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.

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.