Laurence Turner MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights: Terminal Illness · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) on securing this important debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. I add my thanks to midlands TUC for the work it has done for many years to promote and champion this campaign. I will also mention the work that the GMB midlands region has done in connection with the cause. Two names are on the record, and I echo the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and East Northamptonshire and for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). I pay tribute to Jacci Woodcock, who struck the spark that lit the flame, and my friend of many years, Richard Oliver. It is a pleasure to see him in the Public Gallery. He has brought real passion and expertise to the cause. We have heard today that there are weaknesses and gaps in the Equality Act. I hope that this is the subject of consensus across the House. When in 2022 the then Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), responded for the Government go a debate on the Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill, although he acknowledged that many workers who have a terminal illness are covered by the definition of disability under the Equality Act, he added: “I say, ‘the overwhelming majority’, but one thing that we might want to look at offline, as it were, is trying to ensure that that is everybody” —[ Official Report , 18 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 1010.] who is covered. We are still not in that place today. Although a terminally ill worker can in principle bring a case before an employment tribunal, in too many cases, sadly, there are obvious barriers to doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) has already pointed out that there is very little case law in this area. Although in theory a posthumous employment tribunal case can be brought, in practice it rarely happens. Although the definition of disability inherited from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was probably not written with terminal illness in mind, there are circumstances where a terminally ill worker who is discriminated against at work would not fall under the protections of the Act, but someone in the early and possibly asymptomatic stages of a terminal illness would fall into that category. So there is a strong and compelling case for revisiting the Equality Act, but there are steps that can be taken in the intervening period. Section 22 of the Equality Act established powers to bring in regulations on matters to be taken into account when employers and other bodies make reasonable adjustments. If regulations were brought in for the purpose of establishing that it is reasonable to take certain steps to accommodate the needs of workers with a terminal illness, that would be a helpful and clarifying step, which would be welcomed by employers as well as workers who develop a terminal illness, because employers are looking for clear guidance in this important area. Similarly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission statutory code of practice on employment is the consolidated set of statutory guidance on the application of the Equality Act in the workplace, but that code of practice has not been updated since 2011 and it does not clearly or explicitly cover or reference terminal illness at any point. Were that code updated to take account of the particular problems facing workers who have a terminal illness, that would also play a positive and constructive role. Tribunals must have regard to the guidance from the Government Equalities Office, now the Women and Equalities Unit, on matters to be taken into account in determining questions on the definition of disability. That code has not been updated since 2013, and it does not clearly cover matters relating to terminal illness. Some helpful clarification that could be introduced through that guidance. Nevertheless, some problems cannot be addressed unless and until the Equality Act itself is revisited. The point has already been made that workers who develop a specified illness—cancer, for example—automatically fall under the definition of disability, but people who develop a different terminal illness do not. There is a very strong case for revisiting the Equality Act in that regard. It is welcome that the new Government have made commitments in the “Make Work Pay” document, which states: “Terminally ill people deserve security and decency during the hardest period in their lives.” The Government encourage employers and trade unions to negotiate and sign up to the Dying to Work charter, and will work with trade unions and others to ensure that workers diagnosed with a terminal illness are treated with respect and dignity and supported at work. We all look forward to hearing from the Minister about the progress that has been made on those commitments. We have heard a lot in this Parliament about the importance of a good death and the steps that we need to take in all areas of public policy and law to ensure that people are entitled to and receive support and dignified treatment at the close of their day. That must apply in the field of work and employment as much as in the health service and in all the other respects that we have considered during very emotive and considered debates in this Parliament. It must be hoped that, in the course of the four or five years of this Parliament, real and meaningful progress will be made to extend the charter and other protections to the hundreds of thousands of people who will, sadly, fall ill with a terminal illness and need support at work.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I doubt I am going to do it personally; as with all these things, it is a collective endeavour. The hon. Member asked whether the Government are going to do this, but they are doing this—it is in the Bill. I ask again: what is the Opposition’s alternative? We are yet to hear it. It is worth reflecting on the nature of these review bodies—not that this is a pay review body; it is a negotiation body—and the way in which we establish new agreements, because these things do not happen quickly. I think that the establishment of “Agenda for Change” in the NHS took seven years from initiation to completion. That exercise took a long time, but I do not think anyone would seriously argue for going back to the plethora of terms and conditions, and the mismatch between different grades of workers, that existed before, which created serious equal pay liabilities. That is the situation that we inherit in respect of school support staff. These things do take time. If the shadow Minister goes back to the record of the original school support staff negotiating body—from 2009 to 2010—the progress made in that relatively short time was not on establishing the new pay system, but on drawing up model role profiles and moving towards a national handbook for terms and conditions. Those measures would be hugely welcome today. In fact, the Conservative Government acknowledged that some the school support staff negotiating body had done some important work during that time. They were on record as saying that there was a clear case for carrying forward some of it, but that never happened, and we have been left with an absence in that area of policy for almost 15 years. The changes to pay will be hugely welcome when they come. It will be a negotiation, so the outcomes will be a matter for the parties represented on the negotiating body, including the Department for Education. We must go back to the problem: schools are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain skilled school support staff. A number of private sector employers, including supermarkets, are increasingly offering term-time only contracts, with the intention of attracting people out of schools and into alternative roles. Freedom of information requests show that, where data is held, teaching assistant vacancy rates run at around 10%. That is having a real impact on the ability of schools to deliver inclusive education, which is a shame.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for her intervention. I agree with her up to a point. Teaching assistants’ wages have increased by about 24% on average over the period that we are talking about, while the consumer prices index has increased by 40% over the same period, so there has been an erosion in wages. We could talk about funding at great length. However, as she said, it is beyond the scope of the Bill and the clauses that we are discussing. The matter goes beyond funding and pay, as important and relevant as those two issues are, because it is also about contracts and about terms and conditions. There are real problems, which we will discuss, involving the construction of term-time only contracts as they currently exist. We saw in the Harpur Trust v. Brazel decision the liabilities created for employers, as well as for workers, by existing contracts inherited from negotiating arrangements that are not fit for purpose. There is a strong rationale for extending and separating the negotiation over terms and conditions, as well as over pay. That point has been recognised for a long time. Given the complaints that we have heard from the Opposition about what they see as the expeditious drafting of policies and clauses in the legislation, I hope they welcome having this matter before us, which has precedent and is the result of more than 20 years of policy development. It was recognised as far back as the 2005 schools White Paper that an early challenge for the school workforce agreement at that time—signed, I think, in 2003—would be ensuring fair pay and rewards for support staff. We want to ensure that that is supported by a more coherent approach to union recognition at school level, clearer career paths and skills escalators, and a more standardised and benchmarked approach to grading, job descriptions, contract awards, deployments and school support staff training and development. Those are exactly the issues that we are talking about. It is sad to look back at those complaints from 20 years ago and to realise just how little progress has been made. The decision to increase the number of school support staff workers, which was carried forward by Governments of all parties, was taken because at the time the workload of teachers was far too high. There were serious problems of classroom management and teachers found themselves undertaking a huge number of administrative duties, rather than teaching. Those complaints are current today, but it was worse then, and that was remedied by the introduction of more school support staff workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge spoke about her own experience. I can also speak from direct experience, having been a special educational needs and disabilities kid during that time, about the value to me of school support staff workers. I do not think I would be here in this Committee without them. However, for too long we collectively have not recognised their contribution. The Minister made the point that the National Joint Council for local government services is not adequate for school support staff workers. The Green Book was never designed to accommodate those roles, and it is an anachronism that school support staff workers continue to fall under the Green Book. Indeed, while the Confederation of School Trusts has some wider concerns—I think one of the Opposition’s amendments is modelled on the submission that the CST made to the Committee—it has said that it agrees that the time is right to take school support staff negotiations out of the local government umbrella. I know from representing school support staff workers in the past that they are some of the lowest paid workers in the public sector. I have represented some—primarily women—who have been forced to resort to food banks and payday loans to make ends meet, but they often still dip into their own pockets to provide educational essentials to children who do not have enough to get by. That record has led school support staff to be reclassified as being in low-paying occupations, which should really be a badge of shame for us. The logic of live and let be, and of deregulating and letting a thousand flowers bloom across schools, has not worked, and I would be interested to hear what the Opposition have to say on that.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is fine—I think that applies to both the intervention and the response. A direct question had been put about whether there is an alternative proposition on pay and terms and conditions, which is the matter we are considering today. I hope we will have an opportunity to talk in much more detail about the matters the hon. Member for Bridgwater raised, but the Opposition could not answer that direct question. It is a shame that there is not more agreement on what is a very real policy problem. We have a serious—dare I say it—road-tested proposal in the Bill to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body. I am none the wiser about what measures the Opposition propose, but it is important that the clause be part of the Bill.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Merry Christmas, everyone. In that spirit of glad tidings, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. Clause 25 enables the reinstatement of one of two bodies that are to be reinstated by the Bill—the other is the school support staff negotiating body, which I hope we will come to today. The clause stands in a long and proud tradition in this Parliament, and at its heart is a simple question: what duty does the state owe to people who perform services on its behalf? The phrase “two tier” has become highly charged in recent years, but I hope that we can channel some of that spirit of protest towards the iniquity of two-tier workforces. The injustice is easy to describe—in fact, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, described it. When a public service is outsourced, the original workers’ pay and terms and conditions are protected to a certain extent by TUPE, but those of the workers who are subsequently employed on that contract are not. Even when they carry out exactly the same duties, they will normally be paid inferior rates. That is understandably a cause of tension and resentment at many sites where services continue to be performed on behalf of the public sector. The original workers who are TUPE-ed over can be singled out for victimisation and adverse treatment on the part of their new employer. We know from the labour force survey, in the days when that instrument was in better health, that many such workers continue to regard themselves as part of the public sector and are motivated by public service. The workers who tend to find themselves in this position are more likely to be women, on lower earnings and from non-white backgrounds. The case for parity of treatment was made powerfully in the last Parliament by the Defence Committee, which at the time had a Conservative Chair. The Committee’s report on the treatment of contracted staff for ancillary services states: “In general, the terms and conditions of outsourced employees are worse than those of their directly employed counterparts, with reduced wages and benefits…The Ministry of Defence should do more to ensure that contracted staff receive comparable employment contracts to staff directly employed by the MoD.” That is precisely what the reinstated and strengthened two-tier code, enabled by this clause, will accomplish. Two-tier workforces are not just unfair on workers; they represent a failure of public policy. When margins are tight, bidders can end up competing not on efficiency or innovation, but on a squeezing of wages. We need only look at Carillion for a prominent example of what can go wrong, and of the wider liability for taxpayers when a contractor loses sight of its wider operations. The direct cost to the public sector has been estimated at some £150 million, the wider debts to the private sector were in the region of £2 billion, and the National Audit Office has warned that we will not know the true cost for many years to come. The shadow Minister referred to the sepia-tinted days—perhaps we should say the blue-rinse days— of 2006, but I was grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for Chippenham and for Torbay, because there is a long-standing and cross-party record on this matter. We can go back to 1891, when the radical Liberal politician Sydney Buxton moved the fair wages resolution, a resolution of this House, which was carried unanimously—at that time, Parliament had a Conservative majority. He said: “The Government is far the greatest letter-out of contracts in the country, and Government contracts are the most popular for three reasons. In the first place, the contractor makes no bad debts; secondly, he has quick returns; and, thirdly, a Government contract forms a good advertisement. The consequence is, that there is great competition, and tenders are cut down very much at the expense of the labour market. Such a state of things is unfair to the good employer…and injurious to the community. The fair employer is placed at a very great disadvantage as compared with the unfair.” —[ Official Report , 13 February 1891; Vol. 350, c. 618.] Those arguments hold true today. That fair wages resolution was adapted and improved down the years, and took its final form under the Attlee Government in 1946. It has subsequently been exported around the world, in the form of International Labour Organisation convention No. 94. Indeed, those great British protections, developed in this Parliament, apply now in Italy, Spain and such far-flung places as Brazil, but because of decisions taken in the 1980s, they do not apply to contracted-out workers in this country. I very much welcome the opportunity to put that right. The two-tier code existed previously, between 2005 and 2006. It grew out of an earlier iteration in local government, and it has been in force subsequently in Wales, where the sky has not fallen in in terms of service provision. [ Interruption. ] If the shadow Minister wants to intervene, he is welcome to.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Why does the hon. Gentleman’s argument against central direction-setting not apply to teachers? Is he arguing for the abolition of the School Teachers Review Body?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is a direct question. We could talk about the way the PISA rankings are constructed.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would say better, having had some experience. The hon. Gentleman might want to return to that point. On the substance of the clause, there were some concerns about the original incarnation of the two-tier code. It was purely voluntary and did not contain meaningful provisions for redress where an employer who had signed up to uphold the standards of the code did not follow through. I hope that that deficiency will be remedied when the associated regulations appear. It is legitimate to have differences on points of principle. After the current Lord Maude abolished the two-tier code, the Secretary of State—now Baron Pickles—said that the Government of the time had “Abolished the…two-tier code that…hindered the voluntary and independent sector from delivering better value for money.” —[ Official Report , 26 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 166WS.] The shadow Minister has made much the same point. This was explicitly about driving down wages for the large number of people who are contracted out to deliver public services. I very much welcome the fact that this Government have a policy objective of making work pay. For a large number of people in the labour market who have been overlooked by politicians for too long, the clause represents an important step forward for remedying that deficiency.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way at the death. Does he also recognise that one example of a council that tried to go down the wholesale outsourcing route was Northamptonshire? We all know how that story ended, and Eddie Martin, the Conservative former leader of Cumbria county council, stated that the then Government “says that outsourcing is everything, but while it might get you an initial cheaper price, that price simply doesn’t last, you lose flexibility, and it causes a great deal of unrest.”

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is Christmas.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will pick up the point just made about the changes made in 2017. Some of the opposition at that time came from the august institution of the Institute of Economic Affairs, which said that, if the regulations were introduced, “they may encourage outsourcing of lower-paid jobs which happen to be taken by women (to avoid inclusion in a firm’s own return).” That point has also been made by other organisations. King’s College London published a study on this matter three years ago, which said that “focusing on the pay gap headline number can risk organisations seeking to window-dress their figures by outsourcing lower-paid jobs, which in turn worsens overall gender segregation within the labour market.” Therefore, this extension of gender pay gap reporting to outsourced workers really does close that loophole and remove that perverse incentive—one example of many that we have heard about in this Committee. We also heard from the Women’s Budget Group; Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, giving evidence, said: “We welcome the move to include outsourced workers in gender pay gap reporting…We are very conscious that you will quite often see that the lowest paid workers, particularly in the public sector, are now outsourced.” –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 163, Q176.] The measures as proposed would effectively link the outsourced employer’s reporting to the reporting of the primary contracting authority. I hope that, when the regulations are drafted, they will shed some light on the extent of outsourcing across the economy; these workers are often invisible in official statistics, which is a wider problem for our understanding of the labour market. However, this move within the Bill is welcome. I will just come back on one point; the shadow Minister referred to elected leaders of the Labour party. He is quite right to point out that the Labour party has not elected a woman leader—I very much hope that that will happen—but, for completeness, under the Labour party rulebook there is no role of “acting” or “interim” leader. It is therefore important to say, for the record, that in the eyes of the rulebook the noble Baronesses Beckett and Harman were as much leaders of the Labour party as any men who have fulfilled that role, and they served with distinction.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think we have it there: the Opposition do not see this as a political priority. They chose not to take steps or to put forward meaningful proposals to raise the employment standards of school support staff. My challenge was: do they have any proposals for this group of workers, particularly in light of the Low Pay Commission decision? We have not heard an answer.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In addition to the interest to which I drew attention earlier, my partner is a trustee of a multi-academy trust. The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body is a hugely welcome measure and long overdue. It is a real shame to hear that there will be cross-party division on this question, because the consequences of the decision to abolish the SSSNB are negative, they are serious and they are now plain to see. We will come on to detailed discussion of the schedule and the amendments, but it is worth reflecting on the rationale that the then Government gave back in 2010 for abolishing the SSSNB. The Secretary of State at the time said—and he never went much beyond this—that the Government had “concluded that the SSSNB does not fit well with the Government’s priorities for greater deregulation of the pay and conditions arrangement for the school workforce.” What has been the consequence of that decision? We saw it last year, when the Low Pay Commission, for the first time, reclassified school support staff roles as low-paying occupations. That should be a mark of shame on the Governments that oversaw that unhappy outcome—which, as I said, was a consequence of the decision to abolish that body.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That was quite a generous amount of time for an intervention. The hon. Member may wish to go back to the record, because the point I made was that the experiment over pay and terms and conditions has failed. The challenge to the Opposition was: do they recognise that there is a serious problem with school support staff remuneration and contracts? If they do, what are their proposals to fix it? I would be willing to take a second intervention on that point.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He describes a picture of extraordinary success. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. Does he regard the SEND system as a success?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am trying to understand what the shadow Minister means by cost to the education sector. Does he mean the running cost of the body itself or the cost of an agreement? If he means the latter, how could that possibly be accounted for when, as we have heard, any new pay scale is likely to be some years away and would be subject to negotiation?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Is it the case—perhaps this gets to the heart of the matter—that the proposed way that the SSSNB would work is that a matter would be referred to a body, an agreement would be reached, and it would be passed back to the Secretary of State to write it into regulations? Nowhere in the Bill does it say that that would be a ceiling. If it was something that was negotiated between the parties, it would be a floor that could be improved on. There is nothing in the Bill to stop that happening.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We have covered a huge amount of ground in this debate, so I will restrict my remarks to a few matters that have been raised. I say to the shadow Minister that if he thought that the Minister’s summary was bureaucratic and difficult to follow, he should sit through some meetings of the National Joint Council for Local Government Services, which is the dominant mode through which pay and terms and conditions are set. It is worth reflecting briefly on some of the practical issues in schools that can be remedied through this new approach. It is a well-known problem that schoolteachers’ and school support staff’s pay award dates are misaligned. For schoolteachers, it is September; for school support staff, it is April, with the financial year. That can be a nightmare for bursars, school business managers and large employers, who have to plan their budgets with that significant difference. In a previous life, I sat through a working group convened by the Local Government Association through the NJC on a vexed issue: how can school support staff’s work out of term-time be calculated on a term-time-only contract, because they are accumulating annual leave but cannot take all of it during term? It was a bit like a version of this Committee that reached no conclusions and never ended. These are real problems that result from the ossification of the NJC system. It is not appropriate for school support staff workers. As we all know, when a pay and grading system becomes ossified, legal danger lurks for employers in the inconsistencies that emerge. There is no justification for saying that TA level 2 means something completely different in neighbouring authorities. That can become a block on people’s progression and ambitions to relocate. Multi-academy trusts and other academy employers overwhelmingly remain subscribed to the NJC, because this system of pay and grading, which has grown up over decades, is labyrinthine and difficult to follow, and most academy trusts do not have the HR and payroll functions to put something new in place. We can put some figures on this. The school workforce census carried out by the Department for Education collects data on NJC coverage compared with other pay gradings. For local authority maintained schools, 80% of school support staff are paid on NJC grades, when non-responses are excluded. For academies, the figure is 77%, so there is no huge difference between the two sectors. Even among the remainder, some staff are employed under separate agreements with Soulbury terms, so are quite separate, and a high proportion—possibly even the majority—are paid on NJC-like terms and conditions, although there might be some local improvements to those pay gradings. That is the issue that the Confederation of School Trusts raised in its written evidence, and I think it has been addressed through this Committee. We are seeking to establish a floor, not a ceiling, so local improvements can still be made where employers and trade unions agree them. The clause takes a lot from the lessons that were learned from the previous iteration of the SSSNB, which is welcome. The clauses on the adult social care negotiating body contain a general provision that any specified matter relating to employment could be referred to that body. Proposed new section 148J is drafted a bit more tightly for the SSSNB—at least, that is my reading of it—so I wonder whether there is a case for aligning the wording for the two bodies. Let me go back to why we are doing this. School support staff are the hidden professionals in the education system. I did not just represent school support staff; I was once a school governor in a specialist SEND setting, and there were school support staff and teaching assistants. It is important to remember that the term covers site staff, cleaners, caterers and all sorts of other workers, who often do not get talked about. Those workers make lifesaving interventions—they may have to administer medicine or perform a medical intervention that literally keeps a child alive—but they are paid about £14,000 a year. That represents a failure of central Government to account for the pay, conditions and wellbeing of all the people who work in schools. The measures we are discussing are hugely important and welcome, and it is very welcome that the Bill has been brought forward this early in the Parliament.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an interesting argument. I am keen to tease out the evidence for the assertion that there is a relationship between the decentralisation of pay and terms and conditions, and performance. Can he explain why, then, the overwhelming majority of academies subscribe to the National Joint Council green book terms and conditions? Is that not, in fact, an argument for collective bargaining as a handmaiden to academic success?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to come back on some of the points that the shadow Minister raised. I appreciate his clarification about exactly what information the Opposition are trying to tease out with amendment 124. I hope he does not mind me saying that the cost of any future settlement agreement is speculative in nature. We heard from the Minister earlier that part of the remit that Ministers will give the body will be about affordability and the funding available at the time. It will probably be several years in the future when that new pay scale comes into force, albeit that there is some good work that the SSSNB could be getting on with in the interim that would have very low costs for the sector. We have some information about how much the body itself would cost. An answer to a written parliamentary question in 2011 put the estimated cost saving of abolishing the SSSNB at £1.4 million over the spending review period. That was about £350,000 a year. In today’s prices, we are looking at close to half a million. That is a very small fraction of a percentage of the Department’s budget, and it is probably an overestimate given that civil service wages have not kept pace with inflation over that time. The former education spokesperson for the Labour party, Andy Burnham, who was involved in the setting up of the original SSSNB, described it as a “low-cost panel”. That is exactly what we are talking about here. I hope that that provides some reassurance that amendment 124 is not necessary. The SSSNB produced annual reports, which were published by the Government in the normal way. The Department for Education tracks the costs of school support staff pay increases. That information is made available, including to sector representatives, through the schools and academies funding group. I hear what the shadow Minister says, but I do not think these amendments are necessary because the information is unknowable or already available, or it will be made available in the normal course of business.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I think I am correct in saying that Buckinghamshire is one area that has opted out of the National Joint Council, so I recognise that the shadow Minister brings a particular perspective to the debate, but the final line of the amendment states that “a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to 30 career progression”. I assume that is just a typographical error, but it would be good to have that point clarified. More widely, I do not think the amendment is necessary. In some ways, it is quite loosely worded. It seeks to put in the Bill a reference to a framework, but a framework is not defined and that would not be clarified through later regulations. Therefore, I am not sure that the wording before us would necessarily resolve the Opposition’s aim, and the meaning of “framework” is probably not something that we would want to have out in the courts. On the wider issues, the shadow Minister said that the proposals in the Bill would overwrite the funding agreements, but part of those agreements is a requirement for academy employers to have regard to the academies handbook, which is altered as part of the normal course of public policy, so such variations are not especially new. As I say, I do not think that what is in front of us would achieve the Opposition’s aim. The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body was a manifesto commitment. It would be problematic to say that a manifesto commitment could not be implemented because funding agreements were already in place. It is quite proper for the Government of the day to pursue their public policy objectives in this manner. I would like to correct the record. In the morning sitting I said that freedom of information requests had established that, where data was held, the vacancy rate for teaching assistants was 10%. The actual figure is 18%. I just wanted to put that higher number on the record.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. Before we move past the hon. Gentleman’s point about information, which we have talked about a lot, is the core problem not that there is a wider issue with UK labour market statistics? We heard during the evidence sessions from the Resolution Foundation, which said: “The Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey is in the doldrums”. –– [ Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 119, Q125.] This is not a party political point. The ONS’s collection methods, which broadly worked until the pandemic, have not worked subsequently. The statistics body is going through a period of transforming the labour force survey, but the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman makes of the information available to this Government would have held true for the Government between 2020 and 2024. This is a much wider issue. We could look at that problem and say, “We didn’t even really know what the UK unemployment rate was for some time,” and if that was an absolute barrier, all employment legislation would be on hold. It is important that those practical challenges are acknowledged.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Like my hon. Friend, I have intense sympathy with many of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but the “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year, which was subsequently endorsed in the Labour manifesto, stated: “It is important that businesses can restructure to remain viable, to preserve their workforce and the company when there is genuinely no alternative, but this must follow a proper process based on dialogue and common understanding between employers and workers.” We all want to see both parts of that carried through, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. If amendment 160 were accepted, would it not have the effect of invalidating that part of the Government’s manifesto commitment?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not speak for long, because most of the points have been made in the debate, but I want to come back to the point made by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater. There is perhaps a legitimate difference in principle between the two sides: when there are extreme examples, should there or should there not be legislation in response? It is important to respond to that, because we have seen extreme examples of abuse across different parts of the labour market. To go back to the example of blacklisting, I suggest that that was a failure of successive Parliaments to tackle a practice that had been thought to be relatively rare, but proved to have been carried out on an industrial scale. It was right for Parliament to enact the blacklisting regulations. I go back, too, to the Grunwick dispute, the ancestor of the statutory recognition regime. At the time, it was thought that the abusive patterns of employment behaviour on full display in that particular employer would be unlikely to recur. The Government of the day commissioned a public inquiry under Lord Scarman in the belief that, if the inquiry concluded that there should be trade union recognition, it was inconceivable that any employer would not abide by that—but that is exactly what happened. Where we see those extreme abuses, other employers—by no means the majority, or even a substantial minority, but enough to have a seriously deleterious effect on the lives of many workers—will follow. Since P&O, we have seen other examples; hon. Members have referred to particular employers and sectors, and I could add parts of the retail, utilities and even the public sector, where such tactics have become more common. The previous Government made strong statements—I could quote some—about the practice, but I suggest that the action that was subsequently taken, the code of practice, was not sufficiently strong. In the case of P&O, where the employer made it clear at the time that it intended to ignore the existing legislation, it did not prove sufficient remedy. We do need stronger action. The measures in the Bill will only ever affect a tiny minority of employers. It is important to stress that, but it is necessary to put this action into the Bill. P&O will always loom large in discussions of this topic, but the practice is by no means confined to that particular employer, and it is right to take the action that was not taken in the previous Parliament.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to continue on the shadow Minister’s theme of milk. It used to be common in factories where there were particulates in the air to include a clause in someone’s contract that said they were entitled to a glass of milk during the day, because it was believed at the time that a glass of milk would remove those particulates from someone’s airway. It was completely misguided, but those contracts still exist, and I have been in situations where I have looked over similar, very outdated terms and conditions. If it is raining on a site, someone might be entitled to a 2p payment, for example. Such contract conditions are very easy to remove; it can be done by agreement. Does the shadow Minister accept that if a contract is worded appropriately, such variations can be made by an employer—the key factor is whether there has been genuine consultation—and that the circumstances that clause 22 will remedy are really quite separate? It is for those extreme examples that Grant Shapps, the Conservative Business Secretary at the time, spoke out against.