I am Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary. Thank you for the opportunity to update members on the progress that the Department has made since we last met. It has been a busy year for education and for our mission to break the link between background and success. I want to take a moment of the Committee’s time to set out some of the overarching strategic narrative—the ideas—behind the changes that this Labour Government are bringing to education and how the work of the Government speaks to that. Across education, especially in our schools, we are thinking in terms of three strategic shifts across the system—changes that affect children and families and are delivered by teachers, leaders and staff. The first of those is about ensuring that children move from forgotten to included. That applies to children currently left behind in the education system, especially white working-class children and children with SEND. It also means focusing on things that do not always grab the headlines, but where the country is crying out for better. I want all children to grow up in loving homes, free from hunger and safe from harm, so it also means keeping children safe with better children’s social care by delivering the biggest reforms to the system in a generation. We will bring families into the fold with early support to keep children safe and better recognition of their role through more kinship care and family decision making. I want better life chances for children when it comes to child poverty. You will know as well as I do that the problems that hold back our children’s education are not simply inside the school gates or within classroom hours. That is why we have expanded free school meals to half a million more children. Our first 750 free breakfast clubs will be joined by 2,000 more next year. As the Chancellor announced last week, we are removing the two-child benefit cap, and our child poverty strategy will follow very soon. Altogether, we will lift more than half a million children out of poverty. I am very proud to be part of a Government driving the largest expected reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. We know that early education and early intervention are absolutely vital, too. That is the approach we set out in our “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy in July, and we are raising its status by funding more early education and childcare, allowing more children to get the best start in life and parents to get back to work. We are getting on with delivery, backed by £1.5 billion, by rolling out our Best Start family hubs in every local authority, saving working families £7,500 a year. To pick up this extra demand, we are funding 300 new and expanded school-based nurseries, with more than 4,000 places already up and running. The second big shift, which is critical to enabling the first, is from narrow to broad. Nowhere is that emphasis more apparent than in the publication of the curriculum and assessment review and the Government’s response, giving children a broader curriculum alongside a strong academic core. We are also broadening inclusion through investment to create 10,000 more places for children with SEND in mainstream and specialist settings. When children reach school, I am determined that they be met by the highest standards. Our new RISE teams are driving high standards for children in a system that has too long forgotten them and failed them. The third shift that we want to see in the world as a result of our work is among our children and families, from withdrawn to engaging, with children feeling that they really belong in school—they turn up every day and know that school is for them. Sometimes school is joyful and sometimes it can be testing and stretching, but we know that school is always where children belong. Our breakfast clubs are a key part of that, as are the 2,000 more expert teachers we have hired since coming to power. The data shows that we are making strong progress, and we will build on that through the schools White Paper next year. Our opportunity mission does not end with schools. Last month, we published our post-16 White Paper. We have already introduced Skills England and 10 new construction technical excellence colleges, providing more opportunities for young people and growth across our economy, alongside the steps we have taken to stabilise higher education and set an ambitious vision for our world-leading universities, putting them on a firmer financial footing into the future and taking the difficult decisions necessary to do that. We know that the hard work we have delivered as a Government in the last year has been through the people who deliver education for our children and our learners. In Improving Education Together, we are working with employers and unions across education to ensure that our policies are designed with the staff who drive forward children’s life chances. I want to end by paying tribute to all the wonderful workforces who do so much for our children and learners and go into work every day to make our country a better place. This year, we have been collaborating with teachers, carers, parents, support staff, leaders, unions and employers. In a spirit of partnership, I look forward to discussing more of that with the Committee this afternoon.

We welcome the Committee’s report and work in this area. I want to thank you and Committee members for your valuable recommendations, which we are carefully considering as part of the wider reform that we intend to set out. We are working very closely with parents, carers and others. Just today, we launched our national conversation on SEND—the biggest in a generation. The Minister for School Standards is launching the first of those regional events. There will be lots of regional events and online opportunities for parents to contribute, alongside the SEND development group that we have established with many key campaigners, charities and others to help us design a better system of support for children with SEND. You will appreciate that this is a huge area, so I will respond to what you have asked, but you might want to interrupt if you want to focus on particular areas. The starting point for me and for the Government is that the system we have at the moment for children with SEND just is not working, in terms of their outcomes and life chances. That has to be the starting point. That is the guiding principle behind everything we are doing around this. There are clearly pressures when it comes to funding, and I will speak to what we secured at the spending review and what we are doing at the moment, but even if money were no object—even if those pressures did not exist—I do not think that anyone would look at the system right now and conclude that it is working well for children, for staff in education or overall in terms of life chances. When it comes to investment, as you will know, we are investing £1 billion into the high needs block alongside £740 million of capital spending to create additional provision for children. That goes hand in hand with some of the cross-departmental work that is already under way, for example work with the Department of Health and Social Care on the PINS programme, which is around neurodiversity and making improvements together with parents in our schools. While it is right that we focus on the changes we want to bring to the system, it is important to recognise that there is much fantastic and brilliant practice out there, as you identified through the Committee’s report, but it is too variable and too patchy. The Government intend to use the settlement from the spending review to drive more of that across the country. I will pause there; this is a huge area and I could keep talking, but there may be areas that you wish to focus on more.

Financial sustainability is important, but I emphasise that even if that were not a challenge, we would need to make the system better. We can all recognise that outcomes for children with SEND are far away from where we want them to be. How hard parents have to fight for support—that needs to change. There is obviously the investment into the schools system that I have already outlined, but we all know that early support for families is critical. The extra £1.5 billion over the next three years around early years support and the “best start in life” strategy is critical. The wider reforms to children’s social care are important as well, but the Families First funding that we are delivering with MHCLG is also about better identifying children’s needs at a much earlier point. There is also work with DHSC on early access to speech and language support in particular. Part of this is about how we build up and improve the system ahead of wider reform, because I recognise that parents’ confidence is low, given what they have experienced over many years. There is a need to invest up front to deliver change. That is why, through the spending review, we secured significant investment to drive that change, alongside the investment that I have set out around high needs and capital spending.

As I say, today we launched the national conversation on SEND. Over the last year, I have spent a lot of time speaking to parents, carers, teachers, disability rights groups and others. We have had our advisory group—our experts—working with us to support that. We have also established our SEND development group, which the Minister for School Standards is going to lead on a weekly basis with all those key voices within the sector. I attended the first one last week; it is meeting on a weekly basis. That runs alongside the nine regional events that we are delivering in partnership with the Council for Disabled Children. We recognise that not everybody can get along to face-to-face events, although they are critical. That is why there will also be online events, and there will be an opportunity through the website that we have launched for parents and others to submit their views. We want there to be as many opportunities as possible for people to share their experiences and views about what change is required. We will then set out our plans in the schools White Paper next year, and there will be a formal consultation process running alongside the co-creation work that we have under way at the moment.

Yes. If you will allow me, Chair, I will briefly explain the process, because I think there has been some misunderstanding around the Budget and the OBR’s figures. The OBR set out the position connected to council deficits being accounted for within the Government balance sheet. Alongside that, we published the Treasury’s position that that deficit is to be dealt with through overall Government spending. In its report, the OBR published illustrations—entirely hypothetical scenarios—of what that might mean for the core schools budget if it were to be taken from there. I can be absolutely clear that that is not the case. You will note that the words in the Treasury document were agreed with care between the Department for Education and the Treasury. It is not by chance that they focus on the overall Government DEL envelope, not the DfE’s DEL envelope. Of course, the OBR cannot account for any future changes to the system, because we have yet to publish them; we are still developing those through the process that we have just been talking about. This takes us into the next spending review period alongside that, the 2028-29 period. I recognise the importance of talking about this. I recognise the challenges that local authorities are experiencing at the moment. That is why we are working with them to make improvements happen in the here and now. With all that said, I cannot emphasise enough that this has to be about better outcomes for children with SEND. That is our starting point. It would always be our starting point, even if we were not having a conversation about the numbers.

We agreed with the Treasury the wording that is in its document, about it being across Government. Of course, the next spending review will commence in 2027, so that will take place and follow into that. Susan, it might be helpful if you could set out just how we got here.

I agree that it is critical, given that many of the challenges that parents report are not simply about what happens in school, but about what happens with things like access to OT support or to speech and language support. All of that is a critical part of what we need to do. It also connects to our Best Start family hubs and the need to ensure that we have a trained SEND practitioner in every hub to work with families to identify those needs. One example of the work under way with health that is making a difference is the PINS—partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools—programme, which I referred to earlier. It is a cross-Government programme, between us, DHSC and NHS England, and working with the National Network of Parent Carer Forums. A central part of the work that we are delivering is engagement with parents, because we know that parents’ experiences for their children are not where they need to be. We know from PINS and from some of the visits I have made—I visited Allenton primary in Derby and afterwards met parents who had been part of the programme; I also visited All Saints in Wigan quite recently and met parents at the end of the visit—that often quite small, practical changes within the classroom setting have made a world of difference to children’s experience in school. I have heard from parents whose children had not been attending school very regularly or had had real challenges. I have seen the really big difference that engagement has made, through working together with the school leadership and the staff, as well as the additional training that staff have received, including in connection with the NHS. Partnership means what we do across Government, between Departments—we are doing a lot together with DHSC and MHCLG—but it also matters on the ground, as you say, through the link between services locally and the engagement between parents and schools. What might seem like relatively small and modest changes can transform a child’s experience in a classroom and can improve standards.

I agree that this is extremely serious; it has obviously built up over many, many years. We are working with local authorities to manage their SEND pressures. I will directly address the question about next steps, but there are good examples that show how councils—together with the DfE, or sometimes separately—can create more provision that seeks to reduce some of those pressures. We know that if we create more specialist provision in mainstream settings closer to home, that is better for children. It is what parents want, because they want their child to be able to go to a local school, and it can also reduce transport costs. Some local authorities, which are in a stronger position in managing this, have—often over a period of a decade or so—made changes that have sought to bear down on the costs while, crucially, delivering what parents want, which is great local schools that provide for their children. On the statutory override, we will set out further details around supporting local authorities with historical and accruing deficits through the upcoming local government finance settlement, so I am a bit limited in what I can say at the moment. But the message that I want local authorities to hear is that, through both the investment that we will deliver with that £740 million and the investment that many local authorities are themselves delivering, investing in provision through capital resource will be critical to bringing down cost over the long term and delivering better outcomes for children. I would not want councils to wait around pending any outcome. We need to get on and do this now; it is the right thing to do. We will put the resourcing that we can into making that a reality. That is the long-term path to sustainability. There is variability between local authorities on that point, which includes lack of specialist provision in some places.

Absolutely—both on this and on children’s social care, among other issues. Those are two of the biggest challenges that we face, but there is a real opportunity to transform services and systems, which will lead to better outcomes for children, including some of the most vulnerable children in our country.

Recruiting and retaining more teachers is critical to this Government and our plan for change. Everything that we have said about outcomes for children and delivering a brilliant education—we cannot do that without high-quality teaching. The evidence is clear that that has the biggest impact on children’s outcomes. We are making good progress and are seeing positive signs. There will be more data later this week from the latest ITT census, but over the last year the workforce has grown in secondary and special schools, where we need it the most. That is not the case in primary, given the falling rolls and the demographic change that we are seeing. We are also seeing more acceptances in subject shortages at secondary, particularly in STEM subjects, which is really welcome, and we are seeing positive signs when it comes to retention alongside that. There is absolutely more to do, but we are moving in the right direction. You are right to say that pay is not the only factor, but it is an important factor where we have sought to take action. The most recent pay award of 4%, combined with the previous award, means that over two years the pay of teachers and leaders will increase by almost 10%. We are offering trainee schoolteacher incentives in targeted areas this year as well. But you are right that, alongside pay, there are wider questions of workload and wellbeing. We are addressing much of that through Improving Education Together, which is the means by which we work with employers and trade unions on identifying key areas of concern. One of the biggest areas that has been raised time and again with me is child poverty and the wider impact of failure across society. That is why I believe that the investment that the Government are making in lifting the two-child cap is an investment not just in children and their future, but in education and schools. I have heard from too many teachers and staff that they are having to support children who are coming to school hungry and whose parents are struggling. They are washing clothes. There is a big challenge around there being too many children in temporary accommodation. Taking action in those key areas will be a critical part of how we address some of the wider pressures that exist for our teachers and staff. That aligns with many of the calls that were made of us as a new Government by many campaigners, trade unions and others. Not only is this the right thing to do from a moral point of view, but it will lead to significant improvements for our teachers and staff. Alongside that runs the wider, longer-term challenge of investment in family support services, so that when children arrive at school, they are able to learn and their parents are getting the support they need.

We have finite resources, and we have to target our resources in the areas where we face the greatest shortages or where we can make the greatest impact. You will be pleased to hear that the numbers are moving in the right direction on maths teachers in particular—

Even though we are one down, we have recruited a few more. But there is more to do, and that also speaks to some of the other challenges that teachers and staff are facing. Behaviour is often raised as a big challenge. Through our new attendance and behaviour hubs we will work with the schools facing some of the greatest challenges to make improvements in those areas. It will also be an area of focus in the schools White Paper.

The number of teachers has grown in secondary and special schools, which are the areas where they are needed the most. We, sadly, do not need as many teachers in primary school, given the demographic changes we are seeing. But yes, that number has increased by more than 2,000.

It is not subject-specific; it relates to secondary and special schools.

No, luckily we are investing way more in schools than the VAT rises, although I was delighted to see at the Budget that the changes around VAT are raising even more than had been anticipated. That means that we are able to invest in schools; there is a big increase this year in school funding. That goes way beyond what was promised in the manifesto around investment in schools and teachers.

On the first question, I want young people to make the choices that are right for them. The Prime Minister announced his target that two thirds of young people should be in higher-level training or in a university place. I think it is right that we focus on the gap that we have seen in recent years around higher-level technical skills, running alongside university being a great option for young people, but I want young people to have genuine choices about what is right for them, making decisions that are right. I want any young person who has what it takes to be able to go to university, if that is what they choose. It is why we have taken the necessary decision to increase tuition fees to the top level of the cap. I appreciate that the Committee has looked closely at issues around financial sustainability in the university sector. It is therefore right that after years of fees not increasing, we have taken the decision to make sure that fees go up and will continue to increase in order to secure the long-term future of our world-leading universities. I recognise the cost of living pressures that students are facing. It is why maintenance loans are also going up in line with inflation. That will continue. Alongside that, I am delighted that we are bringing back new targeted maintenance grants for college and university students in areas aligned with Government missions and industrial strategy priority areas, making sure that young people who want the chance to continue at college or university have the ability to do so.

The threshold, of course, applies to a different cohort, but I am pleased that we have been able to reintroduce new targeted maintenance grants. That was not something that we committed to in the manifesto, so we have gone beyond our manifesto in delivering that, alongside investment in skills, which will be a part of that too. Through the Budget, the Government have faced some tough choices, given the state of the public finances. I believe it was the right decision to increase tuition fees. Of course, students should not be deterred from going to university on that basis, because you only pay it back post graduation, subject to thresholds, as you have said. University is still a great option for many young people, but maintenance loans are increasing too. We went through a period of more than seven years when tuition fees did not increase. We have seen the impact that has had on the university sector. I know that that is why the Committee has taken a keen interest in the financial sustainability of the sector. By giving that stability to the sector, we will allow them to plan for the future, alongside asking students, through their fee, to make a contribution towards that.

We are addressing the cliff edges that young people experience as they leave care. We will provide a national Staying Close support package, as we set out in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. That will mean that care leavers can find and keep suitable accommodation, alongside an offer of practical and emotional support to help them to live independently. I co-chair the care leavers ministerial board, which works across Government on many of these key areas. What we do within the Department for Education is critical, but we all know that there are many long-standing challenges that care leavers experience—whether that is being disproportionately represented in the prison population or facing challenges in accessing mental health support if that is needed. That is why the fundamental reform that we are seeking to bring through the Bill is a shift away from the increasing crisis-end intervention, given the escalation we have seen in the system, and towards much more timely and early support for young people, particularly around fostering and kinship care. We will be setting out more on changes in fostering soon, because we know that there is a big gap in recruiting and retaining foster carers. If we can support children to remain in a family environment, either through foster carers or through kinship care where it is safe and appropriate to do so, that will make a big difference to the lives of many children in our country. That runs alongside the wider reforms to the broken market that we see around children’s social care, and the action that we are taking around excess profiteering.

That is not something that we are actively considering at the moment. Our focus has been both on the measures in the Bill, to make improvements happen, and on the changes that we are driving across the care leavers ministerial board, especially with colleagues in MHCLG around Staying Close. For far too long, children who have been through the care system have not had the support or protection that they deserve. We are determined to change that. We need to provide better support for children as they emerge from children’s social care, but we need fewer children ending up in the care system to begin with. That is the critical element of the reforms. We have seen a big increase in the number of children who require support through the care system. The intention behind the Families First programme is to provide support and help to families at an earlier point. That is alongside the other reforms in the Bill around involving families in some of the decision making. If it is possible to keep children within a family environment with those who know and love them best—of course, only where it is safe to do so—that will lead to better outcomes in the long run.

As I say, we have the national Staying Close support package offer. We will obviously keep under review what is needed further, but we have a big and ambitious package of wider reforms to the children’s social care system. That runs alongside further comprehensive measures we also want to bring forward around the fostering system, in particular to increase the number of foster carers. We see a big challenge in how the number of people who come forward to become foster carers does not translate into people becoming foster carers. Every time we meet as a cross-ministerial board, we start the session by hearing from a young person who has been through the system about what matters most to them. We continue to make sure that the voices of young people are heard throughout the process.

Absolutely. We are also working very closely with universities on many of these challenges, for example the need for year-round accommodation for young people who might not have a family home to return to. It is also why, through the higher education reforms that we have set out, we are guaranteeing for the first time that care-experienced young people will be automatically eligible for the full maintenance loan.

We are addressing that through the early adopter programme. I should stress that that survey was carried out across education. It was not specifically from the early adopters, and we are seeing different evidence coming back from the early adopters about how they are managing to make the numbers add up and make sure they have the staffing in place. When visiting breakfast clubs, one area that has been fed back to me time and again is that they have really valued the peer network that has been established, working with other schools perhaps in a similar context or community to look at the staffing model they have operated and how they are running. We want to make sure that, ahead of full national roll-out, this is working well for schools. It is why, in the next phase of breakfast clubs, which will commence from next April as the start of the national roll-out, we are changing the funding model compared with the early adopter programme. From April 2026, schools in the free breakfast club programme will receive £1 per pupil per day, alongside a standing payment of £25 per day. That is a change from what we trialled through the early adopter model. It is in response to feedback we have received from schools about how best to make that work. We will obviously keep that under review to make sure that the model is right for schools. I am delighted that, as well as having the 750 already, from next year as we move towards national roll-out, we will invest another £80 million into the programme and fund an additional 2,000 schools between April 2026 and March 2027. That will benefit around half a million more children. It makes a huge difference to children’s ability to learn, because it is about the club and not just the breakfast. I have visited many breakfast clubs in recent months, and I have heard from staff that it makes an enormous difference, as children arrive in the classroom calmer, having had time with their friends, really settling in. Although I appreciate that there can sometimes be barriers to children with SEND accessing breakfast clubs, and we are working with schools to address that, I have also heard a lot from teachers and leaders that for children with SEND, that softer start to the day can make a big difference when they arrive in the classroom to learn.

We want to make sure that all families who are eligible get the support that they are entitled to. From September 2026, all children in households in receipt of universal credit will be eligible for a free school meal. That will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament, in addition to the 450,000 children who will be lifted out of poverty due to changes to the two-child limit. That is why it represents the biggest ever projected change in a Parliament. Given the complications of the threshold previously, we believe that it will be simpler and more straightforward if parents know that it relates just to universal credit. People will know whether they are receiving universal credit, and that will make the process more straightforward. We are also working with families and local authorities to deliver improvements to the eligibility checking system, to make sure that families are accessing the support that they need, and we are continuing to work with the Department for Work and Pensions on what more we might be able to do in this area.

We will keep it under review as we do the expansion next year. We do believe that it will be simpler for parents to know whether they are eligible. Part of the problem that we have at the moment with the existing threshold is that parents often will not know whether they are eligible. There are further improvements we can make through the eligibility checking system. You rightly identify the fact that some local authorities already have in place processes to increase take-up. I should add that it is extra money that is being invested as part of this; it is an extra £1 billion, and it will make an enormous difference to children and families.

Before I answer that, there is an extra point to raise on free school meals, which is that, connected to this, we have under way at the moment a review of school food standards. That is relevant in understanding the impact. We will continue to review the impact both of free school meals and of breakfast clubs. We have work under way to understand the impact through the early adopter scheme. We will continue to track that as we move to national roll-out. Some evidence is already available about free school meals, but it is more limited. On breakfast clubs, part of the reason why we took the decision to focus our efforts in that area was the pre-existing evidence, through the EEF and others, about the impact on children’s learning. We continue to work with organisations like the EEF to shape and inform our policy, to make sure that we are guided by the best evidence and the best outcomes.

Very, very soon. I don’t know whether I am allowed to say when exactly. Is that in the public domain? I cannot recall.

Soon. Very soon.

You will not have long to wait.

I hope it will see the light of day very, very soon, but I think it is fair to say that what lots of people were waiting for was to understand the changes that we intended to make around social security. There is more beyond that but, clearly, lifting the two-child limit was central to any effective child poverty strategy, given that we know that it is the single most effective way of lifting the largest number of children out of poverty. But the child poverty strategy will also consider what, right across Government—MHCLG, the Department for Transport, DEFRA and indeed all the Departments that have been around the table in developing that strategy—each of us can do to lift more children out of poverty, going beyond social security measures.

You are right that making this change comes at a financial cost, but we know that child poverty comes at an enormous cost—not just in terms of the deep moral injustice experienced by children, but also the wider societal failures and the costs that we pick up for children’s social care and children’s outcomes at school; children who grow up in poverty are less likely to have a good job and more likely to be NEET at the age of 18. All of this is well understood. We pay the price of failure for the very big numbers of children we see growing up in poverty. We have not waited around for the child poverty strategy to take action. We have talked about free school meals—that is a huge intervention. There are also the new free breakfast clubs and the childcare expansion. Through the development of the strategy and the work of the taskforce, we have heard directly from parents about what matters to them, and barriers to work and access to childcare has been a key feature of that. Alongside the two-child limit, the other area where we would lift more children out of poverty if we could make more progress is if the second parent in two-parent families were able to work or to work a bit more. That would lead to a marked improvement in child poverty numbers. This aligns with our wider childcare and early years expansion, making sure we have the childcare places in areas of disadvantage where parents have been least able to access them—the school-based nurseries programme, in particular. It is not really a question of whether there are other actions we would have taken. The big outstanding question that people had when it came to the strategy was around the two-child limit. That is why we have taken action, but there remains more to do. We cannot think that this is job done, because the barriers that many parents will face are also about skills, access to transport, ability to work the hours, flexibility and much more besides. The child poverty strategy will set the longer-term direction for all Government Departments in tracking that over the course of the Parliament.

From the evidence we have seen in the taskforce, it was that question of the second person in the household being able to work or to work more. It would make a big difference to the numbers if we were able to support that second potential earner to be in work or to work more. The other big difference we have seen over time is the housing costs that families are experiencing, with more families in private rented accommodation compared with social housing. One of the big shifts we have seen since 1997 is that we have more families in the private rented sector, where they have been subject to fluctuations in rent and fewer rights. We are seeking to address that through the renters reform legislation but also the investment in social housing and dealing with temporary accommodation. One of the biggest issues that has come up time and again—and this goes back to our discussions about local authority finances—is the sheer number of children who are living in temporary accommodation. It is completely unacceptable but also has a big impact on their learning and on attendance at school. Housing, access to the labour market and childcare are some of the key issues that we have looked at from the evidence and that we have heard about directly from parents and those living in poverty—those with lived experience of this—in terms of what it means to them.

Making sure that families can access high-quality, affordable and flexible early education and childcare is critical to the work that we are doing across the Department for Education, which is why we have provided over £8 billion in 2025-26 for early years entitlements, which is expected to increase to over £9 billion in 2026-27. We recognise that some parents will be eligible for some of the universal offers that are there, but the offer is focused on supporting parents into work. The roll-out that we delivered in September was a big piece of work that the Department led, and it was far from guaranteed that it would be a success. I inherited a commitment that had been made to parents with no plan to deliver it, and no funding set aside for it. In addition, we have worked really closely with local authorities and providers to make sure that the places are there, particularly in areas where we know that there have been bigger shortages over the years, and our school-based nurseries programme is partly about responding to that, and shaping the market and creating the places where they do not currently exist. I recognise that we have a system that has evolved over time, with extra entitlements and other eligibility bolted on, rather than it being done in a coherent way. As we set out at the Budget, that is why we will be leading a review of childcare provision. The purpose of that review is to simplify the system for families, making it easier to access childcare, and to increase the overall impact of the Government’s offer. That will involve looking at what we spend and how we spend it. I would just say that, when it comes to support for disadvantaged children and families in particular, we almost doubled the early years pupil premium to provide that kind of support, so that it was easier for parents and families to access what they need. To the point made earlier about looking at the evidence, we are working with the Education Endowment Foundation to understand what impact that targeted funding has delivered. I appreciate that there remain other areas for consideration, and through the review we will look closely at them.

We are investing more through the early years pupil premium, and we have also worked to provide a £75 million grant in 2025-26 to support the sector in this pivotal year, as we secure the successful roll-out of the expansion. We will be able to say more about rates before long, but the amount that we are spending, which is expected to increase to over £9 billion in 2026-27—in what is a very challenging fiscal context—demonstrates this Government’s commitment to early education and making sure that our children get the best start in life.

I want to emphasise our thanks to Professor Becky Francis and the panel for their excellent work and what they have brought forward in the review. It gives us really clear direction on making sure that children have a strong academic core running alongside a broad curriculum, to make sure that all our children are really well prepared for the next steps in their journey. Obviously, we considered all the review’s recommendations carefully. On English and maths in particular, we instead decided to ask schools to carry out their own assessments in maths and writing during key stage 3, as many of them already do. We chose to focus our efforts on the year 8 reading test because reading unlocks the rest of the curriculum. We know that you cannot enjoy or study maths, geography or any other subject if you are not able to read fluently and confidently, so we took a decision to prioritise; sometimes you cannot do everything, but we will be working with schools to ask them to carry out their own assessments in maths or writing. I do believe that reading is the way to unlock the school curriculum for many young people, not least given the big challenges that we see in the transition from primary to secondary. I believe that a year 8 reading test will really focus efforts on improving standards around reading. Alongside that, next year is the National Year of Reading. I know that the Committee has just launched an inquiry into the changes we have seen over time in children’s reading patterns and whether they still enjoy reading. I look forward to working with the Committee on that. I think it will be an exciting year as we launch the National Year of Reading to support our young people to love it and enjoy it, as well as having to have the foundations that they need.

Yes, through formative assessment rather than through a statutory national test.

They will not be published at a national level. This is not about having a list and a ranking of schools; it is about schools being able to better track and assess the progress of their students in this critical area. We have heard evidence from many experts about the importance of reading and the importance of key stage 3 overall. It is an area of school life that has not had the attention and focus that it deserves.

As you say, the review found that the EBacc did not translate into students studying subjects such as history and languages at 16 to 19, and it did not shift the take-up of modern languages at GCSE either. That is why we are bringing in this change, because we felt that student choice was unnecessarily constrained and that the change will deliver an improved version of progress 8, which we will also consult on alongside that. I completely agree about the importance of modern languages. I am a keen student of modern languages, although probably not quite to your level. It is important that young people have these opportunities. One of the key areas that the review looked at was, again, the transition from primary to secondary, including the variability of what students study at primary and whether that sets them up for continued language study at secondary. For example, it is not unusual for a child to study, say, Spanish at primary school only to arrive at a secondary school where that is not available as an option. We lack that continuity. The review also identified a number of geographical areas in which language take-up had been increased through better collaboration across the local area on some of those key areas. We are keen to seek to do more on languages take-up, which equips young people with important skills and opportunities, including the ability to work and travel.

It is an area that we always keep under review, but we have obviously just had a big curriculum assessment review that has set out rather a lot that we need to be to be getting on and doing. To be honest, there is also a challenge, given that English is such a well-spoken language across the world. That is not to say that I do not want our young people to study modern foreign languages, but the ease with which we can all travel around the world and speak English does sometimes make it a bit trickier to persuade students that it might be for them. I do not take much persuading of that personally, but I think some young people might.

I believe that the current progress 8 structure has hampered progress in subjects that strengthen our economy and our society, including the arts. That is why we will consult on an improved progress 8 measure that recognises the value of those subjects and balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice. I believe that access to a broad and rich curriculum should be the right of every child. In recent years, that has been too constrained. I do not see this as a question of academic standards in opposition to breadth; I think the two are complementary. I believe we can deliver strong academic standards alongside a breadth and a richness that engage students and allow them to study subjects that will connect to the world of work and future careers and to big areas for our economy. We all recognise the enormous contribution of the creative arts sector, for example, and the fact that there are many fantastic jobs there. That is why I think we have struck the right balance with the changes that we will consult on around progress 8.

We have not set a timeline for it, but we have set the ambition. It is important to set the ambition—if you were not ambitious, you would never achieve anything. We think it is important that triple science is available to all students who wish to study it. Currently, access is uneven. Disadvantaged pupils are less likely to enter triple science; in 2024-25 it was 12.5%, versus 27.5% for non-disadvantaged students. I recognise that delivering it presents challenges. It means that we need more subject specialists and that we will have to work in parts of the country where there is more of a challenge already. However, it is encouraging that one of the biggest increases that we have seen in initial teacher training has been in physics this year. We are making progress and moving in the right direction. The reason for the commitment is that I want young people to have that opportunity. It is a key lever for progression. Pupils who study separate sciences are more likely to go on to study a science at A-level and more likely to study it at degree level. It is not for every young person—not every young person will want this—but I do not think young people should be denied the opportunity by virtue of where they are. We will work with the sector on some of the barriers and the challenges that we face, particularly around staffing and timetabling, but I believe it is the right level of ambition to set.

You go first, Susan, and then I will add some political points.

We are taking action in the key areas where we know we need to recruit and retain more teachers. The emphasis that we have put on education as a central driver, and making teaching an attractive place to be in terms of both pay and the wider changes around workload and wellbeing, is important in that context too. There are, of course, wider changes that we are seeing across the labour market, but it is encouraging that some of the targeted work that we have been doing, including with the sector and the campaigns we have been running around teaching, is bearing fruit, including in FE. There is more to do right across the board—I would be the first to admit that—but it is welcome and sets us on the right path to delivering that triple science entitlement.

Teaching about democracy and elections goes hand in hand with extending votes to 16, to make sure that young people are engaged positively around this. I stress that schools have to maintain their duties of political impartiality, but of course, schools are an important place where people, through education, can challenge, question and debate issues that matter to them. Through the curriculum assessment review, we have set out that we will publish new programmes of study for key stages 1 and 2. For the first time, there will be improved study around citizenship at primary, with revised programmes for secondary school citizenship to make sure that all young people receive that strong grounding in a range of topics, including understanding democracy, Government and the law, as well as areas of media literacy and being able to consider what is in front of them. That is particularly important in a world where so much misinformation and disinformation is pushed towards our young people, including from those who would wish our country harm. We will consult on programmes of study next year. The new national curriculum will be published in 2027, for first teaching in 2028. Of course, there is nothing to stop schools making progress on this already. Many schools teach this incredibly well and seek to engage young people in understanding our society, the rule of law and democracy—of course, all within the confines of their important duties around political impartiality.

As you know, we inherited draft guidance that applied to children and young people in schools. We have been looking very carefully at that, working with stakeholders, and we intend to publish the guidance. I think it was right that we made sure that the guidance aligned with the final recommendations from Dr Hilary Cass; the previous draft was published ahead of her full and final review. This is an important and delicate area given that we are talking about children and young people and their wellbeing. I do recognise that schools have sought guidance in key areas, and we want to provide that. Running alongside the need for the guidance around gender-questioning children, in July we published revised RHSE guidance that gives schools the ability to explore these areas sensitively and delicately. We all want to see children who need support getting the support that is required. Often with schools there are important practical considerations that apply—I appreciate that—but we are talking about children’s wellbeing, so it is important that we tread with care in this area.

We are still reviewing the draft non-statutory guidance. We have been looking through the consultation responses, discussing it with stakeholders and considering the evidence, including the final report of Dr Hilary Cass. I do want to get this right. I want to make sure that schools have the guidance that they need. There is a separate discussion taking place where some of these questions apply to adults around sex and gender. There are differences where it applies to children, including where schools are already required to provide separate toilets and changing facilities for children, depending on age.

I am afraid I am not able to give you a date. I do recognise its importance, but I also believe that it is important that we get this right for young people and their wellbeing and for schools, so that they are confident and clear about the guidance that is set out.

It will be non-statutory guidance, but we do expect schools to follow and implement guidance that is set out for them. I believe that in this area schools are seeking to do the right thing. These are questions about young people and their wellbeing. We can sometimes be talking about young people experiencing distress or serious challenges in their life. School leaders seek to address that sensitively, and we would expect them to do so in this area. I am sorry that I cannot put a date on it for you, but I do recognise the importance of clarity.

FE colleges, like many public bodies, cannot recover the VAT they incur, whereas some educational institutions can. We keep all taxes under review. Any changes would need to be considered in the context of the broader public finances, and matters around taxation are ultimately above my pay grade, I’m sorry to say.

We cannot accept the recommendation because we are not in a position to make any changes in this area in the wider context of the public finances. Of course, we continue to discuss with the Treasury all questions that relate to funding for education settings, and this is an area that is frequently raised with me, not just here but in settings across the country, as I am sure you will appreciate.

I’m afraid I cannot talk about the discussions that took place during that process, and what might or might not have been considered. But I do recognise that this is an issue that comes up time and again.

Understood.

I do recognise the long-standing challenge in this area. As you will know, FE colleges, rather than the Government, are responsible for setting and negotiating pay within colleges. When it comes to the recommendation around a statutory pay review body, I appreciate the Committee’s interest in this area. All statutory FE providers were incorporated under the terms of the 1992 Act, which gave them autonomy over pay and contractual terms, and therefore we do not set that. Through maximising funding into FE and into 16 to 19, we are seeking to make progress on this. It is a big, long-standing challenge. According to the latest statistics, the average salary for teachers in FE colleges increased by 6% in the last year for which figures are available. We are investing more into FE: from the SR, we will invest nearly £800 million extra on top of the original £400 million announced in 2025–26, so we are serious about prioritising investment in FE. In specific areas, such as construction, we have been working closely with the sector on routes into teaching for those with experience, alongside industry placements, and we have been making sure we are recruiting more people. Some of what we were talking about earlier around incentive payments will also apply in FE. We are seeing some positive progress in that area but, as I have said, this is a very long-standing gap that has opened up over an extended period of time.

We want to deliver a fantastic education for every child, and inspection has to be a part of that. The new framework is about recognising where schools are doing things really well, and celebrating that success, as well as providing more granular insight into areas where there is scope to work with schools to do more. It is worth saying that the roll-out of the first inspections under the new arrangements began on 10 November—that is on the basis of volunteers who came forward to be part of that. The routine programme is now under way, from December. The early feedback to Ofsted has been positive in many areas. It has made it a more collaborative process, with leaders saying they really value the fact that HMIs are leading the inspections. In our accountability statement that we have set out, alongside the work that Ofsted has done, we have been clear that, of course, staff wellbeing ought to be a key consideration. Of course we want to make sure that staff feel that this is being done with them, rather than to them. But we need to make sure that we identify where challenges exist, because children get only one opportunity at school. It is right, therefore, that we expect the very best for our children, but we need to make sure it is done in a way that is proportionate and celebrates what schools are doing well, as well as identifying further areas for improvement within schools. My view is that under the system that came before, when I would read an Ofsted report it would capture very little about what a school was doing, including the things that I think parents would want to see and value, as well as the areas where they might want further challenge. This is, I think, a better system that will have a stronger focus on key areas like achievement, attendance and, crucially, inclusion. We talked a lot about SEND earlier; for the first time, inclusion is a really central part of this new framework. That is important in driving the change that we need to see across the system, with all schools being part of that shift, particularly on mainstream inclusion.

One of the key areas that teaching unions, and particularly headteachers’ unions, raise is not just the nature of inspection but its quality and consistency, and the judgments that arise from that. That is why Ofsted are doing further work on how to ensure greater consistency in terms of validating their judgments and the outcomes. Dame Christine Gilbert, the new chair of Ofsted, will bring welcome expertise and insight into the work that Ofsted leads. I have spoken with her about much of this—about making sure that parents have confidence in the system as well as making sure that staff feel their voices are heard. There is of course a balance in all this. It is important that we hear what school leaders have to say, through their trade unions, but we also have to balance that with our responsibilities, as a Government, for making sure that there is high-quality education and standards for all children. I am acutely aware that it is often children from less well-off backgrounds and working-class children who have the most to lose when standards and expectations are not as high as they should be. There is a balance in all of this. I know that Ofsted are keen to make sure that as this new framework rolls out, it is done in a way that takes the sector with them.

This is one example of a number of areas where it is important that we start to make change happen ahead of the White Paper. The fact that inclusion is, for the first time, a central part of the new Ofsted framework is a critical way that we will make change happen right across the system. It is also why—taken together with the capital we are investing in creating more places, the wider work we have under way on investing in training for staff, and much more besides—we are starting the process of change that is already under way well ahead of any longer-term reforms that we set out through the White Paper. I have heard from many parents, as well as from people across the system, that they want to ensure that all schools are doing what they can on inclusion. This is a chance for schools to really shine and demonstrate what they are doing well. While I recognise that inspection carries with it, in some senses, quite big challenges for staff and for schools, it also carries with it the chance to demonstrate what is working well, what they can be proud of and what parents can see. Through the new approach, and the way it will identify areas for improvement as well as areas of real strengths, parents will get a much clearer sense of a school’s performance.

Mobile phones have no place in our schools, and school leaders already have the powers to ban them. Through what you have just said, you have identified that school leaders already have the power to take action in that way.

No school leader, teacher or anyone in education should face what you have just described—it is completely unacceptable—but school leaders do have the powers to ban phones in schools. Your example demonstrates that they have the powers to do that. We have also seen that it has sometimes been done on a local authority-wide basis. That can be an effective way for schools to manage that. Of course, schools will sometimes wish to make small exemptions—for example, for reasons connected to disability—and it is right that they are able to do that. But the evidence we have is that phones are already prohibited, and schools should enforce that. Where there is a genuine question is on the connection to wider behaviour and enforcement, and we want to work with schools to make that happen. I would slightly caution against some of the challenges that can sometimes present in different contexts. I want school leaders to implement the approach that is right for them. For example, some school leaders have taken the decision to use pouches. That is a route that is available to them, and I support schools in making the choice that is right for them in their context. Equally, some will have introduced an outright ban. There are different ways of doing this, but I can be absolutely clear that phones should not be disrupting lessons, and they have no place in our schools. What you have just set out about the approach that your school leaders are taking demonstrates that they have the powers to act. Sadly, the abuse that they are facing, or have faced, from a small minority of parents is completely unacceptable. They have my full backing in doing what they believe to be the right thing for their school and their community.

The guidance is already clear that schools should prohibit the use of phones throughout the school day, including breaktimes and lunch times. We expect schools to take steps in line with that guidance, but there are different ways for schools to implement that.

We are expanding NHS mental health support teams to provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school by 2029-30, and we estimate that by April next year an additional 900,000 pupils in schools and learners in FE will be covered by a mental health support team—around 6 million in total, or 60% of all pupils and learners, which is up from around 5 million in 2025. We are investing more into that. Alongside expanding mental health support teams, we are also recruiting more mental health staff to support both children and adults, making sure they have easy and early access to mental health support.

By next year, we will have covered 60% of pupils. We want to move rapidly to get to every school by 2029-30, but we have made significant progress. Almost an extra million pupils and learners will by next April be benefiting from a mental health support team. I have visited one school that is already taking part. What is especially powerful is the join-up between what happens in school and access to ongoing treatment and support, especially for the children whose needs are most acute. Again, this is part of the way in which we can stop problems escalating. Because this is connected to NHS treatment and services, it can then lead to onward progression where needs are more serious.

I welcome the evidence and research put forward by the Education Policy Institute. It seems self-evident that if children are not in school, they are less likely to succeed in school. Some of the challenges we have seen around attendance have particularly affected certain groups. We are moving in the right direction on persistent absenteeism. There is more to do, but we are seeing progress. There remains a challenge around severe absence, some of which is connected to access to CAMHS and the long-standing challenges we are seeing. I believe there has been too casual an attitude for far too long about tackling underperformance, especially when it comes to our more disadvantaged young people. That is why we are strengthening school improvement and rolling out RISE teams, in order to target those schools that have been struggling for the longest period of time. That is more likely to cover communities of greater challenge, with disadvantaged students as a part of that. There is a deep and genuine issue around the attainment gap that affects disadvantaged students. It is a key area that we are considering ahead of the schools White Paper, but it also goes to those questions around teaching and making sure we have high-quality specialist teachers, since we know that disadvantaged young people often face challenges around access to specialist provision.

It has to be a combination. Attendance is clearly a critical factor and has been a real focus of effort from this Government. We have seen real progress around persistent absenteeism in particular—young people who are regularly missing more than 10% of their time in school. From January, our new attendance and behaviour hubs will be providing intensive support to 5,000 schools. To make sure they are working together and learning from other similar schools, we have done quite a lot around data sharing between schools, to understand patterns and how they can learn from one another, including where they have a similar cohort of young people—what could school A do in learning from school B? We have seen a significant reduction in persistent absence to 18.7%, which is down from 20.7% last year. That equates to 140,000 fewer persistently absent pupils, which is promising and good, but it is not enough. We have to push further because every day that a child misses in school is a day that they lose from their learning. What I also hear from teachers is that it can obviously cause disruption to the wider class environment in the work that they have to cover and the challenges it presents for everyone.

Work is ongoing with Ofsted on tackling the practice of off-rolling, where children are removed from school rolls without formal permanent exclusion. We are clear that it is completely unacceptable; schools should not be seeking to game the system, and we continue to work with Ofsted to tackle that. When it comes to the work that we are delivering through RISE, it is worth saying that this is about working with the schools that are facing the greatest challenges over an extended period of time, or what people often refer to as stuck schools, where progress has not been satisfactory. This can include schools where structural change has already taken place. I continue to believe that structural change is often the right and necessary step when standards are not improving. Sadly, many of the stuck schools have already been through intervention and structural change, and progress has been too slow. We are working with a significant number of schools through the programme. As of September 2025, we had identified a significant number that were eligible for support, and the number of schools implementing targeted RISE as of September is 197. This is a new programme, and it is one that we are keen to get right and learn as we go. It represents the single biggest shift in addressing some of the long-standing challenges that some schools will face. In some cases, we are talking about schools that, in their entire history, have never even reached a level of “good”, in old money, in an Ofsted inspection over what could be a decade, so some of these challenges are deep-rooted. We want to learn about how this works as we go. Many of our best trusts are involved in supporting this work, and there are particular challenges in certain parts of the country and certain communities, such as coastal communities, where we are keen to see what lessons in certain areas might be applicable elsewhere.

This is not a replacement for structural intervention, where that is the right and necessary thing to do. In many cases, RISE schools are schools that have already been through that structural intervention, yet we are still seeing progress that is too slow. It has to be a question of both. If the school is not currently an academy, and if RISE does not deliver the progress that we need, we retain the ability to take action on structural intervention, if that is what is needed. That remains important, but clearly, for some schools, this just has not worked over a period of time. The focus that we are bringing on brilliant school leaders with a track record in turning around schools that have faced these challenges is a critical part of the programme.

We committed to introducing an international student levy through the immigration White Paper. We looked at the best way of implementing that levy. I want to stress that international students make an important contribution to our country and institutions. We have engaged with the sector on this and set out our plans around a flat fee of £925. That is broadly equivalent to 4.5%—so a reduction from the 6% level initially proposed in the immigration White Paper. We are going to use that money, as we discussed earlier, to fund skills support and the introduction of new targeted maintenance grants. I believe that strikes the right balance in recognising the important contribution of international students, but being able to reinvest directly into support for domestic students as well.

I am not sure of the exact figures.

It is an important step forward and reintroduces the principle of maintenance grant support for the first time in many years. It aligns with the introduction of the international student levy, so the money raised through the levy will be reinvested into support for domestic students. It is not the only way that we can continue to widen participation and access across higher education. Institutions themselves have a role to play in that. We are working with them through the regulator, the Office for Students, on how we do that. I believe that it is an important step forward and reintroduces the principle of maintenance support through a grant basis for the first time in many years.

Well, let’s see. It is an important shift and a step forward. It is clearly only one part of a wider approach needed around access and participation. There is also more that we will want to see from providers in working together to collaborate to ensure that young people are aware of the benefits and opportunities that come of university education. While we have seen an increase in young people going to university, that has not been felt universally both in terms of geography and background. There are still wider challenges connected to the funding landscape but also that go beyond it. There is a role for providers and working together, perhaps on a regional basis, on some of that.

I understood that the public finances were under significant pressure. That had been the case for some time. As the Chancellor set out, the impact of austerity, the impact of Brexit and the impact of the decisions taken at Liz Truss’s mini-Budget have all placed considerable strain on the public finances. That means we have had to take the right and necessary decisions to stabilise the economy. That is why it is so encouraging that we have seen interest rates cut five times under this Government. There is more to do, and we hope that the Bank of England will be able to consider this further in the months and years to come. The Budget has also delivered big cost of living improvements for working people, whether that is through taking £150 off energy bills or through other measures. Critically, in terms of what we do in the Department for Education, the big expansion in free school meals, breakfast clubs and lifting the two-child limit will all make a material difference to families across our country. We cannot expect to be a productive and vibrant economy if we consign 4.5 million children in our country to poverty.

I think it is clear that the public finances were under considerable strain.

We talked earlier about the challenges that we are facing around SEND, the deficits that exist and the pressures that will continue to rise without action. Again, I emphasise that the starting point is about children and their life chances. I think your questions about the nature of discussions with the OBR that were conducted by the Treasury would probably be best directed to the Chancellor and the Treasury.

We want to publish the schools White Paper early next year. I do appreciate how strongly parents feel about this topic. I recognise the need for change and I have heard that from parents, but I also recognise that change brings uncertainty and that it causes concern among parents even where they recognise that the system is not working as it should. That is why I take my responsibilities incredibly seriously in this area. I think it was right that we took the time to go through the process that is under way at the moment around engaging with parents and key stakeholders, around the process of co-creation. I urge parents—I urge anyone right across education or anyone with an interest in this topic—to take part in either the face-to-face or the online events, so that they can share their views. This is a genuine process that they can be involved in shaping, so that we can have a system of support for children with SEND that puts in place the right support, that is less adversarial and that identifies need and puts in place support much earlier than is the case right now. I think we have a really big and genuine opportunity to deliver a better and improved system. I know the challenges that are there and I know that for many parents it can feel like there isn’t light at the end of the tunnel, but this is their chance to shape what we do. This is a key area that is central to all the work we will take forward in the months to come. I welcome the work that the Committee has done. That has been important in our work—in understanding some of these key areas. But ultimately, what matters most is that we get this right, because the pressures are acute for families and parents, and children are being failed by a system that is not working for them. I appreciate that it can be unsettling. Sadly, I cannot control some of what gets carried by way of rumour in newspapers. But this is a genuine process. No final decisions have been taken on any aspect of reform, but we are already driving change across the system, ahead of longer-term reform, through many of the areas we have talked about today, for example more specialist provision in mainstream education.

Yes.