🎉 Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

• The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund continues with a £50 million allocation for the 2025-26 financial year, as announced by Janet Daby, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education.
• The fund has been essential in providing therapeutic support for adopted children and children under special guardianship who were previously in care, helping them achieve stability in their family lives.
• The delay in confirming the fund’s continuation had caused significant uncertainty and concern for families, children, and therapy providers, impacting the planning and continuation of vital therapeutic services.
• Munira Wilson, who asked the urgent question, highlighted the distress caused by the delay, mentioning cases like her constituent Sarah, whose child regressed without therapy, and another who couldn’t access needed support after witnessing a traumatic event.
• Janet Daby acknowledged the negative impact of the delay and confirmed that transitional funding would ensure therapy continued for those who started last year.
• Concerns were raised about the long-term stability of the fund, with several MPs urging for a long-term funding commitment to avoid annual uncertainty.
• The fund will also be open to kinship carers, and further details on how to access it will be provided in the coming days.
• MPs shared stories from their constituencies illustrating the fund’s critical role in supporting vulnerable children with complex needs, urging for better planning and support mechanisms.
• There were calls for the government to ensure that future funding decisions are made timely to prevent further distress among children and families reliant on the fund.
• The government reiterated its commitment to support children through adoption and special guardianship, emphasizing the statutory duty of local authorities to provide such support under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

The session shows a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on the delay and communication regarding the funding of the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund. The disagreements are evident in the following ways:

1. Concern over the Delay in Funding Announcement: Several members express frustration and concern about the delay in confirming the continuation of the fund. For example, Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) mentions that many Members have been asking for clarification for months, suggesting a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction with the government’s response time. This is further emphasized by Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con), who describes the situation as ‘utterly chaotic’ and questions the timing of the decision.

2. Impact on Children and Families: Members highlight the real-world impact of the delays on children and families, such as children regressing in their therapy or facing uncertainty. For instance, Munira Wilson cites a case of a child regressing and another unable to access needed support, indicating disagreement on the government’s handling of the situation by not considering these impacts earlier.

3. Future Funding Certainty: There is a recurring theme of seeking assurance for future funding, which indicates disagreement over the government’s planning and commitment to long-term financial support. Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con) and others press for a longer-term funding settlement to avoid recurring uncertainty, which is implicitly a criticism of the existing approach.

4. Expansion of Eligibility: Some members, like Munira Wilson, raise the possibility of expanding eligibility to include all kinship carers, which is met with a government response that does not commit to such an expansion, highlighting a point of disagreement.

5. Government Accountability: There are implicit criticisms of the government’s accountability and decision-making process, such as Janet Daby’s response to Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con), where she suggests looking to his own party for answers, indicating political disagreement.

The disagreements, while evident, are generally expressed with a focus on policy and impact rather than personal attacks, suggesting a professional and issue-focused debate. However, the underlying tension and frustration about the delays and future uncertainties contribute to a rating of 3, indicating a significant but not extreme level of disagreement.