Equality Bill [HL]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is trying to make in relation to this amendment—to bring the drafting of Clause 46 into line with the wording currently used in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, with regard to the definition of indirect discrimination. I wish to explain to the noble Lord why we think that the definition we now have does that and brings clarity. The change in the wording did not seek to narrow the definition of ““indirect discrimination”” but to clarify it for many of the reasons to which the noble Lord just alluded. The wording used in the 2003 regulations incorporates the words ““provision”” and ““criterion”” because those words come directly from the European directive which the regulations implement. As the noble Lord knows, there are, however, other words used—for instance, ““requirement”” and ““condition””—in discrimination law which has not been affected by the directives; for example, parts of the Race Relations Act 1976. I understand that the drafting in this Bill is felt by those responsible for that onerous task to be clearer than that in the 2003 regulations and to provide a more satisfactory indication of what is intended by these provisions. It is a point worth raising and discussing, and may be we shall come to it again as part of the debates on a single equality Bill. For now we resist the amendment, but I say to the noble Lord that the aspiration of the draftsman is that this definition will become the preferred definition because it harmonises what was in the directive and what was in our law in a way that will bring the two together.