Adoption and Kinship Placements

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for children in adoptive and kinship placements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Harris, and I thank so many hon. Members for being present in the Chamber. I will keep my speech as short as possible so that they can all get in—bear with me.

Children who are no longer able to live with their birth parents are the responsibility of us all. I committed to speak up for them and their families before my election, so it is a privilege to be here to do just that. We are primarily here to talk about those who are fortunate enough to have a permanent placement through adoption, or a secure long-term arrangement with a special guardianship or child arrangements order—in other words, kinship care. However, we know that the average amount of time that a young person or child spends in care before they are adopted is 15 months, and that often involves multiple placements. We also know that around 80% of those children may have experienced neglect, abuse or violence before their adoption. The adoption and special guardianship support fund was set up in response to those realities, which is why the recent uncertainty and the limitations that have been placed on it have been so concerning and have resulted in this debate.

Over recent weeks, the adoption and special guardianship support fund has been raised a number of times in Parliament, first when we were waiting for news about the fund for 2025-26 after damaging delays, and several times since the Government announced that they would continue funding the scheme, albeit with significant rule changes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are here today, have been raising these issues and speaking out, as I have, and seeking opportunities to raise the future of the ASGSF in detail.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Many of us have been talking to special guardians in our constituencies—I certainly have in Hartlepool—and one of their huge concerns is that the cut to this fund will dissuade people from taking on these incredibly important roles in the future. Does the hon. Member agree that that will result in costs popping up elsewhere for the state, costing us more in the future?

[Rebecca Smith]

The hon. Gentleman takes the words right out of my mouth, and if he stays for the whole debate he will hear me say exactly that. He raises an important point: we are asking people to care for the most vulnerable children, and if we do not give them the tools to do that, they will not apply in the first place.

I am pleased to have secured this debate to shine a further light on the issue, highlight how the Government’s recent position is a false economy, and put further pressure on them to do the right thing and reverse the recent changes. Without access to the previous level of support offered through the fund, there is a real concern that the number of adopters will fall, and more children—including those with some of the most difficult and challenging stories—will face the long term in care, seeing their future massively impacted as a result.

Before I progress, I wish to pay tribute to the thousands of parents, guardians and carers across the country who have been fighting for children and young people in their care—those who are unable to live with their birth parents—and especially to those families in my constituency of South West Devon, some of whom I have met, and some who have written to me to share their experiences. They are all, rightly, incredibly worried about the impact of the cuts on the support that they previously received, and it is a privilege to be here to speak on their behalf.

I also place on record my thanks to the charities that have been campaigning against the recent changes to support for children in adoptive and kinship placements: Adoption UK, Coram, Kinship, Family Rights Group, and the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies to mention a few, as well as local adoption agencies such as Adopt South West, which serves families in my constituency and others in Devon and Cornwall. Their work has been especially powerful over the past couple of months as they have shared information with us and we have fought together.

The adoption and special guardianship support fund was set up under the Conservative Government in 2015 as a result of the Children and Families Act 2014, and it was designed to help families to access the specialist therapy services that they may need. Since the Adoption and Children Act 2002, adoptive families have had a right to an assessment of their adoption support needs by their local authority. However, the 2014 Act introduced a number of further measures to support adoptive families, including the fund. In 2023, the fund was expanded to include kinship care, enabling some children with special guardianship or child arrangements orders to qualify for support too. That was a solid legacy to work from.

Since July 2024, however, there has been a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Although it is a lifeline for thousands of vulnerable children, it was left hanging in the balance. Families were left wondering whether the therapeutic support that their children desperately need would vanish overnight.

In April, the Department for Education announced significant cuts to the fund. The annual therapy funding per child has been slashed from £5,000 to £3,000. The separate £2,500 allowance for specialist assessments has gone, match funding to support the most complex cases has gone, and the ability to carry support across financial years has also gone. That is a shocking 40% reduction in funding for the support that we all know is highly specialised and that, as a result, comes at a cost.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, and I agree 100% with the point that she is making. Two constituents in West Dorset support two children with multiple needs—overlapping autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and significant trauma of the kind she mentioned. The funding for a one-off assessment remains, but the ongoing funding to support those children no longer exists, and that is a fundamental problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Absolutely: the goalposts have completely shifted. As we saw with farming, it happened overnight, so there was no warning for families and no ability for them to come up with other ideas.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Following the announcements in April, a constituent got in touch. She has two adopted granddaughters who, given their traumatic start in life, rely on specialist support. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that diminishing the support fund will have long-term financial impacts on the Government’s budget?

[Rebecca Smith]

I agree with the hon. Member that there is definitely a concern around that issue. I will touch on it more later, but it has already been brought up this afternoon.

I turn to what some of my constituents are saying. My constituent CA said:

“These children are slipping through the net and it is the parents who are dealing with the fallout— excessive child on parent violence, total exhaustion from managing needs at home and constant battling with professionals.

I myself have had to give up my career—”

incidentally, she was a teacher—

“in order to maintain the daily battle of getting her to school, then constant meetings to get her any sort of education that meets her needs. It’s exhausting!”

Similarly, Joanne said:

“Myself and my husband adopted our daughter 12 yrs ago and our son 6 yrs ago. They both have Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder alongside Autism Spectrum Disorder.

My son is 6 yrs old and because of the trauma he endured in utero, he also has complex needs and has suicidal ideation with intent and wishes he has never been born—we were lucky enough to secure vital match funding last year to enable the sensory OT”—

that is, the sensory occupational therapist—

“to have weekly sessions to support him in controlling his emotions and to create a specific sensory diet which school will be able to use”

to support him in accessing school and supporting his needs. She continued:

“To hear that the fund is being reduced to £3,000 is truly terrifying. As a family, we have been in crisis and at risk of family (placement) breakdown, as having 2 complex children is exhausting, physically, mentally and emotionally, and my husband and myself had nothing left in the tank to carry on. I have been unable to work for 6 yrs due to my daughter being unable to access education as her needs were not understood or being met.”

The Labour Government promised to be different, to be bold and to put children first. However, when it came to one of the most vulnerable groups in our society—children who have experienced trauma, neglect and loss—they hesitated, they wavered and they failed to provide the leadership that we had been told to expect.

The Government say that the changes to the fund have been made to “maximise the number” of children supported, but how can they claim to support more children by offering them less? How can they ask families to step up and adopt or become guardians, only to pull the rug out from under them when they need the most support? Nearly 20,000 children received support through the fund last year. That is 20,000 stories of resilience and of families holding on through the hardest times. Now, however, many of those families are being told, “You’re on your own.”

Another constituent wrote:

“I am in the final months of a doctorate to become a Clinical Psychologist and much of my work…is with families who rely on this fund. Children and young people who are adopted have almost all experienced developmental trauma and are left with many relational and neurodevelopmental complexities that require long term specialist support and intervention in order to heal. Parenting these children is usually not straightforward and can be incredibly challenging and draining, requiring specialist support. I have little doubt that with the reduction of the fund, we will see a significant increase in adoption break downs…This is not only incredibly traumatic for all involved, but is also incredibly expensive—far greater than the costs that will be saved through the reduction in the support fund. The cost of keeping a child in care has been estimated at around £280,000, significantly more than the £2,000 that has been cut.

We know that that is not the only cost that will increase. As well as the risk of returning to care, adopted young people face tougher educational and employment outcomes and their mental health and wellbeing is significantly impacted, especially as they transition to adulthood. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill has just progressed through the Commons—why undermine its aims by severely limiting the support in the ASGSF?

In the past few months, it has become clear that this decision should not be binary. It should not be about spreading funding thinly to go further; it should be about extending the funding to its previous levels. We need to see a return to the £5,000 fair access limit, to reinstate the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessments and to allow for match funding. We must make the funding permanent—not subject to annual spending rounds—provide it for more families and recognise that if it is not provided and ringfenced by the Government, it will fall to local authorities to find it, and we know how that tends to end up.

To conclude, I will quote from a constituent who works as a professional in this field and has raised some serious questions that I hope the Minister can address. She says:

“There has been no consultation process at all...how can this be fair or legal as adoptive & kinship families have access to therapies in their adoption and special guardianship order paperwork and in their EHCP agreements?”—

that is, education, health and care plan agreements. She continues:

“Who will adopt disabled children where lots of intervention and support is necessary? How many children will return to care? What will families do without multi-disciplinary assessments where it is beyond negligence to take this away as it is often the only thing that triggers considered recommendations for adopted children in EHCPs for case reviews, for providing carefully managed intervention plans.

Our previously looked after children are being discriminated against due to their complex needs where families face yet another closed door.”

I call on the Minister to reverse her decision and to acknowledge that failing to do so risks an uncertain future for these special children and young people, and their families.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

We heard earlier about the role of a corporate parent. That did not make it into my speech—I ran out of time—but although that might be a local authority responsibility, it is clear that today there are many who take the same approach as parliamentarians.

Hon. Members have highlighted the opportunity to provide the best possible outcome for children in adoption, kinship and foster care, but also the need for significant commitment to ensure that the specialist resources required to deliver on their potential are a certainty for families. I think everyone in Westminster Hall would agree that we have not heard that certainty today, and I believe that we will all be working incredibly hard to keep pressing the Minister—and, by the sound of things, the Chancellor —to ensure that we get the funding required for these vulnerable families. No doubt we will all see each other, I hope, in the main Chamber to discuss this further.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for children in adoptive and kinship placements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

My hon. Friend is aware that education is devolved and that the Welsh Government are responsible for education policies in Wales, including those covering universities, but I assure her that the Department for Education engages with the devolved Government at ministerial and official levels on a range of areas covering education and students.

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

What assurances can the Minister provide to concerned adoptive parents in my constituency who benefited from the match funding element of the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and whose funding could be cut from £10,000 to £3,000? Will she consider reintroducing this vital element of the ASGSF?

[Janet Daby]

The adoption and special guardianship support fund still enables those who are eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support to meet individual needs. The fund is important, which is why we have continued to fund it, but it is not the only source of adoption and kinship support, responsibility for which lies with local authorities and regional adoption agencies. Our £8.8 million of funding to support Adoption England can assist that.

Relationship Education in Schools

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this debate.

We have some fantastic statutory guidance from 2020 and draft guidance from 2024. I would love to hear from the Minister when the Government are likely to respond to that draft guidance, because quite a lot has already been done in this area and we must take account of that. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the rights of parents. One of the safeguards included in previous guidance was to enable them to see curriculum materials and to have the option to opt out. It is vital that that is included in anything coming forward.

I want to touch on the Plymouth violence against women and girls commission, which I chaired, and was instituted as a result of two tragedies in the city in 2021 and 2022. One of the recommendations of our report was for a whole-school approach to tackling violence against women and girls—something that has been mentioned—and it would be very good to hear from the Minister on that. That is also highlighted in the End Violence Against Women Coalition’s report “It’s #AboutTime”. Sex education is one thing and relationship education is another, but embedding healthy relationships and tackling misogyny and sexism right across the school community is vital. We need to look at that going forward.

The key issue is the inconsistency of what we are finding across schools locally. I was alarmed to receive an email from a young lesbian, who at 18 years old says that she only recently found out that sexually transmitted diseases could be contracted by young women who are same-sex attracted. That highlights the inconsistency in the delivery of the existing guidance—something we need to look at. If young women like her are experiencing that, what are they also not receiving? There is a huge amount to tackle: porn, VAWG and dealing with all of those sexist behaviours. I know that this will not be the last debate that we have on these issues, and I look forward to contributing in future.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend for painting a better picture than the one painted by Conservative Members.

Shortly after the election, in August, I met a couple of former teacher colleagues who were still in the profession, and they just looked broken. It was really difficult to see, because they have been maths teachers for a long period of time. When I first became a teacher, they inspired me to persevere, to reflect on the bad days and to have better lessons. To see them so fed up and so disenchanted with being a teacher was really difficult, and we have to change that. I emphasise again to the Minister that it is really important that we ensure that we support teachers’ mental health. I was going to intervene on the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) to ask him whether he recognises that happy and supported teachers lead to happy and supported young people, which is really important.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Vince]

I will not.

I will briefly mention Government amendments 166 and 167, which talk about data protection never getting in the way of safeguarding. One of my most difficult days as a teacher—the House will be pleased to know that it has nothing to do with the Conservative Government—was when a young person in my class came to me at the end of a lesson and said those terrible words that every teacher dreads: “I need to tell you something.” Despite my explaining to her that it could not be confidential, she made a disclosure—I will not go into it, obviously—and then begged me not to tell anyone, which is not an option for teachers or anyone in a similar position. It was heartbreaking to see how upset she was, but I reported it in the correct and proper way. Clearly, safeguarding is really important, and all professionals—not just those in education—who work with young people take it very seriously. General data protection regulation, or myths about GDPR and data sharing, should not get in the way of ensuring that our young people are safe in education and outside it.

I will finish on a lighter note, because I appreciate that I have got a little bit deep. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) discussed the educational merits of having an ice cream. I say to him that 1/3πr²h is the volume of a cone.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Whatever shape the Bill goes forward in, there is enough in it to make it a real moment of progress and pride when we vote for Third Reading. I call on hon. Members across the House to do that.

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

On Second Reading, I spoke about the role of supported lodgings, but I also spoke about the impact on well-meaning and responsible parents who, for a variety of reasons, choose to home-educate their children and who will be disproportionately impacted by the legislation. I realise that this issue is in part 2 of the Bill and will be debated tomorrow, but I am on a Public Bill Committee tomorrow, so I want to get on the record my support for amendments 193 to 198, tabled by the Conservative Education team, which all seek to tackle the hammer blow that the Bill applies to home-educating families. However, today I must stick to part 1—I appreciate that I was speaking slightly off topic.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 seek to further support those who have been in the care system by providing a statutory basis for their support to the age of 25. Like the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), as a former member of a corporate parenting panel as a councillor, over the years I have met many young people who are looking for support and security as they start their transition to adulthood. I should at this point declare an interest as a member of Plymouth city council. I want to share a recent innovation by the council. We have a great history of cross-party working as a corporate parenting panel, but the council has just instituted paying for prescriptions and providing additional housing support for over 18s. The particularly clever point is that it charges the cost of the prescriptions back to the integrated care board, so that is a good illustration of what is going on out there and is the sort of thing we could build on.

Indeed, when I was a member of a corporate parenting panel, I felt strongly that a good way to get national recognition and national provision, as the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said, would be to pursue something like a care leavers covenant—a bit like the veterans covenant. This is not over the top. We have touched the edges of the expectations around jobs, housing and homelessness, and the implication and understanding of the veterans covenant could be extended to care leavers.

As I said, I have met many care leavers who are looking for that support. As a result, I have a particular interest in the transition to adulthood. We can stand here and talk about young people from birth to 25, but something about the transition to adulthood has always resonated with me. It is particularly important that I am able to speak about that again today.

Specifically, I welcome the Government’s confirmation in Committee that supported lodgings will be included in the Bill’s statutory guidance as a form of accommodation to be considered by local authorities. Having highlighted the value of supported lodgings to young people on Second Reading, and having seen the evidence that Home for Good and Safe Families provided in Committee, I remain convinced that they are a valuable option for young people and should be used more.

Furthermore, I know the Fostering Network is keen to see the Bill proceed and more explicitly provide for staying put, not just staying close, thereby extending the opportunity for young people to remain with their foster carers at the age of 18. Ultimately, that would be one less move they need to make if they do not have a secure home after that age. However, I am not sure that is in the final Bill—it remains to be seen. I suppose the House of Lords could make an amendment, but we will have to see where we end up.

It is disappointing that amendment 184, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), does not have Government support. It would have ensured that staying close support takes account of the views of young people, requiring local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support to allow for continuous improvement. It would also have introduced a requirement to keep a record of those wishes to ensure that the young person’s views and desires are protected from the loss of knowledge when personnel change.

We have already heard about many inconsistencies in the Bill, and this feels like another. We are keen for young people to have a number that follows them all the way through school, but we are not keen to ensure that their records and their wishes as care-experienced young people are followed through and protected.

As I am sure many Members will agree, it is all well and good for us to stand here today and say that supported lodgings should be promoted, but as someone who has not been in the care system, I can speak only from the experience of receiving my family’s continuing support after the age of 18. However, I also had a choice at that stage, and it is so important that, as corporate parents, we ensure such choice continues.

My life is effectively based on my choices, which meant going away to university, but I also got to come home every holiday. Although I may have lost my bedroom to my younger brother, I still had a home right through until I moved to London for my first job— I even moved back again in my early 30s. I had the support of a home, which we are saying we should provide for those who are care-experienced.

It is essential that we recognise the value of choice for those care-experienced young people who do not have the choices we may have. If we can at least listen to them and ensure that their views and preferences are carried through the system, putting them in the driving seat, it would be beneficial to their transition to adulthood.

Clause 7 strengthens the provision of advice and support for young people aged 18 to 25 who have been in the care system. While I welcome the extension to the expectation of who local authorities support and how, it feels like a limited list—this seems like a missed opportunity.

Bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this is a reasonably long story that does not directly relate to these amendments until the end, but I think it is important to put it on the record. On Friday, a 33-year-old man attended my surgery to share his experience as someone who had been placed in care and then adopted. Unfortunately, this Bill does not cover his experiences.

He was sexually abused as a baby by both his parents, and he was eventually removed from home—with hindsight, he was also neglected. The impact of his life story means that he has experienced homelessness, prison on more than one occasion, and ongoing mental health issues related to the trauma he experienced. These issues extended into his adoptive life with a new mother who became an alcoholic and was physically abusive towards him.

Now a young man, despite the odds stacked against him, he has settled down, has three children and is still with their mother, although he says that is tough at times. He is a facilitator for Andy’s Man Club in my constituency, and he has set up a support group and a podcast to help others like him. On the one hand, he is a success.

However, he highlighted an issue that I think is important to raise today. He clearly articulated to me how he feels he was let down by social services when he asked to see his care records. This is where I believe his story links to the Bill. Regardless of the fact that he discovered there were two sets of records—his social services files and his adoption records—he received no support when he made a request to access them. He was simply given the files by Devon county council, and that was that.

Having read two of the five files he was given, which he found to be in a highly disorganised state, he had to stop because of their content’s significant adverse effect on him. His case highlights the need for provisions like clause 7 to go further on the staying close offer, by prompting a conversation about how we support those who have, through no fault of their own, experienced some of the most horrific early childhood experiences.

How can we better support previously looked-after adults as they continue their journey through life? I appreciate that we cannot necessarily provide this support forever, but perhaps the only thing we need to do when they access their social services records, as we do not know at what point in their life they will do so, is ensure that they receive a meeting with someone trained to explain what those records mean. That is what young adults like my constituent are requesting.

My constituent’s records contained distressing details, but they also included lots of technical language that he did not understand because he is not a social worker. He may be over 25 now, but I do not believe his experiences are age-related. I call on the Minister to ensure that guidance on the sharing of care records is explored as we finalise clause 7. This simple proposal could make an extraordinary difference.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about the importance of accessing coherent and organised records. However, does she agree that one of the reasons for those records being disorganised is the churn of social workers, and one of the causes of that churn is our care system’s extensive reliance on the excessive profiteering of external companies? This Bill provides for retention of care workers by ruling out excessive profiteering. Does she welcome that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

I will reserve my judgment, because I am not convinced that stripping out excessive profiteering will actually help the system. Ultimately, what we need is the provision of service. If people just leave the sector altogether, we will not have social workers anyway. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but I understand the link to what I was saying.

I welcome how far we have come in recent years on extending support in areas such as housing and provision up to the age of 25, but I believe the Bill is creating another cliff edge. What more can be done to enable those affected in adulthood by the emotional and mental impact of their life in care to access trained support? That might be something we need to consider further.

Slightly changing tack, and talking of missed opportunities and perhaps a lack of ambition, I fail to see why the Government cannot support safeguarding young people in schools by banning mobile phones in the classroom. I feel there is another inconsistency here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned. Clause 24 limits the use of branded school uniforms to reduce peer pressure and costs. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), who is no longer in his place, made that argument while, at the same time, arguing for ensuring that young people can take their smartphone and their tablet into school. Talk about something that creates peer pressure and highlights the disparities between those who can afford it and those who cannot. I simply believe the Government do not want to support the amendment because it was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. We need to move away from party politics and seriously consider what is best for young people. We should at least be consistent. Let us make sure that the legislation we are creating does not do one thing on the one hand and something completely different on the other.

New clause 36 is not about banning young people from using phones—I do not believe that is the state’s role; it is for parents to choose if and when their children can use a phone. Instead, it is about recognising the impact that the presence of phones can have before, during and immediately after the school day. There are some parents who recognise that. There are those who limit what their children can access on their smartphones and those who are making the most of what some might refer to as a brick phone—I do not know whether any of us here this afternoon ever had one of those—or, as it is known today, a dumb phone or non-smartphone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Stimulating Physics Network has been working to improve the knowledge, skills and confidence of non-specialist science teachers in secondary schools, with outstanding results: in schools that take part, there are 6% more A-level physics entrants, and 29% more girls taking physics. That compares with 13% in schools that do not take part. However, funding for the scheme has been cancelled from 31 March, which is a considerable problem for constituencies like mine, which has a need for science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM—skills, due to the needs of the defence sector. What plans does the Minister have to fill the gap left by the SPN, in order to ensure that the value of physics teaching in schools is maintained, and to reassure teachers, including my constituent Thom, who have been committed to delivering the SPN?

[Janet Daby]

We absolutely support girls and young women to take STEM subjects. It is interesting that the Conservatives did funding mid-year, which is unusual. As I am sure that they will be aware, hard decisions need to be made because of the difficult fiscal situation inherited by this Government. We will continue to do more to get girls into STEM subjects; we are absolutely committed to this.