Bosses will be banned from using NDAs to silence victims of abuse at work
Workers subjected to harassment and discrimination will no longer be silenced by controversial non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).
The Government will amend the Employment Rights Bill to ban employers from using NDAs to cover up appalling behaviour.
NDAs were originally designed to protect commercially sensitive information or intellectual property.
But these gagging orders have been widely used to prevent people speaking out about their experiences in the workplace.
Zelda Perkins, a former PA to disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein who broke her NDA to expose his conduct, said it was a victory for victims.
Ms Perkins, who founded the campaign Can't Buy My Silence, said: "This is a huge milestone, for years, we've heard empty promises from governments whilst victims have continued to be silenced, to see this Government accept the need for nationwide legal change shows that they have listened and understood the abuse of power taking place.
'Above all though, 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."
A clause will be added to the bill, which returns to the House of Lords next week, that will mean confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements or other agreements that seek to prevent a worker speaking about an allegation of harassment or discrimination will be null and void.
It will allow victims to speak freely about their experiences and for witnesses to support them without fear of being sued.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: 'We have heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination to end the misuse of NDAs.
'It is time we stamped this practice out – and this government is taking action to make that happen.
'The Employment Rights Bill will ban any NDA used for this purpose, so that no one is forced to suffer in silence.'
Former Cabinet Minister Louise Haigh, who has been campaigning to change the law on NDAs, said: "Victims of harassment and discrimination have been forced to suffer in silence for too long.
"This legislation is the result of years of tireless campaigning by victims and advocates. This victory belongs to them."
She added: "Today's announcement will mean that bad employers can no longer hide behind legal practices that cover up their wrongdoing and prevent victims from getting justice."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
13 minutes ago
- BBC News
Non-disclosure agreements gagging workers to be banned
Employers will be banned from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence victims of workplace sexual misconduct or discrimination, the government has said. An amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, which is expected to become law later this year, will void any confidentiality agreements seeking to prevent workers from speaking about allegations of harassment or discrimination. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said it was "time we stamped this practice out". The use of NDAs to cover up criminality has been in the headlines ever since Zelda Perkins, a former assistant to Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood mogul and now convicted sex offender, broke her agreement to accuse him of abuse. More recently, the now deceased Mohamed Al Fayed, who used to own Harrods, was accused of deploying confidentiality clauses to silence women who accused him of rape and abuse. An NDA is a legally binding document that protects confidential information between two parties. They can be used to protect intellectual property or other commercially sensitive information but over the years their uses have spread. Ms Perkins began campaigning for a change in the law more than seven years ago when she spoke out against Weinstein. She now runs the campaign group Can't Buy My Silence UK and said the amendment marked a ''huge milestone'' and that it showed the government had ''listened and understood the abuse of power taking place". Though she told the BBC's Today Programme: "Let's see what comes out in the actual details". She said "the real horror" of NDAs was that "the law protected the powerful person in the room, not the victims of a sexual crime". Ms Perkins said many of these agreements designed to silence victims would be unenforceable in court but they work because many victims do not know that. "Because of the nature of an NDA, no-one gets to see it. So they can say anything to make the victim afraid to speak," she said. The change in the law would bring the UK in line with Ireland, the US, and some provinces in Canada, which have banned such agreements from being used to prevent the disclosure of sexual harassment and discrimination. Employment rights minister Justin Madders said there was "misuse of NDAs to silence victims", which he called "an appalling practice". "These amendments will give millions of workers confidence that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace will be dealt with, not hidden, allowing them to get on with building a prosperous and successful career," he added. Peers will debate the amendments when the Employment Rights Bill returns to the House of Lords on 14 July and, if passed, will need to be approved by MPs as well.
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘No plans' for watch towers outside House of Lords as new security fence erected
Parliament has 'no plans' to erect watch towers at the front of the House of Lords, the authorities have said. The administration was responding to a question by a former Home Office minister about the possible installation of observation posts to provide security personnel with a 'clear view' over a new metal fence, which has recently gone up to protect the site. The long length of high metal railing has provoked controversy at Westminster with concerns it 'cuts off sightlines' to potential attackers. Scotland Yard recently denied claims made in Parliament that police felt the barrier was 'dangerous' and said it had been erected 'in full consultation' with the force, including firearms and counter-terror experts. Peers previously heard the fence was put up as part of moves to improve security along the historic estate's western boundary, separating Old Palace Yard from St Margaret Street and Abingdon Street. In a written parliamentary question, Tory frontbencher Lord Blencathra, who has previously held a series of ministerial roles including at the Home Office, had asked 'whether there are plans to erect observation towers in front of Peers' Entrance to provide security officers a clear view of St Margaret Street over the security fence'. In reply, Lords senior deputy speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble said: 'There are no plans to erect observation towers in front of the Peers' Entrance. 'The design of the Abingdon Street fence components was undertaken to carefully balance security requirements and heritage considerations, whilst maintaining necessary lines of sight for the security personnel working in this area, including at nearby entrances.' In a separate written question, Lord Blencathra also challenged the authorities over 'the justification for the difference in style and design' between the bars installed and those surrounding the House of Commons. In response, Lord Gardiner said: 'Where possible, the newly installed fence along the west front of the Palace of Westminster has been designed to be sympathetic to the existing fences, while also meeting different and specific requirements. 'The primary driver of the difference is that the fence along the west front has been designed to be completely removeable to accommodate the variety of access needs to Old Palace Yard.' He added: 'This meant it was not possible to match exactly the fence at Cromwell Green.' Meanwhile, Conservative former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean has pressed the parliamentary authorities over 'the cost per metre of the security fence' and the total cost of the project. In rejecting his request, Lord Gardiner said: 'In publishing the costs of a security asset, an adversary would be provided with information about the level of and efficacy of the mitigation we have in place. 'For these reasons, the costs of the newly installed Abingdon Street fence are not in the public domain. 'The fence is not 'off the shelf' and incorporates security measures specifically designed to keep out a wide range of hostile actors.' But, he added: 'In order to balance transparency with security, the House of Lords Finance Committee will undertake an enhanced programme of scrutiny of both costs and performance of security works, on a quarterly basis.' Lord Forsyth has previously complained of being stonewalled about the bill for a new front door to the Lords on security grounds, which was subsequently revealed to have cost nearly £10 million – far in excess of the original estimate – and also not work. A former public spending watchdog has been asked to investigate the Peers' Entrance project which has been branded 'a scandalous waste of public money'.
Rhyl Journal
19 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Investors stripping cash from water firms ‘criminal' says ex-Wessex Water chief
Colin Skellett, who helmed the south-west England utility from 1988 to 2024, argued against nationalising water companies because of the industry requiring 'continuous levels of investment'. He spoke as campaigners and experts urged the Government to explore public ownership during the UK River Summit in south London on Tuesday. Ministers have promised a 'fundamental reset' following years of companies paying out large dividend that diverted money away from infrastructure investment and maintenance, leading to sewage pollution and rising bills. However, they have ruled out nationalisation and instead are focusing efforts on tightening rules, increasing investment and strengthening penalties within the current system of regulated private firms. Minister Emma Hardy talking about tackling sewage with @RiverActionUK but the government is ignoring the reality: 7 European countries with highest average of 90%+ bathing sites achieving 'excellent' status – all are 90%+ publicly owned 🇨🇾🇦🇹🇬🇷🇲🇹🇭🇷🇩🇪🇩🇰 — Cat Hobbs (@CatHobbs) July 8, 2025 Speaking at the summit, Mr Skellett said he has seen the industry change since he joined it in 1974, saying it is one that 'requires continuous levels of investment'. 'The problem with public ownership is the Government always has other things it wants to spend its money on,' the former Wessex boss said. He argued that privatisation helped to get debt off the Government's balance sheet and boost investment but this changed when the 'wrong sort of investors' began stripping cash out of companies through high dividends. 'It was bloody criminal what happened – the amount of money that was stripped out of not just Thames (Water), but a number of companies,' he said. 'So we need that to change (in) the system. It's not so much about ownership, it's more about how you regulate it, how you control it, and how you make sure the investment continues.' It came as the Environment Department (Defra) announced an increase in funding for the Environment Agency from £114 million in 2022/23 to £189 million this current financial year, a sum which is understood to have been welcomed by the regulator. 🚨REVEALED: Over half of adults in England don't trust the Government to end the UK's sewage crisis. And who can blame them? 💩 158,000+ sewage spills already this year. 📣 We're in London today, demanding the radical change we need. Are you with us?✊➡️ Email your MP today and… — Surfers Against Sewage (@sascampaigns) July 2, 2025 Ministers are also currently awaiting the publication of the independent water commission's final report and recommendations, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is expected in two weeks. The review is not exploring nationalisation as an option, with campaigners at the summit indicating they will continue to campaign on the issue following its publication. Ewan McGaughey, professor of law at King's College London, argued that the Government should take away licences from failing water companies and transition them into a long-term sustainable model of public ownership, calling privatisation in England a 'broken model'. Mr McGaughey said 90% of countries and cities around the world have water in public ownership and cited examples such as Berlin and Paris, which brought their sectors back into public ownership in 2013 and 2009 respectively after the privatised model failed. 'Bills go down. Water quality goes up. It's actually not really that controversial. You just have to look at the evidence, and you can see that public ownership works better,' he said. Cat Hobbs, founder and We Own It, which campaigns for public ownership of public services, said the Government's decision to not allow the independent review to explore nationalisation is a 'scandal'. 'That has to change. They still have time to change it,' she said, And Ashley Smith, founder of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP), called privatisation a 'ludicrous scam', arguing that there has never been a single year since the firms were privatised when shareholders put in more money than they took out of the firms. Later, water minister Emma Hardy defended the Government's approach to reforming the sector. 'There's been a lack of sustained investment in the industry for an incredibly long time,' she told the summit. 'We have taken immediate action, but there are some things that, of course, are going to take longer to fix. 'We want to listen to you and we can have difference of opinion – that is absolutely fine but I want to make sure that we try and bring as many people with us as possible because fundamentally we're all trying to get to the same place and that place is an effective water system with reduced pollution which is better for customers and better for the environment.' Ms Hardy called the Cunliffe report a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernise (the sector)' and said the Government will give a top-level reaction to the review before looking at any potential further legislation.
