ILO Convention 190

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the UK’s implementation of ILO Convention 190, which recognises the right to be free from violence and harassment in the workplace.

My Lords, the UK ratified ILO Convention 190 in March 2022, demonstrating its commitment to preventing and addressing violence and harassment in the workplace. We have a robust legislative framework in place, consisting of strong health and safety at work and discrimination laws. We are confident that these meet the convention’s requirements. These protections will be further strengthened through the Employment Rights Act 2025, which includes a requirement for employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and harassment by third parties.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, if one in five workers reports feeling at risk of violence at work, on what basis are His Majesty’s Government confident that existing legislation is sufficient to result in prevention, rather than simply to respond to the harm once it has occurred?

The noble Baroness is obviously right and correct that we need to be concerned about prevention and building a culture of positive employers’ attitudes towards tackling harassment and victimisation in the workplace, rather than simply relying on tackling harm when it is caught.

However, we have very strong laws and regulations in place right now. As I said, harassment is covered under the Equality Act 2010, which was recently strengthened in October 2024 to place a specific duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The noble Baroness will remember well the debates we had in Committee on the then Employment Rights Bill, now Act, where we changed the law to toughen it up further so that employers must take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment before it starts and create and maintain workplaces free from harassment.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the rise in the number of reported harassment cases—certainly of women—means either that we have got a great rise in the number of incidents or that people are more prepared to report it? If so, can we make sure that there is an easier way of getting resolution of any complaint? Something that is merely reported and talked about will mean nothing unless there is an effective enforcement regime in place.

The noble Lord is right that enforcement is as much a part of tackling the issue as is creating solutions to the nature of workplace culture. The Employment Rights Act does a number of things in this regard. As well as what I have already mentioned, it voids non-disclosure agreements between employers and workers that prevent a woman speaking out about relevant harassment and discrimination. It also strengthens protection for whistleblowers, making it explicit that sexual harassment can be the basis for protected disclosure. On top of all else, it creates the Fair Work Agency, which will monitor all these new workplace rights.

My Lords, an awful lot of these incidents occur because many people, in various kinds of workplace, either think the issue is a non-issue or that it is funny, or they just do not get it. How about, with companies that have been found guilty of not facing up to these problems properly and not dealing with them efficiently, taking some further action unless the company agrees and carries out proper training of its managers to ensure that they do understand what is wrong and spot things before they get out of hand?

My noble friend makes a very good point that enforcement has to be driven somewhat by example. It is important that we do not trivialise this issue, as some seek to do. I would widen that out past workplaces to the very issue of discrimination, harassment and violence against women and girls. That is why everybody in your Lordships’ House should be welcoming the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy that was published just before Christmas. We have a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. That is the way that we place women’s equality at the heart of the Government’s missions.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister help define what third-party non-sexual harassment employers will have a duty under Section 21 of the Employment Rights Act to take all reasonable steps to protect their employees from? In the past, when I have raised the spectre of that duty being extended to indirect harassment—for example, overheard conversations, jokes, remarks or witticisms—I have been pooh-poohed. Can the Minister assure us that I was just being alarmist and that, when the Government do produce their guidance on this issue, which I understand they are about to do, it will specifically say that business owners are not responsible for protecting their employees from overheard conversations, remarks, witticisms and jokes?

Well, I congratulate the noble Lord on getting through that question without mentioning the phrase “banter ban”. I am going to be absolutely clear: employers will not be penalised for failing to anticipate the unforeseeable or take other impractical steps. Employers cannot and are not expected to police or control every action of third parties. The measure does not change Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which applies in terms of interfering with the right to freedom of expression. It is clear that it is not about banning banter in a pub; it is about taking action against real hate, homophobia, racism and misogyny, which other customers or other workers should not have to face in this day and age.

Does the Minister agree that those in Downing Street should accept that the ILO convention applies to them as well when it comes to meting out violence and harassment on Labour colleagues whose only crime is that they think they could run the country better than the Prime Minister?

To answer the noble Lord’s question, yes, of course it applies in all workplaces, but I am not going to tell the NEC how to do its business.

My Lords, alongside many other people across this House, I welcome this Government’s focus on reducing violence, and in particular the introduction of those new measures on non-disclosure agreements that silenced thousands and thousands, particularly women, who were facing harassment. That is serious when you are at work trying to earn a living, so we should congratulate the Government on listening.

On the duty to prevent harassment, will my noble friend the Minister also listen to concerns that, at the moment, Health and Safety Executive workplace inspectors do not have a specific role to enforce that duty? If there are other ideas, I think people would be happy to listen to them, but can he reassure us that there will be a comprehensive enforcement regime for that duty to prevent harassment?

My noble friend is right to recognise the important step this Government have taken to avoid NDAs when it comes to prevention or speaking out about harassment and discrimination. Our Benches are very proud of that landmark piece of legislation in the Employment Rights Act. In terms of enforcement, as I have already said, one of the other things that the Employment Rights Act does is create the Fair Work Agency, which will be relevant in terms of enforcing all the new rights at work that the Act creates. Having said that, health and safety at work legislation still covers people at work in terms of work-related violence and other risks arising from work activities, and that will certainly still be in place enforcing those aspects.

Might I share with the Minister my concern that backlogs in employment tribunals have now reached record levels? He referred to the Employment Rights Act. That statute and the related work reforms will generate, on the Government’s own analysis, at least a 17% increase in claims before employment tribunals, so will he give a clear assurance that those involved with claims of violence and harassment at work will not face delayed justice because of employment tribunal backlogs and that the Government will provide the additional judges, staff and resources required to meet that expected rise in claims?

When it comes to talking about backlogs and underfunding in our criminal justice system, in fact our whole justice system, it takes a certain amount of chutzpah from those on the Benches opposite, who spent 14 years underfunding all aspects of our justice system, to then say, “Isn’t this going to be a problem?” We are investing in our criminal justice system, we have legislation going through your Lordships’ House to do just that, and I do not resile from my criticism of the Benches opposite for their failure to invest in our justice system.