlement. It will bring further and higher education closer together and support the growth of more flexible modular study. It sets tuition fee limits for LLE-funded courses and modules, marking a transformation of our higher and further education systems that will start this January. The changes aim not to overhaul the entire system but to tackle a key weakness in the current model, which is too rigid and focused on the traditional three-year degree, limiting opportunities for adults to retrain or upskill across their working lives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to support apprenticeships for young people.

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

Under this Government, apprenticeship starts by young people are up. We are going further and investing an additional £1 billion to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships with the new foundation apprenticeships, and providing £2,000 for smaller employers when they hire young apprentices.

[Jerome Mayhew]

There is no correlation between what the Minister says and what is happening on the ground. In Broadland and Fakenham, in the last year the number of apprenticeships has dropped by 20%. It has not gone up; it has gone from 150, down to 120. If the Minister thinks that more apprenticeships are a good idea, why does he not sign up for 100,000 new ones, and support the Conservative new deal for young people?

[Josh MacAlister]

I think we should look at what people do, not what they say. This is a Government who are reversing the decline; apprenticeship starts by young people reduced by 40% under the previous Government. We are taking a range of steps, including supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and giving greater flexibility in the apprenticeship system, all to create an extra 50,000 opportunities for young people.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a governor at two educational institutions, and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education. My question is on access to the apprenticeship register, because in Stoke-on-Trent, great companies such as the Spark Group are struggling to get the registration they want in order to grow their offer to young people. They are limited by the £100,000 de minimis for subcontracting, but they have young people who want to take on the apprenticeships they are offering. Will the Minister set out what this Government might do to change that, and will he agree to meet me and the Spark Group so that we can look at ways it can give young people the opportunities they want?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is a fierce champion for apprenticeships and technical education. I am happy to meet him to discuss those matters further. The Minister for Skills, my noble friend Baroness Smith in the other place, has taken a whole series of actions with the Secretary of State to reform our apprenticeship system, opening it up to create tens of thousands of additional opportunities for young people.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to increase levels of funding for schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

7. If she will make it her policy to prioritise Hudson primary school, Sefton, in the school rebuilding programme.

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

We inherited the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—crisis and years of decay in the school estate. Labour is investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme to rebuild over 750 schools across England. Over 500 schools are already in the programme, with well over half already in delivery. We will select a further 250 schools by early 2027.

[Bill Esterson]

Hudson primary school in my constituency does a brilliant job. It is a family hub, it specialises in support for children with SEND and autism, and it has a nursery, but its building, which is 80 years old, suffers from a high water table that brings damp, mould and structural problems for the building—as does occasional flooding. Will the Minister give Niki Craddock, the excellent headteacher at Hudson primary school, her team and all the children they serve the news that he will look favourably on—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, come on. I have a lot of people to get in, Bill. Do not take complete advantage.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Hudson primary school. He has spoken to me before about the excellent performance of the school and its headteacher. We will be selecting the 250 schools for the school rebuilding programme by the end of the year and announce them at the start of next year. It will be based on those schools that have the most acute need in terms of their building state. I am happy to discuss that further with him.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to improve the SEND system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to improve further education pathways.

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

As detailed in “Post-16 pathways: implementation plan”, we are creating coherent pathways, aligning learning with the skills that employers need and improving progression. New V-levels, the expansion and improvement of T-levels, and clearer level 2 pathways will support young people’s progression to higher study, apprenticeships or employment.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

Every time I have been to Buckinghamshire College Group in Aylesbury I have met fantastic staff who bring decades of professional experience to their roles and have a deep commitment to the young people. However, many further education colleges, including ours, are struggling with staff recruitment and retention, in part because staff pay is higher in schools. As we do this brilliant work to expand technical education opportunities through FE colleges, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that FE staff salaries are competitive and that FE colleges can continue to attract the best talent out there?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to Bucks College Group and the work it does in her constituency. FE colleges have autonomy over staff pay. We have provided an additional £190 million for colleges and 16-to-19 providers for this financial year, which is broadly equivalent to the schools pay award. We have also set out positive new developments on FE teacher training support.

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

I recently met Alex Miles, managing director of Yorkshire Learning Providers, and heard a worrying tale that differs greatly from what the Minister has told the House today. I heard that established apprenticeship standards are being defunded and that new product foundation apprenticeships that no employer in Yorkshire has asked for are being rolled out. Yorkshire Learning Providers has no partisan points to make; it just wants to ensure that young people can get into work with an apprenticeship standard that works for them and for employers. Does the Minister accept that the Government are not getting this right and that he needs to look at this again?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the right hon. Member for the question and the serious spirit in which he asks it. We are providing £9 billion of funding for 16-to-19 programmes in the 2026-27 academic year. We are making a wider range of changes to further education support, qualification routes and apprenticeships to directly respond to the kinds of criticisms from providers and employers that he refers to, and I genuinely believe that the Government have got that right. If there are particular aspects that Alex Miles wants to write to me about, I will be happy to take a look.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

11. What financial plan she has for improving SEND provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

13. What progress the school rebuilding programme has made.

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

We are investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme to rebuild over 750 schools up to 2034-35. Some 500 of those are already in the programme—we have a further 250 to select, which we will do later this year.

[David Smith]

Young people in Berwick in my constituency have been taught for over a decade in a crumbling high school—the only high school in the town in a wide surrounding area. Following sustained calls from families in Berwick, the Conservative county council promised five years ago to rebuild Berwick academy. A planning application has now been submitted after missing the 2022 round. The school applied for the school rebuilding programme in April. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that Berwick academy will still be considered for the SRP funding, even as works are scheduled to begin later this year?

[Josh MacAlister]

Despite those delays, I can confirm that the school will be considered for the school rebuilding programme, despite those avoidable delays. I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy, both raising it personally with me on a number of occasions and writing to me on multiple occasions.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Tiverton high school has been on various lists for a rebuild since 1999. I am genuinely grateful to the Department for Education for the work that has gone on behind closed doors since my election in 2024. However, there is still a worrying lack of commitment in public from the Department. Will the Minister give a commitment in the House to have the Department write to me, to Mid Devon district council and to Devon county council with a full update on the specifics of the school rebuilding programme for Tiverton high school, to provide the certainty that my constituents require.

[Josh MacAlister]

Yes, I can do that.

Turing Scheme

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Written Statements

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

Following the decision to leave the EU and the related end of our association with the Erasmus+ scheme, the last Government introduced the Turing scheme. The scheme has been the UK Government’s global programme for students to study and work abroad, funding students studying across the UK and British overseas territories, in higher education, further education and schools.

The scheme is about to start its sixth year and applicant education providers will shortly be informed of the outcome of their application. I can confirm a budget of up to £78 million for the Turing scheme for the 2026-27 academic year.

The Government decision to associate with Erasmus+ in 2027 will build on the Turing scheme’s success in opening up world-class opportunities for learners, educators, young people and communities, while further strengthening our partnership with the European Union. Our renewed participation in Erasmus+ will increase the opportunities available to young people across the UK. We will therefore transition to this broad, expanded Erasmus+ in the 2027-28 academic year, ending the Turing scheme as Erasmus+ placements begin.

The Turing scheme has delivered strong outcomes in widening access to international opportunities, with the proportion of students funded who are from a disadvantaged background increasing from 39% in 2021-22 to 56% in 2024-25, with an estimated 61% planned in 2025-26. It has also provided additional funding for students with special educational needs and disabilities, additional support needs or additional learning needs.

We will build on the success of the Turing scheme through maximising the opportunities that our association to Erasmus+ brings, including supporting the participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with additional needs. Erasmus+ offers a broader scope of activity than the Turing scheme, providing opportunities not only for students but also for staff, and extends to the adult education, youth and sport sectors. The programme also supports a wide range of institutional partnerships and policy development. These activities help drive quality, encourage research links and enhance international reputation.

Like the Turing scheme, Erasmus+ offers additional funding to help participants with fewer opportunities, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, take part in mobility opportunities.

We expect that over 100,000 people in the UK could benefit from mobility and partnership opportunities through Erasmus+ participation in 2027.

Erasmus+ participants can travel to any European Union member state, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye. As part of Erasmus+, grant holders in some sectors can also allocate up to 20% of project funding to support international mobilities to some countries that are not associated with the programme. Erasmus+ also supports global collaboration through partnership projects, with opportunities to involve non-partner countries under certain actions.

[HCWS123]

Lifelong Learning: “University of the Air” White Paper

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) on securing this very timely debate and on the characteristically thoughtful case he made. I also give credit to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), a graduate of the Open University himself, who reminded us of the analogue age of VCRs and the magic of Sir David Attenborough.

I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for highlighting the genuine inclusivity of the Open University from its inception. He was also right to highlight the importance of prisoner education. Although it is not within my area of responsibility, I am very passionate about it, and I believe that the Open University and other providers have a really important role to play, given the captive nature of the audience and the chance for prison to be a place where people can genuinely turn their lives around.

I want to answer the question about UCAS before I turn to the wider debate. The Open University chooses to manage applications directly, partly because of the need for flexibility beyond the normal academic cycle, but information about OU courses, including modular courses, is available on the UCAS website.

I am keen not to get drawn too far away from the topic of the Open University, but I will respond in short to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), who raised issues regarding level 7 apprenticeships. This is an area simply of disagreement on policy and on where the resources that sit behind the apprenticeships levy—which is now the growth and skills levy—should rest. I am really keen, as is the Education Secretary, for those resources to be targeted very much at those who might not have taken the university path and for those entry-level apprenticeship routes to be funded to the max. That is why that policy decision was made. I stand by it and believe it was the right decision on balance for the use of those resources.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport speaks in this debate not just as an advocate for lifelong learning but as living proof of its potential. As he spoke about movingly, his example is of someone who enrolled with the OU at the age of 30, and five years later emerged with both an undergraduate degree and a master’s degree to their name. That, for me, is the Open University’s mission in a nutshell—not a makeshift second chance, but a genuinely world-class route to opportunity for people who were not on academic pathways at the age of 18. That is why his advocacy carries such weight. In Southport, he has carried that conviction into the community at the heart of his constituency, championing the learning festival that took place in the town last year and being a strong advocate for improving educational opportunities more broadly. I have been lobbied many times about school buildings by him, so I can attest to that.

As my hon. Friend explained, it will be 60 years ago next February since another Labour Minister, Jennie Lee, published the White Paper, “A University of the Air”. She did so in the face of immense scepticism. Whitehall was snooty, the press was cynical and much of the establishment argued that the money should be spent elsewhere, but Jennie Lee was, in Harold Wilson’s words, “a tigress”. At a famous Cabinet meeting at Chequers just before the 1966 election, she argued that while the national health service was the greatest creation of the post-war Labour Government, the “University of the Air” would make

“just as much difference to the country.”

The White Paper made a radical argument that higher education should be open to all, regardless of background or prior qualifications, that learning should be flexible, rigorous and lifelong, and that new technology would carry academic excellence far beyond the walls of traditional institutions. Jennie Lee won that argument, and 60 years on, every part of that vision—open access, flexibility and technology in service of excellence—reads less like history and more like a description of the task that sits in front of us today.

The Open University, the institution founded as a consequence of that White Paper, is today the largest academic institution in the UK, with students in all 650 parliamentary constituencies. Since 1969, it has taught more than 2.5 million students worldwide. Three quarters of its undergraduates arrive with no previous higher education qualifications. The open door that Jennie Lee promised is still open.

In the last five years alone, more than 15,000 people who began studying without any A-levels have earned higher education qualifications through the Open University. Two thirds of its students are working while they study. It is learning that fits around life—not the other way around. The OU was never second best: at the last assessment, 82% of its research impact was rated world leading or internationally excellent, and last year it was awarded gold—the highest ranking—in the teaching excellence framework.

[Jim Shannon]

We all, including the Minister, recognise that the Open University reaches out to those who are perhaps isolated and lonely. It gives them an opportunity to focus their attention on a degree, thereby giving them hope for the future. That is sometimes underestimated, but it is critical.

[Josh MacAlister]

I completely agree. I will turn now to the Government’s actions, which will take the Open University to its next chapter, so that those opportunities are spread even more across our great country.

Last October, we published the “Post-16 education and skills” White Paper. There is a powerful alignment between the Open University’s mission to widen access and our own vision, set out in that White Paper, for a world-leading skills system that breaks down barriers to opportunity. The strategy in the White Paper is the blueprint for delivering our new target for two thirds of young people to be participating in higher-level learning—academic, technical or apprenticeships. We are determined to break the damaging link between background and success, and we want more people from all backgrounds to be able to access higher education as part of that.

As part of our reforms, the lifelong learning entitlement —a policy from the previous Government that I am very pleased we are continuing, with cross-party support—represents one of the most significant student finance reforms in a generation. For the first time, it establishes a single, flexible funding system covering levels 4 to 6 across further and higher education, enabling people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives.

The rationale for the entitlement is clear. More than a third of vacancies go unfilled due to skills shortages, and around 80% of the 2030 workforce are already in employment. However, the current system was largely designed for younger, full-time students and lacks the flexibility that adults in work need. The LLE will expand access to higher-quality, flexible education and training, promote learner mobility and ensure that providers can respond to the needs of learners, employers and the wider economy.

Sixty years ago, a White Paper of just a few pages was dismissed as vague, insubstantial and impractical. Today, the institution it created has taught more than 2 million people, with my hon. Friend the Member for Southport among them. That is the test that Jennie Lee set us: not whether an idea is convenient, but whether it changes lives. She insisted that there could be no question of offering students a makeshift project, inferior in quality to other universities. Sixty years on, that standard still binds us.

From January next year funding will, for the first time, follow the learner, module by module, at any stage of life. Our ambition that two thirds of young people reach higher-level learning is matched by an entitlement that lasts to 60, because opportunity should not have a closing date. Jennie Lee’s revolution was to say that the door to education should never close behind someone. The task of the next 60 years is to hold that door open wider still, in Southport and in every community like it. When our learners thrive, our country thrives.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Patrick Hurley, you have two minutes to wind up.

Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I shall make a statement on the Government’s progress to reform children’s social care.

Transforming support for families and protection for children is central to our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. That is why we introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which received Royal Assent in April. It has enabled the most significant overhaul of children’s social care in a generation. The whole-system reset that is needed to shift money, staff and attention to earlier intensive help for families, rather than late-stage crisis management, is under way, supported by over £3 billion in funding. I want to use this statement to focus on the care and leaving care systems that form an essential part of children’s social care. I am publishing the enduring relationships strategy that sets out how we will deliver that change.

In 2022, I published the independent review of children’s social care, a review that was informed by listening directly to thousands of people with experience of the care system. What I heard then, and have heard since, is that our care and leaving care systems are too often breaking rather than building lifelong loving relationships. Care can leave young people isolated, lonely and lacking belonging. This heightens vulnerability to poor mental health, unstable housing and unemployment. In that review, I called for a system where every young person would leave care with someone who loves them—a simple goal, but one that is not the central focus of our current system.

At present, care often prioritises the management of professional anxiety over the nurturing of lasting, enduring relationships that care-experienced people need in order to feel loved and safe. We see this in children being sent to grow up in homes far away from their community, thereby rupturing their school career, their friendships and their family relationships. We see this in the rules that mean foster carers are not trusted to make day-to-day decisions about whether the child they have in their care can have an overnight stay with a friend or have a haircut without seeking permission from a social worker. We see it when the young person turning 18 is pushed towards living independently, when what they really need is a housing and social support model that helps them build community.

The strategy I have published today sets out how we will make creating a loving tribe around every care-experienced young person the central obsession of the care system. To enable this, our reforms cover four key areas. First, all of children’s social care—not just the care system—must prioritise relationships. That means working to bring about change in families for children by strengthening the bonds found in existing family networks. This is at the heart of the Families First Partnership programme, where family group decision making and family network support packages are bringing children’s families and their wider networks into their care decisions at an earlier stage.

It also means unlocking the potential of kinship care. Every local authority will be required to publish a local kinship offer, giving families the clarity and support they need. We have also committed £126 million to seven kinship zones, which are now up and running, that will test the impact of a non-means-tested allowance, equivalent to the fostering allowance, for kinship families with a legal order.

Secondly, we must create more stable and loving homes for children in care that support long-term relationships. A shortage of foster homes is leading to too many children being moved far away from their communities and the people they know. It is putting pressure on existing foster carers to be matched with children where their needs and their relationships with brothers and sisters often cannot be met. It is leading to children being placed in residential care inappropriately, at great cost in terms of both money and poorer outcomes.

We are therefore on the cusp of dramatically expanding a new approach to running our care system. This is made up of new end-to-end fostering hubs, where we will pull together individual local authority fostering teams into larger and more specialised fostering services, with more resource and higher expectations on recruitment and support for carers. This is the main action that will deliver the 10,000 additional places in foster care that we need by the end of this Parliament. It is backed with £88 million and includes funding for new innovation, grants to build extensions and home improvements for existing carers, and modernisation of the foster carer recruitment process.

This new system also depends on expanding regional care co-operatives so that the majority of England will be covered by an RCC by the end of this year. RCCs will give areas the scale to create the types of homes that children in care need and the leverage to drive out profiteering and poor quality practice. My Department will use RCCs as the vehicle to roll out a new approach to wrap around children who are on or at risk of a deprivation of liberty order. This programme, called Home Again, will de-escalate crises and be delivered in partnership with health services. I will share more information about this in the coming weeks.

I have also been concerned about the lack of support and attention that has been given to those working in residential care. That is why we have launched an expert-led review to assess the professional development offer to staff at children’s homes and set out instructions for change that we will action this autumn.

Thirdly, we must support care-experienced children who are transitioning into adulthood by ensuring that we nurture and expand their long-term relationships. This is not to be confused with supporting their relationships with professionals, although that is important, but instead is about the relationships with people who can form a lasting family and tribe around care-experienced people. That starts with what the system measures and how it is inspected. Later this year, a new metric to track the quality of enduring relationships at an individual level will be rolled out in the care and leaving care systems because, whether we like it or not, what gets measured is often the thing that gets done. If we are serious about putting enduring relationships at the heart of the system, the performance of the system itself needs to be judged on whether the relationships around those in and leaving care are getting stronger or weaker. This will, of course, have implications for Ofsted’s inspection regime.

With a new measure of relationships sitting at the heart of the system, we also need to support practitioners to change what they do so that enduring relationships are strengthened. That is why today I am launching a national sprint to roll out family finding services across England by the end of the next two years. We know the impact that “Who Do You Think You Are?”-style services can have on building stronger tribes around young people, and we have already seen the impact of programmes like Lifelong Links. These services need to become the mainstream offer, rather than pilots on the fringe of the system.

In the coming months, I will launch the new Staying Close programme, which will shift the system away from its current focus on preparing young people for independence and instead focus on providing homes for care leavers that build interdependence and connection. This will mean fewer teenagers dropping off the care cliff at 18 and being forced to live in a flat, lonely and isolated.

Finally, I am particularly proud that we will work with faith and belief organisations to design a new lifelong relationships ceremony to recognise the important bonds between care-experienced adults and those who love them. Just as we have Christenings and naming ceremonies, Britain is generous enough to also mark these wonderful and unique relationships that give hope and meaning. I want these to start being offered this year.

The most important thing for us in life is our relationships. The state often finds it hard to put itself at the service of building these loving relationships. In fact, too often it blocks or weakens them. That changes today by making one thing very clear: the purpose of our care system, above all else, is to build enduring loving relationships. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Britannic Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, particularly as we welcome much in the direction that the Minister has outlined in his statement on behalf of the Government today.

Too often, children’s social care is discussed only when tragedy strikes, yet for thousands of children, foster carers, kinship carers and care-experienced adults, these issues are daily realities. They deserve serious and sustained attention from those in all parts of the House. As Conservatives, we believe that strong families, strong communities and strong relationships are the foundation of a flourishing society. The Government have a duty to protect vulnerable children, but we must recognise a simple truth: the state can never replace the love, commitment and sense of belonging that family provides.

One of the most powerful conclusions of the independent review of children’s social care was that every young person should leave care with at least one loving, enduring relationship in their life. That is not a party political aspiration; it is a profoundly human one. It should concern us all that so many care-experienced adults report having felt lonely and isolated during their childhood.

Many of the themes in today’s statement build on reforms that have enjoyed cross-party support for some time, such as greater recognition of kinship care, stronger family networks, increased placement stability and better outcomes for care leavers. Those are objectives that Members across the House can unite behind. I particularly welcome the focus on kinship care. Having recently met kinship carers in my constituency, I have seen at first hand the remarkable role that they play. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and family friends step forward in difficult circumstances to provide not only a home, but continuity, identity and belonging.

I am proud that the last Conservative Government launched England’s first kinship care strategy. Kinship carers make extraordinary sacrifices to ensure that children receive the love and support they need, and they deserve recognition for that contribution. May I ask the Minister about the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Families rely on it and worry about its future. Will we see the results of that consultation? How will it interact with today’s announcements?

We also welcome the focus on foster care. For too long, we have relied on the dedication of foster carers while asking them to navigate systems that can be fragmented and bureaucratic. If fostering hubs can improve recruitment, strengthen support and increase placement stability, they deserve serious consideration. Perhaps the Minister could comment on how those hubs will be distributed across the country.

Likewise, the ambition to reduce the number of children placed far from communities is one that we strongly support. Every unnecessary move risks disrupting education, friendships and family connections. Stability matters. Almost half of foster carers say that they have had an unfilled space for a child in care in the past two years, often because they are waiting for a suitable match. What will today’s strategy do to improve matching and make the system easier to navigate for carers who are ready to provide a home?

Conservatives have long understood the importance of society’s little platoons—the families, communities, faith groups and voluntary organisations that sit between individuals and the state. Many charities and community groups already provide extraordinary support to vulnerable children and care leavers, and their contribution should never be underestimated.

We on the Conservative Benches also welcome the Minister’s determination to improve outcomes for care leavers. Too many still face a cliff edge when they leave care, with disproportionately poor outcomes in housing, employment and mental health. I would welcome further detail on the new metric to track the quality of the enduring relationships built by children in care. How will the Government measure such relationships? How will that be reflected in Ofsted inspections?

Ultimately, the success of these reforms will be judged not by strategies or structures, but by outcomes. Will more children experience stable placements? Will fewer children be moved repeatedly? Will more young people leave care with secure housing, employment opportunities and strong relationships? Will local authorities have the workforce capacity to deliver these aspirations?

Children who enter care have often experienced circumstances that most of us would struggle to imagine. They deserve not just safety, but hope; not just protection, but belonging. Where the Government act to strengthen families, support kinship carers, improve foster care and build lasting relationships, they will find us to be willing partners.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the hon. Member for the spirit in which he shared his remarks and the questions that he put to me. He is right to say that this issue requires serious and sustained attention from the House and from parties across every corner of the Chamber.

It is worth highlighting to people the disparity between what care-experienced people tell us about their experience and the experiences of the general population. Some 22% of care leavers are always or often lonely, and 15% of care leavers do not have a really good friend. Compared with the general population, those numbers are so much higher, which illustrates why this issue is so important.

Let me turn to the questions asked by the hon. Member. The adoption and special guardianship support fund is hugely important, which is why we have increased the fund by 10% this year to ensure that we can reach more families and young people with that support. The consultation response will come later this year. At the moment, the Department is focused on implementing the changes and improvements that we set out in the consultation a few months ago.

The fostering hubs will be allocated in the next few weeks, and I hope to make an announcement next month on the fostering hubs and RCCs that will be rolled out and extended further. In terms of improving matching, regional care co-operatives will play an important role in the future system in enabling us to get a much better sense, looking ahead at the years to come, of the actual sufficiency required for children in their areas.

Finally, let me turn to the new metric. The Department has worked with foundations to set out a shortlist of options of standardised measures that are valid and can be used at a practitioner and young person level but do not create undue bureaucracy or distract from the important relationships that are needed in those conversations. I am confident that we can find and roll out a measure this year that will achieve that goal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister on his commitment to making a difference for children in the care system and for care leavers. It is a shocking reality that our care system has, over a long period of time, become so far removed from putting the essential needs of children and young people for secure, loving relationships at the heart of everything it does.

May I acknowledge the magnitude of the shift that the Minister has announced today? We do not often have moments like this in the House—we should have them more often. Having spoken to many, many care leavers over a long period of time, I know the difference that what the Minister has announced today has the potential to make for them. I welcome the fact that many of his commitments are consistent with recommendations from the Education Committee in our report.

May I ask the Minister for further detail on two areas? First, can he give an assurance that, as he works to deliver this transformation of the care system and support for care-experienced people, he will retain a focus on restoring the early intervention and family support that prevents children from entering the care system in the first place? Secondly, with the focus on regional care co-operatives, may I press him on their geography? They cover quite large geographies, and it is possible for a child to be placed in a regional care co-operative and still be placed a long way from home. In delivering on the detail of regional care co-operatives, will he give his attention to that issue and pay attention to the distance that children will need to travel within them?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Education Committee, not just for those remarks, but for the Committee’s work over the last few years in keeping a focus on these issues. I also thank her for her support for the Government always going further and taking more actions to improve outcomes for children and their families.

In answer to my hon. Friend’s first point, the fundamental shift required in this Parliament is that we start to see funding across the children’s social care system being rebalanced away from late-stage crisis spending towards earlier, intensive support for families. We are not leaving that to an annual check-in. Every quarter, my officials and I are monitoring the pounds being spent by children’s social care across the country, and we will be prepared to support and, if necessary, to intervene if the system reset that we expect is not being seen on the ground in how spending is done.

The geography of RCCs will be large. In some areas, they will have the footprint of a mayoral combined authority or multiple mayoral combined authorities, but there will be a specific target for creating homes that keep children in close proximity to their existing communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I have no doubt that it is a moment of immense pride for the Minister to be able to announce as Government policy many things that he recommended in his own independent review, and we welcome them.

Every child deserves to have deep, trusting, lifelong relationships, yet, as we have heard, too many children in care are torn away from those whom they are able to trust, unable to keep in touch with them for the stability they need to enter adulthood. We know from the Milburn report, published last week, that care-experienced children are five times more likely not to be in education, employment or training at the age of 17 than the general population. As Milburn says, the care system produces an intense concentration of changes

“at precisely the ages when continuity matters most.”

The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome today’s announcement—the strategy, the accompanying investment, and the marked shift away from harmful short-term thinking and a transactional system towards a holistic approach that puts the child front and centre of decision making, alongside long-term relationships. The Minister will know that my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Tyler, campaigned hard to close the loophole that prevented children in care from being able to contact siblings not in care, and we hope that today’s announcement will build on her brilliant campaigning.

As the Minister alluded to, the number of children in care living more than 20 miles away from home has increased by 41% over the past decade, and that has a damaging long-term impact on those children’s relationships. When will we see a reduction in the number of children in care living far from their families and friends? What are the current accountability measures when children are moved to the other side of the country although that is not in their best interests, and how can that accountability be improved through the regional care co-operatives?

The Minister also referenced the new financial allowance pilot for kinship carers. He knows that my party and I have long campaigned on that issue, and I very much hope that he will move at pace, working with the Treasury, to scale those pilots up quickly nationwide. He knows how beneficial it is to put kinship carers’ allowances on a par with foster carers’ allowances. I also urge him to work with Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that statutory leave for kinship carers is part of the parental leave review.

Finally, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been mentioned. I note that the Minister has increased the fund overall, but the cuts to the individual grants persist. He knows that those cuts are damaging to the families affected, so will he please consider reinstating those grants?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the hon. Member for her questions and, again, for the spirit in which she has made her contribution. I also thank her for her leadership on this issue—she has spent a lot of time in this place raising many of these points time and again. She is right to highlight the work of the noble Baroness Tyler in the other place, and I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) in this place; both of them, working cross party, have long highlighted the importance of brothers and sisters in the care system. The most important relationships can often be relationships with siblings.

I want the number of distant placements to start to come down in this Parliament. The leading indicator of that would be an expansion of fostering, and we are monitoring that at the moment. We need to start seeing those numbers go up in a big way so that the homes are created close to where children already live, and there is not a need for distant placements.

Turning to accountability, we definitely need greater visibility on those numbers in the system; if the metric I talked about in the statement is embedded across the system as well, we will start to see the strength of those relationships. We speak to young people who have been moved two hours away from their home community; earlier this week, I spoke to a young woman who that had happened to. It was impossible for her to keep the quality of relationship that she wanted to with her father, which was safe. We need to measure that. That needs to be the central focus, and then everything else will flow from it, including the location of placements.

Finally, on kinship allowance, the take-up has been impressive already; it is only a few weeks into the roll-out, and I have looked at the data. I look forward to going to Grimsby soon, hopefully, with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) to see one of the areas that, at the moment, is more successful than the others—there is a competition under way—and see the success of that programme.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

There are wonderful kinship carers down in Sussex Weald, and the Minister is more than welcome to visit.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement today and pay tribute to him for his enduring commitment to this issue, which started long before he came to this place. Improving the lives of children in care and care leavers must be our highest priority, and Hartlepool’s previous Labour council stood four-square behind the Minister’s intent to rebalance the system. As he knows, though, I am really concerned about the legacy of this broken system—the firefighting that councils are having to do, the financial pain it has caused them, and their inability to make that rebalancing happen. Can the Minister give me a little more information about how he is working with his colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support those councils, which are under such huge financial pressure?

[Josh MacAlister]

The Government have prioritised this issue, with £2.4 billion of funding for the Families First programme over the next three years to get some up-front spending into the system and achieve the rebalancing that is needed. For a smaller number of local authorities, the scale of the care population and the legacy of the erosion of services makes that a challenging transition. I am committed, alongside MHCLG Ministers, to taking representations from local areas and—where we can—to going further in resourcing the changes that are required.

However, this applies to every local authority across the country, so I will say that although that transition is not an easy one, it is one that many areas have undertaken. Over the past few years, there have been councils across England that have been very successful—in some cases without any Government support—in bearing down on the need for late-stage crisis costs, holding their nerve as both elected members and directors of children’s services, and have seen that shift towards keeping more families safely together. This is a resource question, but it is also a question of leadership and culture.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that, apart from the time when I was sitting on it, I have been unsparing in my criticism of the occupants of the Treasury Bench, irrespective of their party. Every now and again, however, there is a Minister who has a record of expertise and commitment to their brief. That was on display today, as it was when the Minister came before the Joint Committee on Human Rights yesterday.

[Josh MacAlister]

I am blushing, Madam Deputy Speaker—the right hon. Member is very generous. There are politicians on all sides of this House who come to this place with a good cause and dedicate huge amounts of time, often behind the camera and unseen, to making real and lasting change happen. There are more of us doing that on all sides of the House than we are sometimes given credit for.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement on enduring relationships for children in social care, and for his emphasis on the need for both elected politicians and officers in local authorities to be resilient in pushing this through. Will he join me in congratulating Luton council’s children’s services on improving from inadequate six years ago to good at the last inspection, just a couple of months ago? I particularly thank deputy leader Councillor Umme Ali for all her hard work and leadership. She has worked with officers to drive forward that improvement in provision and support for some of our most vulnerable —but also some of our most resilient—children and young people in Luton.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I am delighted to extend my congratulations to Councillor Ali and the whole team at Luton, which is one of the pathfinder local authorities for the Families First programme and the changes we are trying to make. As a result of that programme, local authorities are focusing more on earlier and intensive support for families, which is keeping more families safely together. It also means that we are able to act more sharply and decisively when there are child protection concerns—those two things need to go together.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the work he has done. It was a pleasure to work with him when I was at the Department for Education, and it is great to see the development of his findings and the effort that has been put into them.

The Minister raised the important issue of kinship care and the extra support going to local authorities. My one slight concern is that we might start to see a real divergence in the level of support offered to kinship carers in different local authority areas. Could the Minister expand a little bit on how he will take action to ensure there is not too great a divergence?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and for giving me the job of doing the independent review of children’s social care in the first place; I would like to think he made a good decision, but time will tell.

The problem is that at the moment, the provision of support with kinship care is very uneven across the country, and it is quite hard to tell the variation in the rates of support that are offered from place to place. The same is true for allowances and fees for foster carers, so there is something to be done about transparency in the existing system. However, the kinship zones programme, which includes the allowance pilot—it has been supported by colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that it does not impact on universal credit, and it is genuinely non-means-tested—means that we will have a good-quality impact evaluation to assess in seven different areas what impact that has overall on the flow of families. Sometimes that flow is rightly away from the fostering system—which puts children into care even though they are living with relatives—and keeps them in the right place, which is with the people who already love them, supported through an SGO or a kinship child arrangement order. I am hopeful of the findings from that evaluation. If they are positive, I will be doing everything I can to ensure that it gets support across Government.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome today’s announcement, as many colleagues have done, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment to ensuring that children in care and care leavers have the same opportunities for love, support and belonging as every other young person. I know that it has been a personal endeavour of his for many years. As he will know, Blackpool has a significant number of children in care, and we know that strong, enduring relationships can be life-changing. Will he say a little more about how this programme will help local authorities, such as Blackpool, identify and reconnect young people with trusted adults in their lives and ensure that those relationships can continue to support them as they move into adulthood?

[Josh MacAlister]

Blackpool faces some real challenges, and I thank all the practitioners on the ground and the council for contending a situation where they have some of the highest rates of children in care. Blackpool is also a destination for distance placements, because of property prices. It means that many children who are in care are sent to Blackpool, which adds additional pressures. I was lucky enough earlier this week to meet Poppie, Hannah, Mackenzie and Tia. Those young people have benefited from one of the Family Finding programmes that this Government have funded called Lifelong Links. It demonstrates what should be the core purpose of the system, rather than a pilot programme or an innovation sitting on the edge of the system. I point to the type of practice done by Lifelong Links, supported by the Family Rights Group, and others, as the core work that we should see the care and leaving care systems doing. It would mean, for want of a better phrase, a “Who Do You Think You Are?”-style process, as seen on TV. This process looks back through the whole history of that child’s experience with important adults, and then gets those people back into the young person’s life.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Centre for Social Justice found that up to 57% of care leavers struggle to stay out of debt and struggle to manage their money. That is why I have got my two local authorities, Surrey county council and Woking borough council, to take young care leavers out of the council tax system altogether to help ensure that they can successfully transition to independent adulthood. Will the Minister agree to work with his colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that local authorities have the funding and guidance to extend that support across the country?

[Josh MacAlister]

I welcome it when councils create local offers, which includes the example that my hon. Friend mentions of council tax exemptions or discounts. It can also include support with public transport and making bus travel free. I welcome all of that. What we are saying with this new strategy is that although all of that is important, it is second order to the bigger issue that drives a lot of that vulnerability of debt, homelessness, tragically early deaths and completed suicides from young care-experienced adults, which is that sense that they do not have people in their life who love them. I am convinced that if we can get that bit right and make that the focus above all else, everything else will become easier, and the outcomes for this important community will get better.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today, and I also welcome the remarks of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). I agree that all too often when we debate these topics, it is in the context of a tragedy, and it is refreshing that we are here today celebrating some fantastic news for young people in care. The remarks from both Front Benchers stand in contrast to the disgusting remarks from a Reform councillor last year, who described young people in care as “evil”. I think we can all be unified in condemning that view.

The Minister will know, because we share the same local authority, that Cumberland has made great strides in recent years in achieving exactly what we want to achieve, by ensuring that young people have those stable relationships. I commend the work of the Family Rights Group in this area—I should declare that I did some work with it prior to entering this place. Can the Minister share with the House his ambition for how other councils, such as Cumberland under the leadership of Councillor Emma Williamson, can do what Cumberland has done in a few years during this Parliament?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is right to highlight the leadership of Councillor Emma Williamson, who is herself care-experienced. She has brought that experience to political office in a way that is making real change happen across Cumberland. One of the things I was proudest to attend as a Member of Parliament, and as the Minister for Children and Families, was the launch of the enrichment event in my constituency last year. It is what Emma refers to as the bank of mam and dad. It is a fund that Emma and the team at Cumberland have set up to create an account with money that can go to young people who have something happening in their life. It could be to buy them a vehicle or to put down a deposit on a house. It is about having that flexibility through family finances that many of us benefit from but take for granted. Those who are care leavers often do not have it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister so much for his positive statement—I do so not in the salubrious way that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) did, but with the same sincerity. I also thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for all that she has done in this House for children. It is perhaps not always recognised, but it should be, because her contribution has been significant.

This is a massive issue back home in Strangford and across Northern Ireland. The Minister will know that Northern Ireland heavily outpaces England in keeping children within their wider family circle, with kinship and friends care at more than 50%. It is clear that children are happier if kept with siblings and in familiar circumstances, so how will the Minister and the Government further support those who would consider kinship care but are hampered in their ability to access appropriate housing for family care and need bigger houses? How can the Minister ensure that larger family homes are available UK-wide for those truly in need?

[Josh MacAlister]

That is a great question, because it gets to the heart of how the system behaves when it finds a parent who is perhaps struggling with a substance misuse problem, or is in a violent relationship, or has mental health needs and cannot continue to look after the child by themselves, but could be an important part of that child’s life for the foreseeable future, and when there are relatives saying, “We can help. We can be part of the solution. We do not need this child to go into the care system.” There needs to be a mechanism to fund those solutions, and that is what family network support packages do. The £2.4 billion that I referred to is available to fund those family network support packages. In the kinship zones, we are expecting much higher use of those FNSPs so that we can properly evaluate things. When I looked at the differences in the care population around the UK in the review, it was striking that the strength of civil society in Northern Ireland was one of the reasons, perhaps—this is just an idea—why communities were better able to come together around those children who might be at risk of going into care.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on managing to unite the whole House around this issue—a rare moment. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care, for which the Family Rights Group acts as the secretariat. I also reference the Lifelong Links programme, as the Minister has done. It has been a game changer, and it is a proof of concept for the ambitions that he has set out today. This approach can make significant changes for young people as they go through their lives. One of my questions is about the Family Finding approaches that the Minister mentioned. There is £8.4 million to roll that out. Does he have any more information on the timescales for that?

The Minister mentioned DoLs—deprivation of liberty orders—in his statement. On Tuesday, there was a Supreme Court judgment on deprivation of liberty and the changes to the acid test set in the Cheshire West judgment. Is that going to have any bearing on the roll-out of the strategy? Will any further guidance come out between now and the review that is expected to take place at the beginning of next year? And will he join me in congratulating North East Lincolnshire council’s fostering team, who have made enormous efforts to support foster-friendly employer schemes? All across the borough are orange stickers declaring that people are foster-friendly employers. That has raised awareness and done a huge amount to boost fostering in north-east Lincolnshire. Of course, he is welcome to come to my constituency any time.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. We are announcing today that the Family Finding programme will be extended and taken further, and the aim is to have it rolled out across the whole of England within the next two years. The procurement for that starts today, and it will be swift. We are looking to find an organisation that will not just support us to deliver a pilot or programme that sits alongside, or on top of, existing services—as has been done over the last few years—but work with local areas to embed in the core of how social workers and PAs are currently operating the features of those sorts of models, so that this becomes completely mainstream within the next two years. That is a bold goal, but we absolutely need to help shift the time and practice of social workers and PAs. We will need to make changes to some of the statutory guidance and regulation in order to free up social workers and PAs to be able to do that, but that is absolutely the right decision.

On deprivation of liberty orders, we will look really closely at the Supreme Court judgment earlier this week, but we do not expect that it will have any material impact on the Home Again programme that we are looking to roll out this summer. Finally, I would be delighted to congratulate the fostering team in my hon. Friend’s local authority. I was inspired when I saw their videos.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think the Minister will achieve great things in his role, and he has already achieved great things, but this could be the most significant. The difference that the strategy is going to make—not only to young people leaving care, but to kinship carers—is absolutely massive. His dedication is borne out not just by the actions that he is taking, but by the short timescale in which he wants to achieve these things, and I give credit to him. He is someone who knows the difference between a care leaver and a young carer—the number of people who do not is shocking. I talk to a lot of young people leaving care in my constituency of Harlow, and it strikes me that they are running the race of life but starting at least 10 metres behind everybody else. As this is the final question, can the Minister do a pitch to care leavers in Harlow about the difference that the strategy will make to their lives?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for getting Harlow into his question. It is a really good question to end on, because I want young people in care, care leavers and care-experienced people in this country to know that we are now working towards a common goal that is supported across the House. We will ensure that they get people in their lives who love them—not lanyard-wearing professionals, who are important, but their own tribe. We need to get that right as a country, and I absolutely believe we can, because all the examples I have shared, and all the things in the strategy, are already happening across England. It is a case of spreading and mainstreaming them. If we can do that, it will completely transform outcomes—for example, for young people not in education, employment or training. It will improve mental health and bring down the number of young care-experienced people who complete suicide, and it will mean that we are lucky enough as a country to have these brilliant young people celebrated and achieving.