⚖️ Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

• Public Sector Outsourcing Protections: Clause 25 aims to improve employment conditions for workers transferred from the public to the private sector due to outsourcing. It empowers Ministers to establish regulations that ensure fair terms for both transferred public sector workers and new private sector recruits on the same contracts.

• Public Sector Outsourcing Debate: There was a debate about the effectiveness and fairness of outsourcing services. While some argued it can improve service and efficiency, others highlighted the potential for cost-cutting by reducing workers’ terms and conditions, which the clause aims to prevent.

• Equality Action Plans and Menstrual Health: An amendment was considered to include support for employees with menstrual problems and disorders in equality action plans. Although the amendment was withdrawn, it sparked discussion about the broader support needed for women’s health in the workplace.

• Equality Action Plans and Carers: Another amendment proposed adding support for employees with caregiving responsibilities to the equality action plans but was also withdrawn. The debate focused on the impact of caregiving on women’s employment and the need for workplace adjustments.

• Mandatory Equality Action Plans: Clause 26 will introduce mandatory equality action plans for large employers to address gender pay gaps and menopause support, aiming to enhance gender equality and workforce inclusivity.

• Reporting on Outsourced Workers: Clause 27 requires large employers to report on their outsourcing arrangements, aiming to promote transparency and fairness in the treatment of outsourced workers, especially in the context of gender pay gap reporting.

• School Support Staff Negotiating Body: Clause 28 proposes reinstating a negotiating body for school support staff in England to address issues of pay and conditions. The move aims to standardize terms across schools and improve recruitment and retention of support staff. The clause passed despite opposition concerns about centralization.

• Overall Bill Focus: The session focused on strengthening workers’ rights, particularly in outsourced public services, gender equality, and support for school support staff, emphasizing the government’s commitment to improving working conditions and addressing pay disparities.

The session displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily focused on the ideological and practical differences regarding outsourcing and the reinstatement of certain bodies such as the School Support Staff Negotiating Body (SSSNB). Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• Outsourcing Debate: There was a clear disagreement on the effectiveness and fairness of outsourcing public services. The Minister and some Labour MPs argued for the reinstatement and strengthening of the two-tier code to ensure fairness, whereas Conservative MPs like Greg Smith and Sir Ashley Fox emphasized the benefits of outsourcing for cost-efficiency and service improvement.

• SSSNB Reinstatement: The reinstatement of the SSSNB was contentious. The Minister and Labour MPs supported it as a means to support and recognize school support staff, while Conservative MPs opposed it, arguing that it would limit the freedoms of academies and schools to manage their own resources.

• Gender Equality and Action Plans: There was some debate around the specifics of gender equality measures, particularly regarding amendments related to menstrual issues and caring responsibilities. However, the disagreements were more about the details of the legislation rather than strong opposition to the underlying principles.

• Evidence of Agreement: Despite the debates, there were instances where MPs acknowledged each other’s points and even expressed willingness to support certain amendments if framed differently. For example, Greg Smith acknowledged the need for support on women’s health issues but disagreed on the specific wording of amendments.

• Voting Outcome: The division on Clause 28, where the SSSNB reinstatement was debated, showed a clear majority in favor (Ayes: 15, Noes: 4), indicating that while disagreement existed, it was not sufficient to derail the passage of the clause.

Overall, the session did not exhibit extreme polarization or heated exchanges that would warrant a higher rating of disagreement. The disagreements, while clear, were within the bounds of typical parliamentary discourse and did not dominate the session entirely.