🙏 Non-disclosure Agreements

Westminster Hall

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

MPs from various parties united in a Westminster Hall debate to address the misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in cases of workplace harassment, discrimination, and abuse. They highlighted how NDAs silence victims, particularly low-income workers and women, and called for urgent legislative action to ban their use in such cases. The debate featured powerful testimonies and cross-party support for amending the Employment Rights Bill to protect victims and prevent employers from using NDAs to cover up wrongdoing. The Minister acknowledged the need for reform and committed to working with MPs to find a solution.

Summary

  • Debate on Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs): The session focused on the misuse of NDAs in cases of civil harassment, discrimination, and abuse, with a call for legislative changes to protect victims.

  • Louise Haigh’s Proposal: Louise Haigh proposed banning NDAs in harassment, discrimination, and abuse cases unless specifically requested by the victim, highlighting the need for clearer government policy.

  • Impact of #MeToo Movement: The debate acknowledged the #MeToo movement’s role in bringing attention to NDAs, with high-profile cases like Harvey Weinstein’s exposing their misuse.

  • Sector-Wide Issue: It was noted that NDAs are not just a problem in high-profile sectors like entertainment but are widespread across all industries, particularly affecting low-income workers.

  • Hospitality Sector Concerns: A survey showed that 100% of NDAs in the hospitality sector were too broadly written, often signed unwittingly by workers.

  • Gender Disparity: The misuse of NDAs disproportionately affects women, with statistics showing they are five times more likely to have signed an NDA than men.

  • Legal and Access to Justice Issues: The debate highlighted the difficulty for victims, especially those with low incomes, to challenge NDAs due to limited access to legal advice and the complexity of the law.

  • International Comparisons: Several countries, including Ireland, the US, Canada, and Australia, have taken steps to limit or ban NDAs in certain cases, suggesting the UK is lagging behind.

  • Victims and Prisoners Act and Higher Education Act: Recent UK legislation has made some progress by voiding NDAs that prevent victims from reporting crimes or seeking support, but more comprehensive action is needed.

  • Call for Legislative Action: There was a strong call for the government to legislate further, with suggestions to amend the Employment Rights Bill to address the misuse of NDAs across all sectors.

  • Cross-Party Support: The debate saw significant cross-party support for addressing the issue, with a willingness to work together to find a solution.

  • Minister’s Response: The Minister acknowledged the concerns and committed to working with MPs to explore further legislative options, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to protect both victims and legitimate business interests.

Divisiveness

The transcript of the parliamentary session on Non-disclosure Agreements (NDAs) shows a high level of agreement and collaborative spirit among the participants from different political parties, resulting in a low rating for disagreement. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the reasons for this assessment:

  1. Cross-Party Support: There is a notable emphasis on cross-party collaboration and support. The Shadow Minister, Greg Smith, states, “This is not about party politics; it is about ensuring fairness and justice in our workplaces,” which is indicative of a consensus across political lines. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson expresses a desire to work with the Government on a cross-party basis to address the issue, highlighting a united front.

  2. Consensus on the Issue: All speakers, regardless of their party affiliation, express strong support for addressing the misuse of NDAs in cases of harassment, discrimination, and abuse. The unanimous call for legislative action is evident throughout the session, from the opening remarks by Louise Haigh to the closing statements, showing little to no disagreement on the core issue.

  3. Constructive Suggestions: Various members offer constructive suggestions and questions aimed at improving policy and legislation, without challenging the fundamental need for change. For example, Martin Wrigley’s introduction of the Company Directors (Duties) Bill and requests for the Minister’s support demonstrate a focus on building solutions rather than engaging in disagreements.

  4. Ministerial Engagement: The Minister, Justin Madders, responds positively to the suggestions and concerns raised by other members. He agrees to meet with members to discuss potential amendments to the Employment Rights Bill and acknowledges the need for cross-party cooperation. This engagement from the Minister further reduces any potential for disagreements.

  5. Absence of Confrontation: Throughout the debate, there are no instances of direct confrontation or significant policy disputes. While minor clarifications and points regarding the nuances of existing laws are discussed, these exchanges are conducted in a respectful and non-confrontational manner.

  6. Final Resolution: The session concludes with a resolved question, “That this House has considered Government policy on the use of non-disclosure agreements in civil harassment, discrimination and abuse cases,” indicating that the debate was focused on constructive consideration rather than disagreement.

In summary, the level of agreement on the misuse of NDAs, the constructive nature of the discussions, and the willingness to collaborate on legislation contribute to a rating of 1 for disagreement in this parliamentary session.