Standards in Public Life

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard a lot of talk this evening about trust in public life. There are two aspects of trust that I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could comment on. There is obviously the terrible betrayal of trust that we have seen recently in the case of Lord Mandelson, but I would like her view on a different kind of trust—the trust in our Prime Minister’s judgment. We have had too many examples, from the very early days in government of accepting gifts—which any of us, without process or training, could have said was a poor choice—to the turnover in appointments within No. 10. What would the noble Baroness say to the general public, who are questioning how long they can trust this Prime Minister’s judgment and whether saying sorry is enough?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have worked with the Prime Minister for a long time—since he first came into Parliament in 2015. I see a man of integrity and decency—a man who makes mistakes, owns those mistakes and seeks to make them right, and who is not afraid to apologise. I have not seen that in every Prime Minister.

The reason why the entire Cabinet yesterday made it very clear—as if there should ever have been any doubt—that it supported the Prime Minister was that we see him day in, day out. We see the judgments he makes day in, day out. If you look at what is happening in the world today—what is happening in Ukraine and the Prime Minister’s relationship with President Zelensky, how he has to manage difficult situations across the world, how he has proved to have a leadership role across the world and how he is regarded—you realise that he is absolutely the right man for the job. He made the statement yesterday that he had a mandate from this country to deliver change and the policies that we fought the last election on. I am impressed and I admire him. Whatever happens, he will deliver on that mandate.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I feel in a lonely position in not being able to thank the Government for their comments on my amendment. I feel sad that I have to speak again, as I hoped that the Government would have talked to those running our schools and trusts and would have adjusted their approach. They clearly have not done that, so we are here again.

I feel slightly sorry for the Minister, because the remarks he was given about my amendment were—if I may say so—ill-advised. It is disingenuous to suggest that my amendment would have facilitated contracts where someone was offered a free lunch and then paid below the minimum wage. There is absolutely nothing in my amendment that suggests that, and both the Minister in the Department for Education and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, whom I met at the end of July, were very clear that there was nothing at all like that. I will also challenge some of the other remarks that he made, but there is nothing in my amendment that would worsen the terms for employees. It is therefore unfortunate that that was the advice he was given on how to approach this.

Before I come to my Motion, I remind noble Lords, by way of context, that this is—unlike heritage railways, with the greatest respect to my noble friend—a big issue. There are 800,000 support staff in our schools and about half a million full-time equivalent employees. Half of them are teaching assistants and the other half are in a multiplicity—literally thousands—of different roles, so when the noble Lord says that this is not a top-down approach, my jaw hits the ground. The idea that the SSSNB is going to be able to create a full range of role profiles, pay scales, et cetera, is just not realistic. We are going to end up with either a labyrinth or a straitjacket, and neither, I would suggest, is an ideal outcome. Despite me having raised this at every stage of the Bill, the Government have not explained how they will address the multiplicity of roles that exist. When the SSSNB was in existence previously, before 2010, we did not have about 2,500 trusts of different sizes and geographic footprints, organised differently with various roles within them.

The amendment also does not address the inconsistency in the Government’s approach between the schoolteachers’ pay and review body and the SSSNB. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government accepted the principle of a framework that academies must have regard to. In Schedule 3 to the schools Bill, it says that academies

“must have regard to any provision of an order under section 122 that relates to conditions of employment”.

It goes on to say that they

“must also have regard to guidance”.

We tried to bring in an identical amendment on Report—my Amendment 111A—which mirrored the Government’s own amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but, at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, argued that it would be wrong to create a two-tier system. We actually have a two-tier system for teachers in maintained schools and in academies, but we are rejecting a system, proposed through my amendment, which would offer only upside to school support staff, so that we end up with a triumph of uniformity over innovation.

My Motion N1 aims to give the Government a practical way to deliver their objectives of consistency and fairness, without unduly constraining the judgment of school and trust leaders in managing their workforce. Without this amendment, employers in academies and maintained schools will lose their ability to design contracts which meet the needs of both the workforce and their pupils. That might include, for example, paying someone above the agreed pay scale if they agree to work towards a qualification or, in a trust which has schools in multiple local authorities, they may receive a higher salary in return for working across a wider geographic footprint. The Government’s approach removes the ability to do that; every individual element in an employee’s pay and conditions has to be above a minimum standard, rather than allowing an employer to pay someone more in return for greater flexibility or the commitment to a work towards a higher qualification.

The Minister wrote to me on 1 September. I will not detain the House by going through the examples, but all the examples in that letter were where this legislation will not apply. We are interested in and worried about where it will apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to today’s debate. The debate has been wide ranging, from special constables and heritage railways to the SSSNB. I am grateful for everyone’s valuable insight. I will address the points raised by all noble Lords.

On Motion C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for indicating his support for the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu.

On Motion K1, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on his new role within the Heritage Railway Association. I am grateful to him for working with the Government on this matter and look forward to continuing to work with him and my noble friend Lord Faulkner.

I will address Motion N1 and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. First, I want to make one point absolutely clear: I can confirm that the Bill will not set a ceiling on pay. In fact, it sets a minimum standard—the floor—where all support staff are entitled to negotiated pay. When taken together, the SSSNB measures in the Employment Rights Bill, the teacher pay measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and subordinate legislation respectively will mean that teachers and support staff in all maintained schools and academies in England can rely on a minimum pay offer. All schools will be able to innovate with pay. No one is saying that they cannot pay more than the minimum pay offer; they can be innovative in their pay and conditions to attract and retain the very best workforce that they need for our children.

We are legislating for a new statutory body for school support staff rather than extending an existing system. School support staff have been without a school-specific national voice for far too long. It is right to establish a body where minimum terms are negotiated and agreed by school employer and employee representatives. As most noble Lords will know, roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, and the body is being newly established, so it is right that academies are included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools.

As I said earlier, beyond the minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions. The SSSNB will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles and training, and no one is saying that staff cannot be accorded any training support and pay. It will be up to the SSSNB to agree how this is to be done and what the core offer will look like.

This can all be done by local arrangements. We want there to be a core offer that all support staff can expect to receive, with flexibility for employers to go beyond that in their respective local circumstances. Employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions than were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulation.

I hope I have answered some of noble Lords’ concerns. I urge all noble Lords to give due consideration to the Government’s amendments and trust that Members will feel able to lend support to our position.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s last point about employers being able to retain their existing contracts, in the letter I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on 1 September, she writes in relation to that specific point:

“As set out above, a term of an employee’s contract will only be altered by regulations where this is not detrimental to the employee. This allows employers to retain pay and conditions for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions … provided”—


and I stress this point—

“all terms are the same as or more favourable than statutory minimums”.

If an employer today has an employee whom it is paying well above the statutory minimum but is requiring them to work in more schools than would be in the standard role profile, that employer will no longer be able to continue the same contract. It will have to, I guess, reduce the scale of that employee’s work and reduce their salary. Does the Minister think that is a good outcome?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I must admit that I have not had a chance to look at my noble friend Lady Smith’s letter. As far as I know and have been told, employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable terms and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB. Basically, if they are offering more than what is negotiated, they can keep the terms, but it should not be less than that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene again on the Minister, but I asked this question specifically of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Smith, because that is what employers are worried about: that their existing staff will suffer as a result of this. I think the noble Baroness’s letter is absolutely clear. It uses the same language that the noble Lord has in his speaking notes but with the additional detail that all terms are the same or as favourable. I believe that we will not vote on this Motion until a little later, so if the Minister is able to clarify things in the meantime, I would be grateful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I will make sure that I read the letter and will ask my officials to confirm in writing for her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box, but I will speak to this Motion a little, to set it in context and perhaps put down some markers for the discussions that will be happening with the Secretary of State.

Responding to the spirited work of my noble friend Lord Palmer, this House voted overwhelmingly on Report, with cross-party support, to expand the right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a trained companion. The provision was removed by the Government in the other place because of concerns about potential increases to cost, complexity and length of such hearings. The Liberal Democrats disagree with the Government’s position, because there is no evidence to support it; in fact, there is excellent evidence to the contrary that trained companions reduce cost, complexity and escalation. We hear this from organisations that already accompany workers on a non-statutory basis, and we can see it in the research of ACAS and in other academic areas.

None the less, this amendment in lieu presents a reasonable compromise, as I think the Minister has conceded. It would allow the Government to conduct a proper review into the creation of a new category of trained companion, at which point any concerns could be properly examined. In the spirit of working collaboratively, I hope that we can now move forward on this and that, instead of frustrating this process, we can develop one that is a proportionate step to enable the Government to examine this issue properly and finally take into account the experiences of the vast majority of its own voters, let alone the country, who are not members of a trade union and still need support in times like this.

I turn briefly to Motion M1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and spoken to by his colleague, which would reinsert a Report stage amendment requiring that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in a ballot participate. We continue to support this amendment, which would maintain the status quo.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I speak briefly to support, from the perspective of teachers, the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Of course, teachers and other front-line caring professionals carry immense responsibility for the welfare and safety of children, which brings with it considerable legal obligations that few other professions face. Employers in schools are rightly duty-bound by safeguarding law to investigate every allegation, however unfounded it may later prove to be. As a result, teachers are far more likely than most to face formal hearings during their careers.

The number of allegations is rising sharply, with data from Teacher Tapp, which surveys about 11,000 teachers every day, showing that, in the last academic year alone, allegations against teachers increased by around 35% compared with the previous year; that figure rises to nearly 60% in schools with the highest proportion of pupils on free school meals. As we have debated earlier, in this Bill and others, technology is changing the landscape, with an ability to create ever more complex complaints using artificial intelligence.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said already, this carries a human cost but also a financial cost, with suspended teachers remaining on their salaries while schools fund cover. Some local authorities are spending hundreds of thousands pounds each year on suspended staff awaiting hearings, and still more when flawed procedures lead to tribunal claims.

The right to be accompanied by someone trained to provide calm, professional support is not an indulgence but a practical safeguard. The strength of feeling in the profession is clear and almost unanimous: according to Teacher Tapp, 97% of teachers believe they should be entitled to a trained companion, whether or not they belong to a union, and almost two-thirds say they would wish to have legal representation. This speaks volumes about the professional anxiety that teachers and other school staff face when formal allegations arise.

I hope very much that, when the Minister comes to close, he can confirm that this review will look closely at how accompaniment rights operate in practice, including teachers and other school staff within that to make sure that those who dedicate their lives to educating and caring for our children are treated with the fairness, dignity and compassion that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 121B in lieu—

121B: Schedule 4, page 195, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) The SSSNB must not restrict employers from introducing terms and conditions of employment beyond the national framework, provided that such terms in aggregate meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB and are designed to—
(a) improve the skill levels of staff,
(b) ensure that staff can meet the needs of children,
(c) raise standards of support for children, or
(d) improve recruitment and retention of support staff.
(4) In determining whether the terms meet or exceed any minimum standards, none of the following conditions may be considered as breaching the minimum standards—
(a) CPD and professional development requirements;
(b) promotion dependent on securing particular qualifications;
(c) working patterns that have pay consequences;
(d) role-specific responsibilities including requirements to work with other employees in other schools or locations.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, add to the list in subsection (4).”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, but I take little reassurance from it, in particular the idea of what will happen in the next few years to the focus of the SSSNB. In this House, we make legislation beyond the next few years. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I was very happy to add my name to this amendment as someone also with personal experience. My noble friend Lord True set out three principles which I think we would all agree with. I think there is a fourth: meritocracy. The best person selected for a position should be selected regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality or wealth. We all believe in the principle of equality in this House, so why should it not apply in the case of Ministers?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too was happy to put my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, and agree with the points that my noble friends have made so far.

In contrast to the rest of the Bill, where we have been debating complex and profound elements of our constitution, this—as we have heard—is a much more common-sense amendment. It could be fixed with a single clause or even, to placate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, a sunset clause attached to it if others agreed that more reform was needed. In addition to the points made about being paid fairly for the work that one does, attracting the best talent from the widest pool and adopting an approach of meritocracy, as my noble friend Lord Markham said, I will make a couple of other points.

The first is stability. Both the previous and current Governments have been able to attract people of great talent, reputation and achievement, but historically that has not always been a stable ministerial model. Stability is important for delivering and executing a Government’s policy effectively. If a Minister changes every year, that is unhelpful, and I know that a number of previous Ministers have felt unable to continue in their role, despite the unquestioned expertise that they brought to it.

As has been touched on, there is also an effectiveness point. I was fortunate to be a Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education. In the Department for Education, I did pretty much all my visits on a Friday because I needed to claim my expenses—or allowance, whatever it is called—for attending your Lordships’ House. As has been noted, colleagues in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and so forth were not able to.

An article in the Times in 2023 reported a Conservative Back-Bencher—I am dying to know who it was—as saying:

“You can always find ambitious flunkies who will do it—but it is much harder to find anyone good”.


I have to say that I have never thought of myself as an ambitious flunkey, and I worked with excellent fellow Ministers. For me, being a Minister, although I was unpaid, was the highlight of my career. I would do it again like a shot, paid or unpaid, but it is not a choice we should ask potential Ministers to make.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to give strong support to the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend. Like other noble Lords, I do so on the basis of some experience.

In November 2021, I was invited to join the Government as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office. I had been involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland since the mid-1980s and advised six Secretaries of State, so it was familiar territory for me. At the time, however, it was made clear that there was no salary. Ministers of the Crown are rightly forbidden from having outside interests. As has been pointed out, some are fortunate enough to be independently wealthy. Alas, I was not in that category. As a result, for reasons that will be understood across the House, it was necessary for me to attend your Lordships’ House each sitting day.

Being an effective Northern Ireland Office Minister requires a significant amount of engagement and visibility within Northern Ireland itself, but I was severely constrained from doing that for a year. For that first year, invitations to attend events or meetings from Monday to Wednesday—or to substitute for other Ministers who might have three-line Whips in the other place—had to be declined.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the ongoing significance of US involvement in the affairs of Northern Ireland and of the importance of engaging directly with Irish America. Of the ministerial team of three— I assure my noble friend Lord Forsyth—at the NIO at the time, I had by far the most experience in these matters and the best network of contacts. So in March 2022, then Secretary of State Brandon Lewis asked me to accompany him on the annual week-long St Patrick’s visit, which typically involves high-level meetings at the Executive Office, the State Department, the House Speaker’s lunch and the President’s reception at the White House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in his place; he will be familiar with those events. It is essential that the UK Government’s voice is heard during this frantic week. Unfortunately, however, I had to decline the invitation in order to attend your Lordships’ House. It was, to put it mildly, a less than satisfactory situation and, as has been referred to, a number of my noble friends had similar problems when they were in government.

It cannot be right that Members of your Lordships’ House have to face the challenges with which I grappled for a year and be expected to perform as Ministers without a salary—frankly, it is absurd. The Prime Minister himself is certainly aware of this issue, as he discussed it with me as a problem to be resolved during an event that we both attended at Hillsborough Castle in April 2023. I strongly support my noble friend and urge the Lord Privy Seal, herself a distinguished former Northern Ireland Office Minister, to accept this sensible and necessary amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My noble friends agree with me—both paid, I hasten to add; both Foreign Office Ministers and our Defence Ministers are paid Ministers but are still here in the Chamber, recognising the duty and responsibility they have to the House, as well as to their departments and the Government.

As I say, the work Lords Ministers do covers not just their ministerial work in the department but any other work related to the Government, and they will answer questions on behalf of any issue affecting their department. I have great pride in the Ministers we have in our Government, and indeed I think the House has always respected Ministers from all the three parties who have been in government in the past.

I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when she quoted somebody else who talked about it being “hard to find someone good”. Actually, we do find good people, but they make a sacrifice in order to do so—she is nodding that she did quote somebody, and I accept that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

To be clear, I also completely disagree with that, which is why I went on to say that I had worked with excellent Ministers, and we have excellent Ministers today.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I did not think that was what the noble Baroness said; I thought she was quoting somebody else.

On the points made about ministerial pay, again, there was a very spirited and valuable defence from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I have to say that the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hunt, went rather wider than this particular issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in talking about the respective merits of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That just shows the appetite for looking at these issues across government.

As the noble Lord, Lord True, confessed, we have been able to make some improvements in this Government. Before the general election, there were 31 Ministers in government in your Lordships’ House, of whom only 17 were paid and 14 were unpaid. We have been able to improve that situation; we now have only nine unpaid Ministers out of 20 Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked for an assurance from me that I would use my best endeavours to persuade colleagues to try to find a way forward in delivering this. He will know, as does the noble Lord, Lord True, that I have done so since I have been in post and did so before, which is partly why the position is so much better than it was under the last Government. I look forward to further improvements in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord True, gave his three principles. The first was a fair day’s pay for work done, and the second was equal treatment. Actually, there is not equal treatment between the two Houses. He will be aware that the ministerial salaries that Ministers receive in the House of Commons are in addition to their salary, whereas in the House of Lord there is a choice in the sense that Ministers who are unpaid claim, or can claim, the daily allowance. So if we say that they are completely unpaid, we understand what we mean by that but those outside the House may not.

However, it is also worth looking at the fact that, since 2010, there have been no incremental or cost-of-living increases in ministerial salaries. That has meant that Ministers whom we term unpaid, particularly if they live in London, can be earning more than Ministers who are paid. So there are a number of issues to be addressed. I am not citing exact figures, but it is a very similar amount. I am pointing out that there are a number of issues to be addressed in the inequalities between both Houses. I think we all agree that no one should be prevented from serving.

So I am not disputing the principle behind the amendment; I am saying that we cannot support the amendment. If the noble Lord had as his amendment that he wanted to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act to increase the number of Ministers overall, that would certainly help guarantee an increase in the number of Ministers. But it has always been the case since then that there has been a small number of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House; it grew under the last Government. However, if this amendment was passed, it would not mean that any currently unpaid Lords Minister would receive a salary—it would have no impact. It would not increase the number of salaries available for Lords Ministers, therefore it is not a practical solution to what we all agree is a problem. It would also put limits on the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the Ministers he or she seeks to choose.

This amendment would have no effect and we cannot support it. It is an issue to be addressed, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—who is leaping to his feet as I speak—sought an assurance that we are addressing it. He can take some comfort that this is a significantly better situation than under the last Government. Before I ask the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw, I will take this urgent intervention.