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."
3:51
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
Glasgow Times
32 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Patrick Harvie: 'Trump is not welcome in Scotland'
Now reports suggest that the first convicted criminal ever to serve as President of the United States is planning another visit to our shores. In 2023, Trump was found guilty of thirty-four charges relating to false accounting in his business, after he paid $130,000 in hush money to cover up an affair with a porn star. Trump also has dozens of sexual assault allegations against him dating back to the 1970s. His contempt for women, his racism, and his climate denial have all been clear for decades. At home, Trump has sent troops onto the streets to threaten his own citizens. He is constructing a concentration camp in Florida, and sending agents to terrorise working-class immigrant communities across America, where people are being seized from their homes, businesses, and places of worship, and deported without fair process, ripping families apart. He has slashed funding from crucial services – a move which has already cost the lives of working-class people – to give tax breaks to his billionaire pals. Donald Trump rides roughshod over the rights of his own citizens, but his actions show the same contempt for international law, from withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement to welcoming Israel's Prime Minister to Washington D.C. while Netanyahu has an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes. It's revolting to see this celebration of the man behind the ongoing atrocities and genocide of innocent civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. Leaders who break international law, who show such utter disdain for human rights at home and abroad, should not be treated like other world leaders. They should be treated like pariahs, not normalised. Recently, Trump's Vice President directly attacked Scottish democracy, spreading lies about a bill led by my Green MSP colleague Gillian Mackay and passed overwhelmingly by Parliament. One of the most senior people in another nation's government had deliberately spread misinformation about our politics and laws, and yet the UK Government still plans to welcome his regime with open arms. Trump has forfeited the right to the red carpet treatment, and it is frankly embarrassing to see UK leaders continuing to pander to him instead of calling him out. Given Keir Starmer's track record, we can expect a display of deference without a single word of challenge to Trump's fascism. But it's not just down to Westminster and the UK Government. The Scottish Government must also make it clear that Trump is not welcome here. We in the Scottish Greens have long called for an investigation into Donald Trump's finances in Scotland through an Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) – a power held by the Scottish Government to investigate the finances of politically active individuals who have gained wealth through suspicious means. Trump's Menie Estate golf course, which he is set to visit this month, was cited in one of his felony charges, which makes it clearer than ever that a UWO must be used. Playing golf while babies starve to death in a man-made, live-streamed genocide is a sickening display of wealth and power. The SNP Government should make it clear that we in Scotland are not playing along.
New Statesman
41 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The British 'wealth exodus' is a big fat myth
The wealthy have abandoned Britain. According to The Telegraph, 'one millionaire leaves Britain every 45 minutes under Labour'. The Independent dutifully echoed that 'Britain lost a net 10,800 millionaires last year', blaming the Chancellor's non-dom tax plans for the'exodus'. What used to be known as the Evening Standard warned of 'the world's biggest' flight of millionaires under Labour tax plans. In 2024, nearly 11,000 articles – roughly 30 stories daily – mourned the millionaire apocalypse. The peril seems clear: if the rich flee, the tax take collapses, capital dries up, and Rachel Reeves will be forced to impound the last remaining yacht in Dover. There is just one small problem: no such exodus happened. Most reports traced back to the same source: Henley & Partners, an investment migration consultancy, and its data partner New World Wealth. Henley – who make money marketing 'golden passports' and residence visas – published a report in mid-2024 claiming vast millionaire outflows. Henley's business model thrives on wealthy clients fearing their country is financially uninhabitable – an incentive to frame millionaire migration as a hot trend du jour. Few pieces mentioned that Henley & Partners had a direct stake in amplifying fears of a fleeing millionaire class. But let us take its report at face value. The widely cited figure claimed an estimated 9,500 high-net-worth individuals (often rounded up to 'over' 10,000) had left Britain in 2024. That sounds large. Yet the UK is home to over 3 million millionaires. As Tax Justice UK pointed out, 9,500 represents only 0.3% of the UK's millionaire population. At that glacial rate it would take more than three centuries for all millionaires to trickle out, and that's assuming no new ones are created or immigrate in the meantime. If anything, this modest outflow has been a long time coming. Henley's own data show that the UK has been steadily losing high-net-worth individuals since at least 2017, with Brexit marking an inflection point. Their 2023 report painted a picture not of tax-induced flight but of long-term reputational rot, driven by political instability, a decaying public realm, and a sense that London's edge as a financial centre is dulling. Even Peter Ferrigno, tax director at Henley, admitted the 'exodus' was about broader decline: the reality being more about 'perceptions of declining opportunity and social cohesion' than any particular fiscal measure. Indeed, their estimates of millionaire movements weren't based on any official tax records, airline data, or direct surveys of the individuals. Primarily because these do not exist in an accessible way: if you want to know whether millionaires are leaving the country, you first have to know who the millionaires are. But we have little idea who actually owns what in the UK, let alone who might have fled. Companies House remains peppered with shell structures and nominee directors – including names like Darth Vader—with no proactive verification of beneficial owners. Property doesn't fare any better, as even law enforcement lacks accurate info for tens of thousands of homes, adding up to well over £60 billion in hidden UK property wealth. So, instead, Henley's partner New World Wealth trawled 'public sources… including LinkedIn and other business portals' to infer where wealthy people say they are working or living. In practice, this means 'migration' comes down to changes in people's online profiles – someone updating their LinkedIn location from 'London' to 'Dubai' might be counted as a millionaire who left the UK, even if they still spend most of their time in Mayfair. This is not shocking given New World Wealth – grandly described as a 'wealth intelligence' outfit – appear to have a headcount of one, and has never made its underlying data public. What's the harm is one exaggerated story? The Henley story broke in 2024 just as momentum was building globally for curbing outlandish wealth: Oxfam called for a 2% global tax on extreme fortunes and at the G20 Brazil tabled plans for a coordinated levy on the ultra-rich. But as millionaire-flight hysteria mounted, reports emerged that Labour was getting cold feet on a non-dom crackdown. While rubbing shoulders at Davos, Rachel Reeves reportedly indicated she'd 'soften' the crackdown. By that month's end, outlets were treating it as accepted wisdom that Reeves' non-dom tax plan had 'backfired' and needed revision, on the basis of the 10,000 figure. The implication was clear: push these people too hard on tax and they'll vanish, taking their money with them. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Except they won't. Even if the ultra-wealthy wanted to decamp en masse, a vast chunk of British wealth isn't particularly mobile. Over 40% of household wealth in the UK is held in residential property, rising to over 50% for the top decile. Unlike cash or crypto, property does not emigrate. It just sits there, appreciating quietly in Clapham while its owner files a LinkedIn location update from Monaco. Much of the rest of the UK's household wealth is tied up in pensions and business equity—assets that are either immovable or contingent on UK infrastructure, customers, and legal stability. The 'exodus' narrative hinges on people packing up their passports rather than their portfolios. Of course, the economic impact of departures isn't strictly proportional to headcount. The very richest do pay far more taxes. But even here, the data is thin and contradictory. HMRC data shows little evidence of significant wealth emigration after prior reforms. Many rich people are not itching to abscond – quite the opposite. A recent poll of UK millionaires found 85% would support a modest wealth tax (2% on assets over £10 million) to help fund public services. Those are hardly the sentiments of a class plotting escape. The non-dom panic is just a dress rehearsal. As wealth becomes increasingly inherited rather than earned, debates over taxation will shift from income to assets, and from foreign millionaires to domestic dysfunction. The so-called Bank of Mum and Dad is now the ninth largest mortgage lender in the UK, with over half of first-time buyers receiving family help to get on the ladder. The Resolution Foundation estimates that around 63% of household wealth is held by those aged 55 and over, the bulk of it in property and private pensions. Inheritance Tax, long treated as politically toxic, is being pulled into the frame by necessity: HMRC is looking to bring in £15bn from it by the early 2030s. So when tax exile threats are deployed against modest changes to non-dom status, this isn't limited to Britain's wealthy moving overseas. It's about preparing the ground to block any future settlement that touches the hoarded, housed wealth of UK's upper-middle classes, many of whom would rather keep their Soho Opera than save a few pounds in the Caymans. Taxing wealth properly is technically difficult — but not impossible. What is impossible is designing good policy while scare stories are trotted out by wealth management's PR machine desperately trying to save its skin and frighten governments off progressive taxation. This government is in danger of falling for it – hook, line, and sinker. [Further reading: Let the non doms leave] Related
New Statesman
41 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The mutation of jihad
Photo by Wakil Kohsar/AFP We fear the wrong terror. This week marked the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings. But the spectacular terror of international jihad has significantly abated. In 2022, the UK downgraded its terrorism threat level from 'severe' to 'substantial', and MI5 director Ken McCallum observed in 2024 that terrorist threats had diminished during his time at the service. Attacks claimed by Islamic State group (IS) have fallen from almost 4,000 in 2018 to around 600 so far this year. And they are less likely to be of immediate concern to Western countries. Almost 90% of the group's violence now takes place in remote parts of Africa. A report published this week highlighted a newer danger: hostile governments are equipping themselves to execute professional attacks on British soil. The study by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, which Keir Starmer saw before publication, investigated Iran. It counted at least 15 attempted murders or abductions of British nationals or UK-based citizens since 2022, and designated the Iran one of the biggest threats to the UK, next to Russia and China. But it should not be news that the threat of state-sponsored, professional killings has been increasing in recent years should not be news. In 2024, MI5 admitted a 48 per cent rise in state-instigated assassination attempts on UK soil. But the only such incident to gain real cut-through was the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in 2018. Jihad is changing its face. In recent years, jihadist and Islamist groups that have embraced more pragmatic, local agendas have tended to flourish. Meanwhile, supporters of more extreme jihadist ideologies – groups like IS and al-Qaeda which once posed significant threats to the West – are foundering. In 2001, al-Qaeda executed the grandest and most famous assault the West had ever seen on its own land. The 2017 attacks on Westminster Bridge and London Bridge represented a transition to less complicated methods, such as stabbings and driving vans into crowds. IS was encouraging followers to use whatever equipment they can get their hands on. Now, commenters on GeoNews, the main al-Qaeda chat room, are wont to take a despairing tone; in late April this year, one commenter reflected 'Jihadism goes nowhere, it didn't achieve anything… it's like digging in water… The best that can happen is like [what happened in] Syria'. Since the December 2024 overthrow of the al-Assad government, Syria has been ruled by Ahmed al-Sharaa, better known by his military name Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. Al-Sharaa's regime has dismayed Islamist hardliners by distancing itself from typical jihadist and Islamist demands, such as rigorous application of Sharia law. Instead it has loudly touted its respect for religious minorities, with a programme more reminiscent of the Ottoman Empire's 'millet' ('personal law') decentralisations, which gave religious communities a degree of local autonomy. Al-Sharaa has even shaken the investment tin to the US and other Western powers. And, perhaps most controversially, his government is signalling openness to normalising ties with Israel, its arch-foe. Unburdened of US sanctions, Syria's economy is expected to begin the slow path to recovery. Al-Sharaa has generally prioritised winning international credibility as a competent and pragmatic leader over governing by strict Islamic principles. He has proposed plans to privatise state-controlled infrastructure and made overtures to foreign investors. Government officials have stated intentions to model Syria's future on service-based economies like Singapore. It is a surprising posture. Historian Djene Rhys Bajalan has coined the term 'Salafi Neoliberalism' to describe the strange new synthesis of 'malls and mosques'. Other media outlets have described it as 'Islamist technocracy', pointing to the equal centrality of technocratic institutions and conservative social mores. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Before Syria, there was Afghanistan. Despite being spurned by the international community for its deeply regressive social policies, hardcore jihadists had condemned the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan after its 2021 takeover as too lax. IS's local wing and its affiliated media regularly scorn the Taliban, holding that the group has abandoned jihad, failed to implement Sharia and allied itself with enemy foreign powers. Accepting national borders and engaging in diplomacy is considered anathema to IS's vision of global jihad. Taken as evidence of ideological compromise was the Taliban's removal from Russia's list of terrorist organisations. And this week, on 9 July, Afghanistan posted an extraordinary tourism advert online, which opens with a shot of five turbaned men behind three kneeling hostages. The leader says 'we have one message for America', then pulls off the hood of the central hostage, revealing a beaming Westerner who shouts, 'Welcome to Afghanistan!' Of course, all sorts of propaganda will be used in service of attracting tourism; but this is nonetheless a sea change from the autarkic Taliban regime of the 1990s. Affiliates of al-Qaeda now appear poised to make a definitive break with the transnational jihadist model most infamously espoused by Islamic State (IS). Al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen (AQAP) and Somalia (Al-Shabaab) have showed signs of being willing to collaborate with the Iran-backed Houthis, traditionally an ideological foe. In Yemen in April, a former al-Qaeda member rebranded innocuously as the Movement for Change and Liberation, a new, locally focused party. The affiliate in West Africa's Sahel region, JNIM, is perhaps the most likely to split from al-Qaeda's central structure next: media branding changes, such as the removal of JNIM's logo, suggest a split from the wider North African branch, AQIM. In February, one al-Qaeda supporter wondered in the GeoNews chatroom why 'JNIM want to separate from [al-Qaeda]?… It's sad'. JNIM's drift away from al-Qaeda may allow it to more openly collaborate with other non-jihadist militant groups such as Tuareg separatists. JNIM has also reportedly signalled willingness to combine forces with non-jihadist armed groups in the Sahel, such as the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA), against common enemies in the region (predominantly the governments of Mali and Burkina Faso). Burkina Faso's military junta plainly considers the Taliban and JNIM entirely separate entities, meeting with the former in May while engaged in a bloody war with the latter. What is left of IS itself has blamed the West for the move away from jihadism and toward more palatable alternatives in order to undermine them and lure Muslims from the 'true' path. One high-profile IS supporter posted on Facebook, '[the US] gave Afghanistan to Taliban… and Syria to [al-Sharaa's] HTS which converted to secularism'. Devoted IS supporters see more pragmatic Islamist movements like HTS as enforcers of the West's war on terrorism who are beholden to Western interests, rather than being committed to applying Shariah by the letter. Al-Naba, IS's weekly newspaper, has recently struck a downbeat tone. An early July editorial worried about low morale and a wavering commitment to global jihad. Several other recent editorials have all but admitted that the group is on the backfoot, especially in its Middle Eastern heartlands, where its attacks have dropped significantly in recent years. Transnational jihadism – an ideology that has demonstrated remarkable tenacity throughout the first quarter of the 21st century – may be about to turn a corner. As US power retreats, those who might have been attracted to confronting American imperialism are concerned by other questions. International terrorist imperatives are being subordinated to domestic, material issues. At least for now, the success of the local appears to be global jihadism's loss. [See also: Netanyahu bends the knee for Trump] Related
