Clause 24
Equality Bill
1:00 pm
Vera Baird (Solicitor General, Attorney General's Office; Redcar, Labour)
No, I do not think so. It is broader, but not significantly so. It must stay broader, because we cannot regress—I, for one, do not want to regress that in any way.
Next, I will deal with the issue of objectivity and subjectivity that the hon. Gentleman raised, as it fits in with amendment 38 and the ones that he tabled. To reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow, East, if we are broader in this respect than is Europe, there is an additional element in our law, which is the objectivity that is required where harassment is not deliberate or intended. That is clear in clause 24(3), which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon referred to.
For conduct to be regarded as harassment, one must take into account the factors involved: the perception of the victim, all the other circumstances of the case and, importantly, whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have the effect of harassment according to the definition in clause 24(2).
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow, East—this is on another limb—whose fear is that it is too easy to be harassed, which could restrict in particular religious freedom of speech, which is his interest. He will be reassured to know that that extra part is in there.
Regarding the objectivity of the test, the hon. Gentleman pointed to the fact that the definition of perception in clause 24(3) is couched slightly differently than in the old law, and that is right—we have tried to make it clearer. As he said, the elements of reasonableness are now separated, which may flag up the issue to some extent, but the important thing is that hypersensitivity cannot be used.
The hon. Gentleman feared that a person who was hypersensitive to a religious problem would say, “It is perfectly reasonable for me to say that that is harassment because I am hypersensitive, so the ‘reasonable’ test is passed.” That would make it a subjective reasonableness test, which it is not.