“Chapter 4A

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Member is right: of course those things are different, but with the dawning realisation I had back then, I started to wonder who else might take a zero-hours contract? Yes, it is true that disproportionately they are young people, but for quite a lot of people a zero-hours contract is for a second job. I would be interested to hear from the Government their assessment of that. It turned out, when we looked at this in 2016, that one of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in the country was none other than the national health service, so that it could cope with increases in demand. These were people who had a permanent job as well, but who could, as bank staff, supply other hours when that was needed.

For this Government, it is totemic to do something about zero-hours contracts because of that Labour mythology. For the unions, there is also another reason. This is classic insider-outsider theory, with a shift in remuneration from people who are not in work to people who are already in work, and it pushes up what is called the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. In plain English, it is bad for jobs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that because, as we all know, she is most definitely an economist—she has worked as an economist, she has trained as an economist and she is an economist—and this is classical economic reality.

For whom might zero-hours contracts work well? They work well for any employer with an unpredictable, variable need for workers—from the events business to the NHS, as I have mentioned—and there are other obvious cases in tourism, agriculture and food. However, some people may just choose to have that flexibility. Over the last two years it has been a seller’s market to go into teaching, but some people have still chosen to become a supply teacher because, for whatever reason, for them that works well.

The other group for whom this may work are those furthest from the labour market, who have perhaps been out of work for a very long time, who perhaps are ex-offenders, or who for some other reason find it difficult to immediately land a regular, full-time job. When this is combined with universal credit—which, by the way, the right hon. Member for Islington North also wanted to abolish—it can work very well, because the top-up payment can be adjusted according to how much someone earns week to week.

This Bill is bound to have unintended consequences. We do not know exactly which ones they will be, but I will suggest some of them. It could suppress seasonal peaks in employment—for tourism in the summer, but also at Christmas time—because employers will not want to take on the liability from the reference period. It could deter people from second jobs, which will be bad for growth. It could mean people move from contracted employment to self-employment or casual work. It could mean a move from permanent contracts to temporary contracts and, yes, it could hit our national health service and other important public sector employers.

I do not doubt that this piece of legislation will be good for unions, but it will be bad for the economy and bad for growth, and it will be especially bad for people in the hardest circumstances who so badly want to get back to work, and for whom this kind of contract can also be that important first step.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) on all their incredible work in bringing forward this landmark piece of legislation. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is co-sponsoring new clause 74 with me today.

This is the first speech I have given as a Back Bencher in nearly 10 years. One of the few benefits of—ahem—elevating oneself to the Back Benches is the ability to speak much more routinely on behalf of my constituents and those without a political voice. The amendment I rise to speak to today is literally about the voiceless: those who have been legally silenced in the name of organisational and personal preservation.

New clause 74 would prohibit employers from entering into non-disclosure agreements with workers in relation to complaints of sexual misconduct, abuse, harassment or discrimination. It very closely mirrors legislation recently passed in Ireland that bans NDAs in those circumstances but allows them at the express consent of the victim, and legislation that has been passed in multiple US states in relation to sexual harassment.

NDAs have a perfectly legitimate use in business to protect commercial confidentiality and trade, but they are frequently misused to bully people into silence when they have already suffered at work. We know of the most high-profile cases, from Harvey Weinstein to Mohamed Al-Fayed, only because their brave survivors risked breaching their NDAs. But these agreements are far from confined to celebrity abusers; they are being misused and exploited on a vast scale. The campaign Can’t Buy My Silence—led by Zelda Perkins, who helped to expose the abuse of Harvey Weinstein—has also uncovered multiple scandals in the higher education sector, which led to action by the former Government to ban the use of NDAs in that sector.

We sadly know that, in our own labour movement, trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories—

[Alison Griffiths]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to declare her union interests from her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I believe there is a £10,000 donation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but a point for the Member.

[Louise Haigh]

I am very grateful for that point of order. I am, of course, very happy to declare my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, just as I am in the process of criticising a trade union.

Trade unions have been accused of using confidentiality clauses in settlements, which have the same chilling effect as NDAs. I have been told stories that should be on the front pages of newspapers, such as the man who was accused of rape, signed an NDA and was paid off. His alleged victim only found out years later that that had been the case while she was still working in the same workplace.

Media organisations such as ITN have come under recent criticism. As former employee Daisy Ayliffe said:

“Women who work for ITN have tried to report harassment and discrimination, but soon after doing so found themselves suddenly out of a job and bound by non-disclosure agreements.”

Another former employee of ITN, on seeing Daisy speak out, realised that his experience was far from unique and asked that I use parliamentary privilege today to speak about the confidentiality clause he was required to sign. He has asked that I do not use his name, so I will call him Mr B.

Mr B joined ITN in 2008 on a scheme called Enabling Talent, which aimed to recruit more disabled people into the organisation. He suffers from a condition called functional neurological disorder, which has a number of symptoms, including non-epileptic seizures or dissociate seizures, which he describes as zone-outs or blackouts. In 2008, ITN made a number of reasonable adjustments for him, including help with note taking, a key to the first aid room, and disability leave when required in order to avoid stress and fatigue-induced seizures. He states that at the time he could not fault his employer for the support it gave him.

Mr B left ITN to pursue his career elsewhere and returned in 2017, when he again declared his disability and made a request for similar adjustments. Despite multiple requests for the kind of help he had received before, none were forthcoming. Instead, he suffered severe bullying and discrimination, including pressure to disclose his disability widely to his colleagues. The situation got so bad that his zone-outs and blackouts became increasingly frequent. After suffering one seizure at work, he was required to apologise to those who had witnessed it. He was repeatedly accused of lying about his disability and told that his issues were nothing to do with his disability, despite having joined ITN on a disability inclusion scheme.

Mr B took ITN to tribunal, incurring tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs. He settled but was required to sign a confidentiality clause. His health has deteriorated so badly that he now uses a wheelchair 50% of the time and, following the loss of his job, he was, for a period, made homeless.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in such cases there is no public interest and no interest for anyone, apart from guilty parties, to keep these things secret, and that that is why it is important NDAs are not used to hide problems that employers should sort out?

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely right. There are many organisations, including the BBC, that as a policy do not use NDAs.

Imagine suffering that kind of treatment at work: losing your job, losing your health, and then being banned from explaining to another potential employer, or even your closest friends, what has happened to you. It makes it next to impossible to recover from the experience, very difficult to find work again and vanishingly unlikely that the organisation will face up to its wrongdoing and enact change.

For Mr B, for survivors of monsters such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, and for the thousands of victims across our society who have been legally required to suffer in silence, I hope the House can agree that such agreements have no place in modern society. And if it can happen in organisations such as ITN, whose job is literally to expose injustice, or in trade unions, whose job is to protect workers, then it can happen anywhere. Organisations in these instances, no matter who they are, will circle the wagons and protect themselves rather than the victim. By doing so, they protect abusers. That is why we must simply remove the tools of their abuse and end the use of NDAs in these circumstances.

I am very grateful to the Minister for his earlier response and for confirming that the issue warrants further consideration, but may I press him a little further on exactly how we can see progress? And we must see progress. It is sickening that across the country women and men will have suffered abuse in their workplace and that, instead of action against the perpetrator, they are the ones who are shamed and silenced, ganged up on by lawyers and sentenced to a lifetime of regret.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

As a member of the Public Bill Committee for the Bill, I was surprised by the number of amendments the Government tabled to their own legislation in Committee. There were hundreds of amendments, demonstrating how badly the Bill was drafted when it was first proposed. It was clearly a bad idea to commit to introducing such a major piece of legislation within 100 days of the election, but I guess that was the price of trade union money to fund the Labour party. Having had 21 sittings in Committee scrutinising the Bill line by line, we now find ourselves with another vast number of Government amendments once again, but this time with only two days to scrutinise it. Most of the amendments on the amendment paper are the Government’s. The amendment paper is thicker than the original Bill.

This is a bad Bill. It pushes up the cost of labour, makes our flexible labour market less flexible and will increase unemployment. I am pleased to have tabled new clause 30, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties. Special constables are volunteers who give their time at no cost to the taxpayer to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to combat riots and social unrest. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, both on and off duty, and put themselves in harm’s way without payment to keep our society safe.

Today, the special constabulary—an institution that has served this nation for nearly two centuries—faces a crisis. The number of volunteer officers has fallen by two thirds in the past decade; in the past year alone, we have seen a 20% drop. Many police forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. This is not just a temporary dip, but a long-term trend. There are multiple factors at play, but clearly becoming a special is not an attractive proposition to too many potential recruits. I believe we must act now to ensure that the special constabulary continues to play a vital role in policing for generations to come.

It is in that context that I bring forward my amendment to the Bill, which seeks to amend section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. For those who are not aware, section 50 allows those undertaking a number of community roles to request unpaid time off work to perform their duties. On the list are magistrates, local councillors, school governors and even members of the Environment Agency. It seems strange to me that we would exclude those prepared to keep us safe from the list of community-minded citizens.