Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)

My Lords, that was a fascinating debate. I am not a lawyer either, but I was very taken by the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, which I thought were quite superb, by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I thought my noble friend Lord Murray displayed exemplary moderation—I think that was his word—in his delivery. I cannot improve on the legal arguments made by the lawyers, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble and learned friend and my noble friend. For a moment I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, had—to use my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s phrase—subsumed his legal personality to be a creature of the state for a moment. He seemed to come back fighting, so I applaud him for that. Frankly, Clause 113 is one of the most chilling and illiberal proposals in the entire Bill, and there is competition for that accolade. Let us also consider somebody who has not been considered in this particular debate so far: employers. What sort of message does it send to them? Your employees’ silence cannot be taken as peace or resolution, but rather as a vacuum that the state may fill with litigation. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has a rather more touching faith in the state than I do. How does that promote trust or fair resolution in the workplace? I cannot see how it does. It would fuel paranoia, it invites conflict and it certainly undermines mediation. If a worker feels intimidated by their employer, as has been claimed before in these debates, do they really imagine that an employee will feel less intimidated by the prospect of a Secretary of State marching into their dispute, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, stated, without any liability and then turning it into a tribunal case in their name? That is not empowerment; it is political theatre at the expense of personal agency. We should not accept or normalise that. I have a question to those who have been pushing the argument about anonymity. I am not a defendant—or rather, I am not a lawyer; I may be a defendant—so I may have phrased this slightly incorrectly, but the defendant presumably will be known in these cases, and if the defendant is known, it is not especially difficult to find out who the plaintiff is. I think that is the correct terminology. So how on earth would granting an individual anonymity achieve the purpose that is desired? I do not get that—somebody would have to explain it to me. This clause represents a fundamentally dystopian instinct that the state can somehow supplant the will of the individual and act on their behalf without their active participation or consent. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that this is paternalism being taken to an authoritarian extreme. In this debate we have heard “ridiculous”, “manifestly absurd”, “ludicrous” and “bonkers”—which I think won on a split decision. But there is one last point. The tone of this debate has been to invite both horror and ridicule in equal measure. Is that really what the Government want to achieve with this piece of legislation?