Employment Rights Bill

Committee (5th Day)

Amendment 99

99: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause— “Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence;(ii) sexual harassment;(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;(vi) threats of violence.”(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures. (3D) In this section, “persons working in their workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.””Member's explanatory statement This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.

My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for signing Amendments 99 and 100. As I open the debate on them, I look forward to hearing from all Members who would like to engage on this very important topic of tackling workplace gender-based violence and harassment.

First, I thank the Minister for meeting me ahead of today to discuss these amendments. I am grateful for the engagement on this matter and hope that it continues. I also thank a number of organisations for their support in the drafting of the amendments: the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Rights of Women and the Workers Policy Project. The formation of the amendments began with the Private Member’s Bill to the same effect tabled by my Plaid Cymru colleague in the other place, Liz Saville Roberts, who is below the Bar today. Finally, I thank Mr Richard Spinks for sharing his personal story. Mr Spinks has experienced the most devastating consequence of the inadequacy of protections against gender-based violence in the workplace in the tragic loss of his daughter, Gracie, and I am thankful to him for showing his support for these amendments.

Amendments 99 and 100 attempt to tackle those very inadequacies in employee protections. By amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Amendment 99 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment, including risk assessments and policy development. It would provide recognition and prevention training to all employees. Amendment 100 would mandate the Health and Safety Executive to develop and publish an enforceable health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and issue guidance for employers in collaboration with relevant bodies.

The prevalence of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace across the UK shows that interventions such as these amendments are unfortunately absolutely necessary. The Government Equalities Office’s survey in 2020 found that 29% of those in employment reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or workplace environment in the previous 12 months, and only 15% reported it. A 2024 study by Sheffield Hallam University found that sexual harassment is particularly high in traditionally male-dominated and female-dominated industries, and highest in hospitality. Given that workers may be unlikely to recognise some of their experiences as sexual harassment, these numbers are probably much higher in reality. This is also true of gender-based violence, psychological and emotional abuse, physical and sexual abuse, stalking and harassment, and threats of violence. In fact, 56% of calls to Rights of Women’s sexual harassment at work advice line are made up of reports of sexual assault, rape, stalking and coercive control.

As I said during Second Reading, Clauses 19 to 22 are positive measures and I am certain they will bring some difference to workers. However, these clauses limit interventions to sexual harassment alone. As I have set out today, this could leave victims and potential victims of other gender-based violence in the workplace outside the Bill’s protection, as it fails to get employers to address the other forms of gender-based violence.

I also note that Clauses 19 to 21 amend the Equality Act 2010, meaning that their regulation would naturally fall under the jurisdiction of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I recognise that the EHRC is believed by His Majesty’s Government to be better placed to regulate harassment, with the police then handling complaints of workplace sexual harassment, but I take issue with this argument. First, the EHRC’s mandate limits its ability to address the health and safety implications of gender-based violence in the workplace because the Equality Act addresses sexual harassment as discrimination and does so at the exclusion of other forms of gender-based violence, leaving them without real regulation. The EHRC also has weak enforcement powers and resources in this respect and is unable to impose fines on employers.

Secondly, this argument fails to recognise that most victim survivors do not recognise their experience as harassment and might therefore not make a complaint to the police. In fact, according to the “End not Defend” campaign, a series of FOIs submitted to each police force found an acknowledgement that harassment is, overall, not recorded as happening in the workplace. Of course, the police can only take action against individual perpetrators under criminal law, allowing employers to evade accountability. This landscape is exactly why I have brought forward these two amendments.

The ILO published a report in 2024 that recommended creating a comprehensive approach to preventing and addressing gender-based violence in the workplace, including sexual harassment, through enhanced health and safety frameworks. These included mandatory policies that explicitly acknowledged gender-based violence through risk assessment and management, and through training. So that is what we have put forward. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 mandates that employers have a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees at work as far as is reasonably practical.

Amendments 99 and 100 amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act by establishing a new duty on employers to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace under the watchful eye of the Health and Safety Executive. Unlike the EHRC, the HSE can enforce compliance with health and safety regulations through inspections, fines and prosecution. As “End not Defend” makes clear, increased enforcement powers could provide early intervention in cases that do not meet the legal threshold.

Recognising sexual harassment and violence in the workplace as a health and safety issue is not a novel idea. In fact, many countries across the globe have adapted their health and safety laws accordingly, with Sweden and Australia establishing legal duties requiring employers to prevent harassment. Countries such as Belgium and Finland treat harassment as a workplace hazard that requires assessment and prevention. It makes complete sense to utilise the authority of respected health and safety legislation to tackle workplace gender-based harassment and violence. It is, after all, the toughest mechanism we have in the workplace. The commendable and welcome aim of His Majesty’s Government to halve violence against women and girls by the end of the decade is exactly why these amendments are necessary. This aim requires a cross-departmental and public health approach that goes beyond a focus on the criminal justice response and must include employers as part of the solution.

Leveraging health and safety legal frameworks that are already in place would require employers to actively work towards eliminating gender-based violence. It would establish a structured, systematic and publicly enforceable approach to the prevention of, and the safeguarding of women from, gender-based violence in the workplace. As such, I hope that the Minister will speak with government colleagues and fully consider these amendments as an opportunity to incorporate the prevention of gender-based violence in the workplace within the wider strategy to end violence against women, as I believe it is a necessary step to reach that worthy goal, which I support.

Both these amendments place an onus on employers to take responsibility for safety in their workplaces by prioritising victim protection and treating harassment and violence as a serious issue that requires deliberate intervention. That means mandatory risk assessments, health and safety oversight to enforce employer accountability, and victim-centred policies to shift the focus away from tick-box compliance. That means meaningful support and preventive actions for workers and employees. This is what my amendment seeks to do. The support of an expert organisation and trade unions shows the appetite for this kind of change within workplaces. We need it. What we have is just not robust enough to adequately protect individuals in the workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points I have raised, and I hope His Majesty’s Government consider the arguments I have made today as the Employment Rights Bill makes its way through this place. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am very happy to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, having worked for many years before she came to the House on domestic abuse issues.

Nobody would disagree with the Government having this priority to reduce violence against women and girls; it is a no-brainer, given where we are starting from. The examples in the workplace of things going wrong, often in plain sight, are embarrassing, and the list the noble Baroness put before us, which I will briefly repeat in part, demonstrates that it is just the tip of the iceberg.

When I was a head-hunter, for many years I specialised in HR—sometimes known as “human refuse” or “human remains”, but otherwise known as personnel—and Harrods was known as a revolving door for HR directors. Any personnel director who looked at an offer of employment from Mr Fayed—he actually was just Mr Mohamed Fayed; he added the “al” because it makes you sound posher in Egypt—and who had done their homework knew what they were in for. Even people who took a deep breath and, for a large amount of money, took on that role rarely lasted more than 12 months. It really was supping with the devil, and it was widely known, but nobody did anything about it.

The BBC has been mentioned, as well as the NHS. The fact that female employees, surgeons included, in the NHS have reported rape—both allegations of rape and actual rape—over many years is inconceivable in principle but is and has been taking place.

The case of Gracie Spinks was mentioned. I too had the privilege of listening to her father as he spoke of his anguish at the death of his daughter. That is an interesting example. The company where the person who killed her, and who then killed himself, worked, Xbite, had a grand total of 140 employees. So, as we think through how to deal with this, how can we help organisations such as that, which had started up only five years before, to understand the co-responsibilities they have with their employees to try to protect them in the working environment? But also, how do we make that practical and effective?

My Lords, I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is not able to be here today, and she has signed both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes.

The noble Baroness made an excellent opening speech and has covered almost everything, but I think it is worth repeating that what we are trying to do here is provide workplaces that are safe, free from violence and free from gender-based harassment. As we heard during an Oral Question earlier, sexism and misogyny are on the rise in our society, and that impacts on women and girls—probably girls, particularly—of all ages. It is crucial that the Government take this seriously.

We are not asking employers to sit down and think what they have to do from scratch, because this research has been done before. There is an excellent project conducted by the Fawcett Society that identifies five key requirements to create a workplace that does not tolerate sexual harassment: culture, policy, training, reporting mechanisms and the way that employers respond to reports. Successful and lasting change needs sustained commitment, and the Fawcett Society shows the way forward—or a way forward. Of course, that, with a great deal of other existing research, is something that the Health and Safety Executive could draw on.

The size of the problem is probably indicated by research from Scotland; there is no reason to think that the issue there is larger than anywhere else on these islands. Last year, a study reported that 70% of women in Scotland reported having experienced or witnessed sexual harassment in the workplace and that 80% of those never reported it to their employer. Those are absolutely terrible statistics. I am sure that the Government want to do something about this, not least because lower-paid and younger workers are particularly vulnerable. This is something that the Government will surely want to address because there are an awful lot of votes out there from younger people and, at the next general election, this Labour Government might need them.