Catherine McKinnell and Stephen Morgan gave evidence.

Q We now move on to the Ministers on the Bill. We all know who you are, but can you give us your formal titles?

The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell):

I am Catherine McKinnell, the Minister for School Standards.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan):

I am Stephen Morgan, the Minister for Early Education.

Q We have heard from four or five different school leaders today alone that the Bill needs to be changed to deliver what the Government are committed to rhetorically, not just on pay and conditions, but on the national curriculum. They say that “It is nice that this is your intention” and “It is nice that this is what you say”, but four or five distinguished school leaders have said, specifically, over the course of the day, that the Bill needs to be amended. Will the Ministers work with those school leaders now to produce those amendments?

Catherine McKinnell:

I want to say first that the Government’s mission through the Bill—

Could you answer the question?

Catherine McKinnell:

I will answer the question.

We are supposed to be polite to each other.

We have limited time. Can you please just answer the question. I have incredibly limited time.

Order. We have had a question, and the Minister is going to answer it.

Catherine McKinnell:

The Government’s mission through the Bill is to deliver on the ambition of giving every child a national core of high-quality education, while allowing schools more flexibility and to innovate beyond it. We know that excellence and innovation can be found in all school types, so our priority is to create a school system that is rooted in collaboration and partnership so that we can spread that best practice throughout our very diverse system, which was commented on in the evidence we heard today. That is just the schools part; there is obviously a whole other section on children and safeguarding, and making sure we bring forward the landmark reforms that we need to see in child safeguarding.

In direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the factor that makes the biggest difference to a young person’s education in schools and colleges is high-quality teaching, but there are severe shortages of qualified teachers across the country. We know that they are integral to driving high and rising standards, and they need to have an attractive pay and conditions framework. That is essential to both recruiting and retaining teachers who are qualified in every classroom.

We know academies have made transformational change, and we want them to continue driving those high and rising standards for all pupils, but especially disadvantaged pupils. That is why, as the Secretary of State set out, we want to create a floor with no ceiling, enabling healthy competition and innovation beyond that core framework to improve all schools. That is what we intend to deliver. We have heard the feedback from the sector. I have listened very carefully to the evidence that has been given today.

What this means for our ambition for teachers pay and conditions is that it should be clearer. In the same way that we have tabled other amendments to the Bill to make sure the legislation delivers our objectives, we are also intending to table an amendment to the clause covering teachers’ pay and conditions. That is entirely in line with the Government’s approach to providing clarification on the intention of legislation while we go through Committee stage.

The amendment will do two things. First, it will set a floor on pay that requires all state schools to follow minimum pay bands set out in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. Secondly, it will require academies to have due regard to the rest of the terms and conditions in the school teacher’s pay and conditions document. In doing so, we make it clear that we will deliver on our commitment to create a floor with no ceiling, so that good practice and innovation can continue to spread and be used by all state schools to recruit and retain the very best teachers that we need for our children.

Q So it is still your intention to make all academies comply with the school teachers’ pay and condition document, despite what Sir Jon Coles talked about regarding the problems that that would create?

Catherine McKinnell:

As I said, the amendment will require all state schools to follow the minimum pay bands set out in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document, and then it will require academies to have due regard to the rest of the terms and conditions in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. This is so that we can deliver that core offer to all state schools, but without a ceiling.

Q Is the Minister prepared to commit to work with school leaders, both the ones here today and others, to generate that amendment so that they are all satisfied with where we end up?

Catherine McKinnell:

We are in close consultation with all of the stakeholders that we have been collaborating with to make sure we create the best framework of legislation that will deliver opportunity for all children, and we will continue to do so.

Q Is the only amendment that we will be seeing from the Government on some of the issues we talked about today on pay, with nothing on clause 43, QTS or the national curriculum? If the answer is yes, and you are not planning an amendment on those, that is fine. I just wondered if the Minister had been persuaded by any of the things discussed, particularly around clause 43 and whether it is a bit too untrammelled in its current form and did not necessarily reflect the intent as put down in the notes?

Catherine McKinnell:

I can respond to the hon. Gentleman on the new power in clause 43 that he has raised a number of times today. It will provide the Secretary of State with a more proportionate and flexible remedy, where it is really important to address quite a narrow or specific breach regarding unreasonable behaviour within an academy trust. I can give you an example as to why this is necessary: at the moment existing intervention powers require the Department for Education to use a termination warning notice and subsequently a termination notice. That is not always necessary or appropriate when dealing with an isolated breach of a legal duty.

Q I understand the sense of that.

Catherine McKinnell:

We need a proportionate response and that needs to be framed—

Q On that front we are in agreement. My question is whether the Minister would be prepared to limit that to schools’ actual duties, rather than just anything that the Secretary of State sees fit to direct them to do. That is the worry. It is not an “in principle” objection to it. It is a problem that the power is so untrammelled. Would she consider listening to the point that was made on that?

Catherine McKinnell:

Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a point that he has made on that or a point that—

Q It was a point that David made in his evidence on it. I thought he made a good point.

Catherine McKinnell:

Obviously, we will listen to legitimate concerns on that. At the moment our view is that it is a much more proportionate way of dealing with a breach by an academy of a legal requirement within the legislation, so that we can avoid disruption to children where there is another way of dealing with it.

Q One last point. Zooming back a bit, a few different witnesses called for a vision of where the system is going, and they intuited what the Government’s vision was from the contents of the Bill. I thought that was very interesting. I just wondered what Ministers’ view was of what had gone wrong in Wales. Obviously in Wales a lot of the different academy freedoms were never taken up, academies were not put in place and league tables were abolished. It was effectively a natural experiment going the opposite direction to England. The IFS report “Major challenges for education in Wales” is incredibly damning about what has happened there as a result. In terms of the Government’s overall theory and the vision they are trying to enact in the Bill, I am curious about why Ministers think things have gone so wrong in Wales. Why have things gone so backward? Why is the IFS report so damning?

Catherine McKinnell:

I am conscious that other Members of the Committee might want to actually ask about the legislation, but I am happy to set out our overarching vision.

Order. Given the shortage of time, this is moving further away from the legislation than we should allow. Can we move on to Munira Wilson?

Q It has become clear from some of the evidence today that in terms of the priorities and challenges facing schools today, it feels like some leaders have been a bit blindsided by the provisions in the schools part of the Bill. The provisions are also not really tackling the biggest challenges, which are the SEND system in crisis and the children’s mental health crisis. They are perhaps tackling problems that some leaders do not feel are there. Could you explain why you have decided to go for these measures as opposed to the areas that union leaders, school leaders and children are telling us that we really need to be focusing on? Arguably recruitment and retention is another crisis area, and some of these measures could actually hinder recruitment and retention.

Catherine McKinnell:

I would point blank refute your last assertion on the basis that any measures in the Bill are very much intended to tackle some of the challenges with recruitment and retention. We are committed to making sure that not only do we have the teaching professionals we need in our schools, but that they are suitably qualified and that we drive those high and rising standards. We know that having excellent teaching and leadership in school, and a curriculum that is built on high standards and shared knowledge, means a system that will break down the barriers that are holding children back.

On the specifics you raise in relation to mental health and other challenges in the school system, we are very alive to these issues. I am conscious that I have done all the talking so far, so perhaps Mr Morgan wants to come in on that point.

Stephen Morgan:

To echo my ministerial colleague, this is a landmark Bill, and we are really pleased to be bringing it forward so quickly in the new Government’s term. We are looking forward to working with all Members as we get into the detail of the clauses in the coming weeks.

On mental health, you will be aware of the commitment we set out in our manifesto to recruit 8,500 new mental health professionals and to introduce dedicated mental health support in every school. We also have our young futures programme. We take extremely seriously our commitments on mental health, because we know that it can be a barrier to behaviour and attendance at school. While they are not specifically included in the Bill, we will bring forward further measures to support children and young people with their mental health.

Q I would include SEND as well as being missing in the Bill, but I am conscious of time. The Children’s Commissioner in her email to the Committee last night said that we need to see an impact assessment and a children’s rights assessment. When can we expect to see those?

Stephen Morgan:

There is more work to do before presenting the impact assessment to the Committee. It is currently with the regulatory committee, but we acknowledge that this is information that should be brought before the Bill Committee, and we will do so as quickly as we can.

Q Specifically on the register of children not in school and the powers you are giving to local authorities to deny parents the right to home school their children, I go back to some of the questions I asked witnesses earlier. Why have you put in such an onerous list of information that you want from parents? Do you really need that to be able to operate an effective register? Given the state of SEND provision in our state sector, is it right that you are giving local authorities the power to say no to a parent who does not feel that their child’s needs are being met at a special school and wishes to withdraw them? Will you reconsider that, given the concerns from parents of SEND children?

Catherine McKinnell:

That was an awful lot of questions, and I am not sure whether we have time to address them all, but our fundamental approach is that all children have the right to a safe and suitable education, whether they are educated at school or otherwise. We have given quite significant consideration to, and had consultation with stakeholders on, how to get the balance right and having a proportionate approach: ensuring that local authorities can be assured that children not in school are receiving a high standard of education, which every child deserves, but not making any changes to a parent’s ability to educate their child. We absolutely support their right to do so. The information that will be required to make those determinations has been carefully thought through, but there will be an opportunity to discuss all these matters in great detail in Committee. I reject the hon. Lady’s framing of this issue, because I think it is right that we have the provisions in place to ensure that every child is safe. We have a duty to do so.

Stephen Morgan:

It is worth saying that we will engage with stakeholders to ensure that any burdens the registers impose on parents are minimised, and that we will consult on statutory guidance to support local authorities and schools to implement the measures in a proportionate way. We have heard today from witnesses about how strong those measures will be and what a difference they can make.

There is time for a few brief questions from Members.

Q How do you think the Bill will help to stop children falling through the net? How can it help to support families, in the cost of living crisis, with the costs associated with school?

Catherine McKinnell:

Those are two quite big issues. Do you want to start on cost savings, Stephen?

Stephen Morgan:

As we have heard today, too many children are growing up in poverty in our country, and that is why it is important that the ministerial taskforce concludes later this year and decides what actions can be taken forward. As of 2023, one in four children were in absolute poverty, and that is why I am so pleased with the many measures that will make a big difference to children’s lives up and down the country. Take breakfast clubs, which we know are good for attainment, behaviour and attendance: they will put £450 per child, per year, back in the pockets of parents, but also bring real benefits to children. More broadly, the commitments around uniform limits will make a real difference, as we have heard today, and will save the average parent £50. A series of measures in the Bill will make a real difference in the cost of living challenges that parents up and down the country are facing. Thank you for the question.

Catherine McKinnell:

On keeping children safe, I know that this is an area that you have spent a lot of time working in and have spoken about. The register of children not in school will be an important step, and has had cross-party support in this House for some time. We will also have the single unique identifier, which will be a way of making sure that information about a child does not fall through the gaps, and that children do not fall through the safety gap.

There is also a whole raft of changes that aim to ensure that multi-agency working is embedded in our approach to safeguarding, as well as measures to try to keep children within the family unit, wherever that is possible, and strengthen the approach to kinship care. We have put funding in place to support local kinship care arrangements and are trialling better information being available. There is a range of measures, and clearly this is a big priority for us in the Bill.

Q I am conscious that we are short of time. This Bill is really like two Bills, with the children and social care section and the schools section. Were there discussions about making it two separate Bills? You could have pressed on at all speed with the social care material, which has been around for quite a long time—some of it was in the 2022 Act. That would have enabled you to have a Green Paper, a White Paper and pre-legislative scrutiny, and perhaps to address more of the questions up front.

Catherine McKinnell:

I appreciate the premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I appreciate that he is very experienced in this place and that he has had the experience of being in government for quite some time, and having the opportunity to do all those things and make the necessary changes. We wanted to move as fast as we could to make the impact that children need to see, particularly in safeguarding. We also wanted to make the long thought-through changes to our school system to support our opportunity mission and break down those barriers to ensure that every child has every opportunity to succeed. Admittedly, we are not going to lose any time in making the changes that we want to see, and we have the opportunity in the parliamentary time allocated to us.

Ah.

Catherine McKinnell:

It is very important that we use it. We are a Government on a mission, and we have a lot of things to do.

Q How will the Bill support local partnerships? We heard from Sir Jon Coles, the Church of England, the Catholic Education Service and others about collaboration. How will the Bill support local partnerships to work together more effectively to prevent children from falling behind?

Catherine McKinnell:

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is very much at the heart of what we want to achieve through our changes to schools. We want to ensure that every child has a good school place; that every parent can be confident that their child will be taught by a qualified teacher within their local mainstream school wherever possible, being educated with their peers; that no vulnerable child falls through the cracks; and that we know where they are if they are not in school. We are making important changes on admissions to ensure that all the schools in a local area collaborate with their local authority on place planning, so that we can really deliver on that vision.

That brings us to the end of today’s sitting. The Committee will meet again at 11.30 am on Thursday 23 January to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Adjourned till Thursday 23 January at half-past Eleven o’clock.

CWSB01 Zsofia Polos

CWSB02 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CWSB03 Sam Rickman

CWSB04 Lacie Mckenna

CWSB05 Hannah Whitehead

CWSB06 Gemma Keenan

CWSB07 Liz Postlethwaite

CWSB08 Ben West

CWSB09 Education Otherwise

CWSB10 Cally Cook

CWSB11 Catherine Froud

CWSB12 Rowan and Dana Smith

CWSB13 Iain Duncan

CWSB14 Helen Murray

CWSB15 Mrs G E Leese

CWSB16 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CWSB17 Jo Rogers

CWSB18 Family Rights Group

CWSB19 Carly Bateman

CWSB20 Schoolwear Association

CWSB21 Nicola & Nigel Jenkin

CWSB22 Shelley Blakesley

CWSB23 Kinship

CWSB24 NASS (National Association of Special Schools)

CWSB25 Christopher Smith

CWSB26 Catherine Oliver

CWSB27 London Councils

CWSB28 Foundations – What Works Centre for Children & Families

CWSB29 Zoe Richards

CWSB30 C Moy

CWSB31 Confederation of Schools Trust

CWSB32 Katie Finlayson

CWSB33 Our Wellbeing, Our Voice Coalition

CWSB34 Gemma Owen

CWSB35 Liesje Wright

CWSB36 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CWSB37 Pause

CWSB38 Holly Lovell, Home educator