Commons Sense

House of Commons · Westminster Hall

Support for New Adoptive Parents — [Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

21 March 2022 · 7 other contributors · 9,297 words

Opened by Elliot Colburn Con Carshalton and Wallington

Responding minister: Lee Rowley

Children & Families

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Elliot Colburn raised concerns about support for new adoptive parents — [ms nusrat ghani in the chair] in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key points

  • Petition has amassed almost 15,000 signatures
  • Government notes local authorities provide discretionary financial support for self-employed adoptive parents
  • Minister acknowledges need to address inconsistencies in funding for adoptive parents

Key requests to Government

The Government should rethink their approach to ensure that benefits available to self-employed birth parents are extended to self-employed adoptive parents, as recommended by the Petitions Committee's report on the impact of covid-19 on new parents. The Minister should address inconsistencies in funding and outdated understanding of self-employment.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Elliot Colburn Con Carshalton and Wallington

The petition has amassed almost 15,000 signatures. The issue centres on financial support for self-employed adoptive parents who do not qualify for statutory adoption pay as it is currently modelled on statutory maternity pay available to employed individuals. There are around 1,870 children waiting to be adopted in England alone, and 52%—over half—have been waiting longer than 18 months. The Government's response includes local authorities providing discretionary financial support where affordability is a barrier, but inconsistencies across the country create uncertainty for families hoping to adopt. Support needs simplification with multiple complaints about the role of local authorities. Self-employed individuals need more time to bond with and care for their child than birth parents do.

Other contributors (7)
  • Alex Davies-Jones Lab Pontypridd

    The hon. Friend highlighted the importance of supporting adoptive families and children, mentioning her campaign on regulating online sperm sales which causes issues for adopted children seeking their biological origins through DNA tests. Brought up specific challenges in adoption policy, seeking clarity on certain areas from the Government.

  • Bill Esterson Lab Sefton Central

    Congratulated the hon. Member for Colchester on his speech and agreed with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, highlighting personal experience as a self-employed person who adopted two children in 2007. Stressed the difficulty of building relationships with adopted children due to trauma and the need for adoptive leave support similar to that given to birth parents. Made a direct appeal to the Government regarding support for new adoptive parents and shared personal experiences.

  • Daniel Poulter Con Central Suffolk and North Ipswich

    My hon. Friend is making some very good points, pointing out the importance of the Government addressing this issue. Will he reflect on the fact that the Government have proactively encouraged people to be self-employed over the past 10 to 12 years, and ever-increasing numbers of people are self-employed or on flexible contracts that mean they would be considered self-employed? Does he agree that the encouragement the Government have given to self-employment makes it all the more important that this issue is looked at as a priority? He supported the hon. Lady's points about reducing barriers to adoption and highlighted past efforts by the coalition Government, urging the Minister to commit to joined-up thinking on fiscal and financial incentives for adoptions.

  • Darren Jones Lab Bristol North West

    Asked if it was a question of policy or money and whether the Government had quantified costs for extending benefits to self-employed adopters. Also questioned who would pay such expenses and if it is an issue for the Treasury. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time and indulging me. I want to know what might happen after this debate, particularly about further opportunities to push this issue in Parliament.

  • Richard Graham Con Richmond Park

    Agreed with Elliot Colburn's comments, emphasizing the need for support for self-employed adoptive parents to ensure they can take time off work and provide care for their new child. Pointed out inconsistencies in local authority funding.

  • Holly Mumby-Croft Con Scunthorpe

    Mumby-Croft emphasised the importance of adoption and thanked constituents for raising concerns. She noted that self-employed parents cannot access statutory adoption pay, which limits their ability to adopt. With 1,870 children waiting for families and half having waited over 18 months, extending support is crucial for more prospective parents to consider adoption despite financial barriers. Supported the change for adoptive parents and emphasized the importance of self-employment in supporting families.

  • Rachael Maskell Lab Co-op York Central

    Paid tribute to families providing safe, loving homes for adopted children and highlighted the challenges faced by self-employed adoptive parents. Called for statutory adoption pay to support bonding and attachment between adopted children and their new parents. Intervened to ask the Minister to consult on the specific circumstances of an adoptive family to understand why these measures are important. I seek another commitment from the Minister. Will he meet the Children's Minister to discuss this issue further?

Government Response

Lee Rowley

Acknowledged the importance of supporting adoptive parents and highlighted that the Government recognises the challenges faced by self-employed individuals. Noted the continuation of funding for the adoption support fund up to March 2025, totalling £144 million over ten years. Explained the rationale behind current maternity pay policies not extending equally to adoptive parents due to differing historical contexts and objectives. Emphasised flexibility within local authority discretion to provide additional support where necessary.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy