Equality Bill [HL]

I added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, because I agree entirely with the object of the amendments. My own Private Member’s Bill sought to do exactly the same thing in a rather superficial way. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, and I have been shoulder to shoulder on these issues for many years in this House. I received these amendments from Stonewall and put my name to them very late. That is a shame because it meant that I had no opportunity to examine them before they were tabled. I am sorry that that has been so. Nothing that I have said about supporting the objects of the amendment should now be negated by what I propose to say, but there are some problems with the amendments. I do not say that the problems could not be removed, but I shall give two or three examples that Stonewall and others might wish to think about. First, I do not understand why Amendment No.   212C requires that the sexual orientation of B should be different from that of A—we have had that point before. A gay person ought to be as liable for discriminating against another gay person on grounds of sexuality. The proposal seems a wholly unnecessary limitation in the area of sexual orientation. Secondly, I am unhappy with how the concept of indirect discrimination is defined in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 212C, which includes those dreadful words, ““requirement, condition or practice””. I am unhappy that in proposed paragraph (d) there is a test of reasonable justification rather than necessity. I am particularly unhappy that in Amendment No. 212H proposed paragraph (f) of subsection (4) provides for a blanket exclusion allowing discrimination against gay people in relation to immigration control. I simply give those by way of examples. That illustrates, as does Part 2, the problems of dealing with these matters without very careful thought. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that we want to apply as much pressure as possible to ensure that there are cast-iron guarantees that the pressing social need to forbid sexual orientation discrimination beyond the employment sphere in relation to goods, services, facilities and education will be brought within the law. The Minister will surely tell us that the discrimination law review is intended to cover sexual orientation discrimination as well as age, gender reassignment and all the other matters not covered at the moment, and that they will be covered in the lifetime of this Government, before the next general election. We need a step-by-step assurance of exactly how the procedures will operate to secure what the Government have in mind, if not this evening then on Report. We will need to be convinced that the Stonewall amendments, as I would call them, cannot be improved between now and Third Reading by dealing with the kind of points that I raised superficially and any other points. If it were possible before the Bill leaves this House to improve the Stonewall amendments in a way that was satisfactory—I do not believe it to be beyond the wit of the Home Office and other departments to do that, if there is enough energy—we should press the matter very hard. So, I look to the Minister to give a firm indication in her reply—or on Report, if she cannot do it today—of the problems with the Stonewall amendments that cannot be solved between now and Report and, secondly, a firm indication of the timetable for tackling the mischief that the amendments seek to deal with. Then, we can form a judgment on Report of what we believe to be a fair and appropriate way of dealing with the matter. We need to press on with this as fast as possible, provided that we get it right. Therefore, I fully support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli.