Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Laura Farris and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

11. Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault, harassment and misconduct cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)]

It is important to flag at the outset that confidentiality clauses are only ever used in the civil context, rather than the criminal. With that in mind, we are tabling an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to make any non-disclosure agreement void if it purports to restrict the right of an individual to report the same act to the police or to access any kind of medical or therapeutic support—a move that has been welcomed by many, including the Law Society and the Bar Council.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Thousands of people are silenced due to non-disclosure agreements and gagging clauses in cases of alleged sexual violence, bullying and harassment. The Legal Services Board has reported that signatories of NDAs suffer devastating impacts due to fear of retribution. Pregnant Then Screwed has said that an estimated 435,295 mothers have been gagged by an NDA or confidentiality clause. The Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) would end the misuse of NDAs in the workplace. Why are the Government so hesitant about supporting a statutory ban?

[Laura Farris]

As someone who spent more than a decade practising as an employment lawyer, I can tell the hon. Lady that there is a role for the confidentiality clause in any kind of compromise agreement when both sides resolve their dispute without going to court, and without admission of liability or any finding of liability on either side. We recognise that when they are used in their most extreme form, particularly in the most high-profile sexual harassment claims, victims have told us that they felt they could not go to the police or access counselling. We have righted that wrong. However, I will stand up for confidentiality clauses, and I want to correct slightly the hon. Lady’s point: they are only really encountered where there is a dispute concerning the Equality Act 2010. That needs to be immediately contextualised—it applies only in employment, education and in the provision of goods and services. We have taken the same step in relation to students through the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Laura Farris and Wera Hobhouse

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

It is certainly true that the promise inherent in the refugee convention—an offer to the world at large, conceived in an era before easyJet, before people going on holiday to any country and before mass migration—must be looked at through a different lens in the year 2023. Many of our international partners are now talking in that way, and we may have to have a debate on a different occasion to talk about the issue more broadly.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Laura Farris]

I am just going to make a tiny bit of progress, because I have not really started and there is not much time.

I want to respond to amendments 131 and 132, which would do slightly different things but have the same effect. I will look at you, Dame Eleanor, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will not be offended if he has to look at my back. Amendment 131 would exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and amendment 132 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 in so far as they may be relevant to decisions taken under this Bill.

I want to say at the outset that I understand the impulse that has brought my hon. Friend here—namely the frustration with the exercise of the rule 39 injunctive relief decision in July, which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West covered so well in her speech. She will know as well as I do that rule 39 is not an inherent part of the European convention on human rights; she said in her speech that it is a rule of the Court.

That decision was taken by a single judge alone. The hon. and learned Lady is right to point out that that is common and standard in injunctive proceedings, but it is none the less somewhat surprising to see that matter go through in the eyes of the High Court, the Court of Appeal here and, finally, the Supreme Court, and then be overturned by the decision of a single judge in Europe. We do not even know who the judge was, but we know that Tim Eicke, our own British judge who sits on the European Court, has never sat as a High Court judge. He is a barrister. I say that with deference to his brilliance, and of course I am not criticising him; that is standard for the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is odd to see our own Supreme Court, with some of the most brilliant justices in the world, being overruled, under a Court rule, by somebody who is probably not of their status. I think that is a true statement.