The Conservatives' Workers Plan: Not Really That Progressive...

Today Prime Minister Theresa May set out a new vision to improve workers' rights in the UK prior to the Brexit process being completed in 2019. It's rather timely that PM May has decided to try and address inequalities in employment legislation head-on given that many Millennial workers and employees are worried about job security and pay; of course she's trying to appeal to centre and centre-left voters such as myself. However, when you get into some of the detail, the plan doesn't look as enticing as it should be. In fact, I'd say that PM May is playing to the gallery without being as as wholly progressive as a forward-looking, positive, progressive party should be.

• Introducing a legal entitlement for employees to take up to 52 weeks off to look after disabled dependents who require full-time care seems like a good idea on the surface. Employers will need to keep the job open for employees on leave for the full period and provide any training (e.g. payroll updates for HR/Payroll Administrators) necessary to help the employee adjust effectively when they come back from leave. The major problem with this policy is that the leave has to be taken UNPAID. I can't think of many working class people in my local ward, Birchwood, who are subsisting on or earning just over the National Living Wage who'd be able to afford to go on care leave and it's not clear whether they would be entitled to Carers Allowance or any form of financial assistance whilst on this leave (at the moment Carers Allowance is not means tested but if you earn more £116 a week, you are not entitled to it). Plus this policy isn't a "firm" guarantee; the Tories state that they will "consult with carers, businesses and employees" to decide on the "right length and nature of leave". This means that proposals could be watered down if many Small and Medium sized businesses particularly object. We already have 6 million unpaid carers in the UK and they save the UK taxpayers £132bn a year according to Carers UK. Only 800,000 out of the 6 million claim Carers Allowance, meaning that many are juggling the stress of having to bring money into the household to ensure that bills get paid with the stress of helping their disabled partner, parent(s) or child/children with day-to-day tasks required to keep them healthy and safe. What we should be doing as a country is providing adequate resources to support them; there's nothing so far in Tory proposals that would see an increase in the number of carers entitled to the Carers Allowance or an increase in the amount a person receives from the Allowance. Labour wants to increase Carers Allowance by 17% (an extra £10 a week) to bring it in line with Jobseeker's Allowance (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/17/labour-to-promise-unpaid-carers-17-allowance-increase). 
• Improving rights for self-employed people and those in the "gig economy", including bloggers, creatives and consultants is long overdue. Labour had already suggested providing statutory paternity and maternity leave for temporary workers (because they promise in their 20 point plan to give every worker, whether temporary or permanent, full-time or part-time the same employment rights from day 1 of their employment) so the Tories really are playing catch-up. There should be an expansion of rights for temporary workers that includes the ability to take an employer to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal and statutory minimum notice periods. As for the self-employed, I would imagine a Labour government would be more than willing to make statutory paternity and maternity leave and pay available. 
• Not many voters would be against bringing in a statutory child bereavement leave of 2 weeks, provided that the leave was paid (at least 90% of pay should be provided). Introducing such leave IS NOT dependent on us leaving the EU, as PM May seemed to be claiming when she boasts of improving employment rights "thanks to Brexit opportunities" and I can't see any reason why Labour or any other party would not consider introducing Child Bereavement Leave. 
• PM May has guaranteed to keep all employment protections currently enjoyed by employees that derive from the EU, including the Working Time Directive 1998. Other parties have already committed to such a guarantee so the PM and the Tories are a bit late to the party. Also, remember that May has not yet guaranteed the right to remain for the 3 million EU nationals who work just as hard as British citizens, especially in the agricultural sector, adult social care sector and the NHS. I won't trust the Tories because they are unwilling to guarantee status to all of our workers and employees in this country. 
• "Returnships" to help mothers and long-term carers back into work sounds like a good idea in principle but how would they work in practice? Would they be fully funded? How would they be structured? Which employers would be able to provide them? Surely the public sector organisations should lead the way and create programmes that allow people to update their skills to get them readily employable, especially in an office environment? Wishy washy.
• "Time off for training" (which must be requested from employers) again sounds good in principle but most businesses in the private sector already provide time off for their employees to attend mandatory training courses and time off to study and sit key exams and these training days tend to be paid. One question to ask is whether the commitment made here goes beyond industry-specific and employer-related training. Would an admin worker be given time off to study for her AAT qualification or a HR qualification to help expand her skillset, for example? What about a scaffolder who needed time off to study for an ECDL computer qualification? At the moment employers can turn down a request for training time off if they believe such training wouldn't benefit the business, would run up extra running costs for the business or if the employer can't find anyone to cover the employee's workload. That means at the moment it is likely that an employer would turn down the scaffolder's request but perhaps not the admin assistant's request (https://www.gov.uk/training-study-work-your-rights/employers-decision-and-responsibilities). Would PM May's guarantee change or remove the training restrictions? Another question is whether May's proposal will actually extend to agency workers and to those employees who have been with an organisation for at least 26 weeks (the current mandatory threshold)? 
• Workers' pensions should be protected, especially those that come from private sector companies. Nobody wants a repeat of the BHS scandal where it took an enquiry to get Sir Philip Green to provide the money required to secure the pensions of BHS workers and he wasn't even the owner of BHS at that point. There are very few organisations that would have an ex-owner realise his previous obligations to employees and pay up. Introducing new powers to the pensions regulator so they can inspect takeovers to see how it would impact "the sustainability of a pension fund" does sound a bit like Labour's own policy that was announced in their 20 point plan a few weeks back. At least we all seem to agree that reckless company owners should face fines and criminal charges for illegal behaviour though! 
• The Equality Act 2010 should most definately be extended so that it protects employees and workers who have mental health conditions such as anxiety or bipolar from being directly and indirectly discriminated against, especially if the condition is short-term (less than 1 year). However, there's also a need to extend the Equality Act so that non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer employees are also protected from such discrimination; the way to do that would be to change the protected characteristic from "Gender Reassignment Surgery" to "Gender Identity"and removing outdated language such as "transsexual". Intersex people's rights should also be protected by including "intersex" as a protected characteristic. If you're going to amend the Equalities Act, let's do it comprehensively. 
• Increasing the NLW "in line with median earnings" for the duration of the next Parliament again sounds OK but it's not a new announcement. The Tories had already confirmed their target for the NLW is for it to "reach 60% of median hourly earnings by 2020", which is £8.75, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. There is the concern that NLW increases may be smaller than expected if the economy does not grow as we deal with the immediate aftermath of Brexit. Why should those on the lowest incomes suffer minimal wage growth even if they are still working as hard or harder than they did prior to the EU referendum? We need to be paying our hard working cleaners, retail workers and entry-level admin assistants more, not less. That's why Labour's proposal to ensure the NLW reaches around £10 an hour by 2020 sounds extremely tempting. However, I do believe in the need to keep the Low Pay Commission an independent body and follow guidance for rises from them wherever possible but the 1% public sector pay cap is unfair and needs to be scrapped. There's also no commitment from the Tories to bring the Apprenticeship wage or the NMW for under 25's in line with the NLW, meaning that young people continue to face stark choices between heating and eating and cannot save up enough money to afford to get a deposit to rent a flat or house whereas their older counterparts may be able to. We need to end such pay inequality. 
• The Conservatives keep telling us that they are the party of the working class, yet they seem unwilling to make the changes necessary to create a fairer workplace for all. It seems ridiculous that executives continue to earn vast amounts even when their performance may have been seen to be merely satisfactory at best. Theresa May promised when she took office in July 2016 that she would tackle excessive executive pay head-on. Yet there's no mention of it in her plans. That's despite the CBI suggesting that shareholder power should be strengthened, with CEOs mandatorily facing a binding vote on remuneration policy at the next Annual General Meeting (AGM) if "they lose the vote on pay from the shareholder advisory committee" or "if 25% or more vote against the directors' remuneration report for two consecutive years" (http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/strengthen-shareholder-power-to-curb-excessive-executive-pay/). Labour meanwhile have proposed a pay ratio for firms who wish to obtain or have obtained Government contracts, where the executives can earn no more than 20 times what an entry-level employee earns. That sounds perfectly rational to me, so why are the Cons so reluctant to include a similar proposal in their plans? Are they worried they might get blowback from their multi-millionaire donors? 
• Employees should have more of a say on how an organisation is run by having representation at board level. They are one of the major stakeholders within a firm and their concerns should be listened to. Listed companies should have stakeholder advisory panels who can then nominate a "non-executive director" or a direct worker representative to the board of directors. PM May has suggested that she would not make employee representation on boards in the boardroom a mandatory requirement yet I believe it is essential that every listed company should be forced to comply. It doesn't matter whether that person happens to be a member of a trade union or not but clearly even listed companies have to liaise with trade union officials when disputes occur and perhaps a worker representative would be able to act as that key point of contact to ensure that disputes were resolved quickly and effectively. Employees should certainly have access to the same level of information regarding the future business activity of their organisation as other stakeholders and perhaps this policy would facilitate that. 
• Extending gender pay gap reporting obligations to take account of ethnicity does again sound like a plausible policy. Large companies need to do more to improve representation, especially at executive level and to ensure that employees are being paid fairly, so that there is no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. Under this proposal, large companies who employ more than 250 employees would need to provide information about how much they pay workers from each ethnic group, with the findings displayed on the employer's website and on a Government site so they are freely accessible to the public.

Remember, there's nothing in the Conservative plans to:

• Increase Access to Justice; employment tribunal fees would remain in place and dual discrimination cases could not be brought even if an employee has been discriminated against on the basis of two separate protected characteristics
• Reinstate Third Party Harassment legislation (because the Tories got rid of them in 2013) 
• Expand the Access to Work Programme to help more disabled people get into sustainable employment
• Double Paternity Leave (and no indication of whether paternity pay would be brought into line with maternity pay) 
• Ban zero-hours contracts
• Ban exploitative unpaid internships (that means that working class young people will continue to struggle to gain access to the professions, especially in media and the law, without financial assistance)
• Increase the number of bank holidays (but that's not of vital importance to me....still 4 extra days off is nothing to be sniffed at)
• Scrap the 1% public sector pay cap 
• Hold an inquiry into blacklisting so that companies cannot discriminate against contractors, workers and employees on the basis of trade union membership or political party membership or views
• Strengthen protections against unfair dismissal for pregnant women and mothers

Naturally the Tories have no wish to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 either, which wouldn't win over many trade union members or activists who believe the rules contained within the Act are unfair and designed to restrict freedom of union representation. The Tories hail the Act as a means of protecting "millions of people from the effects of undemocratic strike action" (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/trade-union-act-measures-come-into-force-to-protect-people-from-undemocratic-industrial-action). Whilst I'm ambivalent with regards to increasing trade union rights (because I'm not a member of a trade union), I do understand the concerns that trade union representatives and members may have. The good news is that the Tories seem reluctant to make any further changes to the Act (such as trying to bring in restrictions that were already withdrawn from the Trade Union Act when in the consultation stage, such as restricting trade union use of social media or picket supervisors being forced to wear an armband to identify themselves which could lead them facing discrimination). Liberty have raised concerns about the possibility of the Tories bringing in secondary legislation as a result of the passing of the Act, including the possibility of allowing employers to bring in temporary staff to cover staff on strike (https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigning/trade-union-act-2016).

Labour have made improving Trade Union rights a significant part of their 20 point plan (see: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/labours-workers-plan-can-it-be.html). There does remain the issue of whether Labour's 20 point plan will appeal to as large a cross-section of employees, workers and the self-employed as perhaps the Tory plan may do. For example, SME owners may be far more comfortable with the idea of having to allow an employee leave to care for a disabled relative than having to recognise trade union representation from their employees. Strengthened training rights may sound enticing to workers who wish to retrain or upskill to improve their career prospects. The "iron-clad" guarantee from the PM to protect all EU employment directives may make it easier for Conservative remain voters to stick with the party. However, I'm just not convinced that the policies that will be offered in the Tory manifesto will be progressive enough to enact real change in our workplaces. Employees and workers aged 25 and under will not see a much needed increase in their NMW and Apprenticeship Wage. Unpaid internships will remain in place, meaning that some professions (especially PR and the Law) may remain off-limits to working class graduates filled with aspiration for a productive, happy working life. Zero-hours contracts that leave workers feeling insecure could go up following Brexit as employers struggle to improve productivity levels and secure contracts from EU businesses. Public sector workers will continue to feel the squeeze, even though they are working harder than ever to ensure that every service user has their needs met. The Royal College of Nursing Union has just overwhelmingly voted to go on strike for the first time in their history over the 1% pay cap with a ballot being held soon to guarantee strike action in the summer. When nurses have seen a 14% cut in real wages since 2010 and low pay being given as the reason why tens of thousands of nursing positions are not being filled, I don't blame them. PM May has comprehensively said she will not lift the cap. So why would public sector workers even contemplate voting for the Conservatives when they will continue to face real-term cuts in their wages? Do the Tories think a vague promise on "returnships" and a right to unpaid care leave is going to sway those voters?

Voters have a real choice at this election. They can choose to prop up a Tory party that makes vague promises on improving employment rights but refuses to carry out the actions needed to make the UK workplace fairer for all, including guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals currently employed in UK businesses to remain in the UK or they can take a chance on a Labour party with a policy platform that genuinely aims to improve rights "for the many", not the few. At the last General Election I was very sceptical of the Labour platform to improve workers' rights. I thought that the rights we currently enjoyed were enough. That's because I didn't know much about the true scale of workplace issues in the UK. Now it seems rational to me to that we should see wages improve for those under 25 and to help those in the public sector by scrapping the pay cap. Austerity measures have failed to grow the economy effectively. Improving the pay and working conditions of everyone who contributes to the economy should be a primary goal of any progressive government. Of course that that doesn't just mean focussing on trade union representatives and members. Self-employed people deserve to have more stability, especially when they need time off to have a child or look after them. The Tory promise of introducing Statutory Maternity and Paternity Leave will appeal to self-employed voters who are thinking of starting a family but I believe that a Labour Government may go further and give them access to Statutory Pay and double the length of Paternity Leave at the same time. That's an example of a truly progressive policy. So yes, I appreciate the Tories trying to reach out and soften their image with voters who are worried about their pay and conditions reducing after Brexit but I don't think their platform is likely to win over many sceptical voters over. "Nice try but no cigar" as my Lincoln carpeting small business owning Granddad Albert Colley used to say. 

GE2017: Reflecting on Mental Health Political Policies

Mental Health (MH) is fast becoming one of the most important issues for political parties to discuss in the UK. 1 in 4 of us in the UK will have a MH condition in our lives. A recent MH report conducted by the Mental Health Foundation, which had more than 2,000 respondents found that 78% of 18-34 year olds saying "they have experienced a MH problem" compared to 58% of over 55 year olds. The Mental Health Foundation report has also found that 42% of respondents had suffered from depression and around 25% had a panic attack. 85% of respondents who were out of work said they had experienced a MH problem, compared to 66% in employment and 53% of retired people (see more here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/08/two-thirds-of-britons-have-had-mental-health-problems-survey?CMP=share_btn_tw). The MH Crisis costs the UK as much as £100bn a year, yet only 25% of people end up receiving treatment for depression. It's important that we begin challenge the stigma that surrounds MH, which includes breaking down stereotypes and encouraging men and non-binary people as well as women to discuss and talk through their concerns and to ask for professional help.  Many voters feel that MH service provision in the UK has been sketchy at best and political parties have realised that voters want to see sufficient, positive changes made in this policy area. I've checked out a few policies on MH from the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens and offer some of my thoughts below:

Conservatives:
PM Theresa May has talked over the past few months of the need to end the stigma associated with MH. In January she delivered a keynote speech on the Tory vision for Britain, a "Shared Society" where every person feels valued and receives the help and support they need to live a positive, healthy life. The speech was full of warm, fuzzy sound bites and did contain some policy ideas (most of them based on the recommendations made in the Five Year Forward View For MH.. see my January blogpost:.http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/my-response-to-theresa-mays-mental.html). Yesterday PM May announced a number of new policies in a bid to attract centre and centre-left voters who particularly want to see the Cons address inequalities in the healthcare and education systems and also reduce barriers in the workplace for employees and workers with mental health issues.

The number 1 "headline grabbing" policy announcement was that the Cons have committed themselves to scrapping the Mental Health Act 1983 and introducing a new Mental Health Treatment Bill which would see changes to detention procedures. Currently the police have the right to detain you in a public place under Section 136 of the MH Act (or Section 135 if at home) if they believe you have a MH condition and need immediate care to prevent you from causing harm to yourself or others. Conditions include schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), bipolar disorder and dementia. It can also include learning disabilities such as dyspraxia (but only when "abnormally aggressive" or "seriously irresponsible"). The police officer(s) in question will have a conversation with a MH professional (such as a MH nurse) before using a Section 136. Police officers can detain you in a cell where you will be examined by a MH professional. The police can hold you up to 24 hours but can get this extended if further time is needed for MH assessment. After this time you'll either be released or taken to a MH clinic to receive treatment or referred to community services depending on the outcome of your assessment. You do still have the right to ask why you have been detained under Section 136 and for appropriate legal assistance. MH and wellbeing campaigners and charities have called for an end to routine police cell detentions and a new MH Treatment Act which reforms the detention protocol for years but the Cons seemed unwilling to amend or scrap the MH Act during the Coalition Government and during the first months of May's tenure as PM. The Cons have promised that MH professionals would be consulted on plans before the MH Treatment Bill would be presented to Parliament so that it would be truly "fit for purpose".
The MH Treatment Bill would introduce:

• "Revised thresholds for detention" so that people cannot be detained unless they are deemed a risk to themselves and others (very rare)
• A new code of practice that aims to address the disproportionate use of MH detention for minority groups (hopefully challenging race and gender stereotyping....The Guardian reported that "black people are detained at 56.9 per 100 patients compared with a rate of 37.5 per 100 patients amongst white people" https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/07/theresa-may-pledges-mental-health-revolution-will-reduce-detentions) 
• A new set of safeguards so that individuals who have been deemed to have the capacity to refuse or consent to treatment can do so without fear of being "treated against their will" (unless they have been deemed a danger to themselves or others). 

As a result of passing a MH Treatment Act in the future, there is a hope that people with MH issues would be treated with the dignity and compassion they need and truly deserve. Reducing the number of police cell detentions and increasing the bed capacity in Mental Health clinics and wards is certainly the way forward. 

The Tories also want to:

• Ensure 10,000 more MH professionals are employed in the NHS by 2020 (an ambitious target considering that trusts would need to increase recruitment and retention rates against a backdrop of Brexit and NHS pay cap)
• Improve Mental Health provision in schools by training staff on MH First Aid and appointing a staff member as a point of contact to liaise with local MH services  (reaffirming a previous policy commitment made during the "Shared Society" keynote speech)
• Introduce cyberbulling and online safety training into schools for all students (something that Labour's Shadow Secretary for Equalities, Sarah Champion, has been advocating for with her Dare2Care strategy)
• Funding the Samaritans helpline for the next 5 years (good but could imagine every other party making this commitment too)
• No more charges for people in debt when they provide proof of their mental health condition (no commitment to scrap the Doctor's Note fee though...people are being charged up to £150 for this and creditors will not help debtors without it) 
• Amend the Equality Act to make "mental health" a protected characteristic and giving employees who have short term mental health conditions (less than 1 year) the same protection as those suffering from long-term mental health conditions (conditions that last more than 1 year). This could benefit employees who suffer from anxiety/depression caused as a result of family bereavement or being in a traumatic accident
• HR staff in large companies would also be mandated to access MH training to act as "first responders"; this would help HR staff to develop strategies to better support employees with MH conditions. 

The Conservatives' policies look good on paper. I think that very few MH campaigners would argue against strengthening protections to reduce levels of discrimination in the workplace or improving resilience training for students who use social media on a daily basis. However, there is no indication as to how the Tories would pay for 10,000 more MH professionals to help improve MH service provision in England (as health is already a devolved issue). Community Care's 2015 report found that funding for MH services had reduced by 8.25% in real terms during the Con-LibDem Coalition Government. Also it has been shown that MH professional numbers in the NHS has reduced. 6,110 nurses have been cut since 2010 and 23 doctors have gone too (according to the BBC's own Reality Check system). It's perfectly understandable that there is a high level of skepticism as to whether the Cons really will deliver on their promises given that local NHS trusts are struggling to deliver appropriate services. 

Labour:
Labour have a comprehensive approach to MH which I've already explained in some depth in this blogpost: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/labours-approach-to-mental-health.html. The question now is how many of these previous policy ideas will pop up in Corbyn's manifesto and whether Labour would be willing to adopt policy suggestions put forward by the Conservatives that would actually help improve MH service provision, especially amending or scrapping the MH Act and scrapping charges for people in debt who have MH conditions, including the Doctor's Note fee.

One great Labour party proposal is to help improve children's and young people's MH services across the UK as part of an overall Child Health Strategy (http://press.labour.org.uk/post/160434638224/labours-new-manifesto-ambition-to-make-britains).
 The strategy would include:

• Introducing a new Index to measure improvements in Child Health provision against international standards which would be collected and collated into a report on an annual basis. The measures are "obesity, dental health, under 5's and mental health". This would provide much needed data and ensure that the Government can be held up to account for failures to address problems. Any areas that require improvement would be delivered on during the following year. 
• Creating Governmental departmental strategies for Child Health (interesting that Labour mandates this for every department...I wonder how the Department for International Trade or Exiting the EU would contribute here)
• Providing funding for counsellors to be available to go into every school in England
• Setting up a £250m annual Child Health Fund to support the delivery of the strategy, which would come from efficiency savings gained from reducing management consultancy costs (sounds great on paper but how practical would this be to deliver on, on an annual basis?)
• Ringfencing the Public Health budget over the next 5 years, allowing councils to deliver targeted health awareness campaigns and invest more in leisure activities (my local Labour council in Lincoln has announced a £1.4m investment in Birchwood Leisure Centre but it means the loss of a much loved social club and closing of sports facilities, which Labour councillors have suggested could have been avoided had the Council had a pot of funding from central Government to revamp). 

There's also other policy announcements from Labour that would have an impact on MH service provision:

• Scrapping the public pay cap could help NHS managers to attract and retain talent 
• Reintroducing the training Nursing Bursary may help to encourage more nurses to enter the NHS and specialise in MH
• Scrapping the car parking charges will help MH patients and their families spend more time together
• Not restricting immigration of medical professionals could encourage more MH professionals to consider working in England.

I do like the idea of improving children's and young people's MH services and ensuring there is central funding in place to be able to help deliver those service improvements. However, we need to hear a lot more about how adult MH services will be improved and a firm commitment to addressing MH provision in prisons, including recruiting counsellors and MH nurses and training prison officers as to how to treat inmates with MH conditions appropriately, something MP Luciana Berger has been actively campaigning for over the past few years.

Lib Dems:
The Lib Dems have not shied away from laying out the challenges the UK currently faces when it comes to the NHS and social care. They have admitted that funding needs to be increased urgently and the best way to provide this funding would be to raise Income Tax by 1p in every £1 for everyone that currently pays Income Tax (30 million would pay this). In England, this would mean an extra £4.9bn would be raised (but Scotland has powers to set its own Income Tax). Nobody likes to pay extra taxes but if the money is specifically going towards helping pay for improved NHS and social care services, it does seem justifiable. Lib Dem MH policies include:

• Establishing a "cross-party health and care convention" which will consult with NHS professionals, patients and care workers to make sure that systems, including in MH are sustainable; this would be very sensible and allow service users to shape future MH policies
• Establish an Independent Office of Health and Care Funding that would monitor budgets and produce a report every 3 years which would provide recommendations as to where funding would need to be increased in the future, including on MH
• Providing £250m for the next 5 years to help pregnant women and mothers suffering from depression (strengthening protections in the workplace so that employers cannot discriminate against pregnant women and mothers who suffer from discrimination would help too)
• Improving access to talking therapies on the NHS for "hundreds of thousands" more anxiety and depression sufferers (as long as access would improved in every NHS trust in England and not just in the South East this is a good idea and to re-commit to ensure that most MH patients can start their talking therapy treatment within 28 days, a commitment that was also in the Labour and Green 2015 General Election manifestos) 
• Reducing use of physical restraint to an absolute minimum with a view to banning the practice in future (Lib Dem found that there had been an average of 183 restraints a day between 2013 and 2016, with "1,548 injuries to patients and 2,789 injuries to staff" reported over the three year period....http://www.libdems.org.uk/shocking-levels-force-mental-health-patients)
• Ensuring that homeless people have access to MH counselling, especially to help MH conditions related to drug-use and sex work 
• Expand the Access To Work programme to properly support potential and current employees with disabilities who may also develop a MH condition.

I'd like to see the Lib Dem proposals for amending or abolishing the MH Act to reduce instances of police cell detentions and a firm commitment to improving MH education in schools across the UK. Having previously read the Lib Dem education policy, it's safe for me to assume that there would be plans to introduce online resilience training and some sort of commitment to provide teaching staff with MH training delivered by MH professionals and campaigners so teachers can develop practical methods to help fully support students in their class who may have a short-term or long-term MH condition.

Greens:
The Greens have often mentioned the need to ensure that MH service provision is fit for purpose for all service users, especially those from minority groups. In the LGBTQIA+ manifesto released in April 2017, the Greens called for funding to be in place to help provide services to LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers, including giving them access to counsellors on the NHS. In the past the Greens have been focussed on improving MH service provision in local communities, such as encouraging the appointment of local mental health champions who would be able to offer their views as to how to improve MH service provision directly to their local NHS trust management. MH champions could also help to advise and support people in their communities on issues such as housing and employment and be invited to deliver MH training to local businesses and organisations. The Greens have also expressed a desire to improve MH bed capacity so that every patient can be treated in their local area unless they require specialist treatment and care. The Greens also want to end police cell detention under the MH Act for adults wherever possible.

An interesting commitment was made by co-leader Jonathan Bartley on Andrew Marr's BBC 1 political analysis show Marr to introduce a 3-day weekend in the UK. Bartley believed that by reducing working hours for employees to allow them to spend more time with friends and family, there would be an overall reduction in stress levels generally amongst the population. The clear issue with the proposal is that it may only benefit a small percentage of the population on full-time contracts who still work on a Monday to Friday 9am-5pm pattern. Business leaders remain vigorously opposed to any proposals that would mandatorily reduce working hours for employees on this working pattern as they believe productivity levels would fall. Mind you, those same business leaders are opposed to the idea of 4 extra bank holidays anyways! However, there is a need to introduce more flexibility into employment, so that it becomes more acceptable for employees with MH conditions to be able to take the time off they need to recover or reduce their working hours to reduce their stress levels so as to reduce the likelihood of them developing a long-term MH condition. Reasonable adjustments should also become routine in workplaces -e.g. allowing an employee with a diagnosed MH condition to take time off at short notice to see their counsellor and ensuring that all employees have time off to visit GPs for initial diagnosis free from discrimination. Flexible working and other reasonable adjustments may also make employees with MH conditions more productive over the long term too.

Conclusion:
Based on current policy proposals, I'd be very tempted to say that no one-party has an edge because they each seem to be addressing different aspects of the MH crisis. Labour seems to focus heavily on funding issues rather than proposing the legislative changes needed to the MH Act to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century. The Conservatives have suggested improving resilience training in schools for teaching staff and students but haven't really set out any extra funding or proposals to help improve recruitment and retention rates of MH professionals in the NHS. It's all well and good reforming detention procedures but there still needs to be improvements to local bed capacity so that people who are detained by police officers can receive assessment in a NHS clinic rather than in a police cell. After all, most people who have a MH condition who may have been "deemed a danger to themselves or others" will not have committed a criminal offence. So why treat them like criminals? The Lib Dems have been very astute in recognising the need to offer a long-term solution for funding the NHS and Social Care in the UK and the Income Tax increase will go a bit of the way to providing funding for MH services. Yet they haven't been clear on whether the £250m to tackle pregnancy and post-natal depression would come from existing funding or from the tax increase. Voters may also be unhappy at having to pay a council tax precept in addition to an Income Tax increase so the Lib Dem proposal to create an all encompassing Health and Social Care Tax that would negate the need for the council tax precept in the future seems to be a good way forward. The Greens have pointed out the need to ensure that MH services are accessible to all and that local MH champions can help in this respect but the 3 day weekend seems impracticable from a business viewpoint and there is still a question as to how they would fund any MH improvements.

What is a clear is that a comprehensive, wide-ranging, intersectional approach is needed to ensure that MH improvements are delivered that benefit the majority of MH service users in the NHS and those who choose not to seek professional help too. That means being bold enough to offer ringfenced funding to pay for an increase the number of MH professionals and encouraging recruitment and retention by scrapping the public sector pay cap and reintroducing the Nurses Training Bursary. Funding needs to be sustainable and there must be a review into how best to provide funding streams in the long-term. The MH Act needs to be either amended or abolished so that detention procedures can be reformed and there should be an end to routine detention in police cells. School staff need training to help them support students and colleagues who may develop a MH condition. Students definitely need to be given online resilience training, given that they are most likely to access social media on a daily basis. HR staff in companies should develop policies that are designed to provide reasonable adjustments such as flexible working patterns to employees who have a short-term or long-term MH condition. There must also be considerations made for MH patients in prison, including training for prison officers to help support inmates in their charge and routine drug-use counselling. I can't wait to see what extra policies are unveiled in the election manifestos over the next few weeks; perhaps a frontrunner will emerge for me then. At the moment, it's all to play for. 

Labour's Workers' Plan: Can It Be Implemented?

Yesterday Labour set out a 20 point (or 18 point depending on which politico you consult) plan to help protect and improve workers' rights in the UK whatever the eventual type of Brexit deal turns out to be. The plan brings together policies that have already been announced by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell along with new policy commitments designed to appeal to low and middle income workers (and employees) who may be feeling insecure about or frustrated about their current working conditions. I want to go through some of them and offer my thoughts from my centre/centre-left perspective:

1. Giving equal employment rights to those on temporary and part-time contracts is certainly a good idea in theory. Temporary contracts tend to be prevalent in the administrative and food and hospitality sectors at the moment and having increased security RE rights would be welcome for office workers and cleaners alike. If everyone has the same rights, that would mean that it would be illegal for employers to only offer health insurance policies to full time employees, as it would be deemed discriminatory. Would it also mean that those classed as "workers" would gain the same rights as those classed as "employees"-i.e. would workers gain entitlement to minimum notice periods (based on duration of employment), gain protection against unfair dismissal, gain the right to request flexible working hours or gain the right to have time off for emergencies? Would such rights apply to agency workers too (including seasonal agricultural workers)? Such a wide application of employment rights might not be popular with some medium sized firms who are currently struggling to raise the revenue needed to keep their businesses afloat. 
2. I've always been against zero-hours contracts; I believe it is the responsibility of employers to ensure that they can set a guaranteed number of hours for each employee they offer a contract to. Some students need to have a certain level of flexibility in hours and this flexible requirement could be built into an employment contract -e.g. changing hours or taking study leave when studying for exams. Zero-hours contracts are mostly used in the food and hospitality, warehouse and agricultural sectors. Single people employed in these sectors who want to apply for a mortgage are currently disadvantaged because they do not have a guaranteed amount of income coming in which means they are often stuck in the competitive, expensive and insecure private rental sector. That's got to change. 
3. Employers and agencies should not advertise a job abroad at a lower wage or with less benefits than they would put in a UK based job advert placed on job sites such as Reed or the government's own Universal Jobmatch. All employers must pay at least the National Living Wage per hour to their workers and employees but those employers who are found to place two different adverts, one of which is advertised abroad at a lower wage than they would offer to a UK based professional do need to be questioned as to why they believe that foreign workers are worth less than UK based workers and why they aren't prepared to recruit UK based workers to fill the job role in the first place. We shouldn't tolerate any undercutting tactics.
4. Labour wants to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. The Act makes it more difficult for public sector workers to strike, imposing a minimum turnout threshold of 50% "of eligible union members" and requiring most of that 50% voting to strike before a strike can be considered legal. For unions such as the Royal College of Nursing, there is an additional minimum threshold of 40% "of eligible union members" needed to support a strike which has to be met before a strike can be called. The mandate for a strike only lasts for 6 months (but can be increased to 9 months when there is agreement between the union and employer) and there's a requirement for unions to introduce "an opt-in system for new members to decide whether to contribute to political funds" which they must do before 1st March 2018. The Certification Officer has also been awarded more powers to ensure that unions follow these new rules. The Trade Act is opposed fiercely by trade union officials and Labour activists. I'm not in a trade union and neither is my Mum (who works in the social care sector) so the Act doesn't apply to us but I can understand the desire to want to repeal it. Labour also wants to help trade unions engage in "sectoral collective bargaining" whereby agreements are reached that cover all UK workers and not just workers in an individual organisation. Very idealistic but if it leads to increased employment protections for all workers, it would please a large section of the current electorate. 
5. Trade union representatives should be allowed to discuss issues with members and potential members (including in their own workplaces) and I do think that employers should not be able to remove representatives just because they themselves are not supportive of trade union membership. Should trade union representatives have an automatic right to enter workplaces? Not without consultation with HR departments/ management so they can facilitate meeting times so that they don't occur during busy working periods. 
6. The 4 new bank holidays proposal (made on St George's Day) wasn't a specific priority for me. Voters in Birchwood that I've talked to are a little unsure as to how it could be implemented. It seems to them as if Corbyn may only have the power to have the 4 bank holidays implemented in England and I wonder whether it'd have been more prudent to offer just the 1 bank holiday in England for St George's Day and suggest 1 bank holiday in Wales for St David's Day (a petition was presented to Tony Blair's office in 2007 but it was rejected). St Andrew's Day is already a bank holiday in Scotland and there's not any consensus as to whether St Patrick's Day should be celebrated officially in Northern Ireland as a bank holiday. Of course the view could be taken that having the 4 bank holidays off at the same time in all 4 nations may help foster a sense of cultural patriotism and bring us together following the divisive EU Referendum but then there's a contrasting view that suggests that having an extra 4 days off would be beneficial for workers anyways and bring the UK in line with other EU countries. Business leaders and economists are more cynical of Mr Corbyn's suggestion, with the Institute of Directors warning that "small businesses would be hardest hit by the proposals" ("4 more bank holidays to "cost economy £9bn a year", Daily Mail, 24th April 2017 https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170424/281741269304658). Mind you the "more than £9bn a year" figure was worked out by quadrupling the figure for 1 bank holiday from 2012 (£2.3bn) estimated by the think-tank the Centre For Economics and Business Research. 
7. Raising the minimum wage to the level of the NLW for all workers, including those aged under 25 is a welcome policy. Under 25s are struggling to pay for their rent and any extra money would help ease their bill burden and increase their disposable income, which could help boost consumer spending, at least in the short term. As to whether there is a specific commitment to raise the NLW to £10 per hour it seems that Labour's going for a more realistic approach where they aim for a £10 per hour NLW by 2020 rather than introducing a £10 per hour NLW in one go in October. Some potential voters I spoke to in Lincoln weren't sure of the difference before so it's good to see some clarity from the Labour Leadership on this.
8. Ending the public sector pay cap of 1% on wages (not just in the NHS) is a great suggestion, especially as the Resolution Foundation concluded that the cap currently leaves workers facing a £1,700 drop in annual pay by 2020. A Trade Union Congress study released in January 2017 found that midwives, teachers and social workers faced a real wage (adjusted for inflation) cut of more than £3,000 by 2020 if the cap remains in place. 5.4 million workers are affected. It's a scandal that some nurses are being forced to visit foodbanks just to get the food they need to give them the energy to go and work in hospitals and GP surgeries to help care for others. I don't know exactly how much public sector pay would rise by (Labour suggests that for NHS professionals it would be done through collective bargaining and engaging with independent pay review bodies) but they do indeed deserve a pay rise. I'd personally be suggesting a pay rise of between 2-3.5% in October and then a further 1% per year beyond that. 
9. Amending the takeover code to make it mandatory for management to have a clear plan in place, especially regarding pension provisions would help workers and pensioners feel more secure. At the moment companies are only required to inform employees about the takeover, with employee representatives and pension scheme trustees "offering a separate opinion" about how the takeover would affect employees and pension scheme beneficiaries. I do believe that it's important to avoid a repeat of the BHS fiasco and comprehensive strategic planning can help. It's the fair, ethical thing to do.   
10. The pay ratio suggestion of 20:1 for public sector bigwigs and those companies bidding for public sector contracts was broadly popular when it was announced by Jeremy Corbyn in January. Polling conducted by The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/majority-of-public-support-jeremy-corbyn-s-plans-to-cap-bosses-salaries-poll-finds-a7527381.html) for example showed that 57% backed the policy and 47% of Conservative voters backed it too. 47%! It seems fair to me that there should be a limit as to how much the person at the top earns, especially as inflation is currently hitting workers on the National Minimum Wage and NLW hard (2.3% in March 2017). I am surprised that the Conservatives didn't consider nicking this policy but it shows that they are the more the party of business bigwigs and not of entry level administrative assistants, cleaners and social care workers.  
11. Unpaid internships should be banned outright; working class graduates cannot afford to take them on (meaning that they find it more difficult to get into occupations such as media and the law because they can't gain the relevant experienced needed to attract employers) and few companies have been prepared to offer work experience and internships in professional sectors to those who rely on Universal Credit or Jobseekers Allowance (even though this is starting to change, albeit slowly). Expecting people to work for free full-time for any period over a month is exploitative. It's not advertised as a voluntary position, after all. Even the All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility found that all interns should be paid after their first month. The Tory Government blocked a proposal to ban unpaid internships in November 2016 so I certainly don't trust them to reform internship practices.  
12. Every employee should be made aware of trade union representation rights, especially when it comes to negotiating with HR/Management over changes to working hours/shift patterns due to disability or providing care to relatives, Employees also should be able to access trade union representation when they are involved in a disciplinary case or are bringing a harassment case against a manager or colleague. Trade union representatives can offer advice and guidance, especially on key points of the law. 
13. I'm very much supportive of abolishing employment tribunal fees because it would help increase access to justice for those who have been unfairly dismissed or discriminated against. I'd also like a firm commitment to reintroduce the "dual discrimination" Equality Act (2010) provisions so that an employee can bring a sole claim of discrimination on the basis of race and sex to an employment tribunal instead of having to bring two separate cases.  
14. I think doubling paid paternity leave to 4 weeks is a good idea; an increase in paternity pay would also be welcome (currently set at £140.98 or 90% of monthly wage, whichever is lowest). The Women's Equality Party believe that paternity leave should be 6 weeks at 90% of their pay level which sounds even better. Still, it's a step in the right direction. 
15. Women should not be made unfairly redundant just because they have decided to have a child. At the moment if an employer decides to make a female employee redundant because she is pregnant or because she is on maternity leave it is considered an act of automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy or maternity discrimination and the employee can then bring a claim against the employer. If an employer decides that less employees are needed to do existing work, that employer still needs to offer an employee on maternity leave any suitable jobs that may be available (before they offer those jobs to any employee not on maternity leave) as per Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Paternity Leave Regulations 1999 (which applies from day 1 of employment). If the employer does not offer the pregnant employee or employee on maternity leave an alternative suitable position when there is a vacancy in the organisation then that employee can bring an automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination claim against the employer. Employees who are on maternity leave also have the right to be consulted if the employer plans on making 20 or more people redundant at their workplace within a period of 90 days or less and if they aren't consulted they can bring a case for automatic unfair dismissal and maternity discrimination. Yet employers rarely admit that they have dismissed an employee on the basis of their pregnancy or maternity leave and may use "fair reasons" (e.g. accusing them of taking too many "sick days" when in fact the employee had to take a pregnancy-related sickness absence leave because of violent morning sickness/pain) in an incorrect way as grounds for dismissal. It's important to note that any absence records that are used as a redundancy selection criterion that refer to morning sickness/ maternity related absences can result in an employment tribunal ruling that pregnancy/maternity discrimination has taken place (as per Brown V Rentokil Ltd, where the European Court of Justice ruled that dismissal of a worker on cross of ill-health absences while pregnant was a form of discrimination).Pregnancy and maternity discrimination certainly needs to be tackled head on and strengthening these current protections RE unfair redundancy will help enormously. 
16. Blacklisting is an outdated business practice that needs to be stamped out. I remember the Unite case from May last year when 252 construction workers were awarded £10m in compensation for being blacklisted by construction companies (which came to light after a raid by the Information Commissioners Office in 2009). Blacklists can include information on a worker's political views and trade union activities which should never be determining factors as to whether a company decides to hire a worker or employee or not. Blacklisting is automatic discrimination and holding a public inquiry is essential to make sure it doesn't happen in the future.
17. Statutory rights for equalities reps sounds like a good idea; they can help advise and support LGBTQIA+ employees when they are bringing a case of direct or indirect discrimination against an employer, especially cases involving harassment and victimisation. Equalities reps can also help try and negotiate with an employer when they seem unwilling to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. Equalities reps should have the time to speak to management and HR to ensure that the Equality Act, Gender Recognition Act (2004) and other pieces of employment legislation are being complied with. 
18. Every employee should be protected from third-party harassment so I support Labour's proposal to reinstate legal protections which were repealed in 2013 under the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition Government. It isn't acceptable for trans employees to be stalked by transphobic contractors and for women to hear constant sexist remarks about their appearance from the same visiting businessman. (Remember that the Equality Act provision only made an employer liable when the harassment had taken place on two previous separate occasions, that the employer knew it had taken place and had not taken any reasonable steps to prevent it from happening-e.g. talking to the client/customer to warn them that their behaviour was unacceptable.) Everyone does have a right to feel safe at work and clients and contractors should respect this right and employers should have a statutory duty to ensure that their employees are adequately protected. 
19. The public sector procurement system should be subject to rigorous checks. I don't think that contracts should be awarded to private sector companies who do not respect the right of their employees to join a trade union or do not choose to recognise trade unions during the negotiation process. It's better for businesses to be constructive and work together with trade unions to improve working conditions and employment rights rather than refuse to work with them altogether. 
20. Gender pay gap auditing is now an essential requirement for businesses who employ over 250 staff. They must publish data and a written statement on their website and report their data to the Government online via the Gender Pay Gap Reporting Service at least once a year (public sector businesses by 31 March and businesses and charities by the 5th April). Data that must be collected includes "mean and median gender pay gap in hourly pay, mean and median bonus gender pay gap, the proportion of males and females receiving a bonus payment and proportion of males and females in each pay quartile" (Gender pay reporting: overview https://www.gov.uk/guidance/gender-pay-gap-reporting-overview). Labour wants to make sure that every business with more than 250 employees complies with the requirement with the introduction of a civil enforcement system. Penalties, including fines for non compliance should act as a sufficient deterrent. 

Conclusion: 
Labour's plan would lead to an definite improvement in employment rights. If I was a young person under 25 on a temporary contract, I'd be pleased to see that I'd gain the right to time off for emergencies and to be able to have a notice period before being dismissed. I'd also be pleased that my pay would increase to the NLW, which would help me possibly move out and find a place of my own. If I was a nurse in the NHS who is a member of the Royal College of Nursing, I'd be pleased to see an end to the pay cap because it'd mean that they wouldn't have to take time out to go out on the picket line to get the inept Jeremy Hunt and the Tory Government to remove it. If I was a young administrative worker planning on having a child I'd be pleased that Labour plans to strengthen existing protections so that it becomes less likely that you can be made unfairly redundant because you happen to be on pregnancy-related sickness leave or maternity leave.  If I was a trade union representative, of course I'd be pleased to see the Trade Union Act repealed and more powers available to conduct sectoral collective bargaining and be involved in government procurement negotiations. So for workers and employees, the plan is beneficial.

There's no room in 21st century Britain for exploitative practices either. Blacklisting needs to be stamped out. Unpaid internships need to end. Undercutting wages by placing adverts abroad for workers at a different rate from that adverts placed in the UK should be stopped. It's incumbent on employers to make sure that they play their part by not promoting or participating in such practices. Instead of offering unpaid internships, employers could offer paid work experience to working class graduates. Instead of blacklisting, HR staff can bring their recruitment policies up to date so that no candidates are discriminated against on the basis of political affiliation or trade union membership. Job adverts should be the same wherever they are placed.

Labour's plan won't appeal to everyone and isn't without criticism. The bank holidays proposal needs to be scrutinised in terms of its feasibility. There needs to be clarification as to whether agency workers would gain the same benefits as those on temporary and permanent contracts. Would employment status classifications be simplified under a Labour Government? There's also the question of whether all the elements contained within the Trade Union Act should be repealed. An opt-in system for political contributions seems a fair proposal to me; not all workers who want to join trade unions want to pay towards Labour party funds.

I believe that Labour's plan is bold and will help those workers and employees who need better employment protections the most in the 21st century. Fighting against exploitation and discrimination to create a fairer, better Britain has been part of Labour's raison d'être since the party was founded on the 27th February 1900 . This plan fits very well into the tradition of using political systems to enact social change. If you like the policies that have been proposed, the best way to enact them would be to vote Labour on the 8th June.