PM's reforms to workplace gagging orders amount to little more than a PR exercise

The May Government is regularly written up as the worst administration run by the worst Prime Minister featuring the worst secretary of state (Chris Grayling at Transport) of all time.

The need for it to secure some good publicity, any good publicity, could thus be seen as paramount.

Step forward Sir Philip Green in the role of big, bad dragon, armoured with an impenetrable hide of non disclosure agreements that May has decided to ride in on her fiery charger to slay.

He wasn’t mentioned in this morning’s government press release announcing “new legal measures to protect workers from misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)” that are typically attached to settlement agreements between employers and poorly treated former employees.

But the Arcadia boss fired up the debate after the The Daily Telegraph was blocked from publishing a story about his alleged conduct because people accusing him of a range of unpleasant behaviours had signed NDAs.

Sir Philip, who has denied claims made against him, was only identified after being named in Parliament under the clock of Parliamentary privilege.

In response to this and other such cases, the law is, we are told, to be tightened up, with the government proposing to prevent employers from using gagging clauses to stop staff reporting criminal behaviour, harassment or discrimination to police.

Here’s the problem with that: Lawyers tell me that an NDA that prevented them from doing that wouldn’t likely stand up in court as things stand. I'm also told that the NDA agreements signed by Sir Philip's former employees didn't prevent them from approaching the police.

Sir Philip’s behaviour, if it was as reported (and to repeat, he has denied it) was pretty awful. Police have been asked to investigate in the UK. They're reportedly doing so in the US.

But casual racism and sexism need to clear a depressingly high bar for them to attract the interest of the criminal authorities.

“Over the past couple of years we have seen brave individuals breaking silence on such behaviour, but too many are still facing the unethical misuse of non-disclosure agreements by their employers,” said the Prime Minister. Stirring stuff. But as ever when she indulges in such lofty rhetoric, when you look into what’s behind it it you quickly realise it ain’t all that.

There are some other bits and pieces too. The government says it wants to “extend the law to ensure the worker agreeing to confidentiality agreements receives independent legal advice on the limitations”. Again, they really ought to get now.

It also wants them to be given a written description of their rights before anything is signed in confidentiality clauses in employment contracts, or within a settlement agreement. And again, that ought to be there now.

I suppose you just about could argue that these measures may result in some employers being a tad more cautious than they had in the past. But that’s about it. Beyond that they really don’t amount to much. What’s really changing here?

As TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “This isn’t a serious attempt to change workplace culture.”

Even many supporters quoted today say the measures don’t go far enough. And they are right. Rather than a genuine attempt to foster change that may lead to a more harmonious workplace environment, these measures amount to little more than a PR stunt. And a cynical one at that.