House of Commons · Bill Debate
03 February 2023 · 11 other contributors
Opened by Roger Gale Con Herne Bay and Sandwich
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Roger Gale raised concerns about employment bill - clause 1 - liability of employer for harassment of employee by third parties in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The amendments aim to clarify the liability of employers regarding harassment of their employees by third parties or another employee. The key proposal is that employers will not be held liable for failing to prevent the expression of opinions in the workplace, provided these expressions do not violate an employee's dignity or create a hostile environment. This aims to balance freedom of speech with protection from harassment.
Supports the amendment, highlighting its importance for cultural shifts towards appropriate workplace behaviour. Acknowledges concerns over the protection from sexual harassment and ensuring that expressing opinions does not become a defence for harassment. Urges the Government to work with stakeholders addressing their concerns.
Supports the amendments while raising concerns about cultural drift in legislation. Emphasises the responsibility of employers in setting a positive workplace culture and tackling unreported harassment.
Maria supports the amendments, arguing they provide clarity on third-party harassment and employer liability. She highlights instances where banter can escalate to sexual harassment if targeted at an employee and mentions football examples of racial or colour-based harassment.
Asked whether outsourcing the definition of regulations to an organisation like the Equality and Human Rights Commission could lead to stricter guidance in the future, potentially creating uncertainty.
Mr. Mohindra supports the Bill, emphasising its importance in addressing workplace harassment and highlighting that around 1.5 million people suffer from it annually. He noted the significant impact on women and supported the amendment to ensure employers take reasonable steps to prevent harassment by third parties.
Mr. Sunderland supports the Bill but raises concerns about clauses 1 and 4, which he finds ambiguous in their wording. He believes these clauses could lead to employers being held liable for actions of third parties, which may not be justified under a culture of individual responsibility.
Ms. Richardson supports the Bill and its amendment, emphasising the importance of the Equality Act in protecting individuals from sexual harassment, especially young women entering the workforce.
Congratulated the Bill's introduction and acknowledged its importance, but emphasised the need for clarity in guidance to employers on their responsibilities. Highlighted that 87% of respondents supported the measure, particularly noting higher rates of harassment among younger people and disabled individuals.
Supported the Bill but expressed disappointment with an amendment that he felt diluted protections against workplace harassment. He highlighted statistics from the TUC and Government Equalities Office showing high levels of sexual harassment among women, which often goes unreported.
Congratulated the hon. Member for Bath on her work and thanked all Members who participated in the debate. Emphasised that the Bill is about fairness, safety, and protecting the workplace from harassment by third parties such as customers or clients.
Ms. Hobhouse supports the amendments, which aim to ensure that workplaces are free from all forms of harassment, not just sexual harassment. She acknowledges concerns about diluting the spirit of the Bill but emphasises that the provisions for sexual harassment remain unchanged. She hopes these debates will lead to a consensus on creating respectful workplaces.