Select committee: Women and Equalities Committee

The use of non-disclosure agreements in discrimination cases inquiry

Closed Opened 5 Nov 2018 Closed 5 Nov 2018
Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
The Government must reset the parameters around the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and address the failure of the employment tribunal system to ensure all employees who have experienced discrimination have a meaningful route of redress. In the report, MPs condemn the routine cover-up of allegations of unlawful discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and the fact that some employers fail to investigate allegations of unlawful discrimination properly - or at all. The report highlights the difficulties of pursuing a case at employment tribunal and the substantial imbalance of power that can exist between employers and employees which can drive employees to feel that they have little choice but to reach a settlement that prohibits them from speaking out. Following its recent inquiry into sexual harassment in the workplace, which recommended that the Government should clean up the use of NDAs in sexual harassment cases, the Committee today launches a new inquiry to look at the wider use of NDAs in cases where any form of harassment or other discrimination is alleged. This might include, for example, pregnancy or maternity discrimination or racist abuse.

Where it stands

The inquiry is closed, opened 5 November 2018.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently 9th Report - The use of non-disclosure agreements in discrimination cases on 11 June 2019.

The government's response

Published 29 October 2019.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government welcomes the report and agrees it is unacceptable for discrimination cases to be covered up by NDAs, while also stating that NDAs have a "legitimate place" and setting out its own reforms.

  • It has committed to legislate so that NDAs cannot prevent disclosures to the police, regulated health and care professionals and legal professionals, and must clearly set out their limitations.
  • On a mandatory duty to investigate all complaints, it agrees employers should investigate but prefers "some flexibility", and will consider the proposal further with stakeholders.
  • It does not support naming specific directors for NDA and anti-discrimination oversight, citing a risk to collective board responsibility, and says the whole Board should have that responsibility.
  • It has not taken forward making it a criminal offence to propose certain clauses, saying existing and proposed measures are proportionate, but "remains open to considering stronger sanctions in the future".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Reports

1 report

Oral evidence sessions

10 sessions

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

Date Session and witnesses Source
24 Apr 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
3 Apr 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
27 Mar 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
20 Mar 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
20 Mar 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
13 Mar 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
6 Mar 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
13 Feb 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
23 Jan 2019
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗
19 Dec 2018
Oral evidence session
No witnesses recorded
View ↗