Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

111A: Schedule 4, page 201, line 3, leave out “For the purposes of this Part,” and insert—
“(A1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.(B1) A framework under subsection (A1) must include information on—(a) the remuneration of school support staff,(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff,(c) the training of school support staff,(d) career progression for school support staff, and(e) related matters.(C1) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (B1), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.(D1) For the purposes of subsection (C1), the definition of “exceptional circumstances” shall be set out in regulations. (1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would change the matters within the SSSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 111A, 111B, 116A and 116B in my name seek to improve the Government’s proposal to mandate a single, detailed set of terms and conditions for all support staff.

As we debated in Committee, the status quo is not perfect. The current national joint council arrangements have significant weaknesses in their application to schools, which has led some local authorities to opt out of the Green Book terms and conditions. I hope the House will forgive me if I remind noble Lords why these amendments are necessary. First of all, we are talking about a very large workforce: about half a million people are employed within the school support staff workforce. Half of those, roughly, are teaching assistants, and the other half have a huge range of roles, literally thousands of different roles. This is a very complicated area. There is variety in roles and in pay and conditions, which reflects local needs, whether it is the organisational structure of a trust, pressures on a local authority where it opts out of the NJC, or where employers have particular needs because of geographic local market conditions. I mentioned in Committee the difference in trying to recruit an IT assistant in Cambridge versus Oldham.

The landscape is very different today from the early 2000s when the SSSNB previously existed. We now have around 2,500 trusts, with about half our schools in trusts and half in local authorities. But the innovation that we have seen in relation to pay and conditions for school support staff has of course been largely in the trust sector.

I will just recap our specific worries about the Bill as currently drafted. The first is that it will add to the complexity, workload and cost of every single school in the country at a time when we know that schools are under considerable pressure and when the Government are rightly focusing on recruitment and retention of the teaching and support staff workforce. My Amendment 111A seeks to mitigate the potential damage of this by limiting the SSSNB’s powers to creating a framework that academies must consider regarding remuneration, terms and conditions, training, career progression and related matters.

I tried to work out roughly how many role profiles the department will need to create to meet the breadth of roles that the SSSNB will cover. I think it is realistic to say that across about 22,000 schools and around 2,500 trusts, there will literally be thousands of ways of dividing up and specifying roles, so that if the SSSNB is to try to articulate role profiles in detail, it will have to produce thousands of them. We just debated the power of AI; maybe these are all going to be drafted by AI—who knows? If not, it could take a very long time.

I will just give one example of the complexity of this. If we think just about finance roles in schools and trusts, they could vary from the chief financial officer of a large trust to the chief operating and financial officers in medium-sized trusts who manage estates and technology, through finance directors of smaller trusts who might be more like executive business managers in larger trusts, and to finance directors in single-academy trusts who have a role not unlike a business manager in a maintained school, but with more accountability. Then we have finance managers, finance assistants, management consultants, senior management consultants, financial accountants, finance business partners, payroll managers—the list goes on. These are all in endless combinations that change over time as trusts and schools grow, shrink and change. The same is true for HR, technology, data and projects, as well as pastoral roles.

This illustrates that we are looking at a vast undertaking, and more importantly a needless one, given my Amendment 111A and the Government’s very welcome Amendment 112 and associated amendments that clarify that there cannot be an agreement that cuts the pay of a school support staff member. But any national framework that fails to acknowledge this reality risks becoming either so vague as not to be useful or too rigid to serve communities effectively. We have not had clarity yet from the Government about how this is going to be addressed in the real world.

We are also worried that there is no estimate at all for the additional costs that this approach will create for schools, and my Amendment 116B aims to address this. It seems extraordinary to introduce a measure that will increase costs to schools and costs to the public purse without working out how much that would be. I do not know whether the Minister can update the House on that point.

Our final concern is that the Government’s Amendment 112 will not fully address the ability of trusts to innovate and improve the terms for their support staff, which, rightly, the Government have as their priority for recruitment and retention. As I read it, it appears to say that new subsections (2) to (5), introduced by Schedule 4 on page 207, do not apply if each individual term and condition is to the advantage of the employee. I phrased that in a positive sense; the amendment is phrased the other way around.

Across the House, I hope we are keen that innovation around terms and conditions is possible where it provides an advantage to the employee in the round, but not necessarily looking at every element separately. For example, some trusts currently have a policy that everybody who joins in a child-facing role must either have or work towards achieving a level 3 qualification. That is clearly good for children. It leads to higher pay, which is good for the member of staff. But the duty on an employee to work towards a level 3 qualification is clearly a new requirement on that employee. My understanding is that anything that requires a person to acquire a qualification or undertake training is not defined as an improvement in their terms and conditions. An employee could reasonably say, “I don’t have to do that under the new national terms and conditions”, even where the unions think it is a good idea and other employees are in favour of it. So trusts would not be able to stick with such approaches, which benefit children and staff. I hope that the Minister can confirm that my understanding of this is right.

It is frequently the case that contracts for support staff in trusts are constructed very differently from those in the maintained sector. If contracts specify that hours, holidays, allowances, pay scales et cetera are set out in a completely different way from the SSSNB terms and conditions, but the overall impact is better for everyone, why would we want to rule this out?

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, kindly met the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and me last week. She pointed out that school support staff are the only public sector workforce without a pay negotiating body. She is right about that but, if the Government are interested in the outcomes rather than the process, my amendments, particularly Amendment 111A, achieve their aims but avoid complexity and cost.

We believe that the Government have addressed the issue of setting a floor not a ceiling on pay, but, although I understand it is their intention to address innovation, the amendment as drafted does not address the reality of innovation and improvements of terms and conditions—hence my Amendment 111B. I hope that the Minister is able to be clear when she sums up that the Government agree with me and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and that we can find a way to address this effectively. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, may I rather impudently congratulate the Government on their Amendments 112 to 116 and 117 to 119? In Committee, I moved a series of amendments to similar effect; namely, that the output of the negotiating body should not impose a detriment to existing terms and conditions and should permit any enhancement to existing terms and conditions by negotiation or otherwise. I am not so immodest as to imagine that there is any causal connection between my amendments in Committee and the appearance of these amendments on Report. I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also had amendments to similar effect; it may be that she had much more traction with my noble friends on the Front Bench than I had. Whatever the process—it is of course irrelevant—I congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench for the introduction of these amendments, which make solid that this is a floor and not a ceiling.

--- Later in debate ---

Before I move en bloc the government amendments laid in my name, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to withdraw Amendment 111A.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but important debate. My noble friend Lord Agnew, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, gave good, practical examples of the risk of this approach and of undoing some of the good and innovation that have happened in the sector over several years.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said he thought we might be dancing on the head of a pin. He may be right, but there is a fundamental principle at the heart of this, which seems to differ between the Department of Health and the Department for Education, about the amount that you trust leaders in the sector to take these decisions. We have seen really positive change in the education sector in relation to school support staff as a result of innovation and of delegation to school and trust leaders. We on these Benches regret that recentralisation very much, and what appears to be a change and diverging policies between two government departments.

The Minister said that we would not have a one-size-fits-all approach. I tried to be clear in my remarks that we will not have a one-size-fits-all approach; that clearly cannot happen. We will have several thousand sizes, and that is just unworkable. I know the Minister does not agree, but I think that is the reality.

The Minister talked about ample room for innovation but not wanting a two-tier system. I find it hard to follow the logic. If we have enough room for flexibility, by definition, there will be evolution. There will be a floor but, rightly, there will be differences in different areas.

I understood the Minister to say—she will correct me if I misunderstood—that the Government would cover any costs associated with these changes. I remind her that the Government imposed the new employers’ national insurance contribution and have not covered all the costs for schools. Schools are having to try to cover part of it themselves. I hope that, in this case, we can take her word literally that it will be 100% of the cost.

One the one hand, I do not think we disagree about innovation, but on the other the Minister did not address the two examples I gave of where it is the package of conditions that is innovative and to the advantage of an individual employee. Her Amendment 112 seems to me—I am not a lawyer—to have been extremely carefully framed. It says:

“Subsections (2) to (5) … do not apply in relation to a term or condition”—


that is singular—

“to the extent that, giving effect to the agreement would alter the term or condition to the person’s detriment”.

It goes on in new paragraph (b) to say,

“do not prevent the terms and conditions”—

plural—

“of a person’s employment from including a term or condition”,

here it is singular,

“that is more favourable to the person than that which would otherwise have effect”.

When I talk to leaders in the sector, they are worried. They put together a package of conditions. I gave the example of where someone has a requirement to reach a level 3 qualification and is then entitled to higher pay, which benefits children and that individual. The Minister did not address that point, and I am left not with a concern that we want a different thing, although I have a nagging doubt that this phrasing would exclude that, but with the reality that, as drafted, we need my Amendment 111B. I shall test the opinion of the House when we come to that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 111A.

Amendment 111A withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

111B: Schedule 4, page 201, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) The SSSNB must not restrict employers from introducing innovative or improved terms and conditions of employment beyond the national framework, provided that such terms meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the SSSNB from blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions.