Baroness Barran:

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 statementThis 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.

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.

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.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran in her Amendments 111A, 111B, 116A and 116B. I have not spoken on the Bill before, so I refer noble Lords to my registered interests, in particular as a founder of a multi-academy trust with 18 schools and around 1,400 staff.

This new negotiating body—a central bureaucratic body dictating terms and conditions and pay for all to obey across our whole nation—literally drives us back to the 1970s. It would remove any ability to take note of local employment conditions. My own multi-academy trust completed a secondary school core structure review in 2022 and we have just finished the same review for our primary schools. We now have in place posts and grades that meet the needs of each school and, most importantly, those of our pupils.

We have set out a grading system to reflect the local conditions in which we operate. Primary and secondary staffing levels are strong and sustainable. The SSSNB would undo all this, and the cost of going through this new legislation would be bureaucratic and increase the overhead in our human resources. Administering these changes would take resources away from the front line with no meaningful benefit. I congratulate the Government on at least accepting that there is a floor to this whole arrangement, but it still leaves an extremely complicated central bureaucracy.

To provide good education we need flexibility. We operate harmoniously with our unions; we share a common mission and believe we have created a first-class cadre of support staff. Indeed, only two weeks ago, one of our support staff saved the life of one of our children, who had a cardiac arrest on a playing field when playing away. The local defibrillator had broken and he kept the child alive for 20 minutes.

I am looking at this whole Bill more widely. If we zoom out beyond the area of education, we start to see the impact of the aggressive anti-employer strategy being deployed by this Government. We have already seen the impact of VAT on private schools, with them going out of business and staff losing their jobs. We have already seen the escalation of employers’ national insurance and the widening of the bands, which has contributed to some 60,000 jobs being lost in the hospitality sector. Last week, we tried to warn the Government about the banter Clause, which will drive another nail into the coffin of the hospitality sector.

Private sector employment market vacancies are under great pressure. At the beginning of last year, there were 900,000 vacancies and, by May this year, that was down to about 720,000. We heard earlier in the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on AI, and we are already seeing the impact of this—perhaps more dramatically in the US, where Microsoft has got rid of 15,000 staff in the last two months.

As my noble friend Lady Barran said, schools are under considerable financial pressure already. For me, the most frightening impact is the issue of persistent absence, where we particularly need non-teaching staff. For example, one of our schools in a very deprived area uses a retired taxi driver. How does he fit into this rigid new system? We use him because he knows the community; he has been ferrying people around that town for 30 years. He is the right person for that job. That would not necessarily apply in Tower Hamlets.

I plead for flexibility. I have been in business for—I am almost frightened to admit it—45 years. I hired my first employee in 1979. I have created thousands of jobs in the private sector over that time, and I can assure your Lordships that, for that to happen, one needs a flexible employment market. The SSSNB does the direct opposite of this.

My Lords, I support Amendments 111A and 111B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I declare an interest as a governor of King’s College London Mathematics School and as a member of its finance and pay committees.

I have been trying to get my head around the implications of these clauses for support staff ever since the Bill was introduced. The more I think about it, the more unworkable it seems to be. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the complexity of support staff roles and the way they vary with different types of schools has become much greater in the last 20 years.

My experience is of a rather unusual 16-to-19 academy. We do outreach and projects in collaboration with charities and the university. We engage in a large number of things that are not about just standard school teaching. The standard scales for teaching staff are not a problem for us but, for support staff, we have specific roles that are suited to the particular activities in which people are engaged. We certainly pay as much as we can afford to; in the London market, we do not have much choice.

The point that I want to stress is that, while it is very welcome that the Government recognise that people’s pay should not be reduced as a result of this, the real problem is that there are huge numbers of important and central jobs and roles out there, which vary hugely according to the nature of the school, the nature of the environment and what people are doing. The complexity that this will introduce when we do our workforce planning and try to work out where a new role fits on these scales really worries me. I hope that, as things roll out, the Government think very hard about how to move forward in a way that allows successful schools, which are going beyond traditional classroom teaching and doing a huge number of important things, to continue to create support staff roles that fit what they are trying to do.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a governor of King’s Leadership Academy in Liverpool. Schools face two challenges, some might say crises. First, the shortage of staff is becoming quite a serious concern. Secondly, there are real pressures on school budgets.

It was easy when all schools were local authority schools, because they all had the same framework and structures. We now have a very different landscape, which we all accept. There is no difference now in how we see that landscape. Half the schools are what I call maintained schools and the other half, with a preponderance towards secondary schools, are academies within large multi-academy trusts, which in a sense are bigger than the local authorities. The local authority where I worked for a number of years had 50 schools. There are multi-academy trusts with far more schools than that.

We want a system that is fair to all our non-teaching staff. We do not want to see anybody seeing a cut in their salary. But we also have to recognise that you have to have a system that is not bureaucratic and gives the freedom to schools in both cases to be able to do what is best for their staff. I fear that that will not be the case if the Government have their way. I am hopeful that the Minister will give us real reassurance on this.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, that we have a more varied system, but I slightly disagreed with her when she said, “All schools, particularly the successful ones”. It is all schools, not just the successful ones, that will face difficulties.

I totally agree with the noble Lord.

So I hope that the Minister will really consider this. It is a huge issue. We cannot see our schools have to face more costs, and we do not want to see any staff disadvantaged by a well-meaning move by the Government.

My Lords, we are dancing on the head of a pin with these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is right that these are welcome amendments that begin to address something I never knew anything about, which is that support staff have never had a baseline figure. That should be addressed.

I spoke to the Minister the day before yesterday or today—time flies—and the fact is that there are 520,000 of them. That is 52% of everybody employed at schools. That is more than teachers. Those support staff have a whole range of duties and the Majority are tailored to their specific needs, as other speakers have said. Government Amendment 114 provides that, where an SSSNB

“has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the Secretary of State makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations”.

We agree with that.

All that the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would change is that it would prevent

“the SSSNB from blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions”,

provided that they meet the standards of minimum support. What we are trying to say here is, where they cannot come to a negotiation, the Government can step in by regulation, if that is what they want to do, but, where a body comes to an arrangement, why should you stop somebody wanting to offer more, above the floor and above the base—there is no argument about that; we all agree to the base—and say, actually, why would an SSSNB want to block some employer offering an employee better terms? If the Government reject this amendment, that is the alternative to what we are arguing.

If somebody wants to pay somebody more, above the base, that is surely better for the employee. Surely that is better than somebody saying, “Well, you can’t”, which is what the Government might do. The difference is quite subtle. Sooner or later, somebody will have to work out the maths for 520,000 people and then go to all those local authorities, academies and private schools, all of a sudden, as I have said before, there are bound to be winners and losers, unless you make set the level at a sufficiently high so there are no winners and losers. I cannot imagine what that number will be, because it will be a high number.

If this is about empowering people and lifting society, I am all for that. But, again, there is a level of detail. This is not a small group of people; it is an enormous number of people. It is more than the number of teachers. The teachers have had pay, and more pay, and are now going on strike for more money. Support staff do not do that. Support staff are vulnerable. They do not have that power to take industrial action to fight their corner. They negotiate their terms individually with local authorities and academies and, by and large, none of these people is paid below the minimum wage or the living wage. So, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I get the principle. I understand that there has been no base figure, and that should be addressed. But, if the Government are addressing that, and it is a philosophical Labour belief, they must put a price tag on it, because people need to know what the costs are, not only for their local authority but for every local authority and every academy in the country. If the noble Baroness is willing to push this to a vote—I do not know whether she will or will not—we on these Benches will support her.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I agree with pretty much all that he said. I thank my noble friend Lady Barran for her amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew for his interesting and timely perspective, and I salute the teaching assistant whom he mentioned.

Amendment 111B would ensure that the establishment of national frameworks does not, by accident or design, limit the ability of employers to go further in improving conditions for their staff. It makes it clear that, while national terms may set the floor, they must not become the ceiling.

As we have heard, we must leave space for innovation and ambition at the local level, particularly for those schools, academies and trusts that are actively seeking to lead in areas such as flexible working, staff well-being or enhanced support for recruitment and retention. This amendment does not undermine the national framework. On the contrary, it reinforces it, because it allows it to act as a strong foundation on which more can be built, where employers have the capacity and willingness to do so.

We should not inadvertently create a situation where the national body becomes a constraint rather than a support. I therefore welcome the clarity that this amendment brings. I commend my noble friend for bringing it forward and, if she decides to press it to a vote, we will support her.

My Lords, I will speak first to government Amendments 112 to 116. The school support staff negotiating body will recognise the essential roles and responsibilities of over 800,000 support staff working in our schools, supporting our children to achieve and thrive. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I very much pay tribute to the teaching assistant whom the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, mentioned. We all know examples of support staff who have played significant interventionist roles in helping to run a school—roles that are often underrewarded and unrecognised. It is about time we put them and their pay and conditions on a proper footing.

It is right that we have a mechanism for employer and employee representatives to come together to negotiate and to agree pay and conditions that reflect the varied and vital role that support staff undertake. We have heard arguments made across the House that we must make the legislation itself clearer, that the SSSNB will not mandate a one-size-fits-all approach and that individual employees will be protected from any moves to their detriment as a result of the SSSNB process. We have listened to noble Lords on this issue and, while we have always been clear that this is the Government’s intent and can be achieved through existing provisions, we have decided to amend the SSSNB provisions to ensure that both principles are established in primary legislation.

This change will mean that all school support staff will benefit from a minimum offer—or floor—for pay and conditions, and that there will be no ceiling to prevent employers offering better pay or conditions. This protects individual employees and allows employers to go beyond agreements reached, should they choose to do so in response to their local circumstances. That was the argument made in Committee. A number of noble Lords argued that, particularly in academies, employers want to pay more and provide better conditions. We are making it clear that that is absolutely the right thing to do, and our amendments will deliver that.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 111A would change the SSSNB’s remit for academies so that academy employers would be required to have regard only to the framework. As outlined in response to this amendment in Committee, it would be wrong to create a two-tier system for support staff. Since roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, it is right that academies are included in the SSSNB’s statutory remit in the same way as maintained schools. There is no need to take a different approach for academies when there will be ample room for innovation for all schools, irrespective of their structure.

I hope the noble Baroness understands and agrees that all school support staff deserve to know what they can expect as a minimum for pay and conditions, and that they can continue to benefit from more favourable terms where employers offer them. However, her amendment risks creating a two-tier system that undermines the role of the new negotiating body in establishing minimum standards which will work for all schools and recognise the vital roles that support staff undertake.

Amendment 111B would prevent the SSSNB blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions. I agree with the intent here, but the amendment is simply unnecessary. The government amendment I have just spoken about already prevents this. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, had a useful meeting on this with my noble friend Lady Smith, the Minister for Schools, in which this was explained.

Our amendment clearly establishes that, beyond a minimum offer, there will be flexibility for schools to offer more favourable terms for their support staff in response to local circumstances, and that individual employee contracts will need to change only if their terms or conditions are below the statutory minimum agreements arising from the SSSNB. This allows employers to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulations, or to agree more favourable pay and conditions through subsequent local negotiations.

Importantly, our amendment both protects individual employee entitlements and preserves flexibility for employers. The SSSNB will not mandate uniformity or add significant burdens to schools. Instead, it will mean that support staff in academies and maintained schools will all benefit from a minimum offer that is appropriate for the roles staff are undertaking in schools. It will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles, training and pay, as agreed by those representing the interests of school support staff and their employers.

On Amendment 116A, as outlined in Committee, the costs associated with the SSSNB’s constitution are limited to administrative expenses and fees, which will be met by the department. It would therefore be disproportionate and unnecessarily restrict the flexibility to amend the constitution if the Secretary of State was required to publish an impact assessment and lay it before Parliament before making or revising these constitutional arrangements.

Amendment 116B would require the SSSNB’s annual reports to include an assessment of the increased costs to the education sector of pay and conditions agreements made in that reporting year. The Secretary of State will specify what the SSSNB needs to consider, such as the cost implications and practical considerations for schools, when remitting the SSSNB. Of course, employers will also have a voice on that body to ensure that their interests and the costs they are concerned about are taken into account.

Assessing the cost implications and affordability for the education sector of agreements reached by the SSSNB on pay and conditions will be important for the Department for Education prior to the Secretary of State ratifying any agreements. The Secretary of State has the power to refer matters back to the SSSNB or to issue alternative regulations should the agreements not be practicable. This is the fail-safe that I think the noble Baroness is looking for. It would not be appropriate to specify in primary legislation that these assessments will be contained in annual reports to be produced by the SSSNB. We anticipate that the Department for Education will be better placed to undertake assessments than the SSSNB itself and to decide whether they should be implemented.

Government Amendments 117 to 119 and 122 are intended to have the same effect for the social care negotiating bodies as amendments in my name to the SSSNB clauses. It is critical to this Government to provide better care to people in their own homes and in the communities where they need it. These provisions will help to ensure that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for their important work. There were 1.59 million people working in the adult social care sector in England in the financial year 2023-24.

As such, we are introducing amendments to ensure that changes to workers’ pay and conditions as a result of an agreement or regulations being implemented would be only to their benefit. These amendments also make it clear that employers can offer more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by an agreement or in equivalent regulations, including through local collective agreements. This will incentivise employers to compete when attracting talent.

Finally, I turn to government Amendments 120 and 121. We are always grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its excellent work, and we concur with its statement that

“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers it has only found four on which to raise concerns”.

We wish to improve its assessment still further with our amendments to Clause 46. These will ensure that the substantive content of guidance and codes of practice is subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the appropriate legislature where regulations set out consequences for failing to comply with a duty in relation to the guidance or code.

The measures being introduced here are major reforms, creating new structures to address major problems in the social care sector. As such, our drafting has needed to evolve over time and respond to new issues raised as we build this process. We are happy to accept the committee’s feedback and we hope to reassure your Lordships’ House of our commitment to provide Parliament with appropriate oversight.

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

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.