Non-disclosure Agreements in the Workplace

Debate between Maria Miller and Layla Moran

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on securing this important debate. As we have heard, non-disclosure agreements were designed as a legal tool to protect trade secrets, but they have a dark side. There is now overwhelming evidence that they are being used to cover up bad behaviour, and buy victims’ silence. They have become insidious and pervasive. One survivor described it as

“a way of companies and people avoiding accountability”.

NDAs can take many forms. They can be stand-alone agreements or a single clause subtly included at the end of a contract generated by a lawyer or anyone else. The effect is what is important. An NDA for these purposes should be defined as any clause that has the effect of gagging a victim. It is usually in perpetuity, which itself is extraordinary when thought about in legal terms. It stops them speaking about their experiences for ever more.

Many NDAs are not legally enforceable, but the victims I have spoken to would not have a clue. They never have a clue—and I am not sure I would, frankly. I am not a lawyer. If I were given something on official headed paper and told that someone knowledgeable had looked at it and thought it was the best thing for me, and I was at my wits’ end at the end of a discrimination case, I would just want it all to go away, too. That is tempting, and we can understand why people in that moment—when presented with that way out—take the money, sign the NDA and run.

However, we also know that NDAs hold immense power over victims. Often many years later, long after the effects should have been forgotten, they are retraumatised over and over again. Imagine someone facing a discrimination charge at work who has had to leave. They then have a further interview where they are asked about why they left, and they cannot say. Over and over again, forevermore, they are forced to remember. Many are victims of NDAs; I put it in those terms specifically because NDAs themselves cause harm. The point is made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke in her amendment, which I very much support, to the Victims Bill: in these cases, it is the NDA itself—the silencing—that is traumatising.

I was involved in this campaign initially through students. I am delighted that through cross-party support we had an amendment accepted to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023; that is amazing. One of the young women I spoke to was a victim of sexual assault in her college. She was assaulted by another student. She was presented with what looked like an official document—it was not actually a legal document at all, but she did not know any different. There was essentially a gagging clause. Some clauses said that the assailant was not allowed into her accommodation or where she ate, which we absolutely support. However, a final clause said that she could not speak about her experiences publicly at all. When it was discussed at the time, it was sold as a way to protect her reputation. She should not have been talking about it on social media or Lord knows what damage it would cause to her later. Not only is that infantilising to a women—albeit a young woman, but an adult woman none the less who has the right to make her own decisions—but let’s face it: the reputation being protected in this case was that of the university and the college.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for her support today. She talks about the importance of protecting reputations. The reason why employers sometimes say that they want a non-disclosure agreement signed is that it will save an individual leaving a company and starting to talk badly about those left behind. Surely, we already have laws on defamation that cover that, so that is not a very good argument. Does she agree?

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Debate between Maria Miller and Layla Moran

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House supports the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; asks for parliamentary time at the earliest opportunity to change the status of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association from a UK charity to an international inter-parliamentary organisation; and calls on the Government to effect that change.

May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this timely and important debate? In the debate, I speak on behalf of CPA UK executive members, Members of Parliament who value the work of the CPA, and, indeed, parliamentarians from across the British Islands and Mediterranean region—the region of which we are a part in the CPA. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members here—including the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who will respond for the Liberal Democrats, and many others—have enjoyed, benefited from and participated in many different CPA activities. That organisation is held dear in the hearts of parliamentarians both in the UK and abroad.

However, the CPA is at a turning point and needs the UK Government to act now to help secure its future. In the UK, only the Government can change the status of the CPA from a local UK charity to a bespoke international inter-parliamentary organisation, because the Government need to allocate parliamentary time to allow a short piece of primary legislation to be passed. It has for many years been acknowledged that the CPA’s status as a UK charity is not appropriate for an association of equals. The CPA membership includes parliamentarians from South Africa to Singapore, Ghana to Guyana and Canada to Cyprus, and all are equal members of the organisation, which is one of the oldest Commonwealth organisations.

Its status as a UK charity is completely out of kilter with the reality of the organisation’s work. The CPA was founded back in 1911 to promote the advancement of parliamentary democracy, but continuing to be a UK charity today simply reinforces an outdated vision of the Commonwealth and the UK’s place in it. Long-standing demands for recognition of its modern status as a bespoke international interparliamentary organisation reached boiling point at the general assembly meeting in Halifax, Canada, last year, where it was decided that unless substantial progress had been made to change the status of the organisation within 12 months, members would resolve to move the headquarters from the UK.

A change in status will allow the CPA to more effectively serve its members, removing damaging frictions caused by an inappropriate status, making clear that all members are on an equal footing, to reflect the modern view of the Commonwealth, and representing the CPA’s own principles of equality and diversity. In the UK, that requires primary legislation.

To assist the Government, I have retabled a short Bill, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (Status) (No. 2) Bill, which was first introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) around a year ago, to make those changes quickly and at no cost—I reiterate: at no cost. It is a point that has already been agreed with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials, leaving no policy differences between the CPA and the FCDO in taking this issue forward.

The Bill has widespread cross-party support both here and in the other place but requires parliamentary time to be passed. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), is on the Front Bench, having picked up the reins on this at relatively short notice; I very much appreciate that, and I know the whole House will. I hope she will be able to confirm today that parliamentary time is being made available, because our time is running out.

Over the many years of discussion between the CPA and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, before it became the FCDO, policy differences, by and large, have been resolved. In particular, the change in status is not seen as coming under the International Organisations Act 1968, because the CPA does not fit those criteria, and that issue was dealt with when others were chairing the organisation. My Bill, which the Minister will have seen, would therefore require a bespoke status, not a status under that Act, which would have caused problems. The new Bill has no extra costs for the UK taxpayer over and above the tax advantages already available to a UK charity, which the CPA is.

If we do not make significant progress on this legislation before the summer recess, the UK’s hosting of the CPA’s secretariat will be lost. That will create a real risk for the whole organisation, given the very different views on its possible future. An apparent lack of prioritisation in the UK places in question our commitment to the Commonwealth institutions themselves, and, indeed, our reputation could be unnecessarily diminished, all for not making this very small change that requires legislation.

As the Minister will be aware, the CPA has given good notice of its concerns and the need for change. To put it simply, parliamentarians from many countries take issue with having to make CPA subscription payments from their taxpayers’ money to a UK charity.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate, and I want to put on record my and the Liberal Democrats’ support for her Bill, which should be very simple to pass. From my dealings with other parliamentarians across the world, I know that the fact that the CPA is held here, in the mother of Parliaments, matters a lot to them. They feel that it is important to see how it is done by the oldest institution, and we also gain a huge amount from it. Does she agree that the loss of that would be unconscionable to this place?

[Dame Maria Miller]

Yes. Many Members here today will have known the value of meeting incoming delegations and being part of outward delegations. It gives us, as parliamentarians, an understanding of the world in which we are operating, in the same way that other organisations do, including the Inter-Parliamentary Union—we are pleased to have the chair of the British Group of the IPU, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), with us today. These organisations are valued by parliamentarians, and we need to ensure that the Government are aware of that and take appropriate action.

I want to reiterate the reason why this change in status is so important. Countries that are members of the CPA make payments, ultimately, from their taxpayers’ money to a UK charity. Those concerns are held most strongly by parliamentary colleagues in the Africa region of the CPA. That is understandable: it is incongruous at best for them to be making payments for membership of an international organisation when it looks on their books as if they are making payments to UK charities. We have to understand that, and sympathise and empathise with it.

Other organisations have already ensured that they are structured in an appropriate way. French legislation underpins the CPA’s francophone counterpart in Paris, the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie, and the Inter-Parliamentary Union has a Geneva headquarters agreement with Switzerland. The need to follow those international examples is particularly true for an international institution such as the CPA, which is all about the importance of parliamentary democracy, and the Commonwealth charter to which we and our fellow member states are signed up commits us to that.

This Parliament’s actions regarding the CPA’s status may appear peripheral to some, but in fact, they spill over into our relations with very near family members. Other members of the British family that are involved in the CPA include the devolved legislatures in the UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. They are all active members, and they too support the need to resolve this situation. The Government need to take that much more into account, not least because those organisations are concerned that they could be damaged by association should Westminster not be able to resolve this amicably. All also look to His Majesty the King as Head of State, as do the 14 other realms. At the coronation in May, we saw the huge importance attached to the Commonwealth, with His Majesty now head of the Commonwealth in succession to Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth.

At its April meeting in Gibraltar, the CPA executive agreed to continue to support efforts to persuade the UK Government to make the necessary changes, but— to be very clear—that is contingent on achieving new legislation by the time that the CPA’s Commonwealth parliamentary conference takes place in Ghana at the end of September, just a few short weeks away. The House should know that the CPA executive is already working on a relocation package for the secretariat, including a timeline and procedure for assessing future host countries. This is not a hollow threat: it is something that is already happening. To restate, should the UK not pass new legislation by the end of September, the organisation will proceed with relocation outside of the UK from October 2023.

There appears to be absolutely no reason why the Bill should take much parliamentary time, given the clear support for it in both Houses—my right hon. Friend the Minister will have heard that already from Opposition Members. It involves no additional costs for the UK taxpayer. It has been suggested that any change in status would create an unhelpful or unwelcome precedent, but with respect, that argument does not bear any scrutiny at all. The CPA’s case is unique. It is an international inter-parliamentary organisation headquartered in the UK. There are no others. When we pressed for examples of comparators, not a single one on the list could make a similar case. Some were international organisations, undoubtedly worthy but headquartered elsewhere and with no particular link to the UK. There were territories or groups of states and Governments—again, completely different and not parliamentary in category, and obviously not headquartered in the UK. Legislation to recognise the status of the CPA and the secretariat’s location here in the UK does not create a precedent, so that cannot credibly be cited as a reason for inaction.

Parliamentarians from around the globe tell us that they would like the CPA secretariat to remain in London. London works well as a location for the secretariat: here on the parliamentary estate, the secretariat can attract talented staff from a diverse pool. Hosting the CPA is a small but important example of the UK’s soft power, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister can use her good offices to ensure that time is given to pass the modest Bill required to change the status of the CPA in the time remaining before the annual assembly meeting in September. That would demonstrate not only our commitment to the Commonwealth, but the importance of strong democracies around the world.

Cox Report: Implementation

Debate between Maria Miller and Layla Moran

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the publication of, and recommendations in, the Dame Laura Cox report on bullying and harassment in Parliament; welcomes the implementation of the recommendation to abandon the Valuing Others and Respect policies; expresses concern about damage caused to the reputation and standing of this House by the lack of progress made on other recommendations on historical allegations and the non-involvement of MPs in Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme cases; and calls on the Leader of the House and the House of Commons Commission to push forward the implementation of all three key recommendations in full without delay.

The Cox report was commissioned a year ago, in July 2018, at what we can only call a low point in this place’s history, our reputation having been rocked by allegations of bullying and harassment. Eight months on from the report being published, just one of the three Cox recommendations has been implemented, despite the House of Commons Commission, the body responsible for the employment of staff, stating that it clearly agreed in full with all three of the recommendations made by Dame Laura Cox.

Nothing is more important than the safety and wellbeing of the people we rely on to run this organisation—parliamentary staff, constituency staff, members of the Metropolitan police and Members themselves—and it is completely unacceptable that eight months on, progress in delivering change is so very slow. We rightly consider other organisations that fail to act when serious problems are identified, particularly when it comes to issues of bullying and harassment, and we run the serious risk of undermining the credibility of the House of Commons in speaking out in the future by not having acted swiftly in the wake of the full Cox report findings. This has to change.

There is much more in the Cox report aside from the recommendations, but those specific recommendations call for the abandoning of the valuing others policy and respect policies; for the amending of the independent complaints and grievance scheme, which according to Alison Stanley’s six-month report published on 12 June is bedding in well through the inclusion of non-recent allegations that predate 2017; and for consideration to be given to the most effective way of ensure that the process for determining complaints of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment by House staff against Members is entirely independent, with MPs playing no part.

It is welcome that one of those recommendations has been put into practice, but that decision was to axe a policy, which is a very straightforward thing to put in place. There has been no change in practice on the other two recommendations. There has been much discussion and consultation—another consultation closed a few days ago—and many plans to set up groups of people to talk to each other and have ideas to bring to the Commission, which could then discuss and think about them and then perhaps do something, but it is unclear when that would be done and who would do it. Let us be clear: there has been no action actively to protect employees in this place.

Not only has the Commission not put in place the changes demanded by Cox eight months ago, but it was made aware that the current policy with regard to non-recent cases could well be unlawful. In its letter of 16 October 2018, the Equality and Human Rights Commission wrote to the House of Commons warning it—warning us—that the House of Commons Commission’s policy of an arbitrary cut-off date of June 2017 for non-recent claims of bullying and harassment could be unlawful because it unjustifiably discriminated against older employees, who are more likely to have a historical complaint, contrary to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010. Despite that, the Commission has failed to act on behalf of Members to bring our policies in line with the law, let alone in line with the recommendations of the Cox report.

Furthermore, the Commission was warned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that the House could also be in breach of its public sector equality duty—again, laws that we all passed in this place, not just for ourselves but for those outside. The EHRC has been clear that we could well be in breach of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act, and that it may actually intervene on the House of Commons and issue a compliance notice. Again, this has not been addressed by the Commission.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

When I sat on the working group that came up with this, there was a strong desire from those of us in that room that historical cases be part of the process. We were assured at the time that that would be in place—or at least starting to be put in place—by now. What the right hon. Lady is saying is incredibly worrying. Does she agree that we should have pressed ahead at the earliest stage so that if there were further challenges we could have addressed and finessed them by now, rather than waiting for an intervention by the ECHR?

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Lady brings up a very important point. It goes even further than that. If an organisation is made aware that it could be breaking the law, it does not wait eight months to do something about it; it gets on with it straight away.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who was Leader of the House at the time, did the most remarkable job on behalf of Members, getting in place the very first independent grievance scheme, and we all owe her an incredible debt of thanks for what she has done, but it was not an easy process, and I am sure that she may make a contribution to the debate today to add her perspective on that. We have to make sure that the Commission, which exists only because Members want it to exist—it is there not by right, but because we have decided it should be—is acting in a way that protects us from the inevitable criticism that will come from being found to be potentially unlawful in the way we treat our employees.

Members of the House have given the Women and Equalities Committee a responsibility to scrutinise the Government’s policy on equality, but I do not think that it is just the Government who need to be scrutinised at the moment, and we are actively keeping an eye on what is going on in the House of Commons as well. Working with my Committee colleagues, I have established an inquiry into the gender-sensitive Parliament, and we will be looking closely at the procedures that this place is using to ensure that it is actively taking on not just the key recommendations in the Cox report, but the spirit of that report as well.

The way in which the House of Commons Commission is dealing with this matter is unacceptable, and, I believe, risks bringing us all into disrepute if change does not happen soon. However, I also believe that the lack of action on Cox is symptomatic of much wider management dysfunctionality in this place, and I want to raise a couple of issues that are directly related to that lack of action.

The fact that the Leader of the House will be responding to the debate goes to the heart of the problem. The Government do not run the House of Commons; Members do, via the House of Commons Commission, which is chaired by the Speaker. So why is a Minister responding to the debate? I say this with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is an extremely capable individual, but he is not responsible for the matter that I have raised today. While I welcome his contribution, he cannot answer directly the questions that I am asking. At the end of my speech, I shall set him some tasks that he might want to undertake were he to wish to assist Members in resolving this issue.

Members established the House of Commons Commission in 1978 to administer, on our behalf, the way in which this place is run. Unlike almost all other Committees of the House, it has no elected members, and because it is chaired by the Speaker—whose impartiality is key to our debates—it is difficult to achieve clear accountability. Quite rightly, the Speaker does not feel that it is appropriate either to appear before the House to answer questions, or, as I found recently, to appear before a Select Committee. I fully understand the rationale for that, but it does leave us with an accountability deficit in knowing why these delays have been so lengthy.

However, I believe that the problem goes deeper than that. Responding to an urgent question on 16 October, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire said:

“In this place, we are all aware that a number of these issues are ‘matters for the House’. That is quite a tricky concept, because nowhere in the workplace are things simply a matter for all those who are involved in that workplace.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 535.]

That, I would assert, is why the House of Commons Commission was set up. It would be impossible for each and every one of the 650 Members of the House to actively manage it. By definition, we must have a body that is nominated by us to do these things on our behalf, but when there is no clear accountability or report-back mechanism other than the regular questions that are asked, there is no other proactive way of engaging in debate.

Let me now refer to a matter to which I have referred in the House before. I think that it, too, is at the heart of some of the dysfunctionality surrounding management in this place. I speak as someone who spent 20 years in business before coming to this place. It has always struck me that this place has very opaque management systems, which—for me, at any rate—have just reached breaking point because of the lack of progress in delivering on the Cox report after eight months. I think that that is reflected in one of the key findings in the report. I shall quote verbatim from page 154. This is not my interpretation of what Dame Laura has said; it is what she has said:

“I have…referred throughout this report to systemic or institutional failings and to a collective ethos in the House that has, over the years, enabled the underlying culture to develop and to persist. Within this culture, there are a number of individuals who are regarded as bearing some personal responsibility for the criticisms made, and whose continued presence is viewed as unlikely to facilitate the necessary changes, but whom it would…be wrong for me to name, having regard to the terms of reference for this inquiry…some individuals will want to think very carefully about whether they are the right people to press the reset button and to do what is required to deliver that change in the best interests of the House, having regard both to its reputation and its role as an employer of those who are rightly regarded as its most important resource.”

Unless we choose to change not only the structures but the management of the House and the people in charge of its management, we face the prospect of continued inertia on this and other reforms that are long overdue.

It was difficult for me to quote Dame Laura’s words, because they are critical of individuals, but we cannot put our head in the sand continually, eight months after the report’s publication. We must stand up and take what I believe to be long overdue decisions. We need the implementation of the report to be completed before the end of the summer recess, in about 10 weeks’ time. In the case of any other business, we would expect, after 10 weeks, the completion of a measure to bring people within the law and to create a process for analysing cases that came forward.

Can the Leader of the House assist Members by putting a motion on the Order Paper to that effect? There is no reason why the House should not debate the issue, and agree—I would hope—that the Cox report should be implemented in full within a reasonable period. I suggest that we issue a request to the House of Commons Commission to deliver that, or else to explain why it has not done so.

It is clear that we also need to consider the modernisation of the Commission itself. I think that what has happened recently requires us to consider the way in which it might be run on our behalf in the future. Such a modernisation should include an elected Chair who would be directly responsible to Members, and could speak here on all Commission matters. There should be a transparent agenda for the modernisation of the management of the House and the way in which business is conducted. The current piecemeal approach is not working in practice. Members need to know how wider change is being implemented, and to know that it is not just being talked about.

This needs to be debated by Members. Would the Leader of the House also consider tabling a motion proposing that we begin to discuss the modernisation of the House of Commons Commission, so that we could take account of Members’ views and, perhaps, Select Committees could follow them up?

Thirdly, these problems of implementation point to another area of reform. We as a group of people need to take stock of how we shape the role of the individual who runs the business of this place: the Speaker. It is we who have determined that the Speaker is responsible for not only the important procedure and running of the business in this Chamber and elsewhere, but the entire running of the House of Commons, because as chair of the Commission it is the Speaker who is ultimately responsible for the implementation of Cox, the thousands of staff employed here and the complexities of running an organisation of this incredible scale. I would assert that the two roles are individually challenging; having one person doing them increases the risk of the Speaker becoming involved in matters that are not compatible with the important independent nature of the Speaker’s jobs. Any of us who have been involved in employing staff knows that can be one of the most controversial issues we can get involved with; why would we want the Speaker to be involved in something that can be so difficult and controversial?

Will the Leader of the House consider putting forward a motion for debate on the Floor of the House on the role of the Speaker so that the views of Members can be established, and then Select Committees can, if appropriate, take those views forward? If that is not appropriate, perhaps the Leader of the House can advise me on what are the appropriate ways for Members to review and discuss those issues.

It is vital that we find a way forward on all three of the issues I have outlined, because they are all connected to the problems we are experiencing in implementing Cox. But even above that, they are determining how people outside view this place. We must be an exemplar in management, not a laggard. There can be no special pleading for working practices in this place and the fact that they have not changed to reflect the realities of a modern 21st-century Parliament.

The House of Commons is central to our democracy. As custodians of this place we have a clear and unquestionable responsibility to safeguard the effectiveness of the House of Commons, to ensure it is respected and to root out anything that could serve to undermine its standing in the public eye. It can never be an option to seal Parliament in aspic because, as a democratic institution, we have to reflect the country we seek to serve. There is an important place for tradition to root our procedures in precedent, and any change has to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, but we should leave this place better than we found it—more relevant, not less, to those we seek to represent here, our constituents.

There is no lack of good will to change, and the staff of the House of Commons are clearly dedicated to the future of this place, as came through strongly in the Cox report and the research Dame Laura did, but too often that enthusiasm and dedication to change is not forthcoming in practice because of a lack of clear responsibility and accountability. The lack of swift action on the Cox recommendations reflects deep-seated problems with the way the House of Commons is run, and colleagues, it is down to us to change that—no one else.