Equality Bill

I entirely agree with the substitution of comparator for colleague. The fact that it has been changed from "colleague" to "comparator" is a bow to Amendment 74 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. There is no doubt that the essence of Amendment 74 is in fact the present law. It was the subject of judicial decision a long time ago, imported in effect from the European law by which we are bound. It is right to make clear in our law—now that we have an opportunity of revising it—that this is the position. The drafting is a matter that Lord Lester has devoted himself to, and it looks to me to be perfectly reasonable—if I may use that expression—but the Government may have some criticism of that. I understood the noble Baroness to say that we had better stick to the present law, as it is in the statute. There is a lot of sense in that, because whenever you change the law, lawyers immediately find an opportunity for further argument. However, this is a different situation—although this is not at present in the statute, it is present in our accepted law, and has been for a long time. Therefore it is right that in this case the change should be made. I do not think it will provoke new litigation, because the point has been settled some considerable time ago as being the terms of European law. I think European law was clear on this point, although on other matters—as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said—it is not clear, although we should not venture into that area. Where European law is clear, and our courts have applied it, I would have thought that it was wise to put it in the statute.