Government to ban 'appalling' non-disclosure agreements that 'silence' victims of abuse at work
Accusers of Harvey Weinstein, the former film producer and now convicted sex offender, are among many in recent years who had to breach such agreements in order to speak out about what they had endured.
As Labour seeks to boost workers' protections, its ministers have suggested an extra section in the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill that would void NDAs designed to stop employees from going public about harassment or discrimination.
The government said this would allow victims to come forward about their situation rather than remain "stuck in unwanted situations, through fear or desperation".
Zelda Perkins, Weinstein's former assistant and founder of Can't Buy My Silence UK, said the changes would mark a "huge milestone" in combatting the "abuse of power".
She added: "This victory belongs to the people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn't. Without their courage, none of this would be happening."
Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner said the government had "heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination" and was taking action to prevent people from having to "suffer in silence".
An NDA is a broad term that describes any agreement that restricts what a signatory can say about something, originally intended to protect commercially sensitive information.
But "many high profile cases" have revealed NDAs being manipulated to prevent people "speaking out about horrific experiences in the workplace", the government said.
The updated bill, if passed, would also mean witnesses can also publicly support without the threat of being sued.
Announcing the amendments, employment minister Justin Madders said: "The misuse of NDAs to silence victims of harassment or discrimination is an appalling practice that this government has been determined to end."
The bill is currently in the House of Lords, where it will be debated on 14 July, before going on to be discussed by MPs as well.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Got the Green Light to Fire Federal Workers. Now, They Wait.
For weeks, thousands of federal employees have been waiting for the Supreme Court to make a decision about their continued employment with the government. On Tuesday, they got their answer: The Trump administration could move ahead with mass layoffs. The question of whether the layoffs are legal remains unanswered. For now, workers remain in limbo, this time waiting for their agencies to decide who stays, who goes and when. President Trump in February issued an executive order calling for mass layoffs at nearly every government agency, but the directive invited some legal challenges that led to federal workers staying in their jobs temporarily, or at least collecting a paycheck and health benefits. Many government employees have described the protracted uncertainty as a stressful, nightmarish slog. And many knew that any relief was likely temporary. For months, a number of them have described being scared to open their government emails, anticipating that they would learn they had been fired. Many feared that speaking out would put a target on their backs. One employee at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has not announced a detailed plan for layoffs, said that she and her colleagues were waiting to hear about what the Supreme Court's move meant for them. Like others still employed by the government, she spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Talks to finalise US steel tariff exemption ongoing as deadline due to pass
Government talks to finalise the deal to spare the UK from US steel tariffs are ongoing, Downing Street has said, as the deadline for the levies to come into force is due to pass and the steel industry called for a 'swift' resolution. President Donald Trump has said he plans to start implementing tariffs on the US's trade partners on July 9. The UK has already managed to negotiate a deal with the US which eliminates the threat of tariffs for British car and aeroplane manufacturers. But a reprieve for the steel industry is yet to be finalised, leaving open the threat that the current 25% tariff rate could rise to 50% after the deadline. Mr Trump is reportedly stepping up pressure on countries who could soon be subject to the tariffs, urging them to negotiate trade deals with the US. But amid signs of confusion within the US administration, trade secretary Howard Lutnick has suggested America's trade partners will see the levies begin on August 9, after receiving a letter outlining them on July 9. Mr Trump told his cabinet that negotiating trade deals was 'too time-consuming' so he was sending out letters to countries detailing tariff rates. In a post on Truth Social on Tuesday night, he said letters to 'a minimum of 7 Countries' would be released on Wednesday morning with more in the afternoon, although he gave no indication of which countries would be receiving the letters. Gareth Stace, director general at industry body UK Steel, said: 'A swift and positive resolution is needed to safeguard jobs, unlock growth, and restore confidence in the UK steel sector.' Downing Street said on Tuesday that discussions are ongoing between UK and US officials to secure 0% tariffs on core steel imports to the US. A Number 10 spokesman said: 'As we've said before, this is something that we continue to discuss with the US, just as we did with aero and auto, and those discussions will continue.' Asked if the Government understands the frustration of British steel workers, he said they want to see the deal in force 'as soon as possible'. The spokesman added: 'We obviously want to see this deal in force as soon as possible. That remains our priority. 'But as we've said before and set out, the Government remains relentlessly focused on making sure British businesses can feel the benefits of the deal as soon as possible.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Instagram wrongly accuses some users of breaching child sex abuse rules
Instagram users have told the BBC of the "extreme stress" of having their accounts banned after being wrongly accused by the platform of breaching its rules on child sexual exploitation. The BBC has been in touch with three people who were told by parent company Meta that their accounts were being permanently disabled, only to have them reinstated shortly after their cases were highlighted to journalists. "I've lost endless hours of sleep, felt isolated. It's been horrible, not to mention having an accusation like that over my head," one of the men told BBC News. Meta declined to comment. BBC News has been contacted by more than 100 people who claim to have been wrongly banned by Meta. Some talk of a loss of earnings after being locked out of their business pages, while others highlight the pain of no longer having access to years of pictures and memories. Many point to the impact it has had on their mental health. Over 27,000 people have signed a petition that accuses Meta's moderation system, powered by artificial intelligence (AI), of falsely banning accounts and then having an appeal process that is unfit for purpose. Thousands of people are also in Reddit forums dedicated to the subject, and many users have posted on social media about being banned. Meta has previously acknowledged a problem with Facebook Groups but denied its platforms were more widely affected. The BBC has changed the names of the people in this piece to protect their identities. David, from Aberdeen in Scotland, was suspended from Instagram on 4 June. He was told he had not followed Meta's community standards on child sexual exploitation, abuse and nudity. He appealed that day, and was then permanently disabled on Instagram and his associated Facebook and Facebook Messenger accounts. David found a Reddit thread, where many others were posting that they had also been wrongly banned over child sexual exploitation. "We have lost years of memories, in my case over 10 years of messages, photos and posts - due to a completely outrageous and vile accusation," he told BBC News. He said Meta was "an embarrassment", with AI-generated replies and templated responses to his questions. He still has no idea why his account was banned. "I've lost endless hours of sleep, extreme stress, felt isolated. It's been horrible, not to mention having an accusation like that over my head. "Although you can speak to people on Reddit, it is hard to go and speak to a family member or a colleague. They probably don't know the context that there is a ban wave going on." The BBC raised David's case to Meta on 3 July, as one of a number of people who claimed to have been wrongly banned over child sexual exploitation. Within hours, his account was reinstated. In a message sent to David, and seen by the BBC, the tech giant said: "We're sorry that we've got this wrong, and that you weren't able to use Instagram for a while. Sometimes, we need to take action to help keep our community safe." "It is a massive weight off my shoulders," said David. How can you keep your child safe online? What is AI and how does it work? Faisal was banned from Instagram on 6 June over alleged child sexual exploitation and, like David, found his Facebook account suspended too. The student from London is embarking on a career in the creative arts, and was starting to earn money via commissions on his Instagram page when it was suspended. He appealed after feeling he had done nothing wrong, and then his account was then banned a few minutes later. He told BBC News: "I don't know what to do and I'm really upset. "[Meta] falsely accuse me of a crime that I have never done, which also damages my mental state and health and it has put me into pure isolation throughout the past month." His case was also raised with Meta by the BBC on 3 July. About five hours later, his accounts were reinstated. He received the exact same email as David, with the apology from Meta. He told BBC News he was "quite relieved" after hearing the news. "I am trying to limit my time on Instagram now." Faisal said he remained upset over the incident, and is now worried the account ban might come up if any background checks are made on him. A third user Salim told BBC News that he also had accounts falsely banned for child sexual exploitation violations. He highlighted his case to journalists, stating that appeals are "largely ignored", business accounts were being affected, and AI was "labelling ordinary people as criminal abusers". Almost a week after he was banned, his Instagram and Facebook accounts were reinstated. When asked by BBC News, Meta declined to comment on the cases of David, Faisal, and Salim, and did not answer questions about whether it had a problem with wrongly accusing users of child abuse offences. It seems in one part of the world, however, it has acknowledged there is a wider issue. The BBC has learned that the chair of the Science, ICT, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee at the National Assembly in South Korea, said last month that Meta had acknowledged the possibility of wrongful suspensions for people in her country. Dr Carolina Are, a blogger and researcher at Northumbria University into social media moderation, said it was hard to know what the root of the problem was because Meta was not being open about it. However, she suggested it could be due to recent changes to the wording of some its community guidelines and an ongoing lack of a workable appeal process. "Meta often don't explain what it is that triggered the deletion. We are not privy to what went wrong with the algorithm," she told BBC News. In a previous statement, Meta said: "We take action on accounts that violate our policies, and people can appeal if they think we've made a mistake." Meta, in common with all big technology firms, have come under increased pressure in recent years from regulators and authorities to make their platforms safe spaces. Meta told the BBC it used a combination of people and technology to find and remove accounts that broke its rules, and was not aware of a spike in erroneous account suspension. Meta says its child sexual exploitation policy relates to children and "non-real depictions with a human likeness", such as art, content generated by AI or fictional characters. Meta also told the BBC a few weeks ago it uses technology to identify potentially suspicious behaviours, such as adult accounts being reported by teen accounts, or adults repeatedly searching for "harmful" terms. Meta states that when it becomes aware of "apparent child exploitation", it reports it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) in the US. NCMEC told BBC News it makes all of those reports available to law enforcement around the world. 'There is a problem': Facebook and Instagram users complain of account bans Facebook and Instagram get rid of fact checkers Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
