Government cuts therapy funding for adopted children
The government is facing a backlash for "slipping out" cuts to the amount that families can access for adopted children to have therapy.
The Fair Access Limit (FAL) will be reduced from £5,000 to £3,000 as part of a package of changes to the Adoption and Special Guardianship Fund (ASGF), which helped nearly 20,000 children last year.
Politics Live:
The cuts were confirmed in an email to the sector over parliament's Easter recess rather than through a formal announcement.
The email, seen by Sky News, says the ASGF will continue from April 2025 with a budget of £50m, the same as last year, but there will be changes to how it is allocated.
This includes cutting the limit of grants for therapy by 40% and scrapping a separate allowance of £2,500 for specialist assessments.
Specialist assessments up to the level of £2,500 will be considered for funding, but only within the overall limit of £3,000.
In addition, the government will no longer match fund more expensive therapy above the limits.
The letter said: "We recognise that this is a significant change, but it is being made to ensure that the funding can continue to support as many families as possible.
"The Adoption and Special Guardianship Fund will still enable those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support, tailored to meet their individual needs."
The ASGF helped 16,333 children in the year 2023/24, up from 14,862 the previous financial year.
'Deep concerns'
Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson criticised the government for "slipping out" the changes during recess, despite her raising an urgent question in the Commons on 1 April over whether the funding would continue.
At the time, children and families minister Janet Daby responded to confirm £50m had been allocated overall and apologised for the delay in saying so, but didn't mention the cuts.
The future of the ASGF had been in doubt up until then, as it was due to run out in March 2025.
In a letter to Education Secretary , Ms Wilson said it is "unacceptable the government took so long to confirm the fund and even more unacceptable that MPs were provided with incomplete information".
She called on ministers to reverse the "deeply concerning" cuts, saying she and her parliamentary colleagues have been contacted by constituents "sharing the deeply traumatic stories children in their care have experienced".
She said the changes will have a "huge impact on the quality of life" for vulnerable children and even in light of the fiscal challenges "cannot be justified".
'Most adopted children have suffered abuse or neglect'
Charities have also hit out at the government with Adoption UK saying the decision is a consequence of "belt tightening across government".
The organisation says around 3,000 children in England are placed in adoptive families each year, and most have suffered abuse, neglect, or violence and spend an average of 15 months in care before adoption - so need therapy for most of their life.
CEO Emily Frith said: "These decisions will have a direct impact on children and young people who have had a very tough start in life and deserve the same chance to thrive as everyone else.
"It's very short-sighted at a time when there are more adoptive families in crisis than ever before, and distressing news for everyone who has already faced an agonising wait to find out whether the fund will continue to exist at all."
Kinship, which supports people who step in to raise a friend or family member's child, warned 13% of carers are concerned about their ability to carry on because of behavioural difficulties stemming from trauma and loss, so the cuts risk family breakdowns and "children entering an already overstretched care system".
Both charities called on the government to rethink the changes at the June Spending Review, when Chancellor will set out her plans for spending and key public sector reforms for future years.
Ms Reeves is under pressure after announcing a , after poor economic growth and global instability wiped out her fiscal headroom.
The chancellor is determined to keep the headroom as part of her self-imposed fiscal rules, which require day-to-day spending to be met through tax receipts rather than borrowing.
But there is concern the headroom is even more fragile amid , meaning further cuts or tax rises could be on the cards.
The Department for Education has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. Now, an AP photographer routinely gets access to these events, while text reporters rarely do. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Associated Press
3 hours ago
- Associated Press
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. Now, an AP photographer routinely gets access to these events, while text reporters rarely do. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Epoch Times
14 hours ago
- Epoch Times
9 Million Pensioners to Receive Winter Fuel Payment This Year, Reeves Says
Some 9 million pensioners in England and Wales will receive the winter fuel payment this winter, the chancellor has announced. The payment, worth up to £300, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners who previously received it because anyone with an income of under £35,000 a year will now get the payment automatically. Those with an income above this threshold will also receive the payment, but it will then be reclaimed from them in tax. To be eligible for the winter fuel allowance, a person will need to have reached state pension age by the week starting Sept. 15 this year. Devolved authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland will each receive a funding uplift so they too can meet the new threshold. Pensioners who do not want to receive the payment will be able to opt out, according to the Treasury. Related Stories 6/4/2025 5/15/2025 The decision to limit the winter fuel payment to only those who claimed pension credit was one of Labour's first acts in government, aimed at balancing what was described as a £22 billion 'black hole' in the public finances. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced by around 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. But Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced there would be a partial U-turn on the policy in May, after it was thought to have contributed to Labour's drubbing in the local elections. The Treasury claims the new arrangement will cost £1.25 billion in England and Wales, while means-testing winter fuel will save the taxpayer £450 million. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'Targeting winter fuel payments was a tough decision but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. 'It is also right that we continue to means test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest. 'But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the winter fuel payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. 'This will mean over three-quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter.' Some 2 million pensioners who earn more than £35,000 will see their winter fuel payments clawed back via the taxman, the Treasury estimates. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition, claimed the prime minister had 'scrambled to clear up a mess of his own making.' The Conservative leader added: 'I repeatedly challenged him to reverse his callous decision to withdraw winter fuel payments, and every time Starmer arrogantly dismissed my criticisms. 'This humiliating U-turn will come as scant comfort to the pensioners forced to choose between heating and eating last winter. The prime minister should now apologise for his terrible judgment.' Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: 'Finally the chancellor has listened to the Liberal Democrats and the tireless campaigners in realising how disastrous this policy was, but the misery it has caused cannot be overstated. 'Countless pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating all whilst the government buried its head in the sand for months on end, ignoring those who were really suffering. 'We will now study the detail of this proposal closely to make sure those who need support actually get that support. The pain they went through this winter cannot be for nothing.'
