Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Hear, hear! It was a very good speech.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

There we go. We have had the adjudication. It was a very good speech. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. She demonstrated the patience of a saint in earlier, more contentious groups, if I can put it like that. If there needs to be further evidence of her patience, I was very grateful for the significant time that she and her Bill team and other experts gave me to discuss this issue and a later issue in the Bill.

Numerical accidents aside, I have to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her impeccable opening to the debate. I think we can all agree that it was a fabulous tour de force around the issues.

In contrast to the Bill as a whole or previous groups, there is some serious room for non-partisan and cross-partisan consensus in this area. I really do believe that, for reasons that ought to be self-evident from what we have heard from Members of the Committee already.

We have heard from noble Lords—actually, it may be a total accident but I think it has been noble Baronesses so far—and we know that there is a place for a certain type of non-disclosure agreement to protect commercial confidences and client lists, et cetera. We are trying to be more balanced and more forensic than that in this group, and we know why. We want to protect those things, to have a decent employment relationship and to have commerce and so on, but not to have the abuses. I suggest that the abuses have to go broader than harassment; that is why Amendment 281 in my name is drafted in terms of illegal activity more broadly. I will say more on that in a moment.

I support the thrust, the intention and the aspiration of all the amendments in the group. At this stage I consider them all probing amendments. Realistically, I suspect that what the Committee, or everyone who has spoken so far, wants is a government amendment, informed by these discussions, that we can all get behind. That is the way to do it, obviously.

I will speak in favour of Amendment 281, or of the drafting approach that I have taken, having listened to other Members of the Committee and tried to take on board their Second Reading speeches and their considerable work, over many years in some cases. I commend Amendment 281 because it aspires to some simplicity, some versatility, some breadth and the avoidance of unintended consequences.

For example, it is broader than harassment. The approach I have taken is based on my understanding of what the common-law position was anyway. Like everyone else in the Committee and beyond, I watched the scandals around Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo, et cetera. When they began to erupt—and, goodness me, do they not keep on coming?—my analysis, my view, was that these contractual agreements were all voidable in the public interest in any event. As a matter of common-law principle, they should all have been voidable in a court and therefore unenforceable in any event. The problem with relying on just my understanding of the common law is that it does not send a signal to the wicked employers—not all of them, but the ones who are wicked—nor give confidence to victims, whistleblowers and so on.

This is one of the areas where there is some value in putting some common-law principle clearly, succinctly and non-exhaustively on the face of a statute, to give confidence and clarity so that people know that abusive non-disclosure agreements—not the ones that we think are valuable, but abusive ones—which are being used to silence and cover up revelations of illegal activity, broadly, will not be enforceable in court, whether or not you have shelled out some money in the first place. That was what I attempted to do in the drafting approach that I chose with Amendment 281.

Members of the Committee who have come armed with the actual Marshalled List, which I know is a novel thing to do, will find Amendment 281 on page 114. The approach I have taken is to say that non-disclosure agreements are voidable. They are not automatically so, but they are voidable—that is, in those circumstances, unenforceable—if they prevent disclosure of conduct that may be contrary to law.

When a court is considering whether to void such an agreement—to make it unenforceable—there are certain factors that ought to be taken into account. The severity of the allegation of proven or admitted conduct, including the veracity of those allegations, would come up in an attempt by the former employer or current employer to enforce this agreement. The second factor is whether all parties to the contract were in receipt of independent legal advice. This means that an employer trying to construct one of these agreements and to get an employee to agree to it will have to realise that if that independent legal advice is not evidenced and not provided, later, the whole thing will be an expensive waste of time, because it is likely to be voided in the public interest by a court or tribunal. Therefore, they had better do what employers often do in standard consent agreements, which is pay for independent advice and have that witnessed.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

There are, however, even given where we have got to so far, going to be many people who will be grateful for her efforts, given that an extraordinary one in 14 adults have experienced threats to share intimate images in England and Wales, rising to one in seven among young women. As we know, there is a clear link between gender-based violence and image-based abuse, and a great many women will feel safer as a result of the noble Baroness’s efforts.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I happened to be in the House when the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, was taking her Private Member’s Bill through, and I remember very well the reply given by my noble friend to her Bill. Therefore, it is a great achievement that this has become part of government legislation, but it is not complete. We have just heard my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti argue, and I can only adopt her words entirely, because she has always been a much better advocate than me, to persuade a very reasonable Minister—my noble friend has always been a very reasonable Minister—to acquiesce to this argument, notwithstanding the advice of the Attorney-General.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Revocation and Sunset Disapplication) Regulations 2023

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has said that the work is just beginning, and I understand that there is an enormous amount of work still to do. Can he give us any impression of the amount of work that has been done by the devolved Administrations, who have obligations to perform under this statute as well as the UK Government?

Contemplating Part 1, I wonder whether there is anything else that needs to be attended to, bearing in mind that the power being exercised in Part 1 expires at the end of this month. Time is short and the pieces of legislation listed are the product of oversight. It is nice to see that being corrected, but is there a risk that something else may be discovered, and is there time to unravel the situation enough to cure the problems that might emerge?

Otherwise, I think the work done is to be commended. It is good to see that the Act is being put into operation in the way the Minister has described.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, are your Lordships not being given a quite impossible task today? I have made a rough count, and in Part 2 of Schedule 2 there are 56 Council decisions or regulations that are sought to be revoked. The Minister describes it in general terms, saying they are to be revoked because they are redundant, obsolete or inoperable, but we do not know the reasons behind these revocations; we have not had the opportunity properly to examine whether we agree that they should take place.

I will ask the Minister one simple question, referring to Part 1 of Schedule 2. The first measure to be revoked in its entirety is the Alcoholic Liquor (Amendment of Units of Measurement) Order 1992. The restriction on the use of alcohol seems to be something of importance. Will the Minister kindly tell us precisely why that particular legislation is sought to be revoked?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee when it said in its short report that these regulations are an “eclectic” list of items to be reinstated and revoked. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, just said, it includes all sorts of things, including alcohol regulations. It covers a variety of departments, including the Northern Ireland Office; as the Minister said, it is deeply to be regretted that the Northern Ireland Civil Service, rather than a functioning Executive, had to make the decision to reinstate the three pieces of legislation relevant to Northern Ireland.

I also agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the Explanatory Memorandum is insufficiently detailed, stating merely, as it does, that the laws in question are either redundant or no longer effective. It is to be welcomed that, as the Minister said, there is now a direct link in the Explanatory Memorandum to the more detailed analysis, but it is important that these things are clear and easily accessible to the public, as well as to parliamentarians in this House and the other place.

The Government promised consultation and expert input on REUL reforms. Can the Minister update us on how departments are taking that commitment forward, including in the regulations we are looking at? The Minister will know that there are particular concerns regarding lack of consultation and progress on nutrient pollution and air quality. Can he update us on possible timescales and consultation processes for these two areas? Can he also say how the Government intend to approach assessing and mitigating the risks of changes to case law, which is so important for environmental protection?

My final comment is perhaps more for your Lordships’ House than for the Minister, but this secondary legislation from the original Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act is a very good example of where there should be post-legislative scrutiny within the usual framework for carrying out a PLS inquiry. There are important lessons to be learned for the future about the provision of effective parliamentary scrutiny and consultation with experts, which did not happen in the case of the original Act in the haste to get Brexit done and to get it on the statute book.