Contribution
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 83, 85, 86 and 88 in my name. I am sure noble Lords will have noticed that, after the Second Reading of this Bill, media reports the next day focused disproportionately on what was reported as the absurdity of employers being held responsible for employees who are offended by third parties in situations in which the employers had no control over who said what, to whom, when, why or where. The “where” aspect is important, because this also applies to real or imaginary offence taken by employees off-site of the employer’s premises. It was rightly reported the next day as an Alice in Wonderland proposal, where the whole concept of responsibility is turned topsy-turvy. Another reported it less kindly as “bonkers”, and yet another as a new way for unscrupulous lawyers to make a killing.
One can only imagine the fresh media ridicule to which your Lordships’ House will be exposed if it allows Clause 20 to go through unamended. Of course, it is no ridicule for employers, or taxpayers where this happens in the public sector, but potentially a very expensive and time-consuming burden on them, and wide open to vexatious misuse.
Amendment 83 would the remove employers having to be responsible for their customers being overheard talking about matters of the day. If the proposers of the Bill had visited a pub, for example, they would know that a pub is a Parliament in which customers have just as much right to discuss the ways of the world as we do here in this Parliament.
Amendment 85 refers to the hospitality sector, sports venues and higher education settings. To give an example close to home of why it is needed in the hospitality sector, let us say that I invited someone to visit me here in your Lordships’ House and this person did not have English as his or her first language. Let us say, further, that my guest had stopped off at the Red Lion on the way here for refreshments, and that, after our meeting, I took him or her down to the River Restaurant for a quick meal. If this guest happened to see that one of the items on the menu was a curry, and remarked to the unprotected-characteristic employee serving the curry that no one in England knows how to make a proper curry, and if that remark was overheard by a chef with a protected characteristic, then the overhearing person could take real or vexatious offence, and the House of Lords could be taken to the tribunal, or more likely, after several months and thousands of pounds, there would be a pre-tribunal taxpayer-funded pay-off.
I am sure that noble Lords do not need reminding that such vexatious claims are a significant contributor to the 50,000 tribunal case hearings and one-year waiting-time backlog. We would indeed then be laughing stocks for allowing our own legislation to be used against us like this, or even to exist at all in the wider context.
That Amendment 85 should apply also to sports venues would be obvious if the proposers had attended any sports event, where support for a competing individual or team is necessarily enthusiastic and often boisterous. The crowd’s speech is so impossible for the venue employer to control that, if a protected-characteristic steward took offence at a remark aimed indirectly at an official, the employer would inevitably raise waivers with the organisers, who might quite reasonably think the whole idea is not worth the candle, and so unintended consequences would strike again. This is what we recently saw with the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act, leading to long-standing local events—in one case, a 150 year-old local flower show—being cancelled because it was caught in the collateral damage of well-intentioned legislation, just like this part of the Bill that we are discussing now.
Amendment 85 also seeks to exempt higher education settings, where, surely, hearing and coping with diverse opinions is what education is supposed to be about. Amendment 86 seeks to remove any offence taken by casual overhearing if that happens just once, by applying a rule that would rely on the offender causing offence on purpose rather than by mistake, casually, or—with the recent enormous rise in employees whose first language is not English—doing so through an understandable lack of familiarity with the language, with its nuances, subtexts, sarcasms and ironies that a native speaker would understand.
Amendment 88 seems the most reasonable of all, removing the overhearing aspect of the legislation, which is the one most open to vexatious claims, and for which, surely, no employer can reasonably be held responsible in any foreseeable circumstances.
I hope that, after hearing all the arguments against Clause 20, the Government will agree that these amendments would remove the most egregious parts of it and bring an element of reality to bear on these unforeseeable and uncontrollable circumstances in which employers might find themselves.