My Lords, I wish to state clearly that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not agree with Amendments 43, 44, 45 and 193 or their intentions. Throughout Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Young, consistently framed his amendments on this subject around the defence of what he terms banter, suggesting it as a justification for remarks that can be harmful in the workplace.
To us on these Benches, it is clear that the debate on this issue has been shaped by a somewhat misleading portrayal of the Bill’s aims. The amendment rests on a narrow and simplistic view of harassment that risks undermining protection for workers by focusing on policing private conversations rather than addressing the real problems of bullying and harassment.
I must also express concern over the repeated invocation of banter as a shield for inappropriate behaviour. Too often, the phrase has been used to excuse sexist, racist or otherwise discriminatory conduct. To say otherwise is discourteous.
If we undermine the protections the Bill offers, especially through amendments that narrow employers’ duties, we risk signalling that the experiences and well-being of their workers are of little consequence. We cannot and must not dismiss their right to a safe and respectful working environment.
I also express our fondness for Amendment 173 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which calls for the Secretary of State to establish a group to examine why employment levels for blind and partially sighted people remain low and below the national average. Regardless of whether that provision is included in the Bill, I sincerely hope the Government will give serious consideration to taking this important work forward.
Finally, we recognise the importance of clarity and hope the Government will be able to offer the clarity needed on the contents of regulations under this section of the Bill ahead of them being brought before the House. It is no secret that the level of scrutiny given to secondary legislation is, to put it mildly, wanting. This is a key element that will determine how effectively the protections in the Bill will operate.
I also reiterate a crucial question raised by my noble friend Lord Fox, who has stopped falling off the Alps and has now almost recovered. In Committee, he asked for Members of this House to have sight of the draft regulations under this section, and a clear explanation of how the guidelines will function alongside regulations. Without that transparency, it is difficult to fully understand how the Government intend for these provisions to work and to be assured that the rights of workers will be properly safeguarded.