International Women’s Day

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

What a splendid debate we have had today.

I recognise the excellent maiden speeches we have heard. My noble friend Lady Nargund vividly described her and her family’s journey from south-west India and her family’s history of struggle, which I have no doubt will inform her contributions to our House. Given the story she told, perhaps we should hand out sweets to everybody in the House of Lords to celebrate her arrival here. I know that her NHS experience will also be brought to bear on our discussions.

I turn to my noble friend Lady Linforth. All of us who have been Labour Party members over recent years will wholly understand the comments of those who have said how much relief you feel when you see Carol Linforth, as she then was, in charge of some very tricky events. She has made a phenomenal contribution to our party. As others have noted, stopping errant nonsense from men in the Labour Party is a major contribution to political life. I welcome, as others have, her conversion from having “backroom” influence to being a strong voice in this House.

My noble friend Lady MacLeod drew on her Scottish heritage, identifying the learning and its impact on her political views, and on her role—as it was at a time when I knew her better—as a journalist. As others have said, her contribution, as poacher turned gamekeeper, to our considerations in this House of freedom of speech and the role of free journalism will be important. I was particularly proud to work with her during the last years of the previous Labour Government. She is, as others have described her, stalwart and knowledgeable, and will be a major asset to our House.

I turn to my noble friend Lady Martin. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that it was just like my noble friend to focus, as she did, not on herself but on the issues and challenges that will motivate her. From her time at the Youth Justice Board through to her time supporting government, her work alongside our first female Chancellor of the Exchequer, and her ongoing work with women in business, she will make a reality of the objectives that she set, ensuring that we do all we can in this country so that background does not determine destination. She will have a major role to play in that.

My noble friend Lady Paul told us about her family with great warmth. I have no doubt, even if she doubted it, that she will do them extremely proud. She has enormous energy. Having had the opportunity to work within the political sphere and to campaign and lobby on whether or not to have a national citizenship service and, as we have heard, on issues around boys and radicalisation, she will make a major contribution to this House.

The other amazing thing about this debate, of course, is that it identifies for us the diversity and range of women and the issues that they take up and that challenge them. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, about the Welsh women she celebrated, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, made a strong argument about the representation of Muslim women, about the range and breadth of their voice and their agency. My noble friends Lady Hunter and Lord Stansgate and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, focused on the contribution of women in science and engineering and what we need to do to ensure that it continues. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, did as she always does and ably represented disabled women and challenged us on their role: I do believe that my decision to make her chair of the Social Care Institute for Excellence was one of the better decisions I made as a Minister.

My noble friend Lady Carberry talked about women in the military, both to ensure that we provide our thanks and recognition and to raise the injustices in some of the treatment that they experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, identified the intersectionality between race and sex that sometimes causes specific issues and challenges for black and minority ethnic women, and my noble friend Lady Gill talked about the contribution of Sikh women.

I will try, in the time left, to pick up some of the key themes and respond to points raised. First, there was the issue of representation and voice. Many noble Lords noted the progress made in political representation in both Houses, certainly since I was elected in 1997, when still only 18% of the House of Commons were women. Due to action across parties—although I have to say I am particularly proud of Labour’s commitment to all-women shortlists, which was the basis for my selection and election—we have seen considerable growth, and now over 40% of the House of Commons are women. My noble friend Lady Caine also identified the growing number of women here in the Lords, as we have seen in the quality of the debate today. Given that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, will be leaving us, let me just thank her for her role here.

As she always does, and demonstrating her commitment to women’s representation throughout her distinguished career, my noble friend Lady Gale challenged me once again to say when we will introduce Section 106. We have a commitment to do so, and I hope to be able to return to her with positive news about progress. My noble friend Lady Royall identified, as did others, the challenge for women in public life now of abuse and intimidation. Having been part of it, I recognise the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, which is enormously important in tackling that, but it is all our responsibility to make sure that our politics is carried out in a way that is respectful and recognises difference, but also recognises the strong motivations that bring people into politics and does not dissuade other women from coming into a life of politics.

We are, of course, despite the progress that has been made, still in the era of firsts. I particularly welcome the reference by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby to our first female Archbishop. I know that we all send her our very best wishes. The noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, raised the challenge of the representation of women in business leadership, which, despite her leadership, still has much further to go. The Government’s Women’s Business Council, newly refreshed, is working on this area.

There was a strong theme of international concern and work in the debate, particularly from the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg, Lady Bennett and Lady Hodgson, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Bates, and my noble friends Lady Royall, Lady Brown, Lady Thornton and Lord Young. Just to be clear on this, the UK will support women and girls internationally to lead and participate in economies and societies. We champion the work of women’s rights movements, which are critical to achieving progress. We are committed to eradicating gender-based violence, including conflict-related sexual violence, technology-facilitated violence, female genital mutilation and child marriage, and to delivering on the women, peace and security agenda.

On some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, on sexual and reproductive health rights, we are taking action to advance that, as a major donor, through our diplomatic network and in collaboration with partners. In 2024, we supported UNFPA partnerships, which averted nearly 10 million unintended pregnancies, more than 200,000 maternal deaths and 3 million unsafe abortions. My noble friend Lady Chapman is a SheDecides champion, and in November 2025 she announced new UK commitments for family planning, aiming to make health and rights a reality for all.

On preventing sexual violence in conflict, in 2025, the UK PSVI programmes supported nearly 60,000 survivors of conflict-related sexual violence. We are working to refresh our approach to PSVI from 2026 onwards.

I recognise the issues raised by noble Lords about the reductions in overseas development aid, but we are committed to embedding equality meaningfully. We are retaining our agenda equality target for FCDO bilateral ODA programmes, and we will share details on strengthened measures for women and girls in due course.

On the issue of violence against women and girls—another important theme—I, as others have, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her centring of the victims of violence against women in the debate today, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for sharing his personal story. We must acknowledge that there is still work to do in the area of violence against women and girls. It is a sad reality that women and girls do not always feel safe in the communities they have helped to build. That is why it is a top priority for the Government. In December 2025, we published our VAWG strategy, which set out our mission to halve the level of these crimes within a decade. We will go further than before to deliver a cross-government, transformative approach. The strategy is backed by at least £1 billion of funding across government over the spending review period. We will, of course, report back to this House on progress on it.

I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Nye for raising and celebrating the role that Gisèle Pelicot has played with her bravery, manifesting this important requirement to ensure that the blame for violence against women, and the shame, rests where it should— with male perpetrators. I also thank my noble friend Lady Hyde for celebrating the campaigners and survivors, who make such a difference in this area. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti rightly gave voice to Virginia Giuffre in the debate today. The noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, rightly raised issues around the influence of powerful and rich men. Frankly, I have been shaken by their ability and propensity to get away with heinous crime and the fact that this has gone unchallenged—including by other men alongside them—for years on end. This means that we need to redouble our efforts, both to tackle violence against women and girls where we find it, and to strengthen the voices of women and male allies to identify and tackle wholly unacceptable behaviour, wherever it is found.

One of those places is, of course, online, as my noble friends Lady Goudie and Lady Shah and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Llanfaes and Lady Fall, identified. That is why the Government’s VAWG strategy reaffirms our Government’s commitment to tackling violence online, including intimate image abuse, which disproportionately affects women and girls. The strategy includes a clear commitment on device-level safety measures for children. To support that mission, we want to make it impossible for children to take, share or view a nude image; we are working constructively with companies to make that a reality. In the VAWG strategy, we also announced that we would legislate to ban nudification apps. The Government are meeting this commitment and will legislate in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise making, supplying or offering to supply tools that are designed to create non-consensual intimate images.

My noble friend Lady Paul was right to identify the need to support boys in how they respond to the many misogynistic influences that they face. That is why the Government, in our refreshed guidance on relationships, sex and health education, we put a particular focus on how we can challenge that and support teachers to challenge it in our schools. The UK co-leads, along with Chile, the 18-member Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse and has expanded support for StopNCII, an international tool that helps victims block or remove intimate images, along with other support internationally in this area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkins, raised in particular the issue of pornography. The Government are committed to ensuring that online pornography is properly regulated. We thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her continued commitment to driving forward that important work. We will, as part of the VAWG strategy, create a joint team to address the issues in the noble Baroness’s review, and I know that discussions will continue in this House on what more we need to do in relation to legislation to challenge this issue.

My noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lady Shah, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised the issue of the gender pay gap in the workplace. Women’s equality and economic growth go hand in hand, but we need to ensure that every organisation is harnessing the talent, creativity and brilliance of women in their workforce. That is why, although we have seen some progress on the gender pay gap, we are committed to going further. The Chancellor has vowed to close the gender pay gap once and for all and we are all getting on with the work of making that a reality. This week, we highlighted the requirement in the Employment Rights Act for businesses to develop action plans on the gender pay gap and on menopause support in the workplace; in fact, this landmark Act is a major step forward for women in terms of the gender pay gap and other areas, such as flexible working and tackling the sexual harassment that too many women have to put up with in the workplace.

My noble friend Lady Nargund and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned health. This Government have already made significant progress on improving healthcare. We are renewing the women’s health strategy to assess the progress that has been made so far and to continue progressing delivery. We will identify and remove enduring barriers to high-quality care. We have established women’s health hubs in nine out of 10 integrated care systems. These are playing a role in shifting care out of hospital and reducing gynaecology waiting lists. We have taken urgent action to tackle gynaecology waiting lists through the elective reform plan, which supports innovative models offering patients care closer to home and piloting gynaecology pathways in community diagnostics.

I enjoyed the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Davies, on women and girls in sport, and thought she was very right about the ongoing challenge that we have.

Today, we have celebrated progress and identified where challenges remain. We could not make any of that progress without the support of many other women—business leaders, those in civil society, educators, academics, campaigners and others—both at home and abroad. As we finish this debate, I will take a moment to thank them for their tireless efforts in supporting women, both up and down the country and internationally, to thrive.

Motion agreed.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, that was a most interesting exchange, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend Lord Jackson for it. As I have said many times, I am not a lawyer, but as a broader observation, there seems to be a slight philosophical discussion developing this evening between intervention and initiation when it comes to various state interventions in certain areas of law.

I have no doubt at all that the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to strengthen the enforcement of equal pay laws. As she rightly says, we all support that objective, but we feel that this particular proposal is somewhat flawed, not least because we just do not think it will work. At its core, the amendment risks conflating pay disparity with unlawful discrimination. It assumes that if a pay gap exists, there must therefore be wrongdoing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, acknowledged, it is not that simple, because pay disparities can and often do arise for entirely legitimate reasons, such as differences in experience or qualifications, performance geography or even negotiated terms, to my noble friend Lord Jackson’s point. To suggest that a mere statistical difference is indicative of discrimination is to abandon the nuanced legal framework carefully set out in the Equality Act 2010. While paying a great deal of respect to the arguments—and there is considerable merit in this—we cannot support this amendment.

[The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I am also an occasional visitor to this Committee, but I am very pleased to be here this evening to address her Amendment 275. I thank her for recognising the engagement there has been with the Government and others on this up to this point.

Certainly, the Government want to make very clear that we share the broad aims behind this amendment. Over 50 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and 15 years after the Equality Act 2010, it is clear that equal pay has not yet been achieved. That is why the Government have committed to strengthen the equal pay regime and end pay discrimination. I share the concerns of my noble friend in identifying the challenge of enforcement in this case. There is more we can do to ensure that the onus does not fall only on women to find out whether they are receiving the same pay as their male colleagues for equal work and to take enforcement action against employers in the case of a breach.

It is possible to envisage, in relation to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, a system in which you have both the contractual arrangement and the ability to take individual action as is the case now and an enforcement body that supports people doing that in general terms and identifies thematic or consistent ways in which equal pay is being breached. That is why the Government are committed to establishing an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions. As part of this, we will carefully consider how we can improve the enforcement of the equal pay scheme.

On 7 April we launched a call for evidence on this issue and wider equality law to ensure that any steps we take will lead to a meaningful strengthening of protections against pay discrimination—an objective that I am sure my noble friend will share. It is important that the Government are able to develop these changes in partnership with business, trade unions and civil society to ensure that the law works for everybody. For that reason, I hope my noble friend will recognise that this will be a more appropriate process through which to address these issues. As she suggests, we will give these areas very close consideration in advance of the equality, race and disability Bill.

In relation to some of the specific points my noble friend raises about the way this might operate, we certainly recognise the benefits that can arise from government departments, including HMRC, working together. HMRC already has a number of joint working and data-sharing arrangements with departments and agencies. The Government are therefore not closed in principle to establishing new data-sharing arrangements with regulatory authorities where this can support their regulatory functions.

My noble friend made a very interesting point about the use of AI. It would not be sufficient simply to compare the pay of different people working within a workplace unless you could also have some analysis of how that applied to the nature of the work and whether that was work of equal value. It may well be that advances in technology, including AI, would be a way in which we could support that monitoring.

Policy is at a very formative stage. My officials will explore a wide range of options to improve the enforcement of equal pay rights. While taking great care to ensure that safeguards are put in place in relation to personal data, particularly where that relates to discrimination and protected characteristics, I suspect the sort of description that she gave of the contribution of AI is very much part of what, across government, we are wanting to see in terms of its use in future.

We are sympathetic to the ultimate objectives of my noble friend’s amendment. I hope she recognises that and the progress that we intend to make on that pledge to deliver stronger enforcement mechanisms and, in particular, an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit. With that assurance, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My apologies to the Committee. It has of course been 75 years since the European Convention on Human Rights and 50 years since equal pay legislation—forgive that rather glaring howler. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular, and to my noble friend the Minister, whose officials have been very generous and thoughtful with their time. I look forward to watching their thinking develop on this forthcoming legislation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

We all, I think, welcome that the Minister has decided to respond to this debate herself. We very much look forward to her reply.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

What can I say? It is an utter pleasure to be here to respond to this debate. I was not aware that I had a choice; nevertheless, I am very pleased to make my first appearance in Committee on this Bill, which I see that noble Lords have been enjoying for several days already.

I am very pleased to consider these amendments on such an important provision in the Bill. Establishing the school support staff negotiating body is an important part of this Government’s plan to make work pay and of the opportunity mission. As several noble Lords have already identified, the nearly 800,000 support staff in our schools are playing a vital role in children’s education and development, are supporting teaching staff and parents, and are ensuring that our schools can run effectively. Despite their contribution, there is an acute recruitment and retention challenge. It is that issue that the SSSNB seeks to remedy and improve, along with providing a voice for those staff in negotiations.

We have heard from my noble friend Lord Prentis that a previous version of the SSSNB was established in 2009, but it was abolished very soon afterwards by the coalition Government when they came to power. Despite the arguments made by noble Lords opposite, in the 14 years between then and the opportunity now in this legislation, the previous Government did not choose to set up a framework to reduce complexity around the negotiation of terms and conditions for school support staff. They did not choose to make it more straightforward for schools. They stuck with the complexity inherent in the current negotiating arrangements through the NJC, which do not give a voice to the particular issues relating to school support staff that our proposals will. That is why the SSSNB, which is being established in this Bill, has a remit designed to reflect the needs of all state-funded schools in England today, bringing together employer and employee representatives with an independent chair to negotiate on pay and conditions and to advise on training and career progression.

As my noble friend Lord Prentis said, that enables the voice of those involved in this work to be represented both in negotiations about pay and conditions and in important considerations on how to make these roles something that people will want to come and do, will be trained to be as effective as possible in doing, and will want to carry on doing, staying in our schools doing their enormously important roles.

In thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Barran, for tabling Amendments 151, 174, 175 and 180, I hope I can respond and provide some assurance on those. First, on Amendment 175, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on the role of the TUC in this legislation, it will be the case that the SSSNB will, as is clear in the legislation, allow representatives of the employers and representatives of the employees to engage in these negotiations. The Secretary of State will consult on regulations about precisely who those representatives should be, and that will be named then in secondary legislation.

It does not seem wrong to me—in fact, it seems quite sensible—when thinking about who from the trade union side should represent employees, that the TUC, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, is the umbrella body for trade unions, should be consulted about which would be the appropriate trade union representatives for school support staff. It is for that reason that we have included this within the legislation: to enable the Secretary of State to make an informed decision when deciding which unions should represent school support staff on the body.

Turning to Amendment 151, and several of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the nature, complexity and coverage of the SSSNB, we are, in this legislation, creating a new system for support staff in 2025. We are not trying to amend an existing one. It is appropriate, therefore, that we consider the coverage of that board in the light of the current make-up of the school system. Roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are academies, compared to around 200 when the original SSSNB was set up in 2009. Academies are a significant element of the state school system now, and it is therefore right that they should be included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools to ensure there is greater national consistency.

Our intention, however, is for the SSSNB to agree floors, not ceilings, for pay and conditions. Beyond minimum agreements reached by the SSSNB—which, by the way, I would have thought would actually make it easier, not more complicated, for head teachers, particularly those in small schools, to understand the context in which they were operating when considering the employment of school support staff—all schools will be able to innovate with pay and conditions to attract and retain the best workforce that they need for our children. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, gave us some good examples of the ways in which schools are able to innovate and support the school support staff in his academy chain. Those things are admirable. They are facilitated by this Bill; they are not prevented by it. What is more, I am not quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, meant this, but there was a sort of implication that what was being proposed here was a body that would direct schools and head teachers as to whom and what they could employ with respect to support staff. That is not the intention of this body: it will remain the responsibility of the head teachers to determine whom they want in their team to meet the objectives that they have set. Nothing will mandate whom or what should be employed.

So, for all those reasons, we do not need to see the provisions that have been proposed in Amendment 151, which would in fact run against the idea that there should be a national, consistent approach to our school support staff. We already have the ability for academies to innovate, but we underpin that with a floor and a consistent national approach, informed by the voices of those who are employing school support staff and those who are representing their voice to enable it to be much more coherent than is the case at the moment.

On Amendment 174, the costs associated with changes to the constitution which are covered in this amendment are very unlikely to impact on the education sector. There will be limited administrative expenses and fees in setting up the negotiating board, but, for the reasons that I have already outlined, if anything, it is actually likely to make it more straightforward for schools to understand the scope—the pay levels that they would be offering to school support staff. So I do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on the constitutional arrangements. There will be the consultation that I have already referenced with respect to the arrangements and the process for setting up those arrangements. We will work hard with stakeholders to ensure that the arrangements work for all schools, including academies, and provide all schools with a core pay and conditions offer in doing that consultation.

I think I have responded to the point about costs, although I will come to the broader point that is made in Amendment 180, which is about assessing the cost implications of agreements reached by the SSSNB on pay and conditions. It will, of course, be important for the Department for Education to be able to assess the implications of recommendations made by the negotiating body prior to the Secretary of State ratifying any agreements. The legislation also gives the Secretary of State the power to refer matters back to the SSSNB, or to make regulations otherwise than in terms of the agreement if agreements reached are not practicable. That is to ensure consideration of the affordability of agreements reached for the education sector. At that point, of course, changes to terms and conditions would be implemented through the use of statutory instruments.

Just to re-emphasise the point that I made about school employers deciding who they employ, there are also powers in legislation to allow the Government to determine, after consultation, which school employees come within the remit of the SSSNB. Yes, this is a complex area, and there may be some categories of school support staff whom it is not appropriate to include within this body, but that will be determined through a process of consultation and set down in the regulations that I previously referred to.

I hope I have covered, and provided some reassurance in relation to, Amendment 180. This is a reasonable balance between enabling the voice and the expertise of the employers and the employees of school support staff to be able, through this body, to reach agreements around pay and conditions, to be put to the Secretary of State, and to do that important work around advising on improvements to training, development—all the types of things that are likely to lead to even more effective school support staff, and therefore even better support for our children, our schools and the teachers that these staff play such an important role in supporting.

I hope, on the basis of those assurances, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I ought to clarify my comments on yachts. I have had a yacht of my own, but it was 21 feet long and I was referring to yachts that are 200 to 400 feet long. Sorry about that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am desperately searching for the note in my folder on yachts. I may have to write to the noble Baroness on that issue later.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his introduction to these amendments. As others have said, it was an interesting and important history of the progress that has been made in this country through a recognition of the strength of the collective voice of workers represented through the trade union movement, which is, of course, the basis of our party on this side of the House. Although I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend would want me to go in this, I hope I can reassure him that I think these proposals for the SSSNB make considerable progress in recognising the need for the voice of school support staff to be properly heard in bargaining about pay and conditions and improving the training and development options for those staff.

I know my noble friend Lord Hendy has had the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lady Jones to talk about these principles. I hope he recognises, as I certainly do, the phenomenal work that she and other members of the team have done in this House in taking forward this piece of important legislation for the Government and the difference it is making to the rights of workers across this country. Those of us on this side of the House are proud of this piece of legislation and the work that has gone into it.

I can also reassure my noble friend that this Government support the work of the ILO, value its role in upholding and enhancing workers’ rights globally and remain committed to upholding international standards. In fact, the UK is in full compliance with all our international obligations on collective bargaining.

I turn to the SSSNB and the associated amendments in this group. I know my noble friend is here for the other elements of negotiating bodies that my noble friend Lord Hendy referenced, but first I shall speak to Amendments 152, 154 to 158, 161 and 173 to 179, which relate to collective bargaining, the role of the Secretary of State and concerns about the remit of the SSSNB.

The existing remit is broad. It covers the areas that will help to address the recruitment and retention challenges that state-funded schools are facing for support staff. As it is a negotiating body, employee and employer representatives will be able to meaningfully negotiate on pay and conditions as well as advise on training and career progression. As I spelt out in the previous group of amendments, this is a major step forward in the process for supporting our school support staff, who play such an important role in our schools.

As it is a statutory body, it is essential that agreements reached by the SSSNB can be imposed in contracts only through ratification by the Secretary of State, and that the interests of the Secretary of State are represented on the body with a non-voting representative. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the current wording provides the appropriate specificity on the remit for this body, appropriately involving the Secretary of State in the statutory role of the body but making a major step forward in enabling employees and employer representatives to negotiate on those areas.

I turn to Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170, which relate to those who work under a contract that is not a contract of employment—in other words, to the remit of the employees covered by this body. The vast majority of school support staff are employed by local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts as employees. The remit for employees is consistent with the approach taken in the 2009 legislation that first established the SSSNB and the current remit of the NJC. I hope that answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the definition. We are content that the policy intent of the SSSNB provisions is met through the current remit, so the amendments are not required. They would broaden those under the auspices of the SSSNB in a way that would distort its role and responsibility, and they would introduce the sort of complexity that other noble Lords have talked about.

The remainder of the amendments in this group—Amendments 163 to 166, 168, 169, 171 and 172—relate to the protection of more favourable terms in staff contracts. As drafted, the Bill does not require regulations ratifying agreements of the SSSNB to impose limits on the terms and conditions under which school support staff can be employed. The intention is for support staff in all state-funded schools in England to benefit from a core pay and conditions offer, while providing the flexibility to respond to local circumstances above minimum agreements reached, and with more favourable pay and conditions for individuals protected.

We are taking concerns about the protection of individuals and room for innovation seriously. We will be consulting on the remit of the SSSNB and calling for evidence on terms and conditions in the summer. I therefore have some sympathy with those who might express concerns about whether there is sufficient protection for individuals, and I hope we will be able to clarify that.

I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend Lord Hendy asks the Government to go in his amendments, but I hope he will recognise that, in line with the progress of the collective representation of workers that he identified in his speech, this development under this Government represents a considerable improvement in the position of our vital school support staff. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her fulsome support of the amendments.

I am of course shocked that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I have reached a point of disagreement, and will make one or two points arising from what she said. She thinks that I was wrong to refer to zero-hours contracts. Of course, I accept what she said, that there presently are no zero-hours contracts in the school sector, but, as I am sure she is aware, there are zero-hours contracts in the university sector, and the fear is that they might then be introduced into the school sector.

The noble Baroness was worried about the reference to non-employees—that is, self-employed workers. Again, the problem is not so much the existing situation but fear of the future. The self-employed sector now has 5 million workers, who, on average, earn a lot less than employed workers. It is a growing sector, and the fear is that employers will resort more to the device of self-employment to avoid the consequences of employment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his thoughtful contributions. He said that he thought the inclusion of the self-employed would bring ambiguity and be unworkable, but I respectfully disagree. The point is this: if people are doing similar work but with a different legal status, similar terms should apply to them. If there are few people, or none, in that category, I cannot imagine for a moment that the negotiating body, unions or employers will wish to say anything about it. What I am suggesting by enlarging the remit of the bodies is not that they should be compelled to negotiate all the matters under Section 178, but that it is an option open to them if those parties feel that it is profitable for them to negotiate those things.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was uncomfortable with my opposition to the Minister’s power to override agreements, or indeed disagreements, in the negotiating body. I point out that, in truly voluntary and free collective bargaining, it is always possible to have tripartite collective bargaining between the Government, employers and unions—but that is not what this body is. This body is bipartite, but with the addition of third parties and the power in the Minister to override any agreement that is reached. That does not seem to be compatible with proper collective bargaining.

I know your Lordships want to move on, so I will not deal with any more detail, but will make just one more point. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was against the inclusion of dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration. I make the point again that the purpose is not to impose this on the parties but to enable them to choose their own means of resolving disputes—whether that is conciliation, arbitration or some other means—and not to leave it to the Minister.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern for her thoughtful and full response. She is right, of course. I do not think she goes as far as I would like her to, but I understand the reasons she does not. I agree that what is proposed in the Bill for the SSSNB is a “considerable improvement”, to use her words, on what exists. I accept too that it is a step on the road to proper collective bargaining in due course. I am very grateful for the two meetings I had with my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I was honoured and grateful to be allowed to spend time discussing my concerns with her. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.