House of Commons · Bill Debate
20 October 2023 · 14 other contributors
Opened by Wera Hobhouse Lib Dem Bath
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Wera Hobhouse raised concerns about workplace (health, safety and welfare) 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 amendment removes clause 1 from the Bill, which would have imposed liability on employers for third-party harassment. While Wera Hobhouse acknowledges that this is a compromise, she stresses the importance of protecting workers from sexual harassment and ensuring proactive measures against it. She argues that without the full amendment, further protections are essential but agrees with the Lords amendments to ensure the bill passes into law.
She supports the Bill as amended. She highlights the devastating impact of sexual harassment on victims, citing statistics that nearly half of women have experienced at least three incidents of sexual harassment and over 40% of managers feel unsupported when reports are made to them. She emphasises the need for employers to take proactive steps to prevent such harassment.
She agrees with Wera Hobhouse's call to protect NHS staff from sexual predators, emphasising the need for action against third-party harassment in all workplaces.
He asks Wera Hobhouse whether she is in favour of Lords amendment 1 or speaking against it. No position taken.
She agrees with the need for employers to act when harassment starts at a low level, rather than moving perpetrators to different departments. She supports the bill as amended.
She thanks Wera Hobhouse for her speech and welcomes Lords amendment 1 based on feedback from local businesses in Essex, supporting the Bill as amended.
Mr. Kruger opposes the Bill, arguing that it overreaches in its attempt to criminalize bad manners and conversations that might cause distress, potentially curtailing free speech. He believes that such laws can negatively influence culture and chill necessary societal discussions. He also raises concerns about the potential for the law to be expanded beyond its original intent by opposition members and in the House of Lords.
Ms. Jardine interjects to argue that casual conversations overheard by young employees in a workplace setting can have significant negative impacts, such as undermining their confidence and leading to bullying and harassment. She believes that the Bill aims to protect these individuals from such distress.
Ms. Hobhouse interjects, acknowledging the need for a more thorough discussion about whether legislation can guide better behaviour and protect individuals from harassment in the workplace.
Madders acknowledges that the Bill, despite being weakened by Lords amendments, still represents a positive step towards tackling workplace sexual harassment. He highlights the prevalence of such harassment among women and questions the Government’s policy direction on this issue.
McCarthy agrees with Madders, emphasising that sexual harassment is not just an issue affecting women but also young men who are increasingly reporting incidents. She underscores the importance of recognising men as victims too.
Caulfield argues that the Bill is a matter for Wera Hobhouse and emphasises that it is part of the parliamentary process. She suggests that the Government's role was not to overturn the Lords amendments but rather support the proposed changes.
Hobhouse confirms her acceptance of the Lords amendment, noting that it preserves a crucial preventive duty on employers. She considers this an important step forward despite other changes to the Bill.
Davies points out that the Government cannot be blamed for Lords amendments since they lack a majority there. He argues against overturning such amendments as it risks the Bill's failure altogether.
The hon. Member for Bath underscores the importance of pragmatism in advancing Private Members’ Bills and expresses gratitude to the Government for their support, particularly on creating a preventive duty on employers. She acknowledges the necessity of accepting certain compromises to ensure the Bill's passage.