Autistic Adults: Employment

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered employment opportunities for autistic adults.

It is a real pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. This is an important issue, and one which has risen in prominence with the increased awareness and diagnosis of autism. We have also seen extensive press coverage of the case of Tom Boyd, an autistic man who has been working at Waitrose in Cheadle Hulme, near my Hazel Grove constituency. I could not ignore the many variations of the same conversation I have had with constituents about the problems that they or their family members, like Tom, have faced getting or keeping work or thriving in their career. That so many people are facing the same issues means we are getting something wrong as a society. As the National Autistic Society says,

“Autism influences how people experience and interact with the world. It is a lifelong neurodivergence and disability. Autistic people are different from each other, but for a diagnosis they must share differences from non-autistic people in how they think, feel and communicate.”

An autism diagnosis should not be a barrier; it should help autistic people find how to be the best version of themselves.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In my constituency, I recently held a roundtable discussions on the state of special educational needs and disabilities education—which we know is dire. Does my hon. Friend share my belief that we should be promoting opportunities in employment for autistic people —who we know can be among the sharpest minds—so that those in education have roles to work towards?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that interventions are meant to be very short.

[Lisa Smart]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of getting the right education suited to each young person to enable them to flourish in their lives and contribute meaningfully to our community.

Clearly, the issues that my constituents have faced are not the same as every autistic person’s experience. When someone has met one autistic person, they have met one autistic person—that is a key point. All too often, autism is viewed in just one way, and it can be seen as a burden that employers have to overcome to employ that person, rather than as a range of differences and strengths.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My niece successfully secured a place on a civil service internship. She was then able to go on and train as a work coach and is helping people who face similar challenges with neurodiversity or health conditions to get back into work. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that other employers set up these bespoke internship schemes, particularly to give opportunities to young people?

[Lisa Smart]

People with lived experience are often the best trainers and best able to explain a situation and enable employers to adapt to get the best out of their employees. I very strongly agree with the hon. Lady’s point.

I see it in my own area of Stockport, where the council delivers training for employers on how best to welcome neurodiverse employees into their workforce. That training is delivered by those with lived experience. Stockport council also provides adapted spaces at inclusive job fairs. That enables it to support attendance by those for whom busy, noisy spaces do not necessarily bring out the best in them.

As a Liberal, I want to ensure that people are viewed as individuals; that they are given a platform to be the best version of themselves; that we give our fellow citizens opportunities and not barriers; and that we ensure they are not limited by someone’s view of a category in which they happen to fit.

I thank my constituents who have shared their experiences with me and who have very different lives, needs and experiences, but who have faced very similar problems when entering the world of work. My constituent, Bradley from Marple, has had several voluntary jobs in the past. He has done them well and he now volunteers as a digital champion in the local library. Bradley is autistic and has a speech and language condition. He is capable, reliable and determined. I was really pleased that he and his mum came to see me at my advice surgery a few weeks ago, and that they are here today. He is now on universal credit, including the disability element, but tells me that what he wants is the independence and dignity that comes with having a paid job.

For Bradley, the problem he faces is getting over the hurdle of having a chance to prove his worth. He has applied for over 100 jobs. He has been given interviews and has passed tests, and yet is never given the job. All too often he tells me he hears the same refrain: “We have another candidate who we feel best suits the post.” Although that is said to anyone who applies for a job and they hear it from time to time, Bradley hears the same thing every time, after every interview and every successful test. That is what stings.

Another constituent has had two jobs with the same organisation. He has been diagnosed as high functioning with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He has a master’s degree and a range of awards and accolades that attest to his brilliance. He also struggles to know what day of the week it is or how to cook a pizza. He fits many of the stereotypes that people have about autism. In the first job, although he was given support to help him, it did not take account of the way he processed information. Instead, he was put on a performance improvement plan, which gave him no time to embed the enabling strategies that his mentor had helped him with. Instead of being supportive, it fed into his anxiety, and such was the stress it caused that he ended up with autistic burnout and on medication.

Fortunately, with support from his parents and some courses of cognitive behavioural therapy, he was able to start again. However, such was the lack of confidence in his own abilities that his first experience caused, he applied for a much less senior role. This time around, though, the experience was a world apart. He had a structured induction that gave him all the information he needed to settle into a new role. Similarly, when he starts a new project or task, he is introduced in a way that gives everyone the information they need to work well with him, such as sharing with any new colleagues how he prefers to receive information related to the task. He is now a valued high-performing member of staff ready to step back up the career ladder, and his mental health is in a completely different, far more positive place.

Those two wildly different experiences are with the same organisation, the civil service, which shows the need for best practice to be implemented much more consistently. My constituent is someone who has the potential to do things that few other people can, and when his job is built to get the best out of him, he flies. When it fails to take account of his needs, he crashes. I suggest that in a world where we hear all too frequently from some politicians demeaning descriptions of the lives that autistic people will have, we instead need to work on removing barriers that stop them living the right life for them.

A Stockport council officer working in this area reports interesting conversations with employers about the fact that adapting the business to be more inclusive is really, in his words,

“about looking at what skills a person can bring to the role and that isn’t as difficult as people first think. It’s about listening and understanding. It certainly doesn’t stop you being successful and profitable and it might actually help you!”

Two of my constituents faced challenges when starting and running their own businesses. Both of them set up their own companies—one supporting people with autism and ADHD and the other a small business selling games and toys. In both cases, their efforts to run their companies were undermined when they were in what we could term an irregular part of running a company. In the first case, it was going through the set-up of the company, which took longer than expected. In the second, it was when they missed an email they were not expecting from Companies House. In both cases, my constituents struggled with the sorts of activities that too often people and processes take for granted: making calls, sending emails and completing documents.

Katie, who joins us today, was allocated funding for a virtual assistant through Access to Work payments. But when her caseworker retired, her case was not reallocated and she was left facing mounting bills. To resolve it, she was forced to pursue her funding through a labyrinthine process. Were it not for her fantastic mum advocating on her behalf and further support from my superstar casework team, she would not have got it sorted out. As her mum said,

“The process to claim completely failed to recognise her disability. It was like asking someone in a wheelchair to get out and walk up the stairs.”

When someone has communication issues, layering inaccessible processes on top causes a struggle that is cruel. The irony is that Katie was caught out by this when she was setting up a company helping people with neurodivergent conditions. In a further twist, it was systems designed to help people like Katie into work that failed to take account of her autism.

Those are just four examples of people’s lived experience of trying to get into or on with work. Disabled people with autism are among the least likely to be in employment of all disabled people; 34% of disabled people with autism are in employment, compared with 55% of all disabled people and 82% of non-disabled people. The Buckland review of autism employment found that adjustments for autistic employees are highly variable, and that the onus is normally on the autistic employee to identify and advocate for the adjustments that they need. That is why the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for there to be obligations on employers and local authorities to provide appropriate care assessments and support. To repeat the words of Katie’s mum, not doing this is

“like asking someone in a wheelchair to get out and walk up the stairs.”

All too often we are building employment practices and processes that are one size fits all, but that size is too small. People are different, and we need to take account of that. It is only by recognising the differences between people, and by allowing for them and working with them, that we will get the future workforce that we need. I look forward to the Minister telling us what more the Government plan to do to make employment work for autistic people more easily, whether that is businesses employing autistic people, who can bring so much to a workplace, or changing processes so that autistic people can work in a way that suits them and gives them a platform to thrive.

Schemes such as Access to Work, Connect to Work or Disability Confident certainly exist, but my inbox suggests that too many people with skills and talents are falling through the gaps. I am particularly keen to hear when the Minister expects to publish a response to the recommendations made by the independent panel of academics led by Professor Amanda Kirby.

I really want to thank my constituents who have taken the time to share their experiences. Some of them are here today, and others are watching online. I hope that this place will change things for the better, so that we can do real justice for all the autistic people who just want the same opportunities as everyone else—to work, to live their best life and to thrive.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to the debate, particularly those who brought stories from their constituents. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) suggested changing the way that some people enter employment, and we should take seriously the idea that interviews are not right for everybody. I was disappointed to hear about Workbridge closing from the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). That underlines the fragmented nature of the support that is available—it can look different in different parts of the country.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and the Minister, made the important point that employers need support, particularly some small employers who do not have a whole fleet of HR colleagues to work with. A number of hon. Members talked about how valuable work experience is; it absolutely can be, but there is a reason the campaign to end unpaid internships has been successful. That success has brought a sense of justice—that someone cannot go on volunteering their time without a pathway to paid employment, or a clear view as to what they are gaining from it or how they can contribute.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for talking clearly about the exhaustion that can come from fighting against and within a system that does not work well enough. He talked about how Access to Work, although it exists, is not working for too many people. He made a point that was echoed by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith): of course this issue is about individuals, but it is also about growth, productivity and our whole economy.

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the work that is going on, but also that more needs to be done. We have not quite nailed this as a society just yet. We are missing out on the skills and talents of too many autistic people, and there is more we can all do to fix that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered employment opportunities for autistic adults.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier]

I do agree. I think the Government will look at those international comparisons and where Britain is in the league tables.

The TUC seeks day one rights, individual entitlements to paid leave and higher pay rates so that all families can benefit, including single kinship, adoptive and surrogate parents and those in atypical roles.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s ongoing review into parental leave is a cracking opportunity for them to fill a gap that currently exists for those who are self-employed and seeking to grow their family by adoption? Currently they are not entitled to maternity allowance or maternity or paternity pay. Does he agree that that would be a very good thing to come out of the parental leave review?

[Jacob Collier]

Yes; the hon. Lady highlights a stark inequality that the Government need to address.

Behind every statistic is a story. The recent campaign by Pregnant Then Screwed gathered testimony from families across the UK who face the brutal consequences of the current, inadequate system. Laura from the west midlands had to return to work just 11 weeks after giving birth because she could not afford the mortgage repayments on her low maternity pay. She said that she had been

“overwhelmed with guilt over the limited bonding time”

that she had had in those early months due to returning to work, and it had greatly impacted her mental health.

Izzy from Chester, recovering from an emergency caesarean section, was left alone in pain, unable to feed herself and her baby. Her wound later ruptured and became infected. She believes that that would not have happened if her husband had been at home longer. Neya from London told us about the aftermath of her traumatic birth and its impact. She slept on the floor for weeks and was unable to function. She said that she could barely think about how she would have coped if her husband had not been around. Another parent, who wanted to remain anonymous, shared a reflection that captures the long-term cost of the current system:

“I’m struggling to see how we can possibly have a second child because of all of this. I’m very happy, grateful and content with one but it feels like the choice is starting to be taken out of our hands.”

Mansion House Accord

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Transport will have heard my hon. Friend’s words and that his buttering up will have the desired effect over the years to come. He is right to highlight the synergies between public and private investment. We need to see higher levels of public investment, which is why this Government are putting in place £113 billion over these five years. That is being done because it will deliver real, tangible progress that people can see in their streets. Why do people think Britain went backward over the last 15 years? There are lots of reasons, but high up the list is visible potholes on every single road in Britain. We are turning that around as we speak. That wider investment also gives confidence to the private sector, and we see that across the piece—wherever we are delivering regeneration projects with public sector investment supporting them, it crowds in private investment in exactly the way my hon. Friend sets out.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Before I was elected to this place, I was a trustee of one of the large public pension funds, and a lot of the correspondence I received was from retired social workers who were quite grumpy about their funds being invested in extractive industry companies listed in London. We know that more young people will opt in to invest if they are comfortable with what their pension fund is investing in. What more can the Government do to engage with the industry but also with young savers to ensure there are pension options that reflect their investment preferences?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Lady is right to say that we see higher engagement levels among young people today in investing more broadly. Whenever I go into a school sixth form, a surprising volume of the questions are not, unfortunately for me, on what the Government are doing and how we will bring inequality down and get growth up, but are instead, “How do we make a lot of money quite quickly?” We should support that level of engagement and active investment.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point, schemes are required to set out their policy and approach, and many pension schemes provide members with options for how they wish their funds to be invested. Nothing that has been set out today on the accord gets in the way of those approaches that are already in place.

Pension Funds

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We need legal reform to ensure that pensions in payment are finally brought under the protection of equality law. We also need greater transparency and accountability from pension providers, especially those entrusted with the retirement futures of hard-working people. HSBC’s clawback policy is discriminatory in its impact, misleading in its language and fundamentally unjust in its effect. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward legislation to put an end to this outdated practice and to finally stand up for those whose voices have gone unheard for far too long. Clawback is just one part of a broken pension system; we must also ask where our pension funds are invested and what future we are buying with that money.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for laying out the case for change so well. She talks about the investments that pension funds are making. I worked for more than a decade in the investment industry, and many of my clients were big public pension funds. More recently, I served as a trustee of one of the largest public pension funds in the country. One of the things that pensioners contacted me about was where their money was going. They would ask, “Is it being used to fund fossil fuel extraction?” or “Is it being used to support some unsavoury regimes around the world?” Does my hon. Friend agree that pensioners should have more power to have a say over what goes on with their money?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I fully agree. It is really important that pensions reflect ethics and morality and that the people investing in them have a voice. It is no longer good enough to see pensions in isolation from sustainability, ethics or morality. Whether it is because of the way in which funds are clawed back from low-paid pensioners or the way in which they are funnelled into destructive, high-emission industries, the system is crying out for reform.

As we look ahead to COP30, billions of pounds of local government pension schemes are still invested in fossil fuels and in industries that drive deforestation, biodiversity loss and wildlife extinction. If we are to build a just and sustainable future, we must build a just and sustainable pension system that protects not only people in retirement, but the planet and generations to come.

Green Book Review

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It really is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mr Pritchard. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for securing this important debate.

Our communities deserve responsible Government. That means a stable economy, support for green innovation and ensuring that no one is left behind. In its current form, the Green Book holds us all back. It is time for a smarter and fairer approach that invests in and for every community. The country needs to move forwards from the last Government’s fairly reckless approach to public finances and backtracking on climate commitments that left our country decidedly weaker.

The Green Book’s framework continues to entrench regional inequality. The reasons for that are clear and twofold. It relies too heavily on blunt and limited cost-benefit analyses, and it fails to adequately factor in broader socioeconomic benefits to proposed spending. Placing disproportionate weight on cost-benefit ratios based on existing economic activity means that proposed spending that would invest in communities where wages and prices are lower is disadvantaged, because the short-term economic benefits appear to be lower. The Green Book therefore directs funding to areas that are already enjoying high levels of economic activity—namely, London and the south-east.

Projects in areas such as my own in Greater Manchester, by contrast, can struggle to compete on paper, even when the real-world need for investment is clearly greater. By focusing disproportionately on direct economic output, the Green Book often misses the wider socioeconomic benefits of investing in less affluent regions. Those benefits include wellbeing, job creation, community cohesion and long-term sustainability. Without a national strategy to prioritise regional equity, too many good projects in the north fall through the cracks.

The Liberal Democrats believe that all communities deserve a fair shot, not only the ones that already happen to be thriving. We need a framework that looks beyond simple economics and recognises the human, social and environmental value of infrastructure investment. It is not just a philosophical argument; in practice, the current system leads to under-investment in projects that could transform struggling communities.

There is also an important environmental angle. The UK has legally committed to net zero emissions by 2050, but our appraisal framework has not caught up. The Green Book still applies discount rates that undervalue the long-term benefits of green investment, making it harder to justify climate-friendly projects with slower financial returns. If we want a green economy, we need green tools, and right now, the Green Book is steering us away from the very infrastructure—whether that is renewable energy, public transport or nature restoration—that will power our net zero future. We need to realign our economic models with our environmental goals.

The 2020 review, undertaken by the last Government, was a missed opportunity. While it nodded to levelling up and net zero, it failed to make the structural changes that are needed. The think-tank Centre for Cities has argued that the Green Book should empower local leaders to choose the best projects for their regions, rather than leaving the Treasury to pick between places. I am interested to hear from the Minister what the thinking of this Government and the Treasury is on that.

As it stands, the Green Book holds back the north. It stifles green investment and ignores the full value of infrastructure investment. My constituents are living with the consequences of that every day. There are many examples of transport infrastructure upgrades in Hazel Grove that would have a transformative effect on their lives. Direct rail links from areas such as Romiley and Marple to Stockport would save my constituents a lengthy and unnecessary trip via Piccadilly. Level access at stations in Woodley and Romiley would ensure that those with physical disabilities can get on the train, and a bus link to the Bredbury industrial estate would promote job growth and reduce the number of people driving to work.

In debating the Green Book, a framework for investment decisions, we should not forget that it is not just about numbers—it is about people’s everyday lives. It is about their health, jobs and opportunities. We cannot let technical frameworks stop us from doing what is right. The Liberal Democrats are calling for bold reform: a system that promotes long-term prosperity, tackles inequality and delivers on our environmental commitments. We should all be working to build a country in which every region and community has a proper chance to thrive.

Welfare Reform

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with my hon. Friend that keeping older people physically independent for as long as possible is vital. That is one of the reasons why we are investing an extra £26 billion in the NHS. Not only are we rolling out employment advisers in talking therapies and mental health services, but we are starting to do so when it comes to physical health, too, including for people with musculoskeletal conditions, because getting people back to health and back to work is so important. We will legislate for the PIP changes, and the House will have the full ability to debate them. Crucially, we will consult disabled people on the employment support programme and how we get that right, so that it is much more joined up with the health support that many sick and disabled people need.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Many of my Hazel Grove constituents are keen as mustard to get back to work, but they are waiting for either a diagnosis or treatment on the NHS. That is made more difficult because of the capital spending needed at Stepping Hill hospital, and because mental health services across Greater Manchester are stretched too thin. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that her announcements today will not make an already difficult time in their lives even more difficult?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady is right to champion her constituents’ needs. We recently undertook a survey of people on sickness and disability benefits, and two in five of them said that they were on a waiting list. That really concerned us, and it is why we are putting extra investment in place. We need to go further, faster, on driving waiting lists down. We have already achieved the 2 million extra appointments that we said we would deliver in our manifesto—we did that seven months early—and we will do even more to ensure that her constituents get back to health and back to work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that the right hon. Member will raise that concern with the appropriate colleagues of mine. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the value of the work of learning disability nurses, whoever their employer is. We are determined that they should have better support to enable people with learning disabilities who want to work to do so.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The experience of my constituent Julie from Heaviley highlights the unfairness of the employment and support allowance application process for those with progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis. She was assessed by a physiotherapist who lacked any expertise in neurological disorders; she thereby received inaccurate reports that denied her vital financial support. What steps are Ministers taking to ensure fair and timely support for those with progressive conditions that do not necessarily fit neatly into a box, as other disabilities or conditions may?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We want to improve the assessment process, and there will be proposals in the Green Paper on how to do that. If the hon. Lady would like to drop me a line about this particular case, I will be happy to have a look and comment further.

Adoptive Parents: Financial Support

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That the House has considered the matter of financial support for adoptive parents.

It is a pleasure to lead this debate and to have you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. Adoption is one of the most selfless acts that a person or family can undertake. It provides children with the opportunity to thrive in a permanent loving home, often completing a family, as I have seen myself in my role as a proud auntie. Despite the immeasurable value that adoption offers to those children, their families and society, financial barriers prevent many prospective adopters from stepping forward. Today, I wish to highlight the case of Kirsty, a constituent of mine from Marple. Her case exposes a significant gap in the financial support system that discourages self-employed individuals from adopting.

Kirsty is a self-employed mother who dreamed of expanding her family. After a year of trying to conceive a second child, she and her husband decided to explore adoption. Their first son, Charlie, a bright-eyed four-year-old with an unshakeable love for trains, often talked about how much he wanted a little sibling to be his assistant train driver. For Kirsty and her family, opening their hearts and home to a child via adoption was the best option.

Just as Kirsty began to embrace that vision for her family’s future, a close friend, also self-employed and in the process of adopting, informed her that she was not entitled to the same financial support as others through statutory adoption pay. Ever since, her plans have been thrown into doubt. Unlike biological parents, who qualify for maternity allowance, or employed adopters, who are eligible for statutory adoption pay, self-employed adopters like Kirsty fall into a financial support void.

Although statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments equivalent to those allowances, such support is not guaranteed and local authorities have no legal duty to provide it. A freedom of information request by the charity Home for Good revealed that 34% of local authorities lack any policy for providing that financial support. Even worse, 90% of self-employed adopters surveyed in 2022 by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence reported that their social worker never advised them about the possibility of receiving the discretionary payments.

Many of those in Kirsty’s situation cannot take the financial risk of adopting a child without assured support, and she is not alone. The gap creates a stark disparity between those who are employed and the self-employed—a barrier for many who might otherwise give a child a stable and loving home. The consequences of that lack of support are far-reaching. Having often faced abuse or neglect, adopted children need time and care to settle into their new families; as a result, adoptive parents are often advised to take up to a year off work to ensure proper bonding and support. Where does this leave those who are self-employed? Without financial support, they face impossible choices: continuing to work and sacrificing the vital time they need to build a relationship with their child; sacrificing their careers and their financial stability; or abandoning their adoption plans altogether. For many, the only realistic option is the latter.

Governments of different shades have often recognised the importance of building a relationship with an adopted child, but for too long they have insisted that self-employed adopters should have to rely on unreliable discretionary payments. In November, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to extend statutory adoption pay to the self-employed, or to introduce an equivalent benefit. Although the Minister’s response expressed support for adoptive parents, it pointed yet again to a flawed system of discretionary payments.

In December, I called on the Government to allocate time to debate how we can support people like Kirsty, and to do that in Government time—sadly, so far, to no avail. Just before Christmas, I tabled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill—new clause 46—which would allow the self-employed to claim statutory adoption pay. In a letter to me last week a Minister—not the Minister present—committed again to reviewing the parental leave system, agreeing that improvements need to be made. As the review begins, I urge Departments across Government to prioritise financial support for self-employed adopters.

The financial case for supporting adoptive parents is compelling. Research by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK shows that in 2021 adoption saved the UK economy £4.2 billion through improvements in children’s health, and in their education and employment prospects, compared with the outcomes for children who remained in care or other placements. Local councils saved £3.6 billion, while the NHS and wider economy benefited by £34 million and £541 million respectively.

The CVAA has also found that at least £1.3 million-worth of value is created when a child is adopted, underscoring the societal and economic benefits of increasing adoption numbers. Yet the number of adoptions has halved since a peak in 2015, even as the number of looked-after children has risen by 25%. Removing financial barriers and guaranteeing financial support, and empowering those who are self-employed to step forward for adoption, could reverse this troubling trend.

The case for further financial support for adoptive parents to address the distinct challenges they face is equally compelling. Rates of depression and anxiety are as high as 32% among those who adopt. Unlike biological parents, adoptive parents often have to contend with navigating their child’s complex trauma or attachment issues, and with a long and arduous adoption process. These challenges can be compounded by the grief and loss that many adoptive parents can feel if they have experienced infertility or failed attempts to conceive.

Adoption can also place strain on relationships. While divorce rates among adoptive parents are not disproportionate, the difficulties of parenting children with complex needs, alongside the emotional toll of the adoption process, can push couples to their limits. Financial instability worsens those challenges, threatening the family cohesion of those who are brave and selfless enough to adopt.

Finally, the adoption process in the UK is long and complex, sometimes taking years from the initial application to the final court approval. Prospective parents are subject to background checks, references, intense assessment, and adoption panel scrutiny before they can even find a match. Although this journey is, of course, necessary to ensure the best outcomes for children, it places immense stress on prospective adopters. I urge the Minister and the various Departments involved to explore ways to provide financial support that acknowledges and mitigates the unique pressures on adoptive parents, self-employed or otherwise. I hope that will play a significant part in the upcoming review of parental leave.

Adoptive parents deserve robust financial support. Addressing this issue is not only a matter of fairness but a means of unlocking the full potential of adoption. Ministers across Government, and the various Departments involved, have the opportunity to lead the way by extending statutory adoption pay to self-employed adopters, or by implementing an equivalent benefit. We should not allow financial barriers to stand in the way of creating loving families and providing children with the stability they so desperately need and undoubtedly deserve. The Government could and should act decisively to ensure that adoption remains a viable and supported choice for all prospective parents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am really grateful to all Members who have taken part in this debate. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) spoke about his experience as a Minister in Northern Ireland, and it is really good to have his support. He is absolutely right to point out the numbers of children that we are talking about in the different parts of the UK, and how we can enable more brilliant future parents to adopt, and drive up those adoption rates.

I want to thank Penny and Eric, the mum and dad of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who adopted him in the 1970s. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to talk about the adoption support fund, which I know is hugely valuable to many families—to ask about its future security, to ask for future clarity on what is coming down the track, and to talk about the different challenges faced by adopters and point out that adoption is not about a stereotypical “babe in arms” found under a bush somewhere.

A number of Members—including both the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay—spoke about the role that local councils, and the funding of local councils, play in some of the decision making that can happen in this area. The Minister rightly mentioned my previous life as a member of a local authority. One of the jobs that a councillor takes most seriously is that corporate parenting role—that key role of keeping the most vulnerable children safe. On local authority finances, lots of people in this place talk about the importance of clarity and proper funding—indeed, the Opposition spokesperson talked about funding local authorities and doing that properly—and I think that, when we are talking about some of the most important jobs of councils, we are indeed talking about children in care, who are the most vulnerable in our society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about the cost to councils, and the cost of children’s waiting a very long time for their adoption to come through. The longer they wait, the more it costs both them as individuals and councils in terms of ongoing care. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), talked about how our understanding of early childhood development has developed. He also talked about somebody who used to work in this place who knows quite a lot about adoption issues, and he was right to do so because we can work cross-party to fix such anomalies. I am grateful for his remarks.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a family of four boys, and that is exactly the sort of story we need to have in our minds. It was about the impact of a good, loving, warm and secure home for the boys, and how their lives might well have been different had they not had that. I am grateful to him for that, as well as for talking about kinship carers, which are being looked at in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. My party looks forward to scrutinising and improving some of the Bill in that regard. I welcome the Minister’s comments, that he accepts that we are today talking about an anomaly, and especially his comments on the action he has undertaken to take. It is good that the Government are committed to reviewing parental leave, and I hope that is the mechanism through which we can correct the anomaly.

We absolutely need to encourage more people into fostering, adoption and kinship care, and we need to remove any barriers that may stop people from being able to take up those opportunities. I am really grateful to everyone who has taken part today. It is really good to have Government support for looking at this subject, and I really look forward to where this goes, because we need to enable as many brilliant future parents as we possibly can to take up this opportunity and complete their family.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of financial support for adoptive parents.

Children and Young People with Cancer

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: we could save the NHS a lot of money, because a lot of appointments will be cancelled because people are getting used to the fact that their child has cancer, and that they have to make alternative arrangements in order to take them to the hospital where they will be treated. If they were able to get a payment straightaway, that would save the NHS money in the long term. The money that it might cost to make those payments could be recouped further down the line, so the hon. Member is absolutely right.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. He mentioned the impact of investing early and of people being able to qualify for payments from day one. Does he agree with me and with Teach Cancer a Lesson, a charity set up by one of my Hazel Grove constituents in Mellor, about the impact of ensuring that education continues when children have a cancer diagnosis? Teach Cancer a Lesson talks about making sure that local authorities have a responsibility to review the education provision for a child on day one, or within 28 days of a cancer diagnosis. Does my hon. Friend agree that the same principle applies—that it costs far less in the long term, in educational terms, if that review is done early, rather than waiting and waiting and allowing a child’s education to suffer?

[Clive Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a child can try to have a normal life, which includes still going to school, seeing their friends and being educated, that will help them and their family to cope with their treatment. Schools and local authorities should work hard to ensure a normal life for that child very quickly.

One family supported by Young Lives vs Cancer received their first DLA payment only in January, after their child was diagnosed in July. In another case, a delay of four months from the start of a DLA application meant that a young cancer patient’s mother was left with no financial support, because her statutory sick pay ended before the DLA started. How the Government expect people to manage with those extra costs is beyond me.

This is the very worst form of bureaucratic inflexibility, and it leads to some people not applying for benefits because they see a system stacked against them, quite apart from the burden of applying during the most disruptive time of their lives. People are not going to prioritise form filling when they or their child needs radiotherapy. The process takes so long that sometimes children and young people have either finished their treatment or, most concerningly, passed away before the benefits have been awarded. A child being treated in Leicester sadly died before a DLA decision was made, leaving their family to go through the challenging conversation of wanting the claim form still to be reviewed because the family were owed a back payment. That is unacceptable.

The Minister responded to a parliamentary question by arguing that those nearing the end of life can apply for special rules. However, this simply does not work very well, because situations can change quickly and some who are not terminally ill can rapidly deteriorate. Some may still receive potentially curative treatment even if the risk of death is high, or some may wish not to know their prognosis. The Minister needs to urgently assess the benefits of changing to a medical evidence-based eligibility for these patients.

There is a precedent for medical evidence being used to expedite access to benefits. The existing special rules process for those with terminal illness definitions means that they do not need to meet the three-month qualifying period with medical evidence. That principle should be applied to all children and young people with cancer, to facilitate immediate access to benefits.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have already spoken quite a lot about changes to the apprenticeship levy, which are important, but there are many other things that we can do. We have seen real success with sector-based work academies, which are run by jobcentres. Those are short, six-week courses that give the specific skills an employer needs, alongside guaranteed work experience for the potential employee and a guaranteed interview. They have had huge success for people looking for work and for employers, because they get someone with the skills they actually need. We are committed to doing that this year, and I hope we will roll it out further. That is just one of many examples of how we can change our jobcentres and the DWP to better serve employers and their needs.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove has a huge repairs backlog, which is reported to cost £130 million. We have had buildings knocked down because they are no longer safe, medics wading through flooded corridors and, most recently, a light fitting falling down in a delivery suite when the couple were in active labour. This situation has a massive impact on waiting lists and, consequently, on how much my residents can work, including Anthony, who got in touch yesterday to say that he is waiting for rehab after having a heart attack in June. Can the Secretary of State confirm that any extra funding will go towards what local communities need in order to get back to work? Many of my constituents are as keen as mustard to do so, but they are on waiting lists. Even the most wonderful work coach can do very little when somebody is awaiting surgery.

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady raises a massively important point, and I am really sorry to hear about what her constituents are experiencing. We have to get people back to health and back to work. It is no wonder that so many people are out of work due to long-term sickness, given that waiting lists are at near-record levels. That is why my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is sending in extra help, including doctors, to drive down waiting lists in the areas that need help the most. It is a no-brainer that we have to get people off waiting lists to get them back to work. That is what I mean when I say that a healthy nation and a healthy workforce are two sides of the same coin.