Crackdown on pub banter will help anxious staff, says minister

Labour’s crackdown on pub banter will prevent staff from getting anxious at work, a minister has said.

Critics have warned new rules forcing pubs and universities to protect employees from third-party harassment could hinder free speech by encouraging people to “sue for hurt feelings”.

Peers will attempt to block the crackdown with changes to the Employment Rights Bill when it returns to Parliament next month.

But Lillian Greenwood, the roads minister, defended the Government’s plans on Wednesday, insisting people should be able to “come to work and give it their best without being anxious”.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned the proposed rules requiring companies to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent harassment of staff by third parties are too broad-brush and could lead to “excessive limitations on debate”.

Challenged on the watchdog’s concerns, Ms Greenwood told Times Radio: “It’s about getting that balance, isn’t it?

“People would expect to be able to have private conversations, but that has to be done in a way that isn’t going to affect the rights of other people to work in a safe and secure environment.”

Asked whether Labour was therefore “policing private conversations”, she said: “No. I think what I’m saying is that when people are at work, their employer has a duty to keep them safe and provide a suitable environment in the workplace for them to come to work and give it their best without being anxious.

“And it’s quite right that the House of Lords consider this legislation.”

It comes as peers are battling to shield pubs and universities from the new rules over fears they will hinder free speech.

Lord Young, who co-founded the Free Speech Union, has called for a sweeping overhaul of the Bill to ensure the venues are excluded from the crackdown.

As part of a series of amendments to the Bill, the Tory peer has proposed changes aimed at relieving pub bosses from acting as “banter cops”.

This includes not expecting pubs or universities to protect employees from overhearing conversations which they might find offensive about political or religious matters, “provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive”.

Speaking to The Telegraph, Lord Young said he was concerned the Bill would place a huge burden on certain businesses to monitor potentially offensive conversations.

Lord Young said it was unreasonable to expect bosses to “ask every customer to sign some kind of waiver whenever they enter a pub or restaurant”.

He added that including sports venues in the Bill would mean saying “no chants”, just in case what is said upsets a member of staff.

“The only way football clubs could comply is to insist on complete silence at football games,” he said.

He said universities were also a concern because it could mean that “woke activists” could block certain speakers.

Lord Young said he was convinced his amendments had a “fighting chance” of getting the nod after a number of fellow peers criticised the third-party harassment clause in the Bill last month.

Asked if the Government was looking again at the Bill amid concerns it could “threaten pubs with closure”, Ms Greenwood said: “I feel that’s an exaggeration.

“It’s about employers protecting their staff who are at work… It’s quite right that our colleagues in the House of Lords also debate and discuss the parts of that Bill, all parts of that legislation.

“But this is about protecting people’s workplace rights. We’re very proud that we’re introducing the best legislation there’s been in generations to ensure people are well protected at work.”