Equality Bill [HL]

In a game of chess, if not here, a rook and a bishop are of equal value as pieces on the board, and that is why I have the temerity to ask the right reverend Prelate a couple of questions about what he has just said. First, he said that the amendment was excessively regulatory, but does he appreciate that what our amendments mean is ““a sense of proportion””; that is to say, do not take a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Does he regard a sense of proportion as inconsistent either with the Christian tradition, common sense or fairness, given that this is an exemption from the individual’s right to equal treatment without discrimination? Secondly, the way in which the right reverend Prelate has put his point is very interesting. I think that he agrees with me that the words ““or expedient”” mean that the courts could not review the fundamental right to equal treatment in this context because the words are standardless. So is the right reverend Prelate saying that there should be a blanket immunity here because judges should be deferring and not reviewing, and therefore the words ““or expedient”” should be inserted for that purpose? If so, he and I are in fundamental disagreement.