Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

Debate between Julie Minns and Melanie Onn

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Onn]

I could not agree more. Independent analysis commissioned by the Family Rights Group says that paid kinship leave could return over £2 into the economy for every £1 invested, so double the support provided to these families goes back into the local economy.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. I want to go further on the point about investment and the comparison between kinship care and foster care that she mentioned earlier. One of my constituents has been a kinship carer for three children for nine years. She is also a foster carer for her grandson. She reports that because of his legal status, it has been easier for her to access the support she needs for him than for the three children she cares for as a kinship carer. Does my hon. Friend agree that introducing paid employment leave for kinship carers is not about special treatment, but about equal treatment?

[Melanie Onn]

I do. We should hold that in our minds as we go forward and look into the review in more detail. We are looking at the issue of equal treatment for all families and making sure that some are not treated differently to others.

I am aware of my time coming to a close; the Minister will want to respond to the many points that have been made. There have been some good examples of private companies, including Tesco and B&Q, two really big retail employers, that have already recognised the need for change ahead of the curve and offer paid kinship leave. Around 76%—three quarters—of employers support a Government-funded statutory entitlement. It is clear that there is more to be done to help kinship families to contribute economically and realise financial security.

There are some practical questions about how a statutory entitlement would work, particularly when caring arrangements happen suddenly. There are credible proposals and we have a real opportunity to make meaningful progress. We can give kinship carers a statutory right to paid employment leave akin to that of adoptive and other working parents. That would keep thousands of carers out of the welfare system, helping to reduce strain on it. It would return economic benefits through carers remaining in employment with higher tax revenue and better outcomes for children. Most importantly, it would give children the protected time they deserve to heal from trauma and settle into their new homes. It is therefore crucial that the Government’s parental leave and pay review finally closes this unfair gap in the law and delivers the first ever statutory right to pay and leave for kinship carers.

A great deal has been achieved. The Government deserve recognition for already having taken some important steps, but we can do much more, not least ensuring that carers have the time and financial security to be able to provide kinship care.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Julie Minns and Melanie Onn

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to recognise the work the Government have already undertaken to improve our high streets, including measures announced in the Budget last year: the taskforce to tackle organised crime groups; additional funding made available to trading standards, customs and excise, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and support for community policing, ensuring that there is a community police officer in every neighbourhood across the country. Those are all welcome and important, and it is right that we acknowledge that context in which this debate sits. I would also like to congratulate the Minister for Policing and Crime. She works incredibly hard. Today, she is working a double shift and we appreciate it.

I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 333, which sought to extend closure orders to 12 months. That has been the subject of some discussion today. I appreciate that the Government understand and recognise the importance and necessity of closure orders, to the point that they have tabled this amendment in lieu. I have to say to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) that I do not see that as the Government opposing, but rather nudging gently towards the right direction. They are acknowledging the need for closure orders, while recognising the sensitivity that comes with them: the impact they can have in residential areas—this is not just about commercial premises—and on our high streets. In particular, I think about the potential addition of boarded-up, empty homes for 12-month periods and the same for commercial properties on our high streets. That will be a concern and I therefore recognise the need for the Government to consult, but the Minister will know that this draws concern from me and other colleagues who are keen to tackle the scourge of dodgy shops in their communities—and to do so quickly.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion on the issue of dodgy shops. I would go as far to call her a guru on dodgy shops, if she will accept that accolade. Carlisle, like her constituency, is blighted by minimarts, vape shops and so on. I am attracted to Lords amendment 333, but superficially so. I think it is right that we get this correct. Does she agree with me that passing Lords amendment 333 would mark a significant shift in the law? It is important we get this right and consult, and what the Government are doing is extending the power, but with a guarantee to consult.

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend is right. It is an acknowledgement that action needs to be taken. That is reflected in other areas of action that the Government are already committed to and those we are likely to see further down the track, which I will come to later.

I think we are right to raise the length of the consultation and say that, while we may appreciate the necessity of the Government wanting to consult when the shift up to 12 months is so significant, the consultation period should not be unduly or unnecessarily lengthy.