Equality Bill [HL]

I assure the noble Baroness that we understand the concern expressed on the issue, and that expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the power in Clause 65 is too wide-ranging. As a result, we are seriously considering how to amend the order-making power so that it is more focused. We hope that that will address the committee’s concerns, while retaining some ability to amend the exceptions without the need for primary legislation. Discrimination on grounds of religion or belief is a sensitive and complex subject—and this debate has demonstrated that. We cannot be certain, therefore, that   we have identified all the implications of legislating in this area. It is quite possible that experience of how the law works in practice will highlight areas where the exceptions are too wide or where they are too narrowly drawn. Therefore, it is important that some means is available to amend those exceptions in future. The current Clause 65 reflects the potential sensitivity of this issue and of making the changes in this way, because it requires the CEHR first to be consulted and that the order be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I know that the noble Baroness says that this matter is difficult, but in relation to these orders it is possible that that procedure may be effective, because there are usually a number of issues where the House can say, ““We accept them en bloc””, or, ““We reject them””. It is a bit of a curate’s egg, because both sides have to decide what they put forward and it gives the House appropriate time to debate such issues and to make decisions about them. Furthermore, I hope that the noble Baroness and the House will accept that we have approached these issues with appropriate sensitivity. We understand how complex they are and we would be loath to put forward changes or exceptions that were not fully understood by those who we would subsequently invite to support them. I hope that we have demonstrated that by the manner in which we have responded to the proper concerns that a wide spectrum of noble Lords have expressed. We framed the legislation in that way. A number of religious groups have told us that they are comforted by the fact that these matters are not set in stone and that if we need to change them there is an ability to do so.