Non-disclosure Agreements

Debate between Sarah Russell and Josh Babarinde

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I hope not to take the full 10 minutes, but it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this important debate on the use, or indeed the misuse, of non-disclosure agreements in cases of civil harassment, discrimination and abuse.

The Liberal Democrats, like all of us in the Chamber, believe in a society that upholds transparency and fairness, and protects individuals rather than shields the institutional reputations of the powerful. As we have heard, and as the #MeToo movement uncovered, when NDAs are misused they represent a systemic failure to prioritise the rights of victims and survivors over the convenience of the powerful.

We must remember that the original intent behind NDAs was to protect sensitive business information and ensure confidentiality in legitimate commercial dealings, but there has been significant creep. They were never meant to be weaponised as tools to silence victims, particularly women, as the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen) highlighted, to suppress evidence of wrongdoing or to allow perpetrators to evade accountability, but bad-faith actors have transmogrified them, and too often now, NDAs are used in precisely that way—to bind victims of harassment, discrimination and abuse into silence and to isolate them. We hear stories of the loneliness of the many victims who speak off the record. Ultimately, they are denied justice.

This happens across many sectors, including the creative industries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and the hon. Member for Luton North said; the NHS, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) described; and the retail and hospitality sectors, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) said. Imagine for a moment the plight of a new mum who worked in the financial sector, but who returned from maternity leave to face mistreatment and eventually her employment was terminated.

[Mrs Russell]

On that point, will the hon. Member join me in encouraging the Government to bring into force clause 24 of the new Employment Rights Bill as soon as is humanly possible? It will enable the Government to make provision in respect of dismissals relating to pregnancy other than those covered by redundancy. That was a huge element of the dismissals that I used to see wrapped up in NDAs.

[Josh Babarinde]

I would love to study that particular dimension. We must defend the rights of pregnant women and new mums, who have been so let down by our legislative framework, including the individual I am asking hon. Members to imagine. She went through mediation, where it was agreed that she would receive a severance payment in exchange for signing an agreement that included a gagging clause. She said:

“The net effect was that I was unemployed and, whilst I was financially compensated, I was unable to explain to future employers why I had left that employment and why it wasn’t my choice to do so.”

That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) made. By the way, I really feel that her contribution to this debate has been kick-ass—I am not sure that that that is a parliamentary term, but I am sure that hon. Members agree. Further, this new mum said:

“I felt I was the party in the right and yet I was the one who had the uncertainty and stress of being unemployed and having to job hunt with a 9 month old baby.”

There is no need to imagine such a scenario because it is a true story. The only reason I cannot name the individual or the employer is that, although we might be protected by parliamentary privilege in this place, the lady whose circumstances I just described is not.

This is the reality faced by countless individuals across the country, right under our noses, and it is an injustice that cannot be tolerated. We as Members of Parliament have to act decisively to end this moral and regulatory failing. First, and no two ways about it, NDAs should be outlawed in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying, to ensure that no victim is silenced, no victim is prevented from seeking justice and no police or regulatory investigation is obstructed. We have already seen encouraging steps in the legal and academic sectors to ban the use of NDAs in such cases. We heard a bit about those from the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley, but these piecemeal efforts are not enough.

We need comprehensive legislation, and there is precedent for that in other jurisdictions, as has been touched on already. In Prince Edward Island in Canada, new legislation restricts the use and content of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment and discrimination in all out-of-court settlements where a survivor does not want it. In the USA, the Speak Out Act was passed in 2022 prohibiting non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses agreed to before a dispute that involves sexual misconduct. Last month, Ireland became the first jurisdiction in the world to legislate country-wide against the misuse of NDAs. In the light of that, the efforts of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley in her amendment are extremely laudable, as are the similar efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). That is the first thing we must do: outlaw NDAs in such circumstances.

Secondly, we must ensure that individuals who sign NDAs outside those circumstances but under duress or intimidation have a clear and legal route to challenge them. Too often, victims sign these agreements without fully understanding their rights or the full extent of the implications. They end up, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, tied up in knots in their endeavour. I have heard from a man in this scenario who said,

“I had no resilience left to fight an investigation nor a tribunal so I accepted.”

On the powerful point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), we must guarantee that legal advice is readily available, independent and free from conflicts of interest for people in these scenarios, so that no one feels coerced into silence by a document they barely understand.

Thirdly, we must foster a cultural shift in public and private organisations so that they no longer view NDAs as a convenient tool to shield themselves from scrutiny, and we can move away from the culture of fear, which the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is no longer in her place, referred to. Employers must be held accountable not only for misconduct that occurs on their watch, but for any attempt to cover it up. Transparency should be the norm, not the exception.

Finally, we must support victims and survivors in speaking out. That means strengthening whistleblower protections, including through establishing a dedicated office of the whistleblower, which the Liberal Democrats advocated for in our manifesto, alongside organisations such as WhistleblowersUK. There is a particular whistle- blower in my constituency who I will not name, but she knows who she is. She is campaigning hard on this front as well.

Silence benefits only those who perpetrate harm. Our role must be to amplify the voices of those who have been silenced for too long. This debate, while ostensibly technical and legalistic, gets to the core of what kind of society we want to be. Do we want to be a society in which institutions prioritise their reputations over human dignity, and victims are forced into silence while abusers continue unchecked, or do we want a society in which justice prevails, transparency is valued and every individual regardless of their status or power can be held accountable for their actions? I know which society I want to live in, and I think that all of us in this Chamber today are on the same page—in fact, I am confident of that. Liberal Democrats look forward to working with the Government on a cross-party basis to stamp out this insidious practice once and for all. We look forward also to hearing what steps the Minister will take to make that a reality.

Temporary Accommodation

Debate between Sarah Russell and Josh Babarinde

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more, and I will come to the costs of temporary accommodation later. The hon. Lady knows as well as I do that the National Audit Office described the situation as unsustainable. It needs a resolution, which is why today’s debate is so important.

On securing the debate, I called Kelly, shared the news, and she said in reply:

“What needs to be said is going to be said in the place it needs to be said to the person it needs to be said to. You are the right person to say it, Josh.”

It is therefore so humbling to welcome Kelly and her son Joseph to the Public Gallery. I hope that I am the right person, that I say what needs to be said, and that I do not let Kelly and families like hers down. With her blessing, I have shared some of Kelly’s story today. She is just one of the 117,450 families who are in temporary accommodation in this country right now. That is a 12% rise compared with last year. Heartbreakingly, more than 150,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, which is enough to fill 5,000 classrooms.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I want to mention the plight of children missing from school. There is a massive problem with children going into temporary accommodation and simultaneously losing their school place because they have moved out of the area, or alternatively trying to retain their school place in the hope of being able to move back to the area, and then missing school for a sustained period. I wanted to draw attention to that particular difficulty. As far as I am aware, at the moment we do not measure educational outcomes for children who have been in temporary accommodation. Would the hon. Member encourage us to start doing that?

[Josh Babarinde]

I absolutely would encourage that. There needs to be more co-ordination between local authorities, educational settings and health and care settings. Many have advocated for a notification system in order to aid the knowledge of those situations, so that they can be addressed.

The circumstances are devastating, and we hear from hon. Members who have made interventions that that is the case in their patches too. Shelter estimates that more than two thirds of people in temporary accommodation have inadequate access to basic facilities—to cook, for example. Many food banks, including mine in Eastbourne, supply kettle packs, because many families in temporary accommodation are unable to cook or heat the food that they get from a food bank in any other way. Isolation is also a consequence, especially for those who are placed in temporary accommodation miles away from their support networks, or where the rules of their accommodation ban visitors. Most shockingly, according to the Shared Health Foundation analysis of the national childhood mortality database, temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor in the deaths of 42 infants since 2019. We cannot go on like this.

Not only is that unacceptable on a human level, but as I said earlier, the National Audit Office has been clear that the situation is unsustainable for local authorities—especially mine in Eastbourne. In my hometown, the number of families in temporary accommodation has doubled since 2019. That, combined with our food bank becoming the busiest Trussell Trust food bank in the country—it distributed more food parcels per head than any other in the UK—led to my campaign to declare a cost of living emergency in Eastbourne. It was the first place in the UK to do so, and that unlocked emergency support for those struggling most.

The surge in temporary accommodation led to the financial cost to the council jumping from £2.2 million in 2019 to the £5 million projected for this year.