Non-disclosure Agreements

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on the use of non-disclosure agreements in civil harassment, discrimination and abuse cases.

It is a great honour, Mr Betts, to serve under your chairmanship, as you are my good friend and fellow Sheffield Member.

As hon. Members know, last month I tabled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that would bring an end to the widespread misuse of non-disclosure agreements, which in recent years have proliferated in every single sector of our economy. It seeks to ban the use of NDAs in cases of harassment, discrimination and abuse, unless at the specific request of the victim. I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for his warm words, his interest in this important topic and his commitment during the debate to look at options to take forward. I would like to use this time to explore what those options might look like and what more the Government need to understand in order to commit to legislate on the matter.

This issue burst into the public consciousness off the back of the #MeToo movement and the brilliant campaign work of Zelda Perkins, who joins us in the Gallery today and who exposed the exploitation and abuse perpetrated by Harvey Weinstein. Other brave women have spoken out in recent months and years, including Rebecca Ferguson and Cher Lloyd—about their experiences on “The X Factor”—and countless more across the entertainment industry, but although these high-profile cases grab media attention and absolutely raise the profile of the issue, they have in a way masked the true, horrifying scale of the issue, which is far from confined to the entertainment industry. In fact, the victims of this issue are far more likely to be low-income workers.

A recent survey of the hospitality sector by the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign found that 100% of NDAs or confidentiality clauses in the hospitality sector were written too broadly.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

We have no idea how many people in Bolsover this issue affects, because the very nature of it means that they cannot speak to me about it as their MP. The Can’t Buy My Silence campaign has found that the issue affects five times as many women as men, so does my right hon. Friend agree that addressing it has to be considered as essential to tackling violence against women and girls?

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue overwhelmingly affects women and it overwhelmingly affects low-income workers; it affects all vulnerable people, particularly disabled people and people of colour. She is absolutely right that we have to address it in order to help fulfil our mission to tackle violence against women and girls, but we also need to be careful that we do not narrow our definition only to sexual harassment, as NDAs cover all kinds of abuse in the workplace. Quite simply, we need to remove this tool from employers completely.

It is only those with the means and the confidence to pursue their employers through the courts who can challenge these practices. Low-paid workers in hospitality or retail are being legally silenced after they have suffered serious harm, and they have no access to redress. I want to stress that I do not think 100% of hospitality businesses are bad employers or that the sector is packed full of people who set out to silence victims after they have been abused or discriminated against. The point is that these clauses have become boilerplate. They are signed unwittingly by workers and, in many cases, are required unwittingly by employers with little or no understanding of the consequences. It has become standard practice to include these broadly drafted confidentiality clauses in contracts that go far further than is required to protect commercial confidentiality or trade secrets.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

What the right hon. Lady is saying is very important and the overall thrust of her case is absolutely on point. Is it not the case, though, that NDAs are the symptom, and that the underlying disease is the inability of ordinary people to get access to justice through the courts? That is why people enter into non-disclosure agreements: they fear that there is no other way that they will get proper recognition of their case.

[Louise Haigh]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right. NDAs are one tool of oppression, essentially, used against workers after they have been abused or discriminated against in the workplace. That failure to access justice through the courts is without doubt a wider disease that needs to be tackled by the Government, but NDAs and their misuse have to be clamped down on because they are having this terrible chilling effect across society and the world of work.

Since the debate last month, I have been inundated with details of such cases. There was the woman who was raped by a colleague at work but had signed a confidentiality clause that explicitly prevented her from discussing the issue even with medical professionals, making it impossible for her to recover from her trauma. An employee who signed an NDA on leaving her workplace has since been effectively blacklisted, because her former employer is undermining her to prospective employers, while she cannot tell her side of the story. A woman I met yesterday told me about the mental health charity she worked for that has discriminated on mental health grounds against at least four people she is personally aware of in the past year; three of them have signed an NDA, but she is bravely pursuing the charity through the courts, because she believes that it is the only way to get justice.

If mental health charities are exploiting this practice to discriminate against people with mental health issues, or, as raised in last month’s debate, progressive news organisations and trade unions are exploiting this practice, we have to accept that it is a serious problem in every type of workplace in this country and that employers simply cannot be trusted with this tool at their disposal.

This practice undeniably has a terrible impact on the individuals affected. It prevents organisations from facing up to the fact, or the scale, of their wrongdoing. It also affects our economy and our productivity, as people are forced out of their workplace—maybe because they are pregnant, have additional needs, or their face simply did not fit—and then they struggle ever to return to work. As the woman I met yesterday who had been a victim of this practice said:

“With all the discussion at the moment around disabled people and returning to work, I just want to cry. My experience is far too common for disabled people because too many employers simply don’t support disabled people at work.”

This is the tool that is then used against them.

If we are to tackle such structural issues, we have to remove the ability to silence people at will, and many other countries and jurisdictions agree. Ireland has recently legislated to ban the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment or discrimination. In the US, 27 states have legislated to ban the improper use of NDAs, with no apparent detriment to business or discouragement of settlements. Canada and Australia are following suit. Of course, we also saw some limited progress in this country under the last Government. In May 2024, the Victims and Prisoners Bill was amended to make it clear that any confidentiality agreement is void if it precludes a victim from speaking to legal and therapeutic advice services or family when it is related to criminal conduct. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill was also amended to prohibit NDAs being used in cases of sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying.

We now have the absurd situation where students and workers in universities are protected, but a cleaner, who works on a university campus but for an outsourced company, would not enjoy those same protections. We have created a two-tier system of protection, so what is the possible justification for denying workers outside the higher education system that same level of protection?

All of this progress has been predicated on multiple consultations, reviews and evidence bases. In 2019, the Minister’s Department, which was then the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, ran an extensive consultation on measures to prevent the misuse of confidentiality clauses in cases of harassment or discrimination. In 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission ran a consultation on the use of confidentiality agreements in discrimination cases. The Treasury Committee in 2023 conducted an inquiry into sexism in the City, which recommended further protections for victims of sexual harassment. The Women and Equalities Committee has conducted three inquiries into this issue, under both the last Government and the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). The most recent one was on misogyny in music, which again explicitly recommended banning the misuse of NDAs. There has been extensive scrutiny in the legal sector, with both the Legal Services Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority conducting large consultations, resulting in more evidence of the endemic misuse of confidentiality agreements. Both the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society have called on the Government for legislative reform.

My one question to the Minister, who I know agrees that this issue needs to be tackled, is: what else does he or his Department need to be satisfied on the need to legislate? How much longer must low-paid workers be legally required to suffer in complete silence before we can be persuaded to take the necessary legal steps? I know he wants to take action. The strength of support from a number of political parties in the Chamber today demonstrates that the House wants to take action. Twenty-seven US states have passed legislation. The UK Government are starting to look like the outlier. Let’s not let this opportunity pass us by. Let this Labour Government lead the way on protecting victims and survivors in the workplace and finally bring an end to legalised abuse.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I have not seen the hon. Member’s Bill, and I suspect that its application is rather broader than just to the topic we are debating. We are looking at corporate governance, and in due course we intend to introduce legislation that may pick up on a number of the issues addressed by his Bill.

As we have touched on, a number of recent reports, such as the Women and Equalities Committee’s “Misogyny in music” and the Treasury Committee’s “Sexism in the City”, highlight that NDAs do not stand up in a court of law and are often used to chill victims.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke about the good work of the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority. I understand that the Culture Secretary recently met the authority to discuss how they can work together to improve workplace standards and behaviour in the creative industries. We want to support the authority moving forward; that is a matter for the Culture Secretary, and I am sure that she continues to engage with it.

[Louise Haigh]

The Minister talked about protected disclosures, including in relation to criminal offences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) said, this area of law is complex, and low-income workers in particular cannot access the kind of legal advice that she provided so authoritatively to her clients. Does the Minister agree that we therefore need to end the blanket use of NDAs so that it is much clearer that victims of abuse, harassment or discrimination cannot be silenced? It is next to impossible for them to navigate this complex area of law without specialist legal support, which they are clearly struggling to access.

[Justin Madders]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point: this is a complex area for individuals to navigate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) spoke about her experiences in the profession, with which I am familiar. Non-legally qualified consultants often simply apply boilerplate clauses to agreements, which has a practical impact on the victim’s ability to explain how their employment ended. I have seen agreements that prevent people from even confirming that they have reached a settlement, which makes it doubly difficult for them to explain that when seeking future employment prospects. My hon. Friend also talked about the financial contribution that employers provide towards that advice, which does not always cover the cost of taking proper advice, rather than going through a rubber-stamping exercise. Both those issues highlight the inequality of arms in the workplace when disputes arise.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made an excellent contribution, as always. He was absolutely right to highlight that the original intention behind NDAs has been distorted. They were about commercial confidentiality and protecting business interests, but they are being used for wider, less justifiable purposes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) raised the terrible case of Mohammed al-Fayed. He was right to say that we do not know how many victims there are; some will not come forward because the gagging orders still prevent them from speaking out or make them feel that they cannot do so. Of course, we addressed that to some extent in the Employment Rights Bill, in which we now make it clear that a complaint of sexual harassment qualifies as a protected disclosure under the whistleblowing Act. We will never know whether that kind of protection would have prevented the atrocities committed by Mohammed al-Fayed, but it would at least have given people some reassurance that they could speak out and have additional protections.

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend highlights some of the limitations of the whistleblowing Act, in terms of what qualifies as a protected disclosure. As I have commented previously, that legislation needs to be looked at again.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) talked about the widespread use of NDAs in the NHS. That highlights that there is no sector of the economy in which such agreements are not in use.

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) talked about the use of NDAs in Government Departments. I will make inquiries about that and get back to him, and I will pass on the comments of the hon. Member for Newton Abbot to the Department of Health and Social Care.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, gave an informative and well researched speech, as always. She was right that this is not just about protecting victims; there is a wider issue relating to the growth agenda. These issues are debilitating and damaging for victims and can have an impact on their ability to return to work. She made the important point that it is nearly always the victim who has to leave their employment and move on. As we have heard, they do not always have a clear explanation to give prospective employers about why they have had to leave. It is usually the man, who is often in a position of greater power, who stays in work, and sometimes advances off the back of the claim. That relates to the culture in organisations: victims are not protected and perpetrators are often supported because they are seen to be in a more powerful position in the workplace. My hon. Friend also made an important point about protecting self-employed people and contractors in particular industries. We will need to consider that further.

On the current legislation being passed, we are pressing ahead with plans to commence the provisions relevant to NDAs in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, as a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley, mentioned. When commenced, section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act will ensure that clauses in NDAs cannot be legally enforced where they seek to prevent victims of crime from reporting a crime, co-operating with regulators or accessing confidential advice and support. It will provide that clauses in NDAs that seek to prevent disclosures that are necessary to access confidential advice and support needed to cope with and recover from the impact of crime are unenforceable.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, talked about a new mother’s experiences of discrimination and the consequences of that. The Employment Rights Bill will provide a new baseline of protection, enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and mothers, extra requirements to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment—something that has been a matter of considerable debate—and protection of workers against third-party harassment. It will also make it clear that the disclosure of information can be a protected disclosure. We think all those things will improve the workplace experience, but I hear the calls to go further.

We know that there are calls to roll out the approach in higher education to the whole economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley provided a clear example of how the provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will not apply to an outsourced worker working in higher education. The legislation has not yet been enacted, but the Government intend to press on with it shortly. I share concerns that something needs to be done, but the changes that have been proposed through amendments to the Employment Rights Bill would need a significant amount of engagement with workers, employers and stakeholders, as well as an assessment of the impact on sectors and across the economy.

This is a complex area of policy, as we have heard today, and it is important to take a balanced approach to make sure that we reach the right end point. There are different views and opinions. There are organisations and hon. Members calling for a ban on NDAs in specific circumstances. Some advocate for a greater say for victims in when they can be legitimately used. Others warn about unintended consequences for victims who are looking to settle a claim to avoid the stress of litigation.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. I completely accept that there are different versions of the amendment that could be successful and I accept the need to consider the impact on businesses. Will the Minister meet me and other interested Members to look at a way in which this amendment could be written that would satisfy him and the Government? We have heard today that there is support from the official Opposition and the Lib Dems. There is every chance that this could receive serious cross-party support in the other place and pass into the Employment Rights Bill. Will he meet me and others to discuss exactly what the amendment could look like?

[Justin Madders]

I am always happy to meet my right hon. Friend. It would be good to get cross-party support on our Employment Rights Bill—something that has been sadly lacking in the Commons so far. The shadow Minister is grinning knowingly—I am not sure whether that means we shall ever get him on board for the whole package. I am happy to work with individual Members. I would just note that there was a consultation under the shadow Minister’s party’s watch, and a number of proposals were developed that never saw the light of day because the previous Government did not introduce an employment rights Bill. His late conversion to this cause is welcome, but he should recognise that his party perhaps did not do enough in government. Some of the recommendations made under the previous Government did not go as far as is reflected in the general mood of the Chamber today.

There is a range of issues that we need to consider to get this right, such as whether some sectors, such as the creative industries, need particular protection, and the different relationships—we have heard about self-employed people and how this would operate for those in the gig economy. We can have the debate about whether they are self-employed or workers: I am sure that will be returned to on many occasions. We also need to consider the international approach—we have heard some examples from across the pond, and Ireland recently introduced its own legislation—and how the legislation will apply to different groups with protected characteristics.

It is important to ensure that any work we do does not create a new loophole for clever lawyers to exploit, so it should be future-proofed as much as possible. We also need to ensure that any legislation includes an option for a victim to freely choose to have an NDA without pressure, if that is what they want. We need an awful lot of discussion to get that right. Hon. Members have mentioned access to justice and legal advice that is timely, correct and affordable. A cultural shift from employers is also important. Legislation can say what it wants, but unless we get employers to tackle rather than protect the perpetrators of these terrible acts, we will continue to debate these matters.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said, I am happy to work with hon. Members. I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are important and need looking at. I thank her for securing the debate and am happy to continue working with her and other hon. Members to get this right.

[Louise Haigh]

I have not been in a Westminster Hall debate for nearly six years, because I was faffing around in the shadow Cabinet and then the Cabinet. I do not recall being in a Westminster Hall debate where there has been so much cross-party support. I am incredibly grateful for the quality of contributions today and the support from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.

I completely agree that the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) was kick-ass. Her experience in this area is second to none and shows how widespread the issue is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, the scale and nature of the crimes covered up, as demonstrated today, warrants urgent and immediate attention. I am grateful to the Minister for committing to work with those of us who care about this issue, looking at what steps can be taken. If we can get cross-party support for an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, we can ensure that victims no longer have to suffer in silence.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policy on the use of non-disclosure agreements in civil harassment, discrimination and abuse cases.

“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.