Equality Bill

I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken, especially the most reverend Primate and the Minister. I want to make two points. I have not spoken to my Amendment 112 on immigration, but I want to refer to it now. It illustrates how the notion of one size fits all is not applied by the Government themselves and shows how they treat religion differently. It is worth looking at because I am not sure that I agree with paragraph 2(1) on immigration. I am not sure that anyone will have focused on the strange thing that is happening here. The provision says: ""In relation to the exercise of immigration and nationality functions, section 148 has effect as if subsection (1)(b)"—" the one that I am concerned with— ""did not apply to the protected characteristics of age, race or religion or belief; but for that purpose ‘race’ means race so far as relating to—""(a) nationality, or""(b) ethnic or national origins"." That means that the Home Office is taking a new power to exclude someone from entering the country on the basis of their religion or belief, or on the basis of their race defined as, ""nationality, or … ethnic or national origins"," but not colour. We cannot turn someone away because they are black. We can turn someone away because of their nationality—quite right. We can turn someone away because of their ethnic or national origin in certain circumstances—again, quite right—and now we can turn them away because of their religion or belief. In that provision the Government are creating a hierarchy. They are allowing discrimination on the basis of religion or belief and taking it out of Clause 148(1)(b), which shows that the notion of no hierarchy is not even consistently applied by Her Majesty’s Government themselves. If noble Lords turn to the Explanatory Notes, where the explanation for this is admirably well on pages 124, 125 and 126, they will see that examples are given about how Clause 148 will apply. The first example is about ethnic minorities. The second is about disabled people. The third is about a black women’s refuge. The fourth is about transsexual staff and non-transsexual staff. The fifth is about age. The sixth is about homophobic bullying. However, the only one dealing with religion or belief in the examples is this one. It states: ""The duty could lead a local authority to introduce measures to facilitate understanding and conciliation between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims living in a particular area, with the aim of fostering good relations between people of different religious beliefs"." I accept that that is in Clause 148(1)(c) and should remain there, but no example is given here to justify including religion and belief in Clause 148(1)(b). I mention those things for further thought. I am grateful to the Minister for taking this away and I understand the points about hierarchy and all the rest of it. On that basis, and thanking everyone again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 111 withdrawn. Clause 148, as amended, agreed. Schedule 18 : Public sector equality duty: exceptions Schedule 18 : Public sector equality duty: exceptions Amendments 112 to 114 not moved.