Context
The MP references deep cuts to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which affects therapy grants for traumatised children.
Question
I thank the Minister for his response, but what short and long-term assessments have Ministers made of the cost to the taxpayer of the deep cuts in grants for therapy for some of the most vulnerable and traumatised children in our country through the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Given the Treasury’s intransigence in putting more money into the fund to meet rising demand, it is likely that adoption and kinship care placements will fail, resulting in more children in the care system in the short term. In the long term, sadly, we know that care-experienced children are four times more likely to end up with a criminal conviction. There is a moral and economic case to support this fund properly.
Answer from James Murray (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)
I very much recognise, both as a constituency MP and as a Minister, the importance of making sure that adoptive parents can build a strong family unit with their adoptive children. If I may make a broader point, the only reason we can invest in public services is because of difficult decisions we have taken around taxation. The problem with the Liberal Democrats and other parties on the Opposition Benches is that they are happy to support the extra funding for public spending, but not the tax rises necessary to pay for it.
Not addressed: The Minister did not provide an assessment of the cost to taxpayers or a review of the decision to cut funding.
How: Made A Broader Point, Challenged The Opposition'S Stance On Taxation
Was this summary accurate? Tell us
How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)