Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

Debate between Danny Kruger and Wera Hobhouse

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members are suggesting that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. They suggest in these debates that there is always a balance to be made, and I agree. But do they acknowledge that there is a risk attached to the vaccine, and that the excess deaths that we are describing can be attributed to the vaccine? They might suggest that the risk is outweighed by the enormous benefit of the vaccine by saving lives, but if they are suggesting that there is a risk that could help explain the excess deaths, that is not the Government’s position. Their position is that there is no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. If they are suggesting that there is a link but it is outweighed by the benefits, that is a different argument.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Debate between Danny Kruger and Wera Hobhouse

Consideration of Lords amendments
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady defines exactly the issue. She talks about the intent of the Bill being to protect people from feeling distressed, which I think is absolutely right—we should all intend that—but it is difficult for law to manage and protect people’s feelings. The consequence of writing that into black and white means that we then require courts to adjudicate on all sorts of very difficult emotional issues.

The hon. Lady talks about the intent behind the Bill. We all intend the right thing here. We are all in unity that we disapprove of harassment and incivility, but we disapprove of all sorts of things that we cannot and should not try to criminalise. The consequence of criminalising bad manners—even very bad manners—is fundamentally to curtail free speech and the freedom upon which all of our civility as a society depends.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am glad that we are having this discussion in a very respectful way, because that is how it should work. I recognise that that discussion may not have been had enough and we need a little more time having it. Does the hon. Gentleman think that legislation guides better behaviour and that, for that reason, it is important that we pass certain laws? That is the intention of the Bill. As I say, I have accepted the Lords amendment, but does he agree that legislation guides better behaviour and that is what we should aim for?

[Danny Kruger]

This is an important discussion. The hon. Lady is saying that the law is a teacher—indeed, it is—and influences the culture. It is also true that the law needs to reflect the culture, so we modernise our legislative framework in response to public opinion and how things are. We now legalise things that were illegal in the past in response to the way culture evolves.

However, the law is a teacher in a bad way too. It can introduce negative effects into our culture and chill free speech. It can inhibit the sorts of conversation that are necessary for the development and progress of our society, which is a topic that will come up later in other legislation. There were significant attempts during the pandemic to effectively criminalise or inhibit free speech around the pandemic response, on exactly the same grounds that we might use in this debate, namely that it is important for public protection and the protection of the vulnerable that misinformation, disinformation and, in this context, harassment should be criminalised. That was wrong, and I really worry about the possible chilling effect of this legislation.

A narrow gap is left in this law to criminalise free speech. Many Members will raise the outrageous and unacceptable behaviour that many employees have to put up with in the workplace—I recognise that too. We absolutely need to insist that that does not happen, but that is a job for the culture and for employers. In a sense, it is a job for all of us to instil the right sort of moral conduct in our communities, but frankly it is impossible to write legislation in black and white that achieves the outcomes the hon. Lady wishes without also inhibiting free speech.

I will end with an observation about another piece of legislation that I understand is being contemplated for the King’s Speech: a conversion therapy ban. I am afraid that that is another instance where, under the noble and honourable impulse to stop outrageous and unacceptable practices going on, we are proposing a piece of performative legislation in response to a vocal and activist lobby group that will put into law an imprecise and fuzzy set of moral aspirations. Once Opposition Members get hold of it in Committee, on Third Reading and in the House of Lords, the scope will be expanded and then courts will be required to criminalise conversations between adults and their therapists, parents and children, which is exactly what happens in other countries where this well-intentioned legislation has been passed into law. The law is a teacher, but it is not an opportunity for moral grandstanding and virtue signalling. We have an obligation to put into black and white words that the courts clearly understand and that do not end up curtailing free speech.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Debate between Danny Kruger and Wera Hobhouse

Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

This Bill cannot be allowed to fall. It will make a huge difference to the lives of many people in the workplace and will help to provide a cultural shift in attitudes towards appropriate behaviours at work. The Government’s amendment will not impinge on the protections from sexual harassment in the Bill, which will be so important to many women across the country—although of course sexual harassment is not faced only by women. I have also been assured that the amendment should not stop employers prohibiting targeted, indecent or grossly offensive conversations in the workplace, meaning employees will still be protected from third-party workplace harassment.

After taking advice from the Fawcett Society and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I have concluded that I should get behind the Government’s amendments, because the overall aims of the Bill are so important and it is important that it is put into statute. As a Liberal, of course I do not want important political conversation to be shut down in the workplace; people should be free to express an opinion. However, we should be careful to ensure that expressing an opinion does not become a defence for harassment.

I was slightly disappointed that the Government tabled their amendments after Committee had concluded. That led to an enormous rush, and it was quite difficult to consult with everybody, but as I said, I have been assured and have concluded that it is the right way to progress with the Bill, and I support the amendment.

I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of the EHRC, which argues that the amendments could be more targeted and limited, and the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations, which worries that the amendments risk diluting these changes, which seek to make workplaces safer, fairer and more respectful not just for women but for everybody. I hope the Government will commit to ensuring the Bill’s smooth passage into law, working with all stakeholders who have voiced their concerns.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill and the amendments that the Government have tabled, with the support of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I recognise that, despite the Equality Act, we have a significant problem in our culture and our society: too many people are the victim of unacceptable and outrageous harassment, intimidation and abuse in their workplace, particularly sexual harassment. I recognise the powerful points that the hon. Member for Bath made. The problem arises largely because this harassment frequently goes unreported because it is ignored by employers.

We have a significant problem in the culture, so the question arises, what can the law do about it? I want to speak in support of the amendments that the Government have tabled but also raise some concerns about the drift in legislation that we have embarked on. I very much recognise the responsibility that employers have to set the atmosphere and to create the culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Perhaps I could advise the hon. Gentleman that the EHRC will give guidance to employers to help them get through these issues. We are waiting for the guidance, which will be published shortly. I advise him to look at that guidance.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the hon. Member for that advice. I will look forward to that guidance, as I have great faith in that commission under its present chair to make sensible guidance.

For the sake of clarity, is it the case that the list of criteria—the eligibility for the law to be triggered—are individual criteria, so that if any of these criteria are not met, then the law does not apply? Or is it that every single one of them must be met for an employer to be exempt from the operations of the Act? I fear that if they are all required to be met, that is a very high bar for employers to get over, and I would rather it was just any of them being met.

I end by expressing my concern about how, increasingly, the spirit of our law is simply declaratory. We decide that something is bad in our society and we pass a law saying that it is bad and that it should not happen, and we expect that to work. What we need to consider in drafting and passing legislation is the actual effect of the law on the people who will be responsible for enforcing it, given the culture and the effect of the culture on the law. The law is a teacher, and we must be aware of the attitudes, the spirits, the fears and the politics, including the increasingly transgressive politics, of people with power our country’s public life and about how they will use the laws that we are passing. In future times, what will be done with laws such as this? I would be grateful to the Minister if she could reassure me on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill has a simple aim: to create respectful workplaces free from harassment where employees feel valued and supported. Today, we can move a step closer to that by creating an employer’s responsibility to clamp down on harassment. I start by thanking the Fawcett Society and the Government Equalities Office officials who have supported me throughout the Bill’s progression. My thanks go also to the Women and Equalities Committee, whose 2018 report into workplace harassment set the wheels in motion for the Bill. There has been vital cross-party support to ensure this important legislation progresses. I hope that spirit of consensus continues today. It will send a clear signal from us here in Parliament that workplace harassment must end.

The Bill focuses on strengthening protections against workplace sexual harassment and introduces protections against more general harassment by third party actors. Workplace sexual harassment is widespread and under-reported. It continues to be a stain on our society. Half of all British women and a fifth of men have been sexually harassed at work or place of study. A TUC survey suggested 79% of women did not report their experience of sexual harassment. Too many people suffer in silence partly because they feel unable to report it. Reporting can have severe career and reputational implications. Employers must shoulder some responsibility for that. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that in nearly half of cases where employees made a report, the employer did nothing, minimised the incident, or placed the responsibility on the employee to avoid the harasser.

The impact of harassment in the workplace has devastating consequences on health, morale, and, last but not least, performance. Current harassment laws mean employers often adopt individualised responses to institutional problems. This allows employers to minimise harassment, causing confusion around appropriate responses. For things to improve, we must shift the focus from redress to prevention. The Equality and Human Rights Commission found in 2018 that a minority of employers had effective processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment. Employers should have a moral and legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment from happening. The Bill will force them to act.

Clause 2 will impose a new duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from experiencing workplace sexual harassment. It will not require employers to do anything substantially more than what they already should be doing to avoid legal liability for harassment carried out by their employees. However, if employers have failed to take those actions, they could face further enforcement action through an uplift to the total compensation awarded at an employment tribunal, or through the EHRC’s strategic enforcement. That should encourage employers to improve their workplace practices and culture to discourage sexual harassment.

The new duty will operate through dual enforcement. First, the EHRC may take enforcement action for a breach or suspected breach of the duty under its strategic enforcement policy. That would mean employees would be able to inform the EHRC of any concerns without necessarily having to take forward legal action against their employers themselves. Secondly, the employer’s duty will be enforceable by the employment tribunal in individual cases. Where the employment tribunal has found in favour of an individual claim of sexual harassment and has ordered compensation to be paid, the tribunal will examine whether and to what extent the duty has been breached. Where a breach of the duty is found, tribunal judges will have the power to order an uplift of up to 25% of the compensation.

The Bill will also introduce explicit protections against third-party harassment in the workplace—this is where the amendments are most relevant. Clause 1 would make employers liable for the harassment of their staff by third parties such as customers and clients, where they have failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such harassment. These protections will apply to all acts of third-party harassment in the workplace, not just sexual harassment. Once again, there will be a system of dual enforcement.

A claim of third-party harassment could be brought after a single incident of harassment. That replaces the previous three strikes formulation, whereby employers needed to know of two previous incidents of third-party harassment before they could be considered liable. However, liability can arise only if an employer has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. The Government Equalities Office will support the EHRC in creating a statutory code of practice on sexual harassment and harassment in the workplace, to support employers to implement the changes that will come into force 12 months after Royal Assent.

There is plenty of opportunity for employers to make themselves well informed of the changes and ensure that they can implement them. There will be a consultation as well. There is plenty of time to further consider people’s concerns on all sides. I encourage all Members to make themselves very knowledgeable about the changes and the guidance that will be provided shortly.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. It is important that we trust the organisation that will design the regulations. Does that not mean, if we are essentially outsourcing the definitions that will be implemented under this law, that a future regime at the Equality and Human Rights Commission may come up with different guidance that will be much stricter than what we are passing today?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Perhaps we should trust ourselves a little more. This Bill is not about heavy penalties on people but about creating workplaces where everybody feels valued. I am sure that everybody across this House will support that. That is the aim of the Bill, not to create huge penalties for employers now.

We all need to acknowledge where harassment takes place. As we heard from the Minister, we all need sometimes to recognise that someone’s banter is another person’s harassment. To create and develop sensitivity to how people feel about things, and to have conversations in the workplace where we can be open to talk about these things, will lead to the workplace that I would like to see in future. I have some confidence that in the end, we will all be supportive of that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will be addressed; he will see the guidance that is being created and that it is about all reasonable steps being taken. It is, in many ways, about common sense—what is a reasonable step and what is an unreasonable step. I am sure that we can all move forward together.

There is plenty of time to look at the code of practice. I encourage everyone to make themselves knowledgeable. It will be based on the technical guidance that the Equality and Human Rights Commission published 2020, and will be introduced as the new legislation comes into force. The EHRC will have a duty to consult on the code of practice in advance. In the meantime, the Government’s Equalities Office has produced guidance, which they will publish in due course.

The Government tabled amendment 3 to clause 1, which means that, where harassment relates to a protected characteristic, employers will not be expected to prevent the expression of an opinion to avoid liability, where certain conditions are met. The conditions are where the harassment involves a conversation in which the claimant is not a participant, or a speech that is not aimed specifically at them; where the conversation or speech contains the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter; where the opinion expressed is not indecent or grossly offensive; and where the harassment is not intentional. The amendment will not apply in cases of sexual harassment.

Workplace harassment should be seen as an epidemic, and it is time that we treat it in that way. During flu season, employers do not wait for employees to get sick: they proactively invest in and implement evidence-based prevention measures to keep workplaces healthy and productive. This Bill encourages the same focus on prevention to tackle harassment. I therefore call on the House to support my Bill, which will enshrine in law historic measures to protect employees against workplace harassment.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Debate between Danny Kruger and Wera Hobhouse

Report stage
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am going to speak briefly to new clause 7 on access to cash, and to new clause 27 on access to banking services. I very much support the Bill and completely commend what the Government are trying to do. It is a source of great pride that they are bringing financial regulation home as one of the great benefits of Brexit. I applaud what they are doing and appreciate all the engagement that Ministers have had with colleagues on the new clauses that I am speaking to.

I understand that there is an intention not to push new clause 27 to a vote, and I intend to abstain on new clause 7 if there is a Division on it, because I look forward to the policy statement that the Government have promised. I support the principle behind both the new clauses. As Members have mentioned, we seem to be moving inevitably towards a cashless society, and we can all see the personal convenience of that. Like the royal family, I personally do not carry cash around. It is only embarrassing when I am in church and the platter comes around. That is pretty much the only occasion when I feel the need for it, but that is not the case for everyone.

For anyone using a digital payments system, the operator of the platform has potentially immense control over their life, in principle and in practice. That is why what PayPal did to the Free Speech Union and others a few months ago is so important. Yes, we can acknowledge that that event was an outlier. It was a rare and slightly inexplicable event and, yes, it was quickly corrected in some of the cases of the accounts that were closed, but the fact is that it happened. It was a straw in the wind, and the fact that individuals and organisations with heterodox political opinions found themselves unable to operate economically because of the decision of a private company acting entirely on its own initiative, possibly under pressure from external campaigns, is a troubling development. So it is vital that we send the strongest regulatory, and also cultural and political, signal to these private payment platforms that the opinions of their customers are none of their business.

Nor are private opinions any business of the state, and this is why the question of access to cash is about more than the important issue of protecting the vulnerable, although I agree with the points that have been made on that. It is also about liberty. Just now, behind the scenes, the Government and the Bank of England are developing plans for their own central bank digital currency. Again, we can see the practical appeal, but the threat is that the Government will have oversight of the economic activity of private citizens, which is something that no Government of this country have ever had in our history. It is therefore vital that the debate on a central bank digital currency has liberty front and centre. We can all say warm words about the importance of safeguards and freedoms, but the fact is that if the emergency is bad enough and the powers are available, those powers could well be used.

We saw this happening around the world, and to some degree in our own country, during the covid crisis. We have only to look at what the Canadian Government did to block access to the bank accounts of truckers protesting against the covid policy there to see what can be done in a modern liberal western country. It would be a shame if we took back control of financial regulation from the EU only to empower private payment platforms, or indeed our own central bank, in that way. Cash services and banking services are part of the infrastructure of our communities. They are also part of the infrastructure of liberty.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 34 and 35. Both are tabled in my name and deal with the rules and duties of pension schemes and investments.

This Bill could be a unique opportunity to develop the green economy we need by providing the finance required to support our net zero transition. Unfortunately, this Government might again miss the boat. The Bank of England recently warned that UK banks and insurers will end up shouldering nearly £340 billion-worth of climate-related losses by 2050. Such losses will be unrecoverable, so it is cheaper to save the planet than to destroy it.

The World Bank suggests that up to 216 million people could be forced to move within their countries by 2050, but immediate climate action could reduce that by up to 80%. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C instead of 2°C could result in around 42 million fewer people being exposed to extreme heatwaves. We have pensions to provide adequate quality of life after retirement. How absurd it would be if the climate catastrophe meant that there was little quality of life left.