I am sorry to mention this now, but I do so so that one can think about it later. Going back to the point which the right reverend Prelate rightly raised, the real problem arises in Clause 26(1)(b) with the word "or". The problem is that when the Government implemented EU law, their gold-plating was such that, whereas EU law allowed them to say "and" in the employment field, they said "or". The problem with saying "or" is that it means that there is harassment if, ""the conduct has the purpose or effect of … violating B’s dignity, or","
rather than "violating B’s dignity, and" creating an intimidating, et cetera, environment.
The result of "violating B’s dignity" alone giving rise to harassment is that it gives rise to all the problems, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, of zealots who are unduly sensitive, and so on. I would wish to turn the clock back, if one can, and put in "and", both in employment and beyond. I know that officials know that that is my position, but I have not tabled an amendment.
Equality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 January 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c547-8 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-11-22 22:54:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608865
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608865
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_608865