Mr.
Laws: The hon. Lady has raised a very important point, and
I would like the Minister to clarify whether there are any
circumstances in which one of the organisations referred to in this
part of the Bill might not be a trade
union.
Jim
Knight: Clearly, those representing the
employees—the staff—would be just those three unions, but
representatives of the employers would also be on the body, and they
would not be trade
unions.
Mrs.
Hodgson: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
15 agreed
to. Clause
213 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
214Referral
of matter to SSSNB for
consideration
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 372, in clause 214,
page 123, line 25, after
‘(a)’, insert ‘and
to the desirability of promoting school
autonomy.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 373, in clause 215, page 124,
line 3, at end
insert— ‘(1A) In considering
a matter within its remit, the SSSNB must have regard to the
desirability of promoting school
autonomy.’. Amendment
374, in
clause 217, page 124, line 35, at
end add— ‘(3) On making an
order under subsection (2)(a), the Secretary of State must publish a
statement explaining the predicted impact of the order on school
autonomy.’. Amendment
376, in
clause 220, page 126, line 28, at
end insert— ‘(d) the
agreement fails to give due consideration to the desirability of
promoting school
autonomy.’. Amendment
375, in
clause 220, page 126, line 29, at
end add— ‘(7) On making an
order under subsection (2)(a), the Secretary of State must publish a
statement explaining the predicted impact of the order on school
autonomy.’.
Mr.
Gibb: These five amendments make the same point, but apply
to different clauses on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. They
would ensure that the Secretary of State and the SSSNB have regard to
the desirability of promoting school autonomy at all points in the
decision-making process. They require the SSSNB to have regard to that
point when making a decision and require the Secretary of State to make
a statement on school autonomy when ratifying any agreement. They would
also enable the Secretary of State to refer the agreement back to the
SSSNB if it fails to take account of this
issue. Our
concern is that schools that are autonomous and value their autonomy
and freedom should not have that autonomy undermined by the existence
of the SSSNB. When they enter into negotiations, the autonomy of
schools must not be jeopardised by a national pay-bargaining
agreement.
Jim
Knight: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point.
The member organisations that make up the negotiating body will of
course include representatives of employers of school support staff,
representatives of local government employers, FASNA, the Church of
England education division and the Catholic Education
Service. During
the oral evidence sessions, we heard from FASNA, which represents the
governing bodies that are employers of support staff. It explained the
need for any agreements reached by the negotiating body to include
an appropriate level of flexibility. That flexibility is needed for
schools to continue to choose the specific roles of their support staff
and to deploy them in a way that meets the school’s particular
needs. Unison said it was confident
that “flexibility
can be built into it... Schools will be able to determine what
their staffing structure is, what level of staff they want and what
jobs they want the staff to
do.”——[Official Report, Apprenticeships,
Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2009;
c. 146,
Q88.] It
is not only self-governing schools that will need that flexibility.
Community voluntary aided schools, community special schools and
maintained nursery schools all need flexibility to manage their staff
in ways that allow them to address the challenges they face. The whole
school work force must be managed in a way that supports personalised
learning and development and focuses on pupil
attainment. There
are already sufficient safeguards in the way that the voting membership
is arranged to ensure that the needs of employee and employer will be
catered for in any agreement. That will include the safeguarding of
autonomy. There will be a fair and equal system with both sides voting
on agreements. Clause 217 allows the Secretary of State to refer an
agreement back to the SSSNB for a reconsideration if he thinks that it
would be inappropriate to ratify it. Clause 220 allows him to refer an
agreement that has been revised or resubmitted following
reconsideration back to the SSSNB for further consideration if he
believes that it would not be practicable to implement it. The
Secretary of State may use that provision if he considers that an
agreement fails to provide appropriate
flexibility. For
those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I ask
the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: I listened carefully to the Minister’s
response. He appears to have provided some reassurance. His words were
read rapidly into the record. With the reservation that I would like to
read them carefully at a better hour of the day, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
214 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
215Consideration
of other matters by
SSSNB
Mrs.
Hodgson: I beg to move amendment 538, in
clause 215, page 124, line 6, leave
out subsection
(3).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 539, in clause 216,
page 124, line 15, leave out from
‘agreement’ to ‘make’ in line
16. Amendment
541, in
clause 216, page 124, line 16, leave
out from ‘agreement’ to end of line
19. Amendment
542, in
clause 217, page 124, line 30, leave
out
‘(a)’. Amendment
544, in
clause 219, page 125, line 12, leave
out ‘section 218(2)(b)’.
Amendment 545,
in
clause 219, page 125, line 34, leave
out subsection
(7). Amendment
546, in
clause 220, page 126, line 13, leave
out paragraph
(c). Clause
218 stand
part. 2.30
am
Mrs.
Hodgson: The support staff trade unions—GMB, Unison
and Unite—warmly welcome the establishment of a national
negotiating body for school support staff. It is also supported by head
teacher and teacher organisations, governor representatives and
employer organisations. As we know, support staff have grown in number
and role under this Government, and they are the new professionals in
schools. The
amendments would enable the SSSNB to function properly. I would have
liked to say much more about the amendments, but in the interests of
brevity I shall curtail my remarks to those that I have just made. I
look forward to hearing from the Minister in due
course.
Jim
Knight: On amendment 538, clause 215 allows the
negotiating body to consider and reach agreement on a matter within the
remit of the body, regardless of whether the matter has been referred
to it by the Secretary of State. Clause 215(3) provides that the body
may, however, submit its agreement to the Secretary of State only if it
has received the Secretary of State’s prior consent. The
amendment would remove that
requirement. I
understand the concern that has been raised that in a genuine
negotiation, issues sometimes crop up at the last minute that need to
be included in order to secure a negotiated agreement. That is why
clause 215 is in the Bill. The amendment raises an interesting
question, given all the safeguards that I mentioned in speaking to the
last amendment, as to whether we need to have subsection (3) in the
Bill. I will reflect on that, and if I decide that it is not necessary,
I will bring something back on
Report. On
amendments 539 to 544, if the negotiating body submits an agreement to
the Secretary of State for his consideration, clause 216 requires it to
accompany the submission with a recommendation about how the agreement
should be implemented in schools. Clause 216 currently
requires that the recommendation must set out whether the agreement
should be ratified by the Secretary of State, which would require
schools to comply with the agreement, or should be one which schools
must “have regard to”. That is an important part of the
flexibility that I spoke about
earlier. Clauses
217 and 218 set out the Secretary of State’s options if the
negotiating body’s agreement is initially submitted to him with
a recommendation. They are, therefore, inextricably linked to clause
216. The amendments would deprive the body of the option of
recommending that the Secretary of State require schools to have regard
to the agreement submitted, thereby, in effect, imposing a duty on the
negotiating body to recommend that the Secretary of State make an order
ratifying the agreement. As a consequence of the amendments, the
Secretary of State would no longer be able to make an order requiring
schools to have regard to an agreement submitted by the negotiating
body.
At that stage
in the proceedings, he would be limited to either making an order
ratifying the agreement, or referring the agreement back to the
negotiating body for
consideration.
Mr.
Laws: On that specific point, under what circumstances
would the Secretary of State be likely to make the order in clause
216(2)(b)—in other words,
to “make
an order requiring persons specified in the recommendation to have
regard
to” rather
than ratify the agreement?
Jim
Knight: The negotiating body will be looking at a range of
different issues, from pay and conditions through to training.
Currently, such issues are negotiated through local government
arrangements. The current arrangements involve a certain number of
things that are applied locally; for example, around training matters.
The national agreement is something that local determination has regard
to. That is why we need
flexibility. The
negotiating body itself may have a view on what schools should have
regard to as opposed to what they must implement, but it is right to
withhold for the Secretary of State the ability also to decide, on the
recommendations of the negotiating body, what schools should have
regard to and what they should implement. It is that flexibility that
we are seeking to
achieve.
Mr.
Laws: Will the Minister give way one last
time?
Jim
Knight: I will one last time, but then I must make
progress.
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for being so patient.
Can he clarify the Bill as it stands on that specific point? Does it,
in effect, simply maintain the status quo on flexibility, or does it
introduce an additional element of
flexibility?
Jim
Knight: As I understand it, the measure implements
additional flexibility to allow the Secretary of State to influence
things. While I understand the rationale behind my hon. Friend’s
amendments and can see arguments both for and against requiring a body
to make such a recommendation, the amendments would not achieve the
desired
result. Amendment
546 is not inextricably linked to those that I have just discussed.
Where the Secretary of State refers back to the negotiating body for
reconsideration of an agreement that it has previously submitted,
clause 220 provides the Secretary of State with a comprehensive and
appropriate range of options for taking forward those agreements, once
the negotiating body has resubmitted them. Where the negotiating body
submits an agreement to the Secretary of State following
reconsideration, the Secretary of State can make an order ratifying it
or requiring schools to have regard to it. However, if the Secretary of
State does not feel that it would be appropriate to do either of those
things, he can either refer the agreement back to the negotiating body
for further consideration, or, where there is an urgent need and
further conditions are met as laid down in clause 220(5), he can make
his own determination by order.
The amendment
would remove the Secretary of State’s power to do that. It is
not possible to say in advance what matters the negotiating body may be
asked to consider or under what circumstances schools may be required
to have regard to or to implement an agreement. It will be for the
Secretary of State to consider such matters very carefully at the time,
taking into account the nature and content of the agreement. To take
away that option from the Secretary of State would be unwise and
detrimental to schools, and it would severely limit flexibility, which
is more important than ever in the constantly changing working
environment in our schools. We are looking for the negotiating body
agreements to achieve national consistency alongside appropriate local
flexibility. I am aware that trade unions and employer representatives
expect that some of the agreements that they reach will be appropriate
for a “have regard to” order, and the amendment would
remove that
flexibility. In
summary, I know that trade unions are concerned that unless agreements
are presented as “required to implement” orders, schools
could ignore them, but there is no evidence that that will be the case.
If the Secretary of State makes an order requiring employers to
“have regard to” an agreement, all maintained schools and
local authorities would be expected to implement the agreement, unless
they can demonstrate a very good reason not to do so. With those
reassurances, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Laws: The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington,
West has received a detailed response from the Minister on the
important points that she has raised about a group of employees who do
a valuable job within our school and college system. Will the Minister
ensure that he informs the Committee if his judgment about the
significance of clause 216(2)(b) is incorrect in any way? He said that
he thought that it was the case that that provision, which the hon.
Lady is effectively seeking to delete, is introducing new flexibility
into the circumstances in relation to these
staff.
Jim
Knight: What I am referring to is the generality of the
system and the powers that the Secretary of State has in respect of
these clauses. The issue of “have regard to” has been the
subject of much discussion. My understanding is that the entirety of
these arrangements gives the Secretary of State a bit more power to
ensure that there is flexibility under the National Joint Council
arrangements.
| 
