← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Non-disclosure Agreements in the Workplace — [Rushanara Ali in the Chair]
05 September 2023
Lead MP
Maria Miller
Basingstoke
Con
Responding Minister
Kevin Hollinrake
Tags
EducationEmploymentWomen & Equalities
Word Count: 13857
Other Contributors: 12
At a Glance
Maria Miller raised concerns about non-disclosure agreements in the workplace — [rushanara ali in the chair] in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
The Government should look into providing safeguards against NDAs in all workplaces across Britain. The Minister is urged to support an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill recognising people who have signed NDAs as victims, ensuring consistency. It is time to turn advice into law so that legal clauses cannot be used by anyone to cover up illegal wrongdoing at work.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
The use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence employees who face workplace wrongs, including sexual abuse and discrimination. NDAs prevent victims from seeking medical support, taking action through employment tribunals, or reporting criminal wrongdoing to the police. The issue disproportionately affects women and minority groups. Statistics show that 48% of those who reported workplace sexual harassment were asked to sign confidentiality agreements, with women signing NDAs at six times the rate for men.
Caroline Nokes
Con
Romsey and Southampton North
Acknowledged Jim Shannon's use of gender-neutral language but highlighted the importance of reiterating how often NDAs are used in gender-specific contexts.
Gregory Campbell
DUP
East Londonderry
Thanked the right hon. Lady for securing the debate and raised concerns about costs when public money is used by large employers like the BBC to enforce NDAs against employees.
Expressed support for the initiative and emphasised that NDAs are unfair on individuals, doubling down on discrimination. She urged the Minister to consider the proposals presented and highlighted the detrimental impact of covering up wrongdoing within organisations.
Jess Phillips
Lab
Birmingham Yardley
She highlighted cases of NDAs being used to victimise individuals, particularly in the context of sexual abuse and harassment. She cited examples from the Philip Green case where victims were silenced by threats and financial inducements, reinforcing that current laws permit such abusive practices.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Welcomed the Can't Buy My Silence campaign and highlighted that non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are often used to silence victims of bullying or misconduct, impacting their mental health. Suggested extending the ban on abusive NDAs to more sectors beyond higher education.
Jo Gideon
Lab
Bury South
Jo Gideon highlighted that NDAs have been weaponised to shield guilty parties from wrongdoing, failing to protect whistleblowers and address root causes. She mentioned a third of all universities in England used NDAs for student complaints and called on the Minister to review legal flaws. She also discussed how NDAs silence victims in property disputes and hinder justice. Jo Gideon supported the Whistleblowing Bill as it introduces provisions ensuring proper use of NDAs, police compliance, and protection for whistleblowers.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Mr Madders highlighted the excessive use of NDAs, noting that they often perpetuate power imbalances between employers and employees. He cited evidence from the Women and Equalities Committee and the Solicitors Regulation Authority indicating widespread misuse of NDAs. Mr Madders argued that NDAs can prevent victims from seeking justice and contribute to a toxic workplace culture where perpetrators go unaccounted for.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Ms Moran highlighted the misuse of NDAs to cover up bad behavior and silence victims, emphasizing their insidious nature. She stressed that many victims do not fully understand the implications of signing these agreements, which can lead to long-term trauma. Ms Moran also noted that other countries have enacted legislation against such practices, urging the UK government to follow suit.
Mary Robinson
Lab
Barking
Mary Robinson argued that NDAs are often used to silence whistleblowers and victims of workplace harassment. She cited statistics from Speak Out Revolution, showing that 63% of respondents do not formally report bullying or harassment and only 3% reach a full resolution. She also mentioned the case of a whistleblower who exposed Harvey Weinstein's predatory behaviour despite an NDA.
Peter Grant
Lab
Coventry South
Complimented the right hon. Lady's speech, arguing that it is hypocritical for media organisations to hide behind secrecy in how they treat their own employees while exposing information from other companies and governments. Peter Grant interjected to point out a massive injustice where victims denied employment opportunities for life face far harsher consequences than repeat offender employers who can continue their nefarious behaviour without repercussions. Emphasised that NDAs cannot be justified if they prevent employees from exercising their legal rights and are used to cover up criminal or unlawful behaviour. He called for stronger measures against professional societies misusing NDAs, suggesting criminal sanctions for employers exploiting employee ignorance and fear. Highlighted the need for extending protections under the Public Interest Disclosure Act beyond direct employment. We all understand that an NDA cannot prevent an employee or ex-employee from making certain kinds of disclosures, but if the former employee does not know this, it is ineffective. He suggests changing the law to require every NDA to state explicitly on its face what rights the former employee still retains.
Rachael Maskell
Lab Co-op
York Central
Ms Maskell supports the proposal to outlaw NDAs, arguing they are used to hide discrimination and bad practice. She highlights how NDAs can silence whistleblowers and expose individuals raising concerns about workplace safety. Ms Maskell mentions her experience in health services and as a trade union official, noting that NDAs often lead to forced resignations and mental health challenges for the affected individuals. She calls for an open culture where workers feel safe to raise concerns without fear of retaliation or dismissal.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
I would be grateful, Minister, if you could leave a little bit of time at the end for Dame Maria Miller to respond to the debate.
Government Response
Kevin Hollinrake
Government Response
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this debate and her long-standing campaigning against inappropriate use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). The Government have taken significant steps, including introducing a world-leading pledge to end NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct in higher education, with 84 providers signing the pledge. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 bans NDAs in cases of sexual harassment and other forms of bullying and harassment in higher education, expected to take effect in 2024. There are existing legal limits on NDAs in employment contexts, ensuring they cannot prevent workers from blowing the whistle or reporting crimes. Independent legal advice is required for settlement agreements. The consultation found evidence that individuals may be intimidated into signing NDAs without understanding their rights, leading to guidance published by ACAS and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Government are also legislating through the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill to strengthen protections against workplace sexual harassment.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.