Higher Education Funding

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition.

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for tabling this important debate and all Members for their contributions this morning. I have to say that I did not expect to hear quite so much agreement for Margaret Thatcher’s education policies this morning. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for their positivity about that.

Let me pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey). Although I think we are the same age, he started at Southampton University a year after me, but we have many mutual friends from our time at university. It is worth noting that the changes we experienced as the first cohort that had to pay fees and take on a loan were due entirely to the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which was snuck through by the new Labour Government and then conveniently forgotten about, in a time where social media did not exist. I dread to think of the furore if today’s students realised that that was going to happen to them, but I for one, aged 16, thought I was going to university for free, but by the age of 18 that was not the case.

[Jayne Kirkham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

I am going to make some progress.

I do not want to burst the bubble of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), but Plymouth has also had dentistry offered as a subject. Unfortunately, only about 5% of the students are from Plymouth and nearly all of them leave the area, so although we absolutely need more dentistry students, so far that has not quite been the mechanism to solve the crisis that we hope it will be—although that is a debate for another time.

To respond to the topic of the debate, let me put it on record that the Opposition recognise the enormous value and significance of the UK’s university sector in terms of its economic and societal contribution. The National Centre for Universities and Businesses argues that the UK’s universities are

“one of our greatest strategic assets. They educate the future workforce, conduct world leading research, and act as anchor institutions in their regions—supporting businesses, driving innovation, and powering local growth.”

Economically, universities contribute around £265 billion to the UK economy and support more than 800,000 jobs. The return on investment is also staggering. For every £1 of public money invested in the higher education sector across the country, £14 is put back into the economy.

In addition, there is no doubt that universities are some of the most critical engines of growth and prosperity at the regional level. As the proud Member of Parliament for South West Devon, I know the huge role that the sector plays across the south-west. We have 10 universities with more than 200,000 students between them, employing more than 31,000 people and contributing £7.8 billion of gross output. Plymouth Marjon University, Arts University Plymouth and the University of Plymouth are certainly playing their part. I am meeting the vice-chancellor of Plymouth University tomorrow to discuss this very topic. Although I unfortunately cannot add any more today, I know that he wants to talk to me about the struggles that the university is facing.

Notwithstanding this vital economic contribution, it would be wrong to look at universities purely in terms of their economic output. Universities help to shape the society we all live in. They equip young people with the skills needed to navigate an increasingly fractured society. They teach young people to think critically and outside the box, skills that I believe will be essential in a Britain where communities are more divided than ever and the spectre of the AI revolution looms over us all. It is beyond clear that universities will play a central role in Britain for decades to come. That is our view, but we are not blind to the big challenges facing the sector.

It is no secret that real and imminent challenges face the UK’s university sector. A May 2026 report from the Education Committee went so far as to claim that the sector faces a financial crisis that poses a real risk of institutional insolvency. The report laid bare the terrible state of some universities’ finances, with the Office for Students fearing that 24 providers could face insolvency within the next 12 months. Against this uncertain backdrop, universities are being forced to close courses and sell buildings to cut costs and make efficiencies.

The difficulties facing universities are explained well in the Policy Exchange report, “Tarnished Towers”. It argues that high inflation, pension pressures and a reduction in international student numbers have created a perfect storm for our universities. It all seems to be compounded by a lack of action from the Government thus far. A Universities UK report from February 2026 found that Government policy decisions will

“lead to an estimated £3.7 billion reduction in funding to higher education providers in England from 2024-25 to 2029-30.”

Its analysis shows the impact of Government immigration policy, but also the damaging shock that the sector received through increased pension and employment costs.

In 2020, Keir Starmer made scrapping university tuition fees the centrepiece of his leadership campaign. Indeed, in June 2023, the previous Education Secretary even had the audacity to claim that graduates would pay less under a Labour Government. Students right across the country felt betrayed and let down by the Government’s broken promises when the previous Education Secretary announced in November 2024 that Labour would push up tuition fees for students. In that debate, the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), said that she would be willing to work with the Government to support universities and students. His Majesty’s Opposition are yet to be invited to work constructively with the Government on that—indeed, we have heard very little at all from the Government about what they want to do. I hope the Minister can shed some light on the Government’s plans to support our university sector.

The new Education Secretary has been keen to talk about her plans to reform technical education, but aside from providing a statement on that issue in the House, we have heard little else. She has not come to the House to clarify when the Government will bring forward the legislation they promised at the King’s Speech to support children with SEND and their families, or to talk about the challenges facing the university sector.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for securing this debate, as it gives His Majesty’s Opposition some time to ask the Minister, whom I respect very much, some important questions about higher education funding. First, can the Minister shed any light on how the Government intend to support the 24 institutions that the Office for Students claimed are at risk of insolvency in the 12 months from May 2026? Secondly, can she confirm whether the Government intend to make any changes to plan 2 student loans? Thirdly, can the Minister tell the Chamber whether she has had any meetings with institutions that might be facing significant financial uncertainty during the remainder of this academic year? Lastly, will the Government rule out pushing up student tuition fees again before the end of this Parliament? His Majesty’s Opposition, the higher education sector and, most importantly, students right across the country need answers to those important questions. Universities need them to begin to develop long-term financial plans, and students need to have certainty about their finances and about the stability of the institution they are studying at and the course they are taking.

Regrettably, I hold little hope that the Government have answers to those questions, given the lack of focus that the new Education Secretary seems to have shown to higher education since coming into office. That is in stark contrast to the official Opposition: we have outlined detailed and fully costed plans to lower interest on plan 2 student loans and set out reforms to the university sector to ensure that the Government stop funding dead-end university courses. That is all part of our new deal for young people.

I reiterate His Majesty’s Opposition’s firm belief in the strength and value of the UK’s higher education sector; it is indeed a huge strategic asset. However, we must be honest and recognise that it will face huge challenges over the next decade. The digital revolution means that universities need to rethink how they prepare students for the world of work, and they must be open to accepting that they must adapt to stay solvent in the new economic reality.

The Government should be there to guide the sector through these turbulent headwinds, but we have seen little indication that they are. The new Education Secretary urgently needs to shed some light on what steps they will take to address some deeply concerning reports about the financial health of our institutions. The Budget is a little over an hour away; I hope that the Chancellor will set out steps to solve these problems, but I hold out little hope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

I regularly talk to colleagues across the four nations, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Baroness Smith, does the same. It is very important that we have that spirit of learning.

Those different routes are deeply connected. We think that the relationship between higher education and the Department is important, particularly on supporting outcomes for young people and as we think about how we respond to the changing nature of education, the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement and long-term flexible learning. We want people to have access to education throughout their lives.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Georgia Gould]

No, I must make progress. The lifelong learning entitlement will transform the student finance system, giving people flexible access to high-quality education throughout their working lives. From January 2027, for the first time learners will be able to use their entitlement to fund individual modules as well as full courses at levels 4 to 6 at colleges, universities and independent providers.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), raised the issue of international students and support for them. I want to be clear: international students are welcome in the UK. They enrich our campuses and communities, and are ambassadors for this country long after they graduate. They made a vital contribution of £12.7 billion in fee income in 2023-24—almost a quarter of the sector’s income, as other Members said. The new international education strategy confirms our commitment to welcoming students who meet the requirements to study here.

A range of questions were asked about the international student levy. That is part of a wider package that also includes inflation-linked fee rises, and it is important to stress that every penny it raises will be reinvested in higher education and skills—including new maintenance grants for disadvantaged students, which many hon. Members raised, to remove some of the barriers around the cost of studying. We know how important those are. The levy is simple and proportionate: a flat £925 fee per international student per year from 2028-29, paid for by providers with an allowance of 220 students each. We listened to the sector; the flat fee is equivalent to around 4% of international fee income, down from the 6% first provided. To answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and others, we will publish an updated impact assessment ahead of the Finance Bill.

I was asked a number of questions about the pressure that many students are facing, including from my friends from Cornwall, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). We know that cost of living pressures have hit students hard. The previous Government removed maintenance grants and the real-term value of loan support for students fell by almost 20% between 2020 and 2024. We are taking action to put that right.

We are introducing a targeted maintenance grant from 2028-29 of up to £1,000 a year for disadvantaged students on top of their loan, putting cash in their pockets without adding to their debt. The new grants will support students from low-income households studying full-time courses, which is in line with the Government’s mission and industrial strategy. We are future-proofing maintenance loans by increasing them in line with forecast inflation every year, with the biggest cash increase going to students from the lowest-income families.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen raised the issue of student loans, and I want to address that in the time that remains to me. As we have heard from across the Chamber today, giving those who want it and have the ability the chance to study in higher education changes lives. We are determined to support students who want to go to university to fulfil their aspirations. We cannot lose sight of the value that student loans provide in enabling that and levelling the playing field at the point of access. They remove that upfront financial barrier to studying and enable students to repay when they are earning. We inherited a student loan system that is not working as fairly as it should, and we recognise that some students and graduates feel the impact of that.

We are making the tough but necessary decisions to deliver a fairer and more sustainable system. We increased the plan 2 thresholds in 2025—its first increase since 2021—and we again raised the plan 2 repayment threshold in April, to £29,385. We have also capped interest rates for plan 2 and plan 3 loans at 6% for the academic year 2026-27. There are a whole range of very important discussions that came up today. I know that myself—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Government continue to point the finger at schools for the number of those not in education, employment or training, when that is one area that is performing comparatively well. Meanwhile, in Labour-led Wales, which ignored the Conservative Government’s education reforms, school standards have fallen and the NEETs crisis is even worse than in England. Why are the Government blaming schools for NEETs when the bigger problem is the collapse of entry-level jobs for young people?

[Lucy Powell]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that we do not just have more than a million young people not in education, employment or training—most of whom were educated under the Conservatives—but 1.5 million students persistently absent from school; a stubborn disadvantage gap, which did not close on their watch; widening regional attainment gaps; and a special educational needs and disabilities crisis that we are having to deal with, which they did not. Perhaps more importantly, the Conservatives put our young people on a treadmill of resits, with failure after failure. Just this summer, less than 14% of our young people passed their resits in maths. That is the legacy that they left, and I will rectify it.

Student Loans

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

We want young people to have a choice: to go to university, to study, to take up an apprenticeship or to earn and learn. We want that range of routes to be available and for young people to have high-quality careers education, so that they know what the opportunities are in their local communities.

We want higher education providers to go further to give their students the best course and employment outcomes, ensuring that the sector remains globally competitive. The Government are committed to ensuring that higher education is open to all who have the ability and the desire to pursue it. In the 2028-29 academic year, we will be reintroducing targeted, means-tested maintenance grants of up to £1,000 a year, increasing the cash in students’ pockets without increasing their debt. To help students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, we are already delivering on a commitment to future-proof maintenance loans by increasing them in line with forecast inflation every academic year to try to ensure that support keeps pace with financial pressures. In the academic year 2026-27, care leavers will become automatically eligible to receive the maximum rate of maintenance loans, which will provide vital extra support for one of the most vulnerable groups in society.

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

I welcome support for people from the most vulnerable groups who are heading to university, but will the Minister acknowledge that by enabling those groups to take the maximum amount of support, the Government are also enabling them to have the maximum amount of debt at the end of their university careers? A frequent problem throughout all this has been the fact that either the people in the middle who do not quite get the support that they need or those at the far end of the system who do need support are saddled with the most debt, because they will not have the parental assistance that would help them to leverage against the loan repayments for the rest of their careers.

[Georgia Gould]

I think it important to make it clear—some people watching the debate will be worried about this—that these are not normal loans, in that young people who are not earning, or are earning below the threshold, do not have to pay anything. In the long term, if they have not earned enough by the end of their careers, they do not have to pay the whole amount, and they do not have to pass that on to future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Wrighting]

I do not think it has been talked about enough in this debate, or in the debate more widely, just how much is added on for students who have to take out a large maintenance loan because they come from a low-income family. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.

When maintenance grants were scrapped by the Conservatives, that cost did not disappear.

[Rebecca Smith]

The hon. Lady is giving an excellent speech, but there is a whole cohort of plan 1 students who experienced the exact situation that she is describing. In 1997, Tony Blair said that he would not introduce tuition fees. In 1998, he did, and the Labour party then also scrapped maintenance grants. I was 16 in 1997 and was suddenly faced with needing to pay fees and get a loan in order to go to university, and had no family support to afford it. It is important that we recognise that it was the Labour Government who did that in 1998, having said that they would not. We can give just as many examples of decisions that the previous Labour Government made as we can of those made by the previous Government.

[Rosie Wrighting]

I was born in 1997, so the hon. Lady will forgive me if I cannot recollect that. I do not think that graduates are arguing that we should not pay. There is an understanding that graduates should pay for their degrees; it is the scale and fairness within the system that I want to highlight.

When maintenance grants were scrapped, the cost did not disappear; it was simply shifted. It was shifted on to students and turned into debt, and the burden was put on those from the lowest-income families. The very policy that enabled working-class kids to go to university gave us the highest debt as soon as we left. That is not fairness, and that is not opportunity. It is generational inequality designed into a system that disproportionately impacts people who do not have a savings account waiting for them when they turn 18, who do not have the money for a house deposit, and who cannot ask for help for childcare.

That is why I welcome this Government taking steps to strengthen maintenance support, including through the return of maintenance grants. If the Conservatives truly cared about those students, I would have expected them to welcome that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

It was a pleasure to spend time with my hon. Friend in his constituency recently, where he and I both enjoyed a range of activities with the brilliant Pinky, including our enthusiastic attempts at axe chopping. I know that my hon. Friend has worked really hard to support and encourage schools in his constituency to participate in our school-based nurseries and breakfast clubs programmes, and I thank him for that. In the south-west, we have opened 30 school-based nurseries and nearly 100 breakfast clubs, supporting thousands of children in St Austell and beyond to get the very best start in life.

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

The roll-out of free breakfast clubs and the Government’s wider child poverty strategy are supposed to be driven by data, yet the Department does not even hold information on which councils in England have implemented auto-enrolment for free school meals. If the Government do not hold that basic data, which would show that Devon has done so and given £1.5 million in pupil premium but that Plymouth has delayed doing so until 2026-27, how can the Government be trusted to roll out further taxpayer-funded support—such as free breakfast clubs—and how can they prove the impact that that has on child poverty?

[Olivia Bailey]

All our programmes are evidence based. When it comes to breakfast clubs, we know the data shows us that they will drive up attainment and improve attendance for our schoolchildren.

Foster Care: Recruitment and Retention

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered foster care recruitment and retention.

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to start by talking briefly about why this subject matters to me personally. By the time I was 18—I had left home—my parents had started fostering, and it has been in my mind since I first became interested in politics that, if I ever got to this place, I wanted to speak up about adoption and fostering. That is why the Minister often sees me opposite him in debates; it comes from my own personal experience.

I should declare an interest: until the local elections, I will be a member of Plymouth city council, which I will mention a little later. I have also been a very active corporate parent. When I became a councillor, I knew that there was a corporate parent panel, and I was particularly keen to be on it. I believe that, for elected representatives, the opportunity to be a corporate parent, whether at council or national level, is incredibly important, and I was able to act in that capacity as a councillor and I am here doing so as a Member of Parliament.

We desperately need to rebuild the foster care pipeline. Every year England loses more foster carers than it gains. We are facing a perfect storm, with more children in care, fewer foster carers and fewer people applying to become the next generation of foster carers. As of March 2025, there were 81,770 looked-after children in England, but the number of foster carers fell by 12% from 2021 to March 2025. In the last year alone, there were 1,140 fewer foster placements available for children in England than the year before. Spending on children’s social care continues to increase, yet councils are consistently exceeding their budgets. We need to do more to ensure that vulnerable children in care can access the stability that comes from being placed with loving foster parents. That involves two things: doing more to encourage people to become foster carers, and doing more to retain the brilliant carers we already have.

Carer shortages are a national issue, not a provider-specific one. Fragmented recruitment efforts are leading to inefficiencies and missed opportunities. That is why I broadly welcome the Government’s foster care reforms. I am encouraged by the commitment to simplify approval processes, strengthen regional collaboration and support innovation. However, it seems to me that there is a glaringly obvious omission: the need for better partnerships between local authorities and independent foster agencies.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Does she agree that there should be greater recognition of foster carers as part of the professional team around the child, and that fully promoting a team-around-the-child model in which social workers, foster carers and therapists are regarded and treated as equal partners would enhance the experience and outcomes for children in care and, importantly, support the recruitment and retention of foster carers?

[Rebecca Smith]

It makes a huge amount of sense that foster carers are considered a key part of that process. I am sure that in certain parts of the country they are, but it sounds from the hon. Member’s question like there are other parts where some work is needed.

Independent fostering agencies are responsible for 44% of mainstream fostering households. They account for nearly 38,000 children in foster care in England. If their current growth continues, they have the potential to become the largest provider of fostering services.

When children enter the care system, they are first triaged by the local authority. If the local authority is not able to place a child in its own fostering service, it will ask an IFA to step in instead. That explains in part why IFAs overwhelmingly care for children with complex needs, including children with challenging behaviours, medical needs and those who have experienced numerous placement breakdowns. They also tend to be more successful at placing older children.

IFAs are more effective than local authorities at recruitment and retention, and less expensive, but they have been consistently overlooked by the Government. Ofsted reports consistently demonstrate that IFAs offer high-quality care to children, excellent support for foster carers and value for money for local authorities. Some 96% of IFAs are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted; by contrast, only 60% of local authorities were judged to be good or outstanding. Sixty-one per cent of IFA approvals are completed within six months, compared with only 41% of local authority approvals. However, until now, the Government have not properly acknowledged the growing contribution of IFAs and the vulnerable children who are impacted as a result.

The Government’s fostering policy paper launches regional care co-operatives, which will plan, deliver and commission homes for children at scale. However, the Government have failed to recognise the crucial role that IFAs play; instead, they seem to place them in direct competition with the new RCCs. IFAs already have experience in regionalisation, yet they are left out of all conversations. They are not sitting around the table with local authorities. I believe that is short-sighted and counterproductive. It is crucial that the Government engage with IFAs, along with local authorities, to better learn from their experience.

RCC decisions must be based on the best interests of the child and not simply the provider type. We need transparent placement protocols that include IFAs at every stage of consideration. RCCs should avoid blanket exclusions or prioritisation of local authority foster carers without due regard to individual need. It is about what is best for the child.

In my view, a mixed economy approach to foster care is the most efficient model and improves outcomes for vulnerable children. Compared with local authorities, IFAs are agile because they can respond more quickly, especially since they face less financial pressure. IFAs are also better at long-term planning. From my own experience in local government, I know that the relentless four-year election cycle—indeed, in Plymouth, we have elections every year for three years—hampers long-term strategic oversight for foster carers, whereas IFAs can consistently provide the care unhindered. Local authorities have so many other pressures on their time and resources, whereas IFAs can focus on doing one thing really well: providing consistent support tailored to a foster family’s needs.

Parents who use IFAs testify to the bespoke support that they provide. Janet has been a foster parent for 23 years and has cared for 11 children. Having previously adopted two boys, she saw the life-changing impact a stable home can offer. After experiencing a lack of support from a local authority, Janet transferred to the IFA that has supported them for the past 12 years. She says:

“I have 24/7 access to support from people who know me and my family. The conversations are open, honest and non-judgemental, and always centred on the children.”

Their IFA assures careful placement matching and treats carers as valued partners in the child’s care.

Ruth and Chris have a background in mental health services, so they are attuned to the way that trauma can shape a child’s life. They say:

“Foster children have often endured things they never should. Our motto is to drown them in love—it’s not just a job, it’s a way of life.”

Through their local IFA, they receive a vital support package, easy access to social workers, tailored training, and funding support for their children to do the activities they love. They say:

“If you call, you get help the same day. It’s personal, nurturing, and non-judgmental.”

Ruth and Chris’s local service has enabled them to work with the same psychologist for six years, which provides crucial continuity for their foster children. They contrast that with the poor communication they experienced when fostering via their local authority. One time they received files with such poor notes that they could not even tell which gender the children were.

All that being said, Plymouth city council is a success story of a local authority that is working really well. The council runs its own in-house fostering agency, Foster for Plymouth—in fact, it even gives out trolley tokens for people to carry around with them. It currently has 111 approved fostering households, which offer 234 placements for children. For context, Plymouth currently has a total of 525 children in its care, so that proportion is encouraging, and it is growing. The in-house agency provides significant value for money: it costs £571 per child per week, which is lower than the cost of IFAs, at more than £1,200 per week. However, this is an unusual situation; it is not replicated in many local authorities across the country. It is also, of course, far less expensive than the cost of residential care, at more than £9,400 a week.

Foster for Plymouth has built great relationships with local organisations, including Dartmoor zoo, in my constituency, and it regularly encourages businesses to offer discounts to foster carers. By offering a council tax exemption for foster carers, the council has seen 17 households sign up in the past year. It is also worth saying that we established a looked-after children covenant, because we recognised that if we wanted to ensure that the whole city was prioritising looked-after children and previously looked-after children, that was one way of doing it. I really believe Plymouth has some good practice here.

The council has also allocated a dedicated budget for carers who may need to do loft conversions and other home alterations to care for more children. I am sure the Minister has heard people mention that as a hindrance in the past. I think it is a really practical way of encouraging people to continue fostering. The council has developed a marketing campaign aimed specifically at people who have never considered fostering. In terms of wider collaboration, the council hosts an annual fostering summit and works closely with the Fostering South West hub.

A linked issue that I want to highlight is the postcode lottery when it comes to fostering fees, which are paid to foster carers in recognition of the skills and time involved in fostering. Although allowances for foster carers are set nationally, there is no legislation or guidance about fees, and that leads to wildly differing fee payments across the country. Shockingly, some foster carers receive £38,000 a year more than others, according to the Fostering Network, a national charity. In fact, some carers receive no fee, and many receive as little as £18 a week. Better remuneration for foster carers would help with both recruitment and retention and reflect their valuable contribution to society.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Feedback from foster carers in York has highlighted the differential in the sums of money they receive for Staying Put and for foster caring, which makes it really difficult for them to decide whether to maintain that home—that safe place—for a child or to push the child out of the home. Does the hon. Member agree that those resources should be equalised, to ensure a smooth pathway for these very vulnerable children?

[Rebecca Smith]

Anything that encourages a consistent home for young people is vital. One thing I have not had time to mention yet is the use of supported lodgings, which we have talked about before. Ultimately, I have seen the success of enabling young people to stay within a home, so anything that encourages that is definitely worth pursuing.

Many parents give up work to foster; in fact, about 60% of foster carers do not work. Foster carers provide a professional service, and they should not be expected to do so on a shoestring. Only a quarter of foster carers say they feel their fee is sufficient to cover essential living costs. Better financial support would increase their autonomy to make decisions that are in the best interests of their children. The Fostering Network is calling on the Government to introduce a national recommended fee framework for foster carers, which would reduce the unfair variation across the country. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that call.

To fix the chronic problems facing children’s services, the Government must focus on encouraging more people to become and remain foster carers, which I know they are seeking to do. Many people already have the skills and the compassion to open up their home to a child in need. Often, all they lack is the right incentives and support, so I am encouraged by the Government’s national action plan, which acknowledges the urgent need for systemic reform. However, the plan will succeed only if carers feel properly recognised and sustained over the long term.

The measures that I have outlined would go some way towards improving foster carer recruitment and retention. First, given that IFAs are more effective and less expensive than local authority provision, I urge the Government to give them a seat around the table during the regionalisation process. Secondly, the Government should fix the postcode lottery for foster care fees. Thirdly, they should learn from Plymouth as an example of outstanding local authority provision. I am sure that it would welcome a visit from the Minister, if he has never been down there, to see what it is doing and meet some of the young people who have been so affected by this policy. Ultimately, every delay in fixing the system means another child waiting for the loving, stable foster family they deserve, and we cannot allow structural barriers to stand in their way.

Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Barker, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting this petition on behalf of the petitioners.

Hopefully, I will not take four minutes to speak, because I am no expert on this topic. I am here today because 389 of my constituents signed the petition, which means that South West Devon had the fifth-highest response rate in the country. As a Member of Parliament, I always feel that when we are sent that little table telling us how many of our constituents have signed a petition, it is great, where it is possible to do so, to come and represent their views. I have also heard from two or three parents directly about this topic.

In addition, teachers have contacted me, including Cari Dyson. I have to say that if not for Cari, I probably would not be here this afternoon. She is a key stage 1 teacher who uses a play-based approach in her classroom. She told me that this petition

“is not asking for KS1 to reduce essential academic content”.

Instead, it aims to ensure that core knowledge can be taught using

“purposeful learning through play; structured enabling environments; and skilled adult interaction.”

Cari is one of the signatories to the petition who does not agree with the Government response to it, and perhaps she will not agree either with the official Opposition response, but I want to express her views this afternoon. I am certainly very grateful to her for sharing her expertise and experience.

I draw attention to one school in my constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting towards the end of last year. Sparkwell All Saints primary is a very small rural school, and such schools can deliver this programme, which larger inner-city schools might struggle with. I put on record how impressed I was with what Sparkwell All Saints provided. The school starts with the Montessori-style nursery and continues that through into key stage 1. If I had children and I lived in the village, I would be queueing at the door to get my kids into the school, which is delightful to visit. Mr Cole, the headteacher, is inspirational, and the value of the play-based, hands-on teaching method that nurtures children from my constituency is clear to see.

I understand the arguments for play, but we have to ensure that any increased emphasis on it does not hinder the teaching of a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum, because, at the end of the day, we are preparing children to go through other key stages. However, as a non-expert in the room, I will say that I absolutely see both sides of the coin.

One thing that will come up in the course of this debate—I think it was highlighted by the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—is that often the schools that offer play are particularly beneficial for children with additional needs or special educational needs. One question I have for the Minister is: how do we ensure that, when this approach is used in local primary schools, we are creating a fair playing field? We do not want a situation where a few schools deliver an amazing, creative environment for children who might struggle in more academic mainstream schools, but on the other side, negatively impact SEND provision more broadly across the community. I absolutely recognise the value of play, but a school could potentially become known as being particularly good for SEND children and end up with a higher-than-average cohort of children who meet those criteria.

Ultimately, I am completely compelled by what I have heard this afternoon. I hear all the arguments and I have seen the value of play for myself. I am slightly cautious and sceptical, given my past role as a governor in a primary school in a more urban setting that had a more traditional curriculum; none the less, it is important that we have been able to debate this topic this afternoon.

Is it the Government’s view that a one-size-fits-all approach is right, or is it right to have differences in the school system? The new Labour Government want to halt the progress of free schools, which could provide this alternative form of education within the state system, and they are not keen on multi-academy trusts, which perhaps also offer a different way of teaching. I am interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that one-size-fits-all approach, or whether there should be space in our state education system for different ways of teaching and learning.

Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Rebecca Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Care Leavers

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and everyone who has intervened. I will keep my remarks even briefer than I said I would. We have already heard a huge amount about supported lodgings, and that is what I wanted to speak about briefly, as much as anything to highlight the cross-party support for what they represent, and the role that they can play for our care-experienced young people.

Supported lodgings—a family-based form of supported accommodation for young people aged 16 or over—play a vital role. They accommodate predominately care leavers, but also young people at risk of homelessness. In supported lodgings, a young person lives in the home of a host who offers not only a room but guidance, encouragement and belonging.

According to research from Home for Good, which runs the supported lodgings national network, 84% of young people say that supported lodgings feel like home, 89% had a positive relationship with their host, and 90% feel more confident about living independently as a result. As one young person put it,

“Being in supported lodgings allowed me to take the college course I wanted to take and ultimately the career path I wanted to follow.”

Supported lodgings can make a transformative difference. Further research from Home for Good found that when young people live in supported lodgings for six months or more, we see an average 44% decrease in the number of those not in education, employment or training. Supported lodgings also cost only a tenth of what residential provision costs, while delivering far stronger long-term outcomes for young people.

However, despite what we have heard this evening, awareness remains low. Only 30% of the public have even heard of supported lodgings, and most local authorities report difficulties in recruiting new hosts. That is why I am proud to support the launch of the first National Supported Lodgings Week, which takes place next week, during Care Leavers Month; over 60 local authorities and independent schemes are taking part.

My asks of the Minister are simple: I ask him to allocate dedicated funding to expanding supported lodgings; to reduce reliance on high-cost residential placements; and to improve national data collection, so that we can properly evidence the scale and impact of this vital provision. We are all agreed this evening that every young person, whether in care, leaving care or facing homelessness, deserves not just a place to stay, but a home where they belong.

Department for Education

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I want to talk about the real-life impacts of the decisions in the education estimates, and specifically, due to the short amount of time, on school funding.

There is a village in my constituency called Buckland Monachorum for whom school funding is a particularly pertinent issue. It is in the middle of campaigning, because the local trust responsible for the school is having to restructure from September. That is entirely because of the cuts schools are facing and the knock-on impacts from the Budget that we have heard about. The restructuring is causing huge consternation among parents. There are complaints, a campaign—as I said—and a huge amount of stress, as they face a different future to the one they were expecting.

The Learning Academy Partnership trust, which is responsible for the school, has shared figures with me that highlight the reality of the funding changes that it is facing. It also has one of the schools that falls foul of the f40 inconsistencies we have heard about. It is worth saying briefly that secondary schools in Devon can see as much as £1 million less in funding than equivalent schools in a city such as Manchester. An hon. Gentleman said earlier that city schools need more money. I hear that, but rural deprivation is a key reality, too, and we need to do more to address it.

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

I am extremely grateful to be cheekily coming in at this point, but the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded authority in the country for SEN. I hope we might hear from the Minister about how the distribution, as well as the quantum, can be made fairer. Unfair distribution exacerbates the strain in the system.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that, and there are issues right across the country.

The trust in my constituency is facing financial pressures: teacher pay awards, unfunded beyond 1.7%, mean a 4% increase, costing £359,330; support staff pay awards, unfunded beyond 0.9%, mean a 3.2% increase, costing £295,000; and teacher pension increases, support staff pensions and the national insurance increases have a total cost of £349,000, with £76,000 unfunded due to pupil-based funding. That is a problem right across Devon. We are concerned because it means ultimately that those local village schools will have to take a direct hit, which is something that neither the parents nor the teachers, nor the trusts that are responsible, want to see.

A big part of this issue is about the reduction in the general annual grant—a real-terms reduction of £200,000 in 2025-26, plus 0.5% redirected by Devon local authority to special educational needs. This will have a massive impact on the most vulnerable children right across the community; ultimately, it will not enable them to get the education they require.

Briefly, I want to ask the Minister about the future of schools in places like Dartmoor in Devon, and especially the schools that fall foul of the f40 formula issues. What can the Minister do to reassure the parents, teachers, other staff and children, most importantly, whom I represent, who will ultimately pay the price for these cuts, intentional or not? What reassurances can she offer in response to their pleas and my pleas for children and young people in South West Devon to have the funding they need for the future they deserve? What reassurances can she provide to me that that will take place?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic; he is a champion for children in Cannock Chase. I agree that we should continue to promote early permanence. Adoption England has published national standards to promote and shape early permanence practice across the country. I regularly meet the organisations my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I am more than happy to meet him, too.

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

Adoptive parents right across my constituency are rightly concerned about the impact of Labour’s recent cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Following last week’s spending review, what hope can be offered to families in my constituency and up and down the country who need the additional support that has been taken away under those cuts?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for the concern she has expressed. The adoption and special guardianship support fund has not been cut. Demand is ever increasing, and we have chosen an approach to manage tight resources in the face of increasing demand for support. The adoption and special guardianship support fund still enables those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support tailored to meet their individual needs.