Small Charity Sector

Debate between Roger Gale and Danny Kruger

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger]

This is such an important debate. I want to pick up on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Although it is obviously very helpful if small charities, which do not have financial resources or indeed necessarily the right data, can demonstrate their value to the public sector, let us not build systems that force charities into a model that really works only for public sector agencies or large charities. The whole value of these small projects is that they do not have those clear processes, outputs and data, with everything being reduced to unit costs. We have to have a system that actually honours the way that charities work, rather than trying to force them into some kind of proxy of that quantitative model for demonstrating value. Why do we not just localise public sector funding so that small charities can be properly trusted?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues will have noticed that I have deliberately allowed the Minister to overrun her time because, given the time, it seemed important that she was able to respond fully to the debate. I now have to remind the Minister that I want the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate to have time to wind up properly.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Debate between Roger Gale and Danny Kruger

Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill and the amendments that the Government have tabled, with the support of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I recognise that, despite the Equality Act, we have a significant problem in our culture and our society: too many people are the victim of unacceptable and outrageous harassment, intimidation and abuse in their workplace, particularly sexual harassment. I recognise the powerful points that the hon. Member for Bath made. The problem arises largely because this harassment frequently goes unreported because it is ignored by employers.

We have a significant problem in the culture, so the question arises, what can the law do about it? I want to speak in support of the amendments that the Government have tabled but also raise some concerns about the drift in legislation that we have embarked on. I very much recognise the responsibility that employers have to set the atmosphere and to create the culture.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. At the start of the debate, I indicated very clearly the difference between Report and Third Reading. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak now, he must speak to the amendments. There will be an opportunity to go broader on Third Reading.

[Danny Kruger]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking to the amendments, so I will be more specific.

Clause 1 is very helpful, and the amendments support it. I recognise that clause 1 as drafted would have protected Kathleen Stock, the professor at the University of Sussex who was the victim of harassment and intimidation at her university, when the university did not step in to support her. The problem is that it would have also prevented Kathleen Stock from speaking at other universities, because those universities would have insisted that their employees were the victim of harassment or abuse by her presence. We have a real problem with universities gold-plating the Equality Act and other legislation, and their excessive invocation of the Equality Act should not be happening. The problem I have with the clause as drafted is that it would not only have justified but could have necessitated the sort of censorship that we need to be concerned about.

I recognise that the Bill presents a particular challenge to public-facing employers, because it seeks to prevent intimidation on the part of not only fellow employees but members of the public. I am concerned about the concept of “reasonable steps” that employers are expected to take. I am going to make a few absurd suggestions, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to whether the amendments will indeed prevent such scenarios.

Will pubs be expected to put up signs saying, “No banter allowed” in order to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment? The three-strikes rule in the 2010 Act that was repealed in 2013 ensured that what was prohibited was a course of conduct that was harassing. Now employers are expected to head off at the pass any possibility of harassment, because they are liable at the first instance of harassment. Will pubs be required to proactively prevent anything that might constitute harassment? The fact is that a censorious spirit has entered the soul of organisations that hold power and responsibility in our country. We have seen a somewhat absurd instance of that this week with the Welsh rugby stadium banning the singing of the song “Delilah” and the local police chief tweeting his support, as if it is his job to determine what fans sing.