Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
Consideration of Lords amendments Clause 1 Liability of employer
for harassment of employee by third parties 9.36am Wera Hobhouse
(Bath) (LD) I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords
amendment 1. Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale) With this it will
be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2. Wera Hobhouse Workplace
sexual harassment blights our society. Not a week goes by
in...Request free trial
Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
Consideration of Lords amendments
Clause 1
Liability of employer for harassment of employee by third
parties
9.36am
(Bath) (LD)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2.
Workplace sexual harassment blights our society. Not a week goes
by in which we do not hear about sexual misconduct in an
organisation somewhere in the UK. Some 43% of women have
experienced at least three incidents of sexual harassment at
work. Most victims do not report it, for fear of not being
believed or of damaging their working relationships and career
prospects. Although sexual harassment is not confined to women,
the vast majority of victims are women.
Harassment has a devastating impact on victims. Nearly half of
women harassed at work said that it had harmed their mental
health. One in four said that they avoided certain work
situations, such as meetings, courses, locations and shifts, to
avoid the perpetrator. More than one in four said that they
wanted to leave their job but could not. Nearly one in five left
their job as a result of this treatment.
Every person should be safe from sexual harassment, but every day
new stories expose the extent of the problem in our workplaces.
Just this year, there has been a torrent of misconduct
allegations against prominent companies and organisations. There
remain questions to be answered at the CBI, Odey Asset
Management, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the fire
services, the National Crime Agency and even our NHS.
(Newport West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a very important speech about a powerful
topic. As a former NHS employee for over 30 years, I am aware of
some poor practice and lack of control over certain individuals
who are sexual predators. They are only a small minority, but
they have a massive impact on other NHS workers. Does she agree
with me that we must protect our precious NHS staff and stamp out
sexual harassment in all workplaces?
I could not agree more. The hon. Lady points out that a few
individuals damage the reputation of a whole organisation and,
especially when it comes to our NHS, that is devastating. The
Bill should be good for organisations because it protects them as
well.
(Shipley) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady clarify—I am not sure from her remarks so
far—whether she is in favour of Lords amendment 1, or is she
speaking against it?
I will come to that later, but I will be supporting the Lords
amendments.
There are many good employers who have implemented measures to
safeguard their employees. However, far too many have not done
enough to prevent and punish sexual harassment.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about an issue that,
as she says, has blighted our workplaces. Does she agree that
part of the problem is that employers do not act when harassment
begins at a low level? Putting workers down, talking over them
and belittling them is just the start and it grows from there.
Too often in the past, people have just been moved to a different
department. Will her Bill put an end to that sort of atmosphere
in the workplace?
Yes, it should be the beginning of a culture change to prevent
sexual harassment happening before it gets to a point where it
has such damaging effects.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that in nearly
half of cases reported the employer took no action, minimised the
incident or placed the responsibility on the employee to avoid
the harasser. What one also finds again and again is that the
employer does not really know what to do. When the Bill becomes
law, there will be guidance for employers so that they know
exactly what is expected of them. That should help organisations
to face those problems.
(Southend West) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, because she is making a
very important speech. Protecting people, especially women, from
harassment is hugely important. The Government have a fantastic
track record of bringing in legislation to protect vulnerable
people. I had strong concerns about the Bill in its unamended
state, particularly on making employers responsible for
third-party harassment. However, yesterday I contacted Denise
Rossiter, the chief executive of Essex chambers of commerce, to
ask the opinion of Essex businesses. The message I received back
was clear: local Essex employers warmly welcome the amendments
made to the Bill in the other place. I am delighted the
Government have backed them. I welcome the amendments, in
particular Lords amendment 1, and I support the Bill in its
amended state.
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I am pleased we
have come to a point across both Houses where we can pass the
Bill, as amended, into law. I will come to the amendments later
in my speech and she will hear what I have to say.
The current laws on sexual harassment mean that employers often
adopt individualised responses to institutional problems. That
creates space for employers to minimise what is going on and
leads to confusion about how to respond appropriately. Only 45%
of managers felt supported by their organisation when reports
were made to them. Ultimately, our current laws do not protect
people who have encountered traumatic experiences. We can and
must do better.
My Bill will strengthen the legislative protections against
workplace sexual harassment. It will help to create safer working
environments that are fit for the 21st century. It introduces a
standalone duty for employers to take responsible steps to
prevent sexual harassment within their organisations. That will
make a real difference, as it will require employers to take
proactive steps to address sexual harassment. It will help to
instil a culture change, and it will ensure that people who abuse
women and others can no longer rely on their workplaces turning a
blind eye. Instead, they will be held accountable for their
actions, making workplaces safer, more productive and more
enjoyable for everyone.
9.45am
I have been pleased to see cross-party consensus for my Bill from
the outset, with all parties willing to work together to ensure
its passage. There has been unstinting cross-party support from a
sizeable majority of MPs and peers, which clearly demonstrates
that workplace sexual harassment is not a party political issue
anymore. I am glad that today should mark the final point of the
passage of these vital protections into law. It took the best
part of 2023 to get us here, and I thank everybody involved for
their patience and support. I express my particular gratitude to
the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Government Whips,
whose support during the ups and downs of the difficult passage
of the Bill I have greatly appreciated.
I say a big thank you to , who has worked
tirelessly in the other place to ensure that my Bill got to this
stage. My thanks also go to the team at the Government Equalities
Office, whose constant advice and encouragement has been
outstanding. Finally, I thank my own team for sticking with
me.
I will now speak to Lords amendments 1 and 2, which have
undoubtedly narrowed the scope of my Bill. Lords amendment 1,
tabled by , removes clause
1 from the Bill, getting rid of the proposed liability of
employers for third-party harassment in the workplace. It means
that incidents of third-party harassment will continue not to be
covered by the law, other than in extreme cases resulting in
clear personal injury or where a criminal offence has been
committed. The legal situation will remain as it has been since
third-party harassment protections were repealed in 2013. I
personally think that that is a shame.
Lords amendment 2, tabled by , narrows the concept of
“all reasonable steps” to simply “reasonable steps”. The
practical steps that an employer might take would be
substantially the same. For example, employers might consider
implementing an effective equality policy, providing
anti-harassment training and dealing effectively with employee
complaints, among other things. The difference in the wording
means that the tribunals would apply a lower threshold when
assessing a breach of the employer duty compared with the
original drafting of the Bill.
The Equality Act 2010 already contains a statutory defence that
requires an employment tribunal assessment of whether an employer
took all reasonable steps to determine legal liability. The
amendment will not change the Equality Act’s existing statutory
defence, but will create a different test for the new duty on
employers to prevent sexual harassment. The employer duty will
still send a strong signal to employers that they need to take
action to prioritise prevention of sexual harassment and
ultimately improve workplace practices and cultures.
I cannot stand here and say that I am completely happy with the
amendments, but if I did not accept them the Bill would not
progress into law, and that would be a lot worse. Peers in the
other place have reached an understanding with and me: to ensure
the passage of the sexual harassment preventive duty, we have
accepted the amendments under discussion today. The longer it
takes for legislation preventing sexual harassment to become law,
the more workers—especially women—will be left at risk of
workplace sexual harassment. That would simply not be
acceptable.
In the face of continuous scandals, we as lawmakers cannot stand
by and do nothing. Once the Bill has passed into law, it will be
the beginning of a much-needed culture change. I have been most
grateful for the guidance of the Fawcett Society and the wider
alliance for women, who continue to support the Bill because of
the substantial difference it will make to women’s lives. Without
their support and guidance, I would not have been able to take
this revised Bill forward. Those groups remain disappointed that
the clause that would have provided protection from third-party
harassment has not been taken forward. I fully accept their
disappointment. Further protections are essential to give
businesses and organisations clarity on what they need to do to
make their workplaces safe for everybody. We hope that the debate
on this Bill has encouraged all businesses and organisations to
recognise that they can make a significant difference in
protecting staff from harassment by customers and clients. There
remains unfinished business, but the discussion is moving us
forward and it is important that we get cross-party support in
both Houses, which is why I keep saying that I am accepting the
Lords amendments.
The Government’s own survey on sexual harassment found that every
day 1.5 million people face sexual harassment from a third party
at work—that does not even consider the scale of other forms of
third-party harassment, for example those of a racist or
homophobic nature. I will continue to make the case for
protections against third-party harassment to be put in place,
and I hope that the Government will listen and continue to work
with the Fawcett Society and the wider alliance for women to
bring the required legislation forward in the next
Parliament.
I am content that as of today we have reached a consensus on a
pragmatic way forward. It is vital that we send a clear signal
that sexual harassment in the workplace is not acceptable and
steps should be taken to prevent it. I am grateful for the
cross-party support and particularly the support of the
Government. I ask the House to accept the Lords amendments so
that this Bill can pass into law. No one should have to wait any
longer for this vital step towards safer and more respectful
workplaces.
(Devizes) (Con)
I do not propose to divide the House today and I am happy that we
have got to a place where the Bill has been effectively gutted by
their lordships. I am happy with the cross-party consensus on
where we have got to. It is right that we have removed the
third-party liability, but there is something regrettable about
the way this Bill has developed. There was a good moment when, in
response to pressure from their lordships, the Government
proposed to introduce a new defence against Equality Act
harassment, whereby it should be possible to defend a suit on the
grounds that there was no intention to injure the injured party,
and merely overheard conversations and civil discussions, be they
among colleagues or customers, should not be liable to legal
action. That was a good step; it developed and improved our
equalities law. In response to pressure from the other place, the
Government have now withdrawn the third-party liability measure,
which is a good thing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for
Southend West () that we are now in a position
to abstain from opposing this Bill.
However, we need to debate our equalities framework in this
country. Fundamentally, we need to stop bringing forward what I
call performative legislation intended simply to outlaw behaviour
we disapprove of, immoral conversations, bad manners, and action
likely to cause hurt and distress. We cannot legislate against
all of those actions and if we try—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will be happy to give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. I
recognise that we all intend to do the right thing by bringing
forward this legislation. I recognise that the Government are
trying to do the right thing, as is the hon. Member for Bath
(). However, we get into all
sorts of trouble when Opposition Members get hold of this sort of
law in Committee and when the courts are required to judge on
what will necessarily be obscure language about the management of
human relations and free speech. The precedent being set by this
law is dangerous.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of the damage that is
done in a workplace, which leaves an individual, perhaps a young
one in their first employment, feeling undermined, damaged,
bullied and harassed, often comes from exactly the sort of casual
conversation they overhear in a canteen or in the office? The
intent of the Bill was not to be restrictive of people, but to
protect young people in the workplace, on whom these things can
have a huge impact.
The hon. Lady defines exactly the issue. She talks about the
intent of the Bill being to protect people from feeling
distressed, which I think is absolutely right—we should all
intend that—but it is difficult for law to manage and protect
people’s feelings. The consequence of writing that into black and
white means that we then require courts to adjudicate on all
sorts of very difficult emotional issues.
The hon. Lady talks about the intent behind the Bill. We all
intend the right thing here. We are all in unity that we
disapprove of harassment and incivility, but we disapprove of all
sorts of things that we cannot and should not try to criminalise.
The consequence of criminalising bad manners—even very bad
manners—is fundamentally to curtail free speech and the freedom
upon which all of our civility as a society depends.
I am glad that we are having this discussion in a very respectful
way, because that is how it should work. I recognise that that
discussion may not have been had enough and we need a little more
time having it. Does the hon. Gentleman think that legislation
guides better behaviour and that, for that reason, it is
important that we pass certain laws? That is the intention of the
Bill. As I say, I have accepted the Lords amendment, but does he
agree that legislation guides better behaviour and that is what
we should aim for?
This is an important discussion. The hon. Lady is saying that the
law is a teacher—indeed, it is—and influences the culture. It is
also true that the law needs to reflect the culture, so we
modernise our legislative framework in response to public opinion
and how things are. We now legalise things that were illegal in
the past in response to the way culture evolves.
However, the law is a teacher in a bad way too. It can introduce
negative effects into our culture and chill free speech. It can
inhibit the sorts of conversation that are necessary for the
development and progress of our society, which is a topic that
will come up later in other legislation. There were significant
attempts during the pandemic to effectively criminalise or
inhibit free speech around the pandemic response, on exactly the
same grounds that we might use in this debate, namely that it is
important for public protection and the protection of the
vulnerable that misinformation, disinformation and, in this
context, harassment should be criminalised. That was wrong, and I
really worry about the possible chilling effect of this
legislation.
A narrow gap is left in this law to criminalise free speech. Many
Members will raise the outrageous and unacceptable behaviour that
many employees have to put up with in the workplace—I recognise
that too. We absolutely need to insist that that does not happen,
but that is a job for the culture and for employers. In a sense,
it is a job for all of us to instil the right sort of moral
conduct in our communities, but frankly it is impossible to write
legislation in black and white that achieves the outcomes the
hon. Lady wishes without also inhibiting free speech.
I will end with an observation about another piece of legislation
that I understand is being contemplated for the King’s Speech: a
conversion therapy ban. I am afraid that that is another instance
where, under the noble and honourable impulse to stop outrageous
and unacceptable practices going on, we are proposing a piece of
performative legislation in response to a vocal and activist
lobby group that will put into law an imprecise and fuzzy set of
moral aspirations. Once Opposition Members get hold of it in
Committee, on Third Reading and in the House of Lords, the scope
will be expanded and then courts will be required to criminalise
conversations between adults and their therapists, parents and
children, which is exactly what happens in other countries where
this well-intentioned legislation has been passed into law. The
law is a teacher, but it is not an opportunity for moral
grandstanding and virtue signalling. We have an obligation to put
into black and white words that the courts clearly understand and
that do not end up curtailing free speech.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
It is a relief that we have this Bill back here today, given that
it was reported earlier in the year that it was likely to be
shelved, possibly because of the backlash we have just heard. The
Bill has come back from the other place, albeit heavily amended,
and it still represents a step in the right direction, albeit a
very small one. The hon. Member for Bath () has done a sterling job in
getting this Bill through the Parliamentary maze. She has been
extremely gracious and generous in her comments today, given what
is left in the Bill. I think it is a fine description to say that
it has been narrowed in scope. Alternatively, it could be
described, as the hon. Member for Devizes () has just done, as having had
the guts ripped out of it. I know which description suits what
has happened better.
10.00am
There is quite a contrast between what we have now and what we
had when the Bill started its journey through the House. The Bill
was never about criminalising free speech; it was about tackling
a real and live issue in the workplace.
When the Bill started its passage, Members rightly spoke in
unison about the appalling scale and nature of sexual harassment
in Britain’s workplaces. Indeed, we should all be deeply
concerned about the numbers of women facing harassment at work.
The latest data from the Government show that nearly one in three
employees experienced some form of sexual harassment in the
previous year. That means that 4.7 million women each year
experience harassment in the workplace, and we know that the
impact on those victims can be profound. We know that it can lead
to a variety of harms, including psychological, physical and
economic harms, and all too often the perpetrators get away with
it. According to recent data, 41% of perpetrators of sexual
harassment see no sanction at all. Meanwhile, 17% of those who
are sexually harassed end up working elsewhere due to their
experiences. In 2023, that is not good enough. Those figures
speak for themselves about why parliamentary intervention is
needed.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
I am glad that we are supporting this Bill. My hon. Friend talks
about women being subject to sexual harassment, and we know that
the problem is endemic, but it also seems that, increasingly,
young men are reporting that they are falling foul of that—even
in this place. It is really important that we recognise that men,
particularly younger men, can be victims as well.
Yes, that is absolutely right. The Equality Act is framed in such
a way that it protects everyone from harassment on the basis of
their sex. I think that we now have a Bill that, after the
amendments, to our regret will not protect workers from
third-party harassment. The duty to take all reasonable steps has
now been reduced or watered down to taking reasonable steps. We
are disappointed that the Bill returns in a form that looks very
different from what was originally passed by this House. It seems
that the original good intentions of the Bill have—to use the
terms of the hon. Member for Devizes—been “gutted”, and I am
sorry to say that seems to have been with the support of the
Government. Let us not forget that, when the Bill passed through
the Commons originally, it did have support from the Government
and it also had cross-party support, which is a rarity these
days. Therefore, it is extremely disappointing that the
democratically elected House seems to have given in to the
unelected Lords, seemingly with the endorsement of the
Government.
I have to say that the Government’s decision to support the Lords
amendments that have taken the guts out of the Bill is
frustrating, given that the Bill was enacting pledges that the
Government had made.
The Minister for Women ()
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that this is the Bill of
the hon. Member for Bath () and it is up to her to
decide which amendments she does or does not accept? The
Government have fully supported the hon. Lady. This is not a
Government decision; it is part of the parliamentary process.
I thank the Minister for her comments. The Government have a
majority, so if they wanted to keep the Bill in its original form
they could have ensured that it passed. Let me quote what she
said at Committee stage. She said that
“the Government committed to a package of new measures aimed at
reducing incidences of workplace harassment. That includes the
two legislative measures being brought forward in the Bill:
explicit protections for employees from workplace harassment by
third parties, such as customers and clients; and a duty on
employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees
from experiencing sexual harassment.”––[Official Report, Worker
Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Public Bill
Committee, 23 November 2022; c. 10.]
It is true that I have accepted the Lords amendment. Indeed, it
was ultimately me who proposed that we should go all the way in
order to preserve one thing that I find incredibly important,
which is the preventive duty on employers. Does the hon. Member
not agree that this is an important step and for that reason it
is right that I accept the Lords amendment?
I accept what the hon. Member says. We will certainly not oppose
the Bill, but we do have to challenge the Minister on why she has
changed her mind, given that, last year, she said that the
measures in the Bill
“continue to form a key part of the Government’s national
strategy for tackling violence against women and
girls.”––[Official Report, Worker Protection (Amendment of
Equality Act 2010) Public Bill Committee, 23 November 2022; c.
10.]
Why have the Government decided to change their mind on it? It
seems to me that they have folded to pressure from their Back
Benchers. Let us not forget that the Bill came about as a result
of an extensive Government consultation, which received more than
4,000 responses.
It is not necessarily for me to come to the Government’s defence
here, but I think the hon. Gentleman is tying himself up in knots
with his argument. The amendment was passed in the House of
Lords. He will have noticed, I am sure, that the Government do
not have a majority in that House, so they cannot be held
responsible for an amendment passed in it. If the Government had
done as he asked by overturning the Lords amendment, the Bill
would have fallen altogether, so I am not entirely sure what he
is arguing for.
I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that we vote regularly on
Lords amendments in this place, and that the Government use their
majority to overturn them. The point that I am trying to make is
this: where does this leave Government policy on the issue? The
Fawcett Society found that 56% of women working in the
hospitality sector, and 47% of those working in the services
industry, have faced sexual harassment in the workplace. What
will the Government do about that?
If the hon. Gentleman wished to press the matter to a vote as a
point of principle, he could vote down the Lords amendment. I am
sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes () would be delighted if he
did, because in doing so he would guarantee that the whole Bill
fell. Is that really what he wants?
No, that is not what I want, which is why I have said that we
will not oppose the amendment, but we are still entitled to
express our disappointment about the capitulation. The Equality
and Human Rights Commission’s 2018 report found
“a quarter of those reporting harassment saying the perpetrators
were third parties”
and that third-party sexual harassment was dealt with poorly and
considered
“a ‘normal’ part of the job”
by some employers. I do not think that is a situation that we
should defend. Let us be clear: we would not have objected to the
Bill if that had been in place—we certainly would have supported
it—but we will support it as it stands because, as the hon.
Member for Bath said, it is an important step in the right
direction, albeit a much smaller step than originally
intended.
The question remains: what is the Government’s plan to deal with
third-party harassment? If they will not bring forward a
legislative solution, what do they intend to do? If there were a
repeat of the scenes at the Presidents Club tomorrow, what would
be the consequences for the perpetrators? We need answers to
those questions.
Despite the removal of the word “all” from the Bill, the duty to
prevent sexual harassment is, as the hon. Member for Bath said, a
new duty that represents a positive step forward. Establishing
that preventive duty will shift the emphasis away from a reliance
on individuals reporting harassment to employers and will
encourage employers to take preventive steps. We are
optimistic—we can be—and hope that the Bill will drive structural
change by fundamentally shifting the responsibility from the
individual to the institution, but what that will mean in reality
and how much capacity the EHRC will have to investigate
complaints remains to be seen. Its responsibility to create a
statutory code of practice should mean that the focus will be
more on working with employers. Does the Minister have any
information on when she expects that statutory code of practice
to be published, should the Bill be passed, and will it draw
mainly from the non-statutory code of practice that has already
been produced?
We believe that everyone should be able to go to work safe from
sexual harassment, knowing that their employer has taken steps to
create a safe working environment. That is why a Labour
Government would go much further than the House has today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath () on progressing this Bill,
which tackles the important issue of sexual harassment in the
workplace. I thank her for the pragmatism she has shown to ensure
that the Bill can progress with agreement from across the House.
It is slightly disappointing to see the shadow Minister, the hon.
Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (), take such a partisan
approach, because the Bill has had cross-party support throughout
all its stages.
It is often very difficult for private Members’ Bills to pass
through this place, but the Government have fully supported the
Bill, because it is such an important issue to tackle. We have
especially made time for an additional sitting Friday, to ensure
that the Bill passes. We remain committed to tackling sexual
harassment in the workplace by introducing the employer duty, to
strengthen protections in the Equality Act 2010.
While I note the concerns from my hon. Friends the Members for
Southend West () and for Devizes (), I am very pleased that
consensus has been reached here and in the other place, and I
hope Members will agree that this important Bill should now be on
the statute book. I would like to particularly thank my hon.
Friend the Member for Devizes, who has some genuine concerns
about the Bill that he has expressed today and at previous
stages.
This is a difficult subject. While there may be differences in
views and opinions, I am really pleased that the hon. Member for
Bath has been able to progress the Bill through both Houses,
because we need to make our workplaces better and safer. That is
particularly true for women. We have heard recently about some of
the experiences of female surgeons in the healthcare system. With
my other hat on as a Health Minister, I am particularly pleased
that this legislation will hopefully prevent some of those
experiences in future.
I turn to the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 leaves out
clause 1, to remove the proposed liability of employers for
third-party harassment in the workplace. I am glad to hear that
the amendment to remove this third-party harassment liability
eases concerns that it could have had a chilling effect on free
speech in the workplace. I am pleased that that has been
addressed. There are some—I know the hon. Member for Bath is one
of them—who are disappointed that the amendment has removed the
third-party harassment liability, for very valid reasons, but
this is about getting a compromise, so that we get the majority
of the measures in the Bill through this place.
The Government believe it is important that workers are protected
against this form of harassment, and good employers are already
taking steps to ensure that their employees are protected from
harassment by third parties, regardless of the legal position.
However, to progress the Bill, we have had to be pragmatic,
acknowledge the complexities at play and find a suitable balance.
While we want to strengthen protections, we also do not wish to
infringe on individuals’ rights to freedom of speech. Everyone
has the right to their views and to debate them just as we are
doing today, respecting others’ views in the process. The aim of
the Bill is to tackle workplace harassment and not limit people’s
freedoms. It is important to remember that, despite the removal
of the third-party harassment provision, the Bill will still
introduce a new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to
prevent sexual harassment.
The Government’s priority is to ensure that the legislation works
effectively. We have consistently consulted with a wide range of
stakeholders and have listened to all their views. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Southend West has consulted with her
chamber of commerce, the Government have done so more widely.
When concerns regarding the potential chilling effect on free
speech were first raised as the Bill progressed through the
Commons, the Government took on board those issues. It was feared
that employers may take unreasonable or drastic measures to avoid
liability for harassment of their staff, particularly by third
parties, to the extent that they would feel obliged to shut down
conversations in the workplace. While employers will be expected
to take action against workplace harassment, we recognise that
those actions should fall short of prohibiting conversations.
Free speech is crucial to our way of life, and it is important
that we found a way forward.
With over 40 amendments tabled to the Bill in the other place
following its Second Reading on 24 March, even after the
Government tabled their amendment, it was clear that there
remained concerns that the Bill would still have a chilling
effect on free speech. The Government took those amendments very
seriously, as they were fatal to the Bill. In our engagement with
stakeholders and peers, we heard the strong concern, particularly
about the third-party harassment issues, so we were eager to find
a balance and a way forward for the Bill to reach the statute
book with cross-party support. Therefore, the Government have
been pragmatic and alive to the issues raised, and consensus was
reached with peers by removing all but two of their amendments.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and
Neston, did not comment on the other amendments—over 38 of
them—that we managed to get removed.10.15am
On 14 July in Committee, the Lords amended the Bill to remove
from it the proposed liability of employers for third-party
harassment in the workplace, which we are asking Members to
support today. Again, I have said all along that we will not be
introducing protection against third-party harassment. It has to
be remembered that we will still be introducing a new duty on
employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment
in the workplace, so I hope hon. Members can see that we are
strengthening protections, but we have to be alive to the
concerns of the other place.
We have accepted Lords amendment 2—to leave out the word “all” in
clause 2, page 2, line 27—which changes the requirement on
employers in respect of their duty to prevent sexual harassment
from taking “all reasonable steps” to taking “reasonable steps”.
I understand that the removal of “all” means that that duty does
not go as far as the hon. Member for Bath would originally have
liked, but it does reassure Members in the other place that the
introduction of a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to
prevent sexual harassment will strengthen protection for
workers.
Before I close, I will touch on the concerns expressed by my hon.
Friend the Member for Devizes. It is important to say that the
Government recognise that sexual harassment in the workplace
exists, and while protecting free speech is important, we
constantly hear of these experiences, day in and day
out—particularly the experiences of women, but the hon. Member
for Bristol East () touched on the harassment
of men as well. We cannot stand by and let that continue.
Guidance and measures are already in place to encourage employers
to protect their employees, and the tribunal system is in place
as well, but that is clearly not enough, which is why the Bill is
so important. However, we have listened to the concerns around
the impact on freedom of speech.
I am very happy to support the hon. Member for Bath, and thank
her again for all her work in this place on the Bill and for her
pragmatism. I know that the amendments were difficult ones to
accept, but this Bill will make a difference to the safety of
workers in the workplace, and I congratulate her on her work.
Private Members’ Bills are fragile things: they rely on
cross-party support, but also support in both Houses. For that
reason, it was very important to be pragmatic; otherwise, the
whole Bill would have fallen. I am grateful for the Government’s
patience and their support for the part of the Bill that we all
can agree is so important, which is to create a preventive duty
on employers. If the Bill passes today, it will be a good day,
and I hope everybody will be able to support the amendments so
that it can pass.
Lords amendment1 agreed to.
Lords amendment 2 agreed to.
|
