This is the text of a letter I have sent this week – 31st March 2025 to the House of Lords setting our my difficulties with regard to the Employment Rights Bill and the proposed amendments to the Equality Acy 2010 and the impact this will have on premises  licence holders under the Licensing Act 2003. Do give me a call if you require further advice on how these provisions will affect your premises if they become law.

Dear Lord Offord of Garvel

Say No to Banter Bouncers

I’m writing to express my grave misgivings about clause 20 of the Employment Rights Bill.

Clause 20 amends section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 to impose a legal duty on employers to “take all reasonable steps” to prevent their employees being “harassed” by third parties, meaning they could be sued by their employees in the Employment Tribunal if they don’t do enough.

That may sound reasonable, but the Worker Protection Act 2024 already extends employers’ liability under the Equality Act for third party sexual harassment and of course any form of physical assault is a crime, so the ‘harassment’ we’re talking about here is verbal. Among other things, it will include conversations between customers or members of the public that are overheard by employees – not directed at them – and which they find offensive in virtue of one or more ‘protected’ characteristic. Not just their own, mind you. Under this new law, employees will be able to take offence on behalf of one of their colleagues. Given that we live in an age in which some are hyper-sensitive, the implications for the hospitality sector of turbo-charging the Equality Act in this way are mind-boggling.

What “reasonable steps” will a publican be expected to take to protect his or her staff from overhearing conversations between customers that might upset them? Will it be sufficient to include a notice on the wall warning customers to keep their opinions to themselves on issues like trans rights, mass immigration and the Israel-Palestine conflict? Or will publicans need to go further and employ ‘banter bouncers’ to eavesdrop on customers and eject anyone for saying something ‘inappropriate’ or ‘problematic’, such as telling a dirty joke?

It seems extraordinary that this government, which claims to be ‘pro-growth’, is about to impose additional compliance costs on a sector that’s already on its knees. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, 37 pubs close every week in Britain. There’s little doubt that this new law will accelerate that rate of closure – and those that remain will be sanitized ‘safe spaces’ in which no one dares express a controversial opinion or tell a joke.

But it isn’t just pubs. In football stadiums, it’s not unusual for fans to shout “Are you blind?” at the linesman for failing to rule a goal offside or spot a handball. Once this new law is on the books, a partially sighted steward who overhears this could sue the club for not taking “all reasonable steps” to protect him from being ‘harassed’ in this way. That, in turn, means that clubs will have to clamp down on any expostulations or chants that might cause offence. After that, it won’t just be Sir Keir Starmer’s beloved Arsenal stadium that’s a library!

The same goes for bars, restaurants and hotels. If a feminist walks into a hotel lobby wearing a t-shirt saying “Woman = Adult Human Female”, chances are she’ll be shown the door lest the slogan offends a trans or non-binary member of the hotel’s staff.

Expecting employers to police the speech of their customers in this way will have a hugely chilling effect on free speech. The same fearful atmosphere that prevails in so many workplaces since the passing of the Equality Act, with people looking over their shoulders before whispering what they really think about a controversial issue, will be extended to the venues people go to in their leisure time. The era when people could relax in the speakeasy atmosphere of their local will be at an end.

Clause 20 will also have a chilling effect on free speech on campus. At present, external speakers cannot be no-platformed by universities on the grounds that their mere presence will upset a member of staff with one or more protected characteristics because employers aren’t liable for third-party harassment. Once this new law is on the books, that will be a legitimate reason to no-platform a speaker like Kathleen Stock or Helen Joyce – and woke activists will have a field day.

In the Commons, the Opposition tabled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill disapplying clause 20 in its entirety and another excluding pubs, sports and hospitality venues from its impact, but not a single Labour or Lib Dem MP voted for either. Amending the Bill in the House of Lords is our last chance to stop this attempt to ramp up the policing of speech outside the workplace.

Even if you don’t share my free speech concerns, please consider the cost of complying with this new layer of red tape. The government has estimated the compliance cost for large/medium business will be £30 and for small businesses £19 – a ludicrous under-estimate. Just think about what clause 20 will mean for struggling hospitality businesses:

• They will be forced to navigate the deeply challenging terrain of balancing competing rights under the Equality Act, deciding where to draw the line between allowing a customer to express a ‘protected’ philosophical or religious belief and protecting their employees from being offended or upset.

• They will be forced to take legal advice on avoiding liability under clause 20 and what new mechanisms to put in place to police third-party conversations.

• In the course of taking “all reasonable steps” to protect their employees from third party ‘harassment’, employers will have to take on additional employees to monitor customer conversations and implement a ‘woke’ code of conduct.

How can a government that claims to be ‘pro-growth’ be contemplating such a measure? The businesses effected are already on their knees as a result of Covid, the energy crisis, the rise in the cost of living, Business Rate hikes, changes in business property relief, increases in employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and the upping of the National Living Wage. Turbo-charging the Equality Act in this way – and expecting employers to comply with it – will be the final straw for many struggling businesses, further devastating our high streets and swelling the ranks of the unemployed.

One final point: when the Equality Act was originally passed, it included a clause making employers liable for the harassment of employees by third parties, but it was repealed in 2013 because it proved to be so costly and difficult for employers to comply with. We mustn’t make the same mistake again.

Yours sincerely,

Gareth Hughes