Perhaps I may add one point of a general nature. I did my best to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, but I am afraid I got lost after about two minutes. That is due to my own incapacity, not the noble Lord’s. I was very excited that his amendment sought to leave out Clause 47(1)(a) which refers to ““violating B’s dignity””. That brings us back to the very beginning; the commissioner will have a fundamental duty to create a society in which,"““there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual””."
I remember saying earlier that I could not see how any court of law could say what a person’s dignity is. We all know what is meant by ““dignity””, but saying that someone has offended against your dignity will be enormously difficult to prove. I was excited when the noble Lord, Lord Lester, put down his amendment because I thought that the provision would be removed, but the effect will remain.
Will the noble Baroness think very carefully about how a court will decide about a person’s dignity? It is a nebulous thing—we all know what is meant by it but it is quite another matter for a person to go to a court and a judge to say, ““Your dignity has been affronted””. I hope that the noble Baroness will think about that carefully.
Equality Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Ferrers
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1119-20 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:58:44 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261396
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261396
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261396