Employment Rights Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

Oh, I do, apparently—and there have only been 12 minutes. But I will not use my allotted time of three more minutes.

I conclude by saying that the risk of over-application of this clause—by hospitality sectors, in football grounds and in our universities—is not a straw man. We see that risk materialising due to a misunderstanding— an imagining—that third-party harassment is already part of the Equality Act, when it is not. That risk will multiply when this clause goes on the statute book. It is not a straw man or confected rage. If the Government think it is a straw man—if they are absolutely convinced that none these risks will actually materialise—at the very least they should make that clear by accepting these amendments. They are losing nothing if they think they do not rule out of scope stuff that they do not want to be in scope in any case. I urge them to accept the amendments for the sake of clarity and for the sake of employers.

I will make one final point. When the noble Baroness—

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I think the noble Lord has misunderstood that his 10 to 15 minutes were for his earlier contribution, not for responding to the Minister. He has made some really good points a number of times now. Can we have a break, please?

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

Okay, I will wind up.

I will make just one final point. The Minister said that, in due course, the employment tribunal will make it clear that reasonable steps with respect to protecting employees from harassment will not be the same steps that employers are expected to take to protect their employees from third-party harassment, as opposed to employer-employer harassment. That may well be the case, but what that amounts to saying is that the jurisprudence in the employment tribunal, when it comes to the definition of harassment, will not be a particularly reliable guide for employers, when it comes to how they should define harassment when protecting their employees from third-party harassment. What she is saying, in effect, is that, if you cannot rely on the definition of what a reasonable step is in the ET hitherto, employers will be in the dark. They will have to chart these uncharted waters. Would it not be helpful to employers—and a boon to the beleaguered hospitality sector industry in particular—to make it clear, by accepting these amendments, what their liabilities are and are not?

Finally—

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and to support Amendment 101 in the names of my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Morrissey. I think that many of us are speaking in support of all the amendments that are trying to achieve the same result, and it is a real tribute that the strength of support is so broad across the Committee.

I have warmly welcomed the whole Bill, including the Government’s commitment to ensuring that employers take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. I thank the Minister for meeting with me to discuss the issue of non-disclosure agreements. My concern is that the Government’s current proposals to deal with the scandal of abusive non-disclosure agreements under whistleblowing legislation fall short of the fundamental principle, for me, that every victim/survivor should have the right to speak up and seek support.

The use of NDAs to cover up abuses of power, we all know, happens in every walk of life. This is not just about Westminster, the City of London, the media and entertainment industries, trade unions, the church or higher education. Let us not forget the all-male Presidents Club charity dinner for captains of industry at the Dorchester Hotel, and the 130 young women, paid £150 for a 10-hour shift, who were handed five-page non-disclosure agreements just moments before they went out to serve. According to a CIPD survey, one in five employers have used NDAs in cases of sexual harassment.

My worry is that the public interest test contained in whistleblowing legislation sets a very high bar for protected disclosure, and that most victims will remain silenced. What about, for example, if the perpetrator is not prominent in public, business or cultural life? Can the Minister confirm whether a disclosure by workers would meet the public interest test in those circumstances? Or what about one individual worker who is harassed and does not know whether other workers are at risk? Will that satisfy the criteria for public interest under whistleblowing law? Perhaps the Minister can also confirm whether government proposals cover only sexual harassment? Or do they also cover racism and all forms of harassment faced by those with protected characteristics under equality law? Will misconduct such as bullying on those grounds be included?

I thank the Minister for that meeting and for writing to me afterwards. I agree that there will be lessons to learn from new legislation in Ireland and elsewhere, but I cannot agree that that is a reason for holding back. If ever there was a case for going further and faster, then this is it. Women and all those suffering in silence have waited long enough.

The TUC—I should declare that I am a former general secretary—has long held a position that NDAs should not be used in any case of harassment, discrimination or victimisation. According to a report published this year, again by CIPD, nearly half of employers would support a ban on the use of NDAs, with only 18% opposing such a ban. Can’t Buy My Silence and other campaign groups enjoy huge public support. There is a broad cross-party consensus for action that unites both sides of industry.

Will the Minister reassure us today that the door is still open for the Government to strengthen the Bill along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and, importantly, send a message to all those who have suffered alone and in silence, and to all those who, as a result of that silence, have been put at risk, that real change is on its way?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, as the first boy to speak tonight, I want to say what a pleasure it is to follow such a powerful and persuasive group of speakers. I support all the amendments in this group.

I turn first to the NDA amendments. NDAs can be appropriate in sectors where intellectual property, commercial confidentiality or security issues apply. In fact, I should declare that I have recently signed one in a commercial context. These documents are typically pre-contract or part of terms of employment and signed up to by a worker at the start of their employment. Usually, they apply to everyone in a relevant area rather than being targeted at an individual.

By contrast, the NDAs these amendments address are very different; they generally arise during employment and act retrospectively—in other words, when something happens that should not have done.

I was always taught that you cannot contract out of the law: that an agreement or contract that enables or conceals something illegal is potentially itself illegal, and at least void and unenforceable. Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, harassment is a crime. Therefore, it seems to me that an NDA in respect of —as Amendment 101 points out—harassment, sexual misconduct, retaliation and discrimination or any other crime comes very close to trying to contract out of the law.

I would broaden the definition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has done in her amendment, to void any NDAs that cover any form of illegality. Indeed, a wrongdoer requesting an NDA in such circumstances feels tantamount, to me, to an admission of guilt. NDAs being put forward by the powerful to protect themselves from publicity around a wrongdoing is, at the very best, contrary to the HR policies of any decent employer.

While these amendments seek to prevent the misuse of NDAs, they also provide—as others have spoken about—for workers themselves requesting an NDA. Consequently, NDAs do have a place with proper advice to both parties: what Amendment 101 calls “fully-informed consent”. In short, voiding NDAs that amount to an abuse of power while recognising that a worker may themselves seek an NDA feels like the right balance.

Finally on NDAs, to date there has been a superabundance of consultations and inquiries— as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out— into the misuse of NDAs from a very wide range of organisations. Now, and I hope the Minister will agree, we need action—no more discussions and consultations. We know what the problem is; we just need to sort it out. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will either present or support a suitably consolidated amendment on Report, as others have requested.

I also support the amendments on whistleblowing. Amendment 125 would close what amounts to a loophole. On Amendment 126, something that has bedevilled whistleblowing for a very long time is the overly tight definition of who can be a whistleblower. The amendment is therefore a welcome step in expanding that category, though it does not go as far as it needs to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has shared with us tonight.

Amendment 147 concerns the crucial point of a duty to investigate. Many companies—particularly larger ones—have on paper, somewhere in their files, a well-drafted policy intended to support whistleblowers. However, many people who become whistleblowers typically do not see themselves as such initially. Often, they are simply trying to point out where something is wrong and needs addressing. It is what happens next that turns them into a whistleblower.

The corporate reaction to highlighting problems or concerns is often viscerally and personally hostile. Such people are seen as troublemakers, snitches or even traitors. They are often, almost from the outset, isolated, stigmatised and persecuted. To deal with that reaction, there is a need, as Amendment 147— another great amendment—sets out, for an automatic duty to investigate properly, which means having well-delineated and well-understood processes recognising and incorporating whistleblowing that are actually followed in practice with action, and to pick up issues and deal with them constructively and, if possible, before they escalate into a whistleblowing incident.

On Amendment 130, an office of the whistleblower would have both a systemic role in improving and monitoring whistleblower treatment, standards and processes, and a much-needed personal role in supporting whistleblowers as individuals, as again the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so eloquently laid out.

I will touch quickly on two related points. First, investors have a role here, although they often get forgotten in these discussions. They have a clear interest in knowing what is going on inside organisations they are entrusting with their money. I know from talking to them that they support better engagement and using their considerable leverage to get matters improved. Secondly, in the UK we do not compensate or reward whistleblowers. Being a whistleblower is expensive, sometimes ruinously so. Legal bills, loss of income and being made completely unemployable often follow. Yet the UK attitude to date has been that doing the right thing should not be rewarded—as if it was somehow vulgar—or even the personal losses incurred recouped. That correlates with the lower reporting of problems in the UK compared with the US and other jurisdictions. This has changed a little recently, and both the current director of the Serious Fraud Office and his predecessor have spoken in public in favour of paying whistleblowers. The FCA has stated that it is not in principle against this—a very British statement—and HMRC and the CMA already give modest payments for information on, for example, tax fraud.

The UK needs to catch up. I hope that the role of investors and whistleblower compensation are things that we can come back to, but for now I support all the amendments in this group and I sincerely hope that the Minister will do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I would love to join such a meeting. I lost count of the number of times the Minister said “consider”. I hope we are going to do more than consider and are going to act. In addition, her long list of things that are already available just highlights that there is a whole piece of work to be done here about making people aware of what their rights are, what they can access and what is illegal. That, law or no law, is part of the process.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister both for the meeting that many of us had before Committee and for her response today. I hope I am not being overoptimistic, but I am reading some positivity in her comments that progress could take place before Report.

Whistleblowers

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we are continuing to look at the whistleblowing regulations. We understand that there may be a need to review them further; a review was carried out by the previous Government. But I reiterate the point I made earlier: there should not be a need for whistleblowers to come forward; they should be protected in the workplace to come forward with their concerns. This requires leadership from the top in every department to make sure that those concerns are heard and acted upon properly. That is what we intend to do across government—make sure that people do not have to resort to whistleblowing to make sure the terrible incidents they are shining a light on finally come to light.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, non-disclosure agreements are protective of the confidentiality of wrongdoers. They are frequently employed against whistleblowers. Is the Minister confident that non-disclosure agreements that are not consistent with the public interest, including those concealing criminal activity, are and will be non-enforceable in our courts? If she is not confident of that, will the Government bring forward appropriate legislation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right, but we have already noted the concerns about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We share his concern, because they are being used to silence whistleblowers and cover up sexual harassment and discrimination. I stress that there are existing legal limits to how NDAs can be used in an employment context, which means they are void and unenforceable in certain circumstances. The use of NDAs is not something we would support and, if there were ways of limiting it, we would do so.

Watchdogs (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have the honour of serving on the committee that produced this report, which was chaired superbly by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, and is now chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor—both of whom we will hear from today. We were very fortunate in our staff, who achieved the almost impossible against excruciating timelines.

To illustrate the points that I will make with one example, I will reprise the committee’s experience with the water industry. The initial objective given by the Government to the regulator and thence to the water companies was the production of clean, cheap water—and that happened. Privatisation raised some finance but the investors’ objective was to deliver profits to their own stakeholders; that happened too, through financial engineering that its regulators did not understand or question. So long as the initial objective—cheap, clean and plentiful water—was being met, the water companies were largely left to go their own way. The result? Investment for the long term was ducked, sewage discharge facilities were abused and monitoring was inadequate until environmental objectives gained prominence and a combination of civil society, the media and the committee’s inquiry revealed that Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Defra had been both diffident and outplayed in their dealings with the water companies. Thereupon, water companies’ directors were lambasted for taking bonuses while polluting rivers and their investors were criticised for sharp practice. The regulators, exposed as complacent, imposed swingeing fines on water companies—costs that will ultimately fall on the consumer, as will the many billions for overdue investment in a catch-up that will probably take a quarter of a century or more.

Meanwhile, investors have taken fright, some water companies face bankruptcy and there is uncertainty as to whether the water companies and their regulators are even up to the job of delivering the projects needed. All this reflects a combination of poor and shifting objectives from government while complacent departments and underskilled, under-resourced regulators were outsmarted by the very businesses they were supposed to be regulating.

This brings me to my two points. First, the inherent tensions between independent regulators, the Government, consumers and delivery organisations—often with sophisticated investors—are characterised by divergent stakeholder objectives that alter over time and are not clearly prioritised. Regulators must work robustly with stakeholders while remaining independent, vigilant and inquisitive, but they also need skills ranging across both technical and financial areas. Despite the concerns that have been raised over the executive pay at regulators, the report highlights that skills gaps and resourcing at competitive financial levels are serious issues in some of them. It would therefore be helpful to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to ensure that regulators can access a full range of skills, possibly shared between regulators—for example, in private equity financial engineering.

Before I touch on my second point, which covers regulatory accountability to Parliament, let me say that I support the report’s finding that such examination should systematically include relevant government departments whose guidance and interaction with regulators are vital determinants of their effectiveness. They should be automatically and fully in scope, rather than seeking to brush aside the inquiries from our committee.

Returning to the regulators, the question is, “Who watches the watchdogs?” The answer is, “We do”. However, with 90 regulatory bodies—perhaps considerably more—there is a simple capacity issue. In theory, every regulator should come before Parliament at least to present its annual report, be examined on it and have agreed actions followed up, but that just does not happen. Consequently, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, pointed out, interaction between Parliament and the regulators is typically reactive—that is, not preventing problems but seeking who is culpable afterwards. It is not systematic: the examination of those who do get called in is useful, but inquiries then hasten on to the next pressing matter and follow-up is far too limited.

A key recommendation of the report is to create an independent office for regulatory performance, as has been touched on, in order to spread the load and move towards a systematic approach rather than a reactive one. Before the election, the Labour Party said, as others have mentioned, that it would create a new regulatory innovation office with an emphasis on removing delays in regulators’ approvals of business proposals, along with strengthening the Regulatory Horizons Council.

Getting to grips with performance means constant vigilance, not complacency, and—I underline this—access to the necessary skills to get right down in the weeds on a whole range of technical and commercial areas. If such a body can both speak hard truths to government about its continuous responsibilities for clear prioritisation of objectives and bring practical help to parliamentary committees in systematically holding regulators to account, I would welcome it. It would therefore be very helpful to have a detailed update on the Government’s plans when the Minister comes to wind up.