Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Damian Hinds and Caroline Nokes

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I gently suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that we are meant to be debating the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Report, and the amendments and new clauses.

[Damian Hinds]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; indeed we are. In fairness to the hon. Lady, there is a connection, but it is important to say that we did not say no to a ban in 2024. We said that we would start with non-statutory guidance, with the option to make that guidance statutory.

Yes, children’s usage of mobile phones has continued. People say, “Phones are banned in all schools anyway.” That is true, and I doubt there is a school in the whole country that says, “Yeah, it’s okay, just whip out your phone in the middle of an English lesson.” Everybody has various restrictions. However, if we look at the survey data, we see that there is a bit of a hierarchy; we can listen to Ministers, headteachers, classroom teachers or kids. The further down that list we go, the more we hear people saying, “Phones are about, particularly in breaks and at lunch time.” That, to me, is part of the school day; this is not just about lesson time.

“Chapter 4A

Debate between Damian Hinds and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady is in fact making her speech, rather than an intervention. [Interruption.] Oh, her speech will come tomorrow.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Member is right: of course those things are different, but with the dawning realisation I had back then, I started to wonder who else might take a zero-hours contract? Yes, it is true that disproportionately they are young people, but for quite a lot of people a zero-hours contract is for a second job. I would be interested to hear from the Government their assessment of that. It turned out, when we looked at this in 2016, that one of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in the country was none other than the national health service, so that it could cope with increases in demand. These were people who had a permanent job as well, but who could, as bank staff, supply other hours when that was needed.

For this Government, it is totemic to do something about zero-hours contracts because of that Labour mythology. For the unions, there is also another reason. This is classic insider-outsider theory, with a shift in remuneration from people who are not in work to people who are already in work, and it pushes up what is called the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. In plain English, it is bad for jobs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that because, as we all know, she is most definitely an economist—she has worked as an economist, she has trained as an economist and she is an economist—and this is classical economic reality.

For whom might zero-hours contracts work well? They work well for any employer with an unpredictable, variable need for workers—from the events business to the NHS, as I have mentioned—and there are other obvious cases in tourism, agriculture and food. However, some people may just choose to have that flexibility. Over the last two years it has been a seller’s market to go into teaching, but some people have still chosen to become a supply teacher because, for whatever reason, for them that works well.

The other group for whom this may work are those furthest from the labour market, who have perhaps been out of work for a very long time, who perhaps are ex-offenders, or who for some other reason find it difficult to immediately land a regular, full-time job. When this is combined with universal credit—which, by the way, the right hon. Member for Islington North also wanted to abolish—it can work very well, because the top-up payment can be adjusted according to how much someone earns week to week.

This Bill is bound to have unintended consequences. We do not know exactly which ones they will be, but I will suggest some of them. It could suppress seasonal peaks in employment—for tourism in the summer, but also at Christmas time—because employers will not want to take on the liability from the reference period. It could deter people from second jobs, which will be bad for growth. It could mean people move from contracted employment to self-employment or casual work. It could mean a move from permanent contracts to temporary contracts and, yes, it could hit our national health service and other important public sector employers.

I do not doubt that this piece of legislation will be good for unions, but it will be bad for the economy and bad for growth, and it will be especially bad for people in the hardest circumstances who so badly want to get back to work, and for whom this kind of contract can also be that important first step.

Finance Bill

Debate between Damian Hinds and Caroline Nokes

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

Thank you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Member will know full well that it is for me to decide if the hon. Lady’s intervention is too long.

[Nesil Caliskan]

The right hon. Member may also recognise that the Government have been clear that when special educational needs are being met in the private sector, VAT will not apply.

Endometriosis Education in Schools

Debate between Damian Hinds and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

Apologies for not having dug around in any great detail in the very recently released guidance, and I absolutely appreciate that this is a debate about endometriosis, but what we might call problem periods can cover a whole range of conditions. We heard evidence on my Committee from Vicky Pattison, who talked about her severe pre-menstrual stress—I cannot remember the precise acronym—and Naga Munchetty spoke of adenomyosis, which I have finally learned how to pronounce. Are both those conditions also included? Teaching young girls to have the language around what is normal and what is not, and giving them the confidence to speak about it, is about more than just saying, “And you might get endometriosis”. There is a whole range of conditions out there.

[Damian Hinds]

To come back to my earlier point, the secondary curriculum includes more on menstrual and gynaecological health, now specifically including endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome and heavy menstrual bleeding. Beyond that, I will have to ask for my right hon. Friend’s forgiveness and ask that I may write to her or that we can follow up separately.

Ofsted will inspect schools on their delivery of the RSHE curriculum. As part of their personal development judgment, inspectors will discuss with schools whether they teach RSHE in line with the RSHE statutory guidance. The guidance is now out for consultation for eight weeks and I have a feeling that colleagues in the Chamber or some of the outside bodies they are in close touch with might take part in that consultation. We will take all responses to the consultation into account in the final version of the guidance.

We are expecting a huge amount of interest in the updated draft guidance and I can confirm from the last time that we had a consultation on draft RSHE guidance that there is, understandably and rightly, a lot of public interest. We hope to analyse that over the summer and publish a final version soon after. Schools will then require time to implement any changes to the curriculum and to consult parents about those changes. It would not be fair to expect them to deliver new content without some time to prepare for it, but where they are ready to deliver new content, they can do so immediately. Indeed, I am sure many schools already cover endometriosis when discussing healthy periods and we have encouraged that.

Following a meeting with the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis in 2021—at the time they were the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and our much-loved and much-missed late colleague Sir David Amess—the then Schools Minister agreed to update the Department’s teacher training module on the changing adolescent body so that it too included a direct reference to endometriosis. Once we have finalised the RSHE statutory guidance later this year, we will update the teacher training modules and consider whether any further support is required.

To date, we have invested more than £3 million in a central support package to increase schools’ confidence to teach such subjects, including teacher training modules, non-statutory guidance, a train the trainer programme and teacher webinars on domestic violence, pornography and sexual exploitation. They are all available on a one-stop page for teachers on gov.uk. Of course, there is always more to do to help schools and we will look at that after the publication of the guidance and when we have listened to school leaders, stakeholders and others.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North moved into some parallel important areas of mental health and her party’s concentration on mental health support in secondary school. I remind her that we are already in the process of rolling out mental health support teams across the country. We think that is important for primary as well as secondary schools and it has to be done at a pace at which we can recruit the people required for those teams. As she will know, we have also offered a training grant to all schools—primary as well as secondary—for training for a mental health lead within the existing school staff, with a high level of take-up already.

I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell for his support in securing the debate. He has raised some very important concerns, as have others. I hope that he is pleased to see the Government’s continued work to improve menstrual and gynaecological health in schools today and for future generations of women. The steps we have taken so far to improve health education are extremely important and we really want to get them right. The Government will continue to make a commitment to support the policy area because it is the right thing to do. I thank my right hon. Friend once more for his continued drive on this important subject and for bringing this crucial debate to Westminster Hall today.

Apprenticeship Levy

Debate between Damian Hinds and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), has done so much to promote apprenticeships and to ensure they are a regular subject of debate here in Parliament. There have always been very high quality apprenticeships in this country. Multinational companies in engineering and automotive have long offered apprenticeships that compete and are comparable with the very best in the world, but not all apprenticeships have been very high quality. Within sectors there have always been companies that have seen it as part of their duty, responsibility or mission to invest in the next generation coming through, but there have also always been companies that have not seen that imperative and benefit instead from the training provided by competitors.

The levy must be seen in the context of a package of measures introduced in the 2015 summer Budget and autumn statement, which included the reductions in corporation tax and included the national living wage and this third arm, the apprenticeship levy. With that package, the Government effectively said to companies, “We will give you a very competitive corporation tax regime, which will lower the hurdle for investment. It will mean that businesses can grow, but we need to make sure that people are paid properly and fairly, and we need to ensure that everybody invests in the next generation of talent coming through.”

There have been some difficulties with the levy, some of which have been referred to. One is the speed of approval of certain standards, which has got better over time but needs to carry on getting better. Fundamentally, there has been a great quality uplift in apprenticeships. Thanks to the levy, the amount of cash in apprenticeships has doubled over the decade in cash terms. We have seen a move to longer, higher level apprenticeships, and the move from so-called frameworks to standards. That is all a bit jargonistic, but it basically means that there is a more exacting standard for the apprenticeship, with a greater degree of employer approval. Effectively, business has voted for a higher standard of apprenticeship, which creates some tension against a numerical target.

I want to talk briefly about each of the three main objections to the apprenticeship levy: first, it is just a tax; secondly, it is too inflexible; and thirdly, “I can’t manage to use the whole amount.” On the first point, the apprenticeship levy is a non-optional deduction levied by Government, so it does bear some tax-like features, but it is not exactly the same as a tax. Of course, money is extracted from business as part of the overall Exchequer requirement.

Something that I discovered when I worked at the Treasury was that for every tax, there is a really good argument against it. Corporation tax? Too many companies avoid it. Business rates are a fixed cost, as we all know, and that can be difficult for certain companies. National insurance is a tax on employment. Sales tax, or VAT, may apply at an early stage of development. Even excise duty, which is based on volume, inevitably involves problems with whatever system is set up and whatever threshold is set.

It is right that we rebalance the approach over time and right that we look again at business rates and introducing a digital sales tax, because there are concerns about some companies being able to avoid corporation tax, and, conversely, there is the strain on some of our shops on the high street and elsewhere,. Fundamentally, in that suite of taxes and ways of getting money out of business, the levy solves the free rider problem when it comes to investment in skills and, relatively speaking, rewards the companies that make a greater investment. I suggest that, as part of a suite of approaches, it has an important role to play.

The second big argument is that the levy is too inflexible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow mentioned, there is always a question of re-tagging: of training that would happen anyway, or re-accrediting skills that exist already, and it is always a strain. The apprenticeship levy already covers quite a lot. Let us compare what the apprenticeship levy in the UK covers compared with the German apprenticeship system, which is commonly regarded as the gold standard in apprenticeships. The minimum specification for our apprenticeships is lower in terms of duration; the age range that it covers is considerably wider than is common practice in Germany and some other countries; and, as has been alluded to, it covers apprenticeships at numerous different levels.

We can argue legitimately that there are more things that it should be possible to use levy money for, such as pre-apprenticeship programmes, and so on, but the mathematical reality is that if we were to do that, other things being equal, we would need a higher levy or we would need to take something else out of eligibility for levy spend.

Finally, there is the objection, “I cannot spend it all.” It is worth bearing in mind, of course, that some companies do spend it all, or almost all of it. It is also true, and relevant, that sectors vary. In the engineering sector, for example, there is typically a very high apprenticeship spend. In retail and hospitality, it is typically lower. Again, we need to recognise the mathematical reality, which is that the levy is designed so that levy payers cover the apprenticeships in their own companies but also cover the cost of apprenticeships for non-levy payers. To change the system, it would be necessary to extend the scope of the levy or raise its level.

I think it is right at this point to review and reform the levy. It is legitimate to look at such things as coverage of MBAs, although it turns out that it is hard to define where the line should be drawn on post-level 6 qualifications. I think we could look more at tailoring the specifications of difference to different age groups and sectors, and I think there is an argument around pre-apprenticeships and that particular social justice agenda. The overall principle, however, is good. It has increased the amount of money and investment available for apprenticeships and skills and protected it, and it solves the free rider problem. I would say that, along with T-levels, higher level technical qualifications and our school reforms, apprenticeships are key to reforming productivity, and they deserve our support.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

I now call John Howell. Please can comments be kept to four minutes, so that the Minister and Front-Bench spokesmen have time?