← Back to House of Commons Debates
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Bill - Clause 1: Liability of employer for harassment of employee by third parties
20 October 2023
Lead MP
Wera Hobhouse
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
EmploymentWomen & Equalities
Other Contributors: 14
At a Glance
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.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
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.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
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.
Ruth Jones
Lab
Newport West and Islwyn
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.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
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.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
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.
Christine Jardine
Lib Dem
Edinburgh West
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.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
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.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
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.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
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.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
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.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.