Employers could be banned from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence victims of workplace harassment and discrimination under new proposals set out by the government.
The consultation, launched on Wednesday, aims to prevent the misuse of NDAs that stop workers from speaking out about abuse or inappropriate behaviour, as part of wider reforms under the Employment Rights Act.
Ministers said the move is intended to tackle a culture where workers feel unable to report wrongdoing, amid concerns that confidentiality clauses have been used to protect employers rather than employees.
Consultation targets misuse of confidentiality clauses
The Department for Business and Trade said the proposals would set clear limits on when NDAs can be used and ensure workers remain free to discuss their experiences with appropriate parties, regardless of what they have signed.
 |
Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.
|
The consultation will also examine whether protections should extend beyond employees to include groups such as agency staff, volunteers and the self-employed.
Employment Rights Minister Kate Dearden said the government was seeking to end long-standing practices that have prevented victims from speaking openly.
“We are committed to ending a culture of silence and impunity and stand with all survivors of harassment and abuse in the workplace,” she said.
“These changes will ensure no one has to suffer in silence and give workers confidence that inappropriate behaviour will be dealt with.”
The changes follow years of campaigning by advocates including Zelda Perkins, founder of the campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence, who has called for stronger safeguards to prevent NDAs being used to conceal misconduct.
“This consultation is a decisive moment in the fight to end the silencing of victims,” Perkins said. “The government has made a positive commitment to deliver, but to make sure this legislation achieves its purpose, those who have suffered must speak up, loudly and clearly. By engaging with this consultation, victims can help ensure the legislation is strong, enforceable, and impossible to sidestep.”
She added that this was “the chance to create world-leading protections and finally stop the misuse of confidentiality agreements to hide wrongdoing”.
Evidence suggests many workers remain reluctant to report harassment. Research from the Young Women’s Trust previously found that one in four young women would hesitate to raise concerns for fear of losing their job.
And research from trade union Unite indicates that workplace harassment is often repeated behaviour, with nearly half of affected workers experiencing it more than twice.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks, with any resulting changes expected to come into force in 2027.
Concerns raised over potential loopholes
Legal experts have welcomed the direction of travel but warned that the details of the proposals will be critical to their effectiveness.
Georgina Calvert-Lee, a barrister specialising in employment law, equality and discrimination at London firm Bellevue Law, said the legislation already included provisions to void NDAs that prevent workers from disclosing harassment or discrimination.
“The Employment Rights Act 2025 includes a provision rendering void any confidentiality or non-disclosure clauses in agreements between an employer and a worker which purports to stop the worker disclosing information about harassment or discrimination in their workplace or the employer’s response to it,” she told HRreview. “The provision is currently expected to come into force in October 2026.”
She said the consultation would now consider whether similar protections should apply more widely and how the rules would operate in practice.
“In the meantime, the government has today opened a consultation on whether this prohibition should also apply to other individuals who are not “workers” — for example, volunteers or job applicants. Importantly, it also asks how this provision will be enforced in practice, including whether any NDAs should be permitted as an exception to the general prohibition,” she said.
Calvert-Lee warned that allowing exceptions could weaken the overall intent of the reforms if not handled carefully.
“This latter question has to be approached with care. The government has suggested that NDAs should be permitted where requested by the worker after they have received independent legal advice, paid for by the employer. This risks creating an exception that engulfs the rule.”
She added that existing practices around legal advice in settlement agreements already risk undermining worker protections.
“We see a similar subversion of the protection that employees take independent legal advice before signing a settlement agreement. In practice, employers offer such a small contribution to their worker’s legal fees that they are forced to make do with cursory advice that provides little more than a certificate to confirm they have secured a lawyer’s sign-off.
“Many cannot afford to pay the legal fees required to obtain proper advice on their own circumstances unless they are lucky enough to be served by a lawyer willing to waive over 75% of their usual fees.”
David Greenhalgh, an employment lawyer with Belfast-based Excello Law, told HRreview that women should retain the choice to settle claims privately with NDAs while ensuring safeguards prevent their misuse to silence victims.
“Women should be allowed to get justice on their own terms, and if that means they are happy to take a payment under the terms of a settlement agreement with an NDA, that is their choice,” he said.
“It is important that reforms prevent the misuse of NDAs to pressure or silence victims. However, care must also be taken to preserve the ability of individuals to make informed decisions about how they resolve their claims.
“Women should not be prevented from being able to get compensation for the mistreatment they have suffered nor should they be forced into the front line of women’s rights in the workplace unless they want to. Not every victim wishes to pursue litigation or become a public voice for workplace reform.”
The government said it would use responses to the consultation to shape final regulations, with the aim of creating stronger protections for workers while maintaining appropriate legal safeguards.
William Furney is a Managing Editor at Black and White Trading Ltd based in Kingston upon Hull, UK. He is a prolific author and contributor at Workplace Wellbeing Professional, with over 127 published posts covering HR, employee engagement, and workplace wellbeing topics. His writing focuses on contemporary employment issues including pension schemes, employee health, financial struggles affecting workers, and broader workplace trends.
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
