PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Children in Care - 4 February 2025 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on children in care.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I asked for this debate because we as parliamentarians must maintain the focus on children the state is responsible for. I have been a foster carer for 25 years, a member of an adoption panel for a decade and a lead member of a tier 1 local authority, and I have seen the pressures build at the same time as resources and support have declined. The number of children in care has increased by 28% since 2010, and the number of children in residential care has increased by 102% since 2010, so the question is: what has caused these huge spikes? Of course, there are various factors and no consensus view; it would only be fair to say that the number of unaccompanied asylum seekers in care has more than doubled in that period.

For me, there are two main factors. First, the significant rise in poverty that started during austerity, coupled with a housing crisis, has pushed more families to the brink. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that approximately 3.8 million people experienced destitution in 2022.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand and told him a lovely story from Northern Ireland that reminds me of the goodness of this world. A man from Northern Ireland, who was a foster child, set up a company called Madlug, which makes fashionable and good-quality bags. The idea is that for every bag purchased, another bag is given to a child in care for them to carry their personal possessions. The dignity that gives is admirable. Does the hon. Member agree that companies that seek to improve the self-worth and dignity of children should be encouraged and supported?

I recognise that children go to placements with plastic bags, and it is heartbreaking. What a fabulous thing the hon. Member has raised.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that approximately 3.8 million people experienced destitution in 2022, including approximately 1 million children—nearly triple the number in 2017.

The second factor was the withdrawal of universal early help. Sure Start was withdrawn at different speeds and to differing degrees around the country, as local authorities removed their discretionary spending due to a loss of revenue support from the previous Government. It went from being a universal service to a targeted one. The spending on early help is now £1.8 billion a year less than it was in 2010. Here is the kicker: we are now spending more on children’s residential placements than we are on early help.

Early help did exactly what it said on the tin: it provided parents with health and wellbeing support, parenting advice, childcare and learning, and support for children with special needs. There were benefits to social care and to health. Indeed, an Institute for Fiscal Studies study found that Sure Start prevented so many children from being hospitalised that it saved the NHS the equivalent of a third of the entire Sure Start budget. The IFS also stated that Sure Start almost certainly delivered benefits significantly greater than its cost.

My hon. Friend is giving a moving account of the structural factors that underpin the rise in personal trauma that has led to more children in the care system. Those placed in the formal care system get access to therapeutic support directly, whereas those placed with kinship carers do not have the same level of support, often because of anomalies in how they are treated. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is a good time to review the level of therapeutic support available to those in kinship care, who might have experienced exactly the same personal trauma as those in the more formal care system?

I do agree. It appears as though the Government are expanding the services available to children in kinship care, and that sounds like a good thing. I would like every child in care to have therapeutic support, because they all need it. They have all been massively traumatised by something.

The next question is: why has the number of residential placements increased so much faster than the number of children in care? The answer is simple: the number of foster families has remained fairly flat in the same period, despite the significant efforts of authorities and independent fostering agencies to attract new carers.

Some time ago, I worked in international development roles, including with former orphanage children in eastern bloc countries in the former Soviet Union, such as Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova, and it was abundantly clear then that children are better off raised in families. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be doing much more to support fostering and adoption processes, without losing our grip on safeguarding practices?

I obviously want children to stay in the family network as much as possible. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill supports that with family group decision making and the kinship care offer, so hopefully more children will stay within the familial network, which is better for them and for the state.

The previous Government introduced a couple of positive innovations on fostering. They came quite late in their term and were not extended to all areas, but they are worth pursuing. First, they introduced regionalisation. Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire have combined along East Midlands combined county authority lines to form Foster for East Midlands, which creates a combined and increased marketing resource. The results are positive, especially against the backdrop of UK-wide fostering inquiry numbers falling.

In preparation for this debate, I did the obligatory Google search for “fostering in Derbyshire” to replicate what a potential new foster carer might find online, and I am afraid Foster for East Midlands was the fifth hit after four sponsored ads. The ability for independents to outspend even combined local authority budgets should not be a surprise, given the significant cost of independent placements compared with local authority placements. The reality is that the taxpayer is paying for them to outspend local authorities.

The other recent positive innovation is Mockingbird. One of the most cited reasons for foster carers leaving the role is the lack of support. It is easy for new foster carers to feel isolated, given the nature of the role. Mockingbird puts a constellation of new carers around an experienced foster carer, who will guide and support them, and enables the building of support networks among the carers.

If we cannot get enough new foster carers into the system, we need to ensure that the ones we have do not leave unnecessarily. That support means fewer placement breakdowns and less disruption in children’s lives.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech based on his personal experience. He talks about the importance of support, and I want to talk about the importance of advocacy services that advise children on their rights when they receive social care services. Advocacy can be transformative to the lives of children, but the Children’s Commissioner found that many children do not receive support from an advocate, despite being referred by their local authority. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are trying to protect the most vulnerable, which he is clearly passionate about, a good starting point is to prioritise advocates so that children feel like they are being listened to?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the voice of the child is key at every step of the way. We must listen to children, so advocacy is entirely fundamental.

For full disclosure, I should say that I have not received fostering allowances since last May, as I have been busy doing other things, so I have nothing to gain by saying this, but the 32% of local authorities that pay allowances below the national minimum allowance will not attract new foster carers based on altruism alone. Foster carers need a reasonable amount of renumeration, like anyone else.

The result of more children needing foster care without a corresponding number of extra foster carers is a crisis in placement sufficiency, which means more children in highly expensive residential placements, in many cases a great distance from their home town.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this very important debate. In my Horsham constituency, a family has approached me who are kinship carers for their grandson. They feel they are discriminated against in a system that gives more resources and attention to children in care than to kinship carers. Given the shortage of places in foster care, does the hon. Member agree that we need to do everything we can to balance up the support that kinship carers receive?

Unsurprisingly, I definitely agree with the hon. Member: of course we need to support children in kinship care. I am sure the Minister will talk about kinship care as well, and I am glad to say that part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill requires local authorities to make an offer on kinship care, which is very positive.

As I was saying, a lack of foster care places means more children in highly expensive residential placements, in many cases a great distance from their home town. There is a very good chance that they will end up in the north-west, because that is where a quarter of children’s homes are located. Of course, some children need to be placed away from familiar surroundings, but not on this scale. It is great that the Government are looking to address this issue through the planning process, so that care homes can more easily be created where they are needed. Personally, I would like to see a focus on smaller homes, because they feel less institutionalised and are easier to integrate into the community.

The cost of some residential children’s home placements is extraordinary, and it is one of the factors pushing councils ever closer to section 104 notices. The cost of looked-after children has risen from £3.1 billion in 2009-10 to £7 billion in 2022-23.

All of government and all councils need to do more. They need to understand that we need to do more for children in care to create a level playing field, because they have such difficult issues to overcome. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

In the same period that the cost of children in care went up to £7 billion, local councils’ overall core funding went down by 9% in real terms. The Government are absolutely right to introduce a financial oversight scheme, because some providers have made excessive profits. It was widely reported that the 20 largest national providers of children’s placements collectively made profits of £310 million in 2021-22.

Of course, we must focus on outcomes for children in care, which are historically and currently very poor. In 2018-19, just 6.8% of children in care received a grade 5 or above in English and maths, compared with 43.2% of all children. In turn, that explains why just 22% of care leavers aged 27 are in employment. Even when they are in employment, there is a £6,000 pay gap between care leavers and those in the general population. It would be easy to blame educators or the care sector for the problem, but the reality is that these children have suffered some sort of significant trauma in their lives. Whether that is neglect, abuse or something else, it is never good.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to Westminster Hall. He mentioned the impact that being in care has on many children. He is probably aware that nearly one third of children in kinship care—just over 31%—have diagnosed or suspected social, emotional or mental health needs. Although we recognise and congratulate the Government on their announcement for kinship carers in the recent Budget, we must also ensure that we make the tools available to children and families to get the mental health support that they need.

There is clearly a theme here. I am sure the Minister will address the growing consensus that kinship care needs the support that children in care receive.

Children are bound to be impacted by the problems they have experienced. That is not to say that we accept poor results; it is just to put them in context. The statistics show that children who have been in care for longer than 12 months receive better grades than those who have been in care for less than 12 months. That makes sense to me, because the longer they are in care, the longer they have stability in their home lives and a focus on education from their foster carers or residential care workers. It is also worth saying that in my experience, the virtual school is a real positive for the child. That is supported by the fact that persistent absence from school, which has been a national issue since covid, is actually better among the cohort of children in care than the overall school population.

With more children, less money and a placement sufficiency crisis, we need to put much more focus on keeping families together and children out of care wherever it is possible and safe to do so. Mandating local authorities to offer family group decision making is a big step forward. The evidence shows that that prevents a significant number of children from going into care in the first place, and keeps them out of care going forward. Following on from family group decision making, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will require all councils to publish a kinship offer, as we have heard, so that more children can stay in more familiar surroundings. Those children will be further supported by the virtual school.

On the subject of the virtual school, and with corporate parenting in mind, I encourage the Government to consider taking up the recommendation of the Education Committee to give virtual school heads statutory powers over the process of school allocation. On the subject of corporate parenting, we need to be conscious that this is everyone’s responsibility, and all Government Departments should consider how they can give that bit extra for children in care. When children have left care, we need to go on supporting them. Through Staying Close, young people leaving residential care will be afforded that bit of extra support to keep them in their property or in education, or to support their general wellbeing. Staying Close is another scheme that is bearing fruit, and I am glad it will be expanded by the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. There are many positives to take from the Bill, and just seven months into the new Administration, it is a big step forward.

I will finish almost where I started, with early help. The previous Government introduced, in some areas, family hubs, which provide universal early help from pregnancy onwards. The early signs are very encouraging, and I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to consider extending the programme as soon as possible. It is the ultimate example of investing to save. Prevention is better than cure, and it is also cheaper.

It is a privilege to speak with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) on securing a debate on this important subject, and I thank hon. Members for their interventions. I will attempt to respond to as many as possible in the time that I have.

I know that this subject is close to my hon. Friend’s heart, because he has been a foster carer for many years; as a former children and families social worker and fostering manager, it is close mine, too. I am delighted and proud to be part of a Government who are making such a difference for children in care. I thank all foster carers for the care that they provide to foster children across our country.

Children in care are among the most vulnerable in our society. My hon. Friend is correct that the number of children in care has increased year on year since 2010, under the previous Government. The problems facing the children’s care system were set out in a 2022 review led by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), and the Competition and Markets Authority also reported on failings in the children’s social care market that year. Both called for radical action. This Government inherited a broken care system that is failing too many children, despite the heroic efforts of social workers, carers and all those who champion children’s outcomes.

We are taking action. Since the election, we have announced funding in the Budget to enable more children to stay in family-centred environments, including the largest ever national investment in kinship care of £40 million. We have also published a policy statement with ambitious plans to reform children’s social care and focus the system towards early help for families.

On the point about early intervention and prevention, I thank the Minister for agreeing to visit Sussex later this year to meet me and an organisation called Pause, which works with mothers who have had a child taken into care. It works across a number of local authorities but by no means all, and I hope that the Government will look favourably upon its work and enable more funding to support it in more areas.

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and I look forward to visiting Sussex.

In the local government finance settlement, we announced two grants that will double settlement investment in preventive children’s services to over £500 million in 2025-26. We have introduced legislation to underpin our reforms, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The actions we plan to take do not stop there: we have a vision to improve services for children in care and we are on that journey.

Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. We recognise that there are sufficiency challenges in foster care and we want to recruit more foster carers, so that foster care is available for more children who need it, in the places where they live. On that point, I say to anybody listening to the debate who is interested in becoming a foster carer: please do contact your local authority children’s services.

In the autumn Budget, we announced an additional £15 million to expand the fostering recruitment and retention programme. My Department is currently supporting two thirds of local authorities across England in 10 regional hubs. The extra funding will expand our approach to ensure that every local authority has access to that support. The regional hubs support foster carers from their first inquiry through to providing a retention model. Our aim is to boost the number of approvals among those who apply to become foster carers, and take further steps to retain those who we have. I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales about the need to retain foster carers and I absolutely agree with him.

No foster carer should be financially disadvantaged because of their fostering role. We expect all foster carers to receive at least the weekly national minimum allowance, in addition to any agreed expenses, to cover the full cost of caring for each child placed with them. In January, local authorities were sent a letter to remind them of their duty to provide the national minimum allowance and to notify them of the latest 3.55% uplift. Fostering service providers can choose to pay above the minimum allowance or to pay additional fees. Qualifying care relief, a tax relief, is also available to support foster carers. The threshold for the relief has been raised in recent years to ensure that the vast majority of foster carers will not pay tax on their care income. We encourage fostering service providers to adhere to the foster care charter, which sets out clear principles for how foster carers should be treated and recognises their invaluable work.

For most children in care, foster care is the best option when they cannot live in kinship arrangements. Kinship care, which has been mentioned by Members across the Chamber, is an area where the Government are investing. We recognise that for some young people, kinship care is absolutely where they need to be, and that kinship carers need support to enable them to care for their children. We announced £90 million of capital funding in the autumn Budget to fund new places in children’s homes and to secure children’s homes.

We are using that money in two ways. First, we are providing funding to maintain existing provision and expand capacity across both secure and open children’s homes. That will provide 180 additional open children’s home placements by late 2025. It will also help local authorities to support our most vulnerable children accommodated in specialist care in secure children’s homes, including continuing plans to create two brand-new secure homes in London and the west midlands. We recognise that we need a variation of care dependent on the care needs of the child.

Secondly, we are taking action to provide increased provision specifically for children with multiple complex needs who have been, or are at risk of being, deprived of their liberty. For such children, their needs will be a response to complex ongoing trauma. We have invited local authorities to bid for new capital funding to build 200 new places in local authority children’s homes. Local authorities and health partners will be encouraged to work together to deliver suitable packages of care and plans to support these young people. Alongside that, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will create a new statutory mechanism that allows children with complex needs to be placed in safe, flexible and secure community-based provision that keeps children safe. All young people should receive consistently high-quality care. To improve the quality of children’s homes, the Bill will strengthen Ofsted’s powers to hold provider groups to account where there are quality issues.

The current children’s social care placement market is dysfunctional. It is not delivering enough safe, loving homes for children in the right parts of the country at a sustainable cost to the taxpayer. As has been mentioned, some councils are on the brink of bankruptcy, in part due to the rising cost of spending on children in care, while some providers are making excess profits despite sometimes providing sub-par care for our most vulnerable children. The Government are clear that profiteering from vulnerable children in care is absolutely unacceptable, and we are committed to stamping it out where it occurs in the children’s social care market.

We are introducing a package of measures to fix this. The measures will rebalance the market and improve competition, regulation and the commissioning of placements. They will shine a light on the levels of profit being made and bring greater visibility to the prices that local authorities are paying. The measures, which are in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, form a key part of our strategy to address the problems of the market.

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales for speaking so eloquently and passionately about children in care, his experiences and the many issues to do with children’s social care. This subject means a great deal to him, as it does to me and to our Government. We need to get this right. There is a lot to do. I acknowledge the dedication that he has shown in his working life. Our opportunity mission is focused on breaking the link between children’s backgrounds and their success. I am determined to support and to improve the life chances of children in care, and this Government have an ambitious plan.

Question put and agreed to.