Non-disclosure Agreements

Debate between Greg Smith and Sarah Russell

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith]

I can say in response to the Minister’s quip from a sedentary position that I have never spoken with a handout from the Whips.

Sometimes, we sit there in the main Chamber listening to the usual yah-boo of party politics, but every so often there is a speech—it can come from any part of the House—that makes our ears prick up a little bit and think, “They have a point.” The Member is making a genuine case about a real grievance or a real problem out there in our country that needs resolution, almost undoubtedly via primary legislation. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Lady on her passion and dedication to this cause, and on ensuring that we continue to debate it here in Westminster Hall this morning.

The right hon. Member was absolutely right to highlight the two-tier absurdity brought about under the current law. I was particularly struck by her point that 27 states in the United States of America have passed legislation on this issue. The United States is hardly a nation that is looked to for high-end employment rights. It is a country where, for example, most people get only two weeks’ holiday a year, and where maternity and paternity rights are far short of those we have here, so the fact that those 27 states have passed laws on this issue in varying respects is something that we should reflect on.

During the debate the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke powerfully about the creative sector; the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) clearly brought extensive experience of this matter from her time as a solicitor; my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought his usual eloquence to supporting this cause; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) gave powerful examples from his experience working for a trade union—the example he gave about a school setting was particularly powerful—and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) powerfully cited a local case. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, gave a particularly powerful speech, reminding us that of course this issue is not about banning NDAs in their entirety, but about stopping this very particular abuse.

In fact, the hon. Lady’s most powerful point—on top of the one about self-employment, which is a subject that I will always prick my ears up about, having been self-employed myself for 15 years before I entered this House in 2015—was that people are being forced into signing these agreements at the lowest ebb of their lives, at the time when they are at their most vulnerable. We should face that fact and reflect upon it.

I am grateful for this opportunity to continue the debate on non-disclosure agreements, which have become a tool that too often is used to silence victims of harassment, discrimination and abuse in the workplace. This is not just a matter of employment law; it is a fundamental issue of justice, accountability and transparency. At their worst, NDAs allow perpetrators to escape scrutiny, enabling toxic workplace cultures to persist unchecked. Undoubtedly, some victims, facing an imbalance of power, are pressured into signing away their right to speak out in exchange for a financial settlement. This not only denies individuals the justice they deserve, but prevents organisations, and indeed our society at large, from learning from past failure and making necessary change.

Of course, we are not in any way suggesting that every single NDA out there is inherently wrong. There are legitimate reasons for their use in protecting trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. However, when they are used to cover up wrongdoing, they become a shield for bad employers and an obstacle to a fair and open working environment. Like other Members, I believe that the vast majority of employers do act in good faith and are good people, but where it goes wrong and they are acting in bad faith or—let’s say it how it is—criminally, NDAs should not be a shield for that.

The Government have said they are committed to tackling workplace discrimination and harassment. There are elements of the Employment Rights Bill that the Opposition support, but we had a particular debate about the provisions on third-party harassment. I say this in a spirit of wanting to solve this problem: we all want to see harassment stamped out, but those provisions will have the unintended consequence of what we call the “banter ban”, whereby an employee can take their employer to court if they happen to overhear something that politically offends them in a hospitality setting or whatever it might be.

[Mrs Russell]

rose—

[Greg Smith]

I will just finish the point; I am pre-empting the hon. Lady. There is still time, as the Bill passes through the other place, to look again at this legislation. Instead of risking those unintended consequences in hospitality settings, for example, the Government could put provisions in the Bill to tackle the serious, life-changing problem that we are debating this morning and stop this use of NDAs to silence victims.

[Mrs Russell]

There is a defence to that form of discrimination, which is where an employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent it—and I speak only of reasonable steps, not every single magical thing that could be thought of. In fact, there was a case just last week in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in which an employer did successfully defend a harassment claim on the basis that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position is not as extreme as he is presenting by any stretch of the imagination, and that as long as hospitality businesses have taken all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from being harassed, they will be fine?

[Greg Smith]

I do not particularly want to relitigate our debate in the main Chamber a few weeks ago. It is the job of the Opposition to kick the tyres on legislation that the Government put forward, and that is what did in that debate. I hope the hon. Lady turns out to be right, but the Employment Rights Bill is still a Bill, and when it undoubtedly becomes an Act due to the parliamentary arithmetic at the moment, we will be able to fully test that and see who is right.

I want to focus on the importance of the issue before us today. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition echo the question that Members have asked the Minister this morning: when can we expect legislation to be brought forward to tackle this issue? Will it be stand-alone, or will the Government amend the existing vehicle available to them in the House of Lords?

We also need to ensure that the Government’s own house is in order on this front. I gently ask the Minister for transparency on the Government’s own use of NDAs. How many non-disclosure agreements have been used across the civil service since the Government took office last July? Do the Government rely on these agreements to settle disputes within their own Departments? If the Government believe, as I hope they do, that NDAs should not be misused—and misused is a light term for this—they must lead by example.

I do not believe that this is about party politics; it is about ensuring fairness and justice in our workplaces. We must end the practice of silencing victims and start fostering a culture where wrongdoing is exposed and addressed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, more importantly, seeing the meaningful action that every Member who has spoken in this debate this morning wants to see come to pass.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Greg Smith and Sarah Russell

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If we look at the detail of this Bill, it is very clear and obvious that the Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out of the trade union political fund. That is the very point of them changing this legislation.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will make a bit of progress, then I will come to the hon. Lady.

An opt-in is the default under consumer protection law and information law. Combined with the 10-year reminder change, it is highly likely that many trade union members will not be aware that their subscriptions are being used in this way or that they are eligible to save money on their trade union fees by not being a member of the political fund. Despite all the talk of supporting working people, it is clear that that concern simply does not apply when working people’s money is being taken to fund the Labour party and other political causes. We have tabled amendment 291 because we believe fundamentally that people should consent explicitly to what is, in effect, a subscription trap. Amendment 291 would simply maintain the status quo; it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Russell]

I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times such a ballot has actually resulted in the closure of a political fund? I think he will find that the answer is none.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady is putting up a smoke-and-mirrors argument to try to cover the fact that the Government are changing the status quo from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. To me, it is just straightforward common sense that people would expect to have to opt in rather than, in this particularly egregious case, being casually reminded every 10 years that they could save a bit of money by opting out of a cause that they perhaps did not even agree with in the first place.

In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), pledged to end auto-renewal subscriptions. When the Conservatives were in government, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant proposals on subscription contracts that are notable here. One of those was reminder notices. Businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and payment will be due unless the consumer cancels. The second proposal was to allow consumers to be able to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way. Businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single communication.

The Labour party, which was then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour at the time. On Report, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) tabled new clause 29, which the Labour party voted to add to the Bill. The new clause had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt into subscriptions renewing automatically either

“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”

The second aim of the new clause, which the Labour party used to support, would have required that if the consumer did not opt into the arrangement described, the trader had to

“provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”

If the consumer did not provide a notification, the subscription contract could not renew.

Where am I going with this? [Interruption.] Government Members are chuntering too early, because there has been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to the trade union political fund. Under amendment 292 and new clause 88, trade union members would have the same rights, pushed for by Labour, as other individuals with a subscription.

New schedule 2 could be used to give sweeping powers to Labour’s trade union paymasters, as the Secretary of State could reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to as little as 2% of the workforce. Trade unions could easily be imposed on workplaces across the country, with small employers being particularly vulnerable. In a workplace of 200 workers, fewer than five of them would be required for workplace recognition. Paired with the other measures in this Bill, that will strike fear into business owners across Britain, who could now be forced to deal with all-powerful trade unions as part of Labour’s return to the 1970s. The way in which Labour has gone about this is just another example of the shoddy nature of this Bill and of Labour’s approach to workplace regulations. The Attorney General has said that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined,”—

I am quoting him—

“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

On facility time, amendments 293 and 295 would remove clause 54, “Facilities provided to trade union officials and learning representatives”, and clause 55, “Facilities for equality representatives”. They would remove the requirement to provide reasonable time off for facility time, the creation of facility time for equality representatives and clauses that will reduce transparency requirements over facility time, respectively. Together with amendment 296, they would prevent facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance. Trade union facility time already costs the Government nearly £100 million a year. Under the last Labour Government, the civil service spent 0.26% of its annual pay bill on facility time, compared with 0.04% in the private sector. Under the last Conservative Government, in 2022-23, the average for the civil service was 0.05%.

Labour councils are still the worst culprit. The transparency data collected by the Government in ’22-23 shows that Transport for London under the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has 881 full-time equivalent union officials on the books, costing £8 million a year. Bankrupt, Labour-run Birmingham city council has 30 full-time equivalent union officials on its central books, costing £1.2 million—no wonder that it went bankrupt. Furthermore, the council had 12 full-time equivalents in its maintained schools, costing £583,000.

Clauses 54 and 55 will increase that cost by giving more time off to public sector union officials at the taxpayer’s expense. That is not right when the Chancellor is asking Ministers to make cuts to their Departments across the board. Public services will be worse and the taxpayer will be expected to contribute more.

Furthermore, the Bill extends the right to facility time to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off work to carry out activities for the purposes of

“promoting the value of equality in the workplace…arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace…providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace…consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”

and

“obtaining and analysing information relating to equality in the workplace”.

Those are all noble goals, but that should not be done at the taxpayer’s expense.

“Chapter 4A

Debate between Greg Smith and Sarah Russell

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The crux of what she says is the difference between the approach of Conservative Members to economy and the way that Labour Members, and those on the other left-wing Benches, look at the economy. The left of British politics tends to view everything through the lens of business being bad, of all employers seeking to exploit their workforces, and of an image of a Victorian factory from a novel of that era. In reality, we must recognise the symbiotic relationship between employer and employee, because we do not grow the economy without things working in both their interests. The Bill seeks to tip the balance too far in one direction, forgetting that that will take away the incentive for employers—the wealth creators—to get on and grow.

Let me move to new clause 84 and amendment 284. Conservative Members have absolutely no issue with the right to request flexible working. Indeed, Conservatives in government passed the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. That made it easier for employees to make flexible working requests, gave them a statutory right to do so, and required employers to consider and discuss any requests made by their employee more quickly. That legislation appears to be working. Indeed, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that

“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests unreasonably.”

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I spent 13 years as a solicitor working in employment rights, predominantly for employees and periodically for employers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that flexible working is not working for many mothers in this country. Many women are giving up jobs and becoming self-employed because their employers will not agree their flexible working requests.

[Greg Smith]

It is good to hear from a real solicitor who gives her wealth of knowledge to this area. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect and working well. I fully accept the fair and good point that the hon. Lady makes about many mothers getting back into the workplace or extending their careers, but the Bill is not the answer she is looking for, if she looks at it in more detail.

The RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment for flexible working provisions a red rating, and that goes to the nub of the point. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, but the impact assessment for the flexible provisions in the Bill was given a red rating—not fit for purpose. Once again, I ask the Minister this: what problem are the Government trying to solve with clause 7? Before rushing to pile more red tape on businesses through the Bill, did the Government consider options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working? Our new clause 84 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact that clause 7 will have on employment, wages and economic output.

[Mrs Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

One more crack, yes.

[Mrs Russell]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that women absolutely do know about the right to request flexible working, and that is not the source of the problems they are facing.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady almost makes the point for me. Earlier, I made the very point that we introduced that right. It was working well, yet the RPC says that the provisions in the Bill will do nothing for it and are not fit for purpose—I thank her for her intervention.

New clause 84 calls for consideration of

“the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages”,

and of the likely effect that the right to request flexible working will have on productivity, wage growth, equality of opportunity, job security, economic activity and employment. Equally, it requires that a report setting out that those findings

“must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. This Bill would criminalise and bring in the banter police and so on just because people are expressing a perfectly legitimate political view that somebody else finds offensive. I double-underline that sexual harassment is absolutely—

[Mrs Russell]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Minister is in danger of misleading the House. Nothing that he has referred to is a crime. Sexual harassment, as dealt with in this Bill, is a civil matter dealt with by tribunal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. That was in fact a point of debate, rather than a point of order.

Road Safety: Young Drivers

Debate between Greg Smith and Sarah Russell

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall this morning. I thank all those who have contributed with powerful speeches. My heart goes out to any family who have lost a child or relative in a road accident. Every single death is a tragedy that should spur us on to do more to prevent future deaths and injuries, and make our roads safer. I cannot imagine the pain of any family getting the knock on the door from a police officer, or however the news is broken to them, to tell them that a child has died on our roads, as in this case, or under any other circumstances.

We must always look at practical measures to improve road safety through the lens of “To drive is freedom”. To drive brings opportunity. For many—I include myself in this—to drive brings pleasure. Our challenge is: what will protect those freedoms, opportunities and pleasures in a safer way?

[Mrs Russell]

Mandy Ogden said to me:

“Often, the main argument against this change to driver licensing is that it restricts freedom, but our daughter’s freedom has been taken away forever.”

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that, too, is an important point?

[Greg Smith]

In a few moments, I will come on to the measures that I think would protect the freedom to drive far better, as well as the safety of those who do so. There will perhaps not be agreement with every single point that hon. Members have made in the debate, but I repeat the point. Central to how I would like to look at this issue is not how we can restrict people more, but how we can make people safer in the first place by ensuring that they have the skills required to drive safely, be it in our cities and towns, on our rural roads and motorways, or indeed abroad, where often the rules can be very different. We all know the example of the German autobahns, many of which have no speed limit. It is vital to equip any British citizen going to Germany with the ability to handle a car at very great speed and be safe on those roads.

The challenge before us is how to make everybody—young people, for sure, but also old people, for whom the statistics are just as stark, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned—safer and able to handle a vehicle in all conditions on our roads.