Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 49, page 30, line 11, leave out ‘(1)’ and insert

‘(1) (a), (1) (b), (1) (c) (i) and (1) (c) (ii)’.

Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 153, in clause 49, page 30, line 31, leave out ‘or (iv)’.

No. 155, in clause 49, page 30, line 33, after ‘curriculum’, insert

‘in relation to religious instruction or religious education’.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this group of substantive amendments. I knew that I could rely on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to subject other clauses to the forensic examination that they require. Indeed I saw him drafting his amendments in Committee, while also paying great attention to proceedings and intervening, which is a skill that I have yet to learn. This is an important group of amendments, and I hope that I can make some progress with the intention behind them, if not necessarily being able to change the drafting today.

Clause 48 (1) reads:

“It is unlawful for the responsible body of an educational establishment ... to discriminate against a person—

(a)in the terms on which it offers to admit him as a pupil,

(b)by refusing to accept an application to admit him as a pupil, or

(c)where he is a pupil of the establishment—

(i)in the way in which it affords him access to any benefit, facility or service,

(ii)by refusing him access to a benefit, facility or service,

(iii)by excluding him from the establishment, or

(iv)by subjecting him to any other detriment.”

Clause 49 exempts certain schools from those general provisions not to discriminate. The current wording of clause 49(1) states that the whole of clause 48(1) shall not apply in relation to a list of various schools, which I shall abbreviate to “faith schools”. I hope that the Committee will bear with me, as the category is perhaps a little more complex and wider   than that. Clause 49(2) creates an exemption in respect of some of the provisions that I have just quoted in relation to the content of the curriculum or acts of worship, which I think are taken to be acts of worship organised by the school or educational establishment itself following an amendment to clarify that in the House of Lords.

There is a strong case for saying that those exemptions go too wide. They go beyond what is required to maintain the character of faith schools—that is the term that is used—and it would be better if they were drawn more narrowly to prevent breaches of human rights and occasions of discrimination. There is no good reason why these provisions need to be drawn so widely. Things would be somewhat easier if clear guidance—preferably statutory guidance; I suspect that we will come on to guidance questions later—as to how schools should operate in this respect were provided for all schools, to help them to stay within the Human Rights Act 1998 and avoid discrimination. It would be easier if there were any guidance in this respect—or, indeed, if there were ways to ensure that the Government were being vigilant about unreasonable discrimination, or discrimination that could not be objectively justified.

It is quite difficult for pupils and/or their parents to bring actions. Pupils are just trying to get on with being in school. Therefore, the onus in drafting legislation is to ensure that as there is such a big discrepancy between the power of the school authorities and that of the pupil, great care is taken about discrimination.

My amendments seek to narrow the provision. If we are to have discrimination in admissions on religious grounds, which is a subject for debate another day—we ought to debate it, although we do not do that very well in this House—the exception for subsection (1)(a) of clause 48 should be kept in respect of faith schools, as should the one for subsection (1)(b), which deals with refusing to accept an application, but two provisions should be removed from subsection (1)(c):

“(iii)by excluding him from the establishment, or

(iv)by subjecting him to any other detriment.”

I shall deal with each of those in turn.

Making an exemption from the general duty of discrimination not to expel someone or exclude them on the basis of their religion raises serious issues. Some pupils may decide that they want to change their beliefs while a pupil of a school. I am speaking generally. It is easier in this context to discuss a publicly funded school carrying out a public duty that admits someone on the basis that they are, say, a Catholic. If that person then states that they do not, in fact, subscribe to those religious views and that they must have the freedom to make up their own mind, as indeed must their parents, is it right that they could be excluded or expelled on the basis that they no longer complied with the religious requirement for admission? I do not understand how it would be made clear to both parties that that would not be permitted, but to deprive someone of their education in such an establishment simply on the basis of their changing or losing their religion seems not to be objectively justified.

I do not believe that that would necessarily be a frequent occurrence. One of the arguments about the appropriateness or otherwise of faith schools involves the question of how many children have particularly deep religious beliefs or affiliations. Clearly some do, as do their parents, but that is the sort of thing that we would expect our state education to provide for, so that children feel free and not encumbered by a requirement to change their religion or how they observe it.

The second way in which amendment No. 154 seeks to narrow the exception for faith schools concerns the

“subjecting him to any other detriment”

provision. I am not the only person who believes that that goes too wide. I refer the Committee to the 16th report of Session 2004–05 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Equality Bill. The report is on the previous Bill in the previous Committee, in the form of Bill 72, which came before the House of Commons. The Joint Committee states in paragraph 49:

“The Bill’s legitimisation of such activity may fail to satisfy the positive obligation, in particular under Article 8 ECHR, to take steps, including adequate legislative provision, to prevent breaches of Convention rights.”

The Joint Committee then makes the following recommendation:

“Whilst we accept that certain differences in treatment on the basis of religion are likely to be justified in the interests of maintaining the character of faith schools and protection of the Article 9 rights of religious bodies, we do not accept that all of the discriminatory treatment which would be permitted under clause 52(1)—

that is clause 49(1) of this Bill—

“including measures imposing ‘any other detriment’ on a pupil because of their religion or belief, could be so justified.”

That report was produced towards the tail end of the last Parliament, so there was not a Government response to it, and because the House of Lords was so busy dealing with the issue of harassment—rightly so, and the Government took the decision to solve that debate by taking it out of the Bill—we have not had sufficiently detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords of the Government’s response to that clear recommendation of the Committee as it was then formed.

Amendment No. 153 is analogous, and seeks to amend clause 49(2), which relates to the exemption given from responsibilities under section 48 to anything done under the content of the curriculum or acts of worship. Already, the Government have seen that it is appropriate to exclude the exclusion provision from the exemption, so that schools will not be able to rely on clause 48(1)(c)(iii) to exclude anyone from the establishment

“in relation to anything done in connection with ... the content of the curriculum, or ... acts of worship”.

I am arguing again that subjecting a pupil to any other detriment on the basis of the content of the curriculum or acts of worship would also be inappropriate. It is not necessary, and runs the risk of making schools believe that they can discriminate disproportionately and in a manner that is not objectively justified. Rather than relying on case law, or long arguments about any guidance that might be   produced, we should seek to have narrow exemptions in that area, when talking about publicly funded bodies that carry out public functions.

Amendment No. 155 seeks to probe why, in clause 49(2)(a), the Government talk about the content about the curriculum generally, rather than just

“in relation to religious restriction or religious education”.

I hope that the amendment that I have tabled inserts that phrase after “curriculum” and before “or”—it is not in the marked-up version of the Bill from which I am reading—because it is in the religious instruction and education parts of the curriculum that a school might seek to say that it was going to teach and have certain emphases on certain religions, and that that might apply generally, or in particular to faith schools. That is a matter for the curriculum, but in relation to other parts of the curriculum, the Government will have to explain why they seek provision for subjecting someone to any other detriment, and not just refusing access to a benefit, facility or service, or for discriminating in the way in which they afford any pupil access to any benefit, facility or service covered by clause 48(1)(c)(i) and (ii).

Those are serious matters, which are subject to a recommendation from the Joint Committee On Human Rights. The Minister and his colleague the Minister for Women and Equality paid due attention to the concerns of that Committee about the Bill. That is right, as the Bill will set up the Commission for Equality and Human Rights—something on which the Joint Committee has a particular focus. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some reassurance about the points that I have raised.

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone in which he has introduced his amendments. I shall explain in a moment why the Government oppose them, but he has well known views in this area, and he has applied his mind in a very focused way to the particular issues in hand. I am not aware of any particular reason why the Government’s response to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights would not have been appropriate. My hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality and I will look into why there was no response, and will come back to the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee on that subject in due course.

The report examined the wider question of the potential exemption of faith schools in general from the protection of this legislation, which is rather different from the kind of exclusion to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in his amendments. He will forgive me for being slightly pedantic about the phrase that he used about the harassment provisions, but the Government did not “remove” those provisions from the Bill. They were removed by his hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, against the better judgment of the Government. However, we have concluded that it would be better for that matter to go before the discrimination law review and, we hope, for us to achieve a consensus on the way forward.

Amendment No. 155 would clearly confine the curriculum exception to religious instruction and religious education, and amendment No. 153 would not exempt action related to the curriculum or to religious worship that could be regarded as subjecting a pupil to detriment. If either or both amendments were accepted, that would allow claims of discrimination about aspects of the curriculum when the curriculum is broad, fair and well balanced. The provisions are in place to protect the curriculum.

We do not believe that the concept of individual rights should be used by those who may not agree with particular aspects of the curriculum in our schools as a means of challenging existing school policies of inclusiveness and diversity in the curriculum that are set out in statute. The Education Act 2002 provides for a basic curriculum that every maintained school is required to follow. There would be considerable concern if there were a suggestion that the way in which dancing, singing, music, physical education or even science lessons were taught should be changed to avoid challenge on the grounds of the religion or belief of certain children or their parents. That would clearly be unacceptable. However, such challenges would be permitted if the amendments were accepted.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the Minister’s point. That is why I said that I thought these would be probing amendments. However, could he explain why the term “any other detriment” is required when clause 48(1)(c)(i) and (ii) already refer to preventing a pupil from having access to a benefit, facility or service? What detriments does he hope that the exemption would capture that are not already captured by those sub-paragraphs?

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

One could speculate about the detriments that any individual pupil or family might feel, but they should not have the facility, because they have an objection based on their religion or belief, to challenge aspects of the national curriculum that are agreed and set out in statute. Whatever reason they had would be a matter for them. We do not want schools to be continually engaged in litigation and legal challenge on matters that are beyond their scope to determine, having been determined in statute by Parliament. The amendments would permit that, although I accept that they have been tabled as probing amendments.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I understand the Minister’s point and I will reflect on it. However, in respect of acts of worship, it is hard to see what detriment someone might feel they were subjected to, given that section 72 of another measure allows pupils to be pulled out of collective acts of worship of the kind referred to in subsection 2(b). Therefore, is it really necessary to provide for that catch-all exemption of “any other detriment” in respect of acts of worship that one does not have to attend, which is different from curricular matters, where there is no similar opt-out for pupils or their parents?

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is the opportunity to opt out. However, if the amendments that he has tabled were included in the Bill, it is at least arguable that an individual pupil or family could challenge the holding of the act of worship as being of detriment to them. We do not want that to happen. The policy is set out clearly in statute and in the guidance that goes with it. We do not want individuals who argue that something is of detriment to them to be able to challenge the school and embroil it in all kinds of legal challenge, debate and argument in an unfair and burdensome way. We want to make it clear that we do not want individuals to pursue legal action along those lines.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is all set out in statute and that an individual can opt out of an act of worship. However, he cannot challenge the school for holding an act of worship on the ground that it is of detriment to him.

Amendment No. 154 relates to exceptions for faith schools. During the passage of the Bill, we have made it clear that the part 2 provisions on discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief raise several issues particular to education and that certain exceptions are needed, especially for faith schools whose operation the Bill is not intended to undermine. I acknowledge the constructive way in which the hon. Gentleman put his argument. He has views about faith schools and no doubt he would love to have a further debate about them. However, he restrained himself this morning and focused on one or two particular issues. The Government have no intention under the Bill of reopening the role of faith schools. Faith schools have a right to operate effectively and they must be free to discriminate in certain respects on religious grounds.

Faith schools are therefore currently exempted from the provisions specific to educational establishments. The amendments would remove that exception from two specific areas. They would make it unlawful for faith schools to exclude an existing pupil or to subject an existing pupil to any other detriment on grounds of religion or belief. The main purpose of the provision is to avoid the use of the Bill to allow individuals and particular families to bring complaints about the way in which faith schools are run when, in fact, what is being challenged is a fair and reasonable aspect of the way in which the school is organised. Such action would involve the school in unnecessary time and resources in defending legal challenges.

Faith schools should be able to discriminate in relation to admissions, acts of worship and so on. However, I was struck by the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman when he talked about making sure that we had the appropriate balance between the power of the school authority and the position, the needs and the rights of individual pupils. I wish to offer him some encouragement. I am willing to look a little more closely at the particular issues that he raised. He argued that it was not right for a school to exclude existing pupils on the grounds of religion or belief. Given that a faith school has control over its admissions policy, it is unlikely that there would be many examples of when individuals would switch   religion while they were at school. However, I accept that there is at least a possibility that that would happen and I shall think more clearly about the provisions. The rights of individuals to have continuity of education, association with their peers and other developmental matters are important considerations. I hope that he will be reassured by the fact that I am willing to look carefully at matters to make sure that we have struck the right balance.

We will be issuing guidance in respect of the measures. No doubt we shall discuss them, but elsewhere in the Bill are order-making powers that can add to the exceptions or remove them. Whether or not it will be necessary to do something with the Bill, we shall issue guidance on the matter and watch carefully to see how it is implemented in practice.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

Can the Minister assure the Committee that the guidance produced will be subject to full consultation with those who are not religious in a way that exists extensively for the religious and faith communities that have a particular perspective that they are entitled to have? They feel sincerely that sometimes their views impact on the non-religious in society and it is important at every stage to capture those views. If he can give such an undertaking, it would be of some reassurance.

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I will happily give that reassurance. At times, I fear that some of my colleagues in the Government might consider that I am a little ambitious when it comes to the issuing of guidance and consultation exercises. I am positively in favour of that, but sometimes I might take such action a little too early in the process. Clearly, guidance cannot be issued until the legislation is settled and measures have been put on to the statute book. I am a great believer in getting the guidance right, not least through the involvement and engagement with groups that have a particular interest in such matters. In respect of the Bill, the groups would include religious groups as well as non-religious groups, such as humanists. Not only would that improve the guidance, but the level of understanding of what legislation is intended to do and what it has the power to do. That approach also avoids the development of myths, which can grow up unnecessarily and damage public confidence. I hope that that reassurance regarding guidance is sufficient. I take this issue seriously.

I hope to give the hon. Gentleman comfort by telling him that we continue to consider these issues carefully. When we first drafted the proposals that we are discussing, they had the back-up of the harassment clauses, which gave us extra confidence that the rights—as he put it—of the individual pupil would be protected. Now that the harassment provisions are no longer part of the legislation, I shall consider whether it is still strong enough to protect those rights, notwithstanding the right of faith schools to operate in an effective way that reflects the ethos of such establishments and of the faiths to which they adhere. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for the content and tone of his remarks. I stress that my pointing out that there has not, as far as I know, been a response to the 16th report was not a criticism. The report probably came out just before the general election was called. The Committee is more than capable of raising with Ministers any concerns that it might have about lack of response; that is not for me to do. I was merely pointing out that because there was no response, it would be worth while seeking a response from the Minister now in semi-formal terms regarding my concern, which raises a point that is relevant to the Bill.

I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance about guidance. There is an argument that draft guidance can sometimes be made available while a Bill is being scrutinised, but that is not the case here. Therefore, we rely on proper consultation. My point about the need to consult the non-religious is that when dealing with establishments such as faith schools, the natural impulse is to think that any changes will affect the religious, but every exemption given to religious groups—well, not every exemption, but many of the exemptions and special provisions given, appropriately or otherwise, to faith groups—will have implications such as reducing choice or freedom or causing some other detriment to people who are not of a religious group or that religious group. It is important that we policy makers should think beyond people of religion when considering such matters. There are instances in which we are talking about 20 people, of whom 19 might well be religious, but we know that at least 30 per cent. of people say in censuses that they are not religious and that when it comes to observance, the majority are not religious. Their needs should be looked after.

The Minister is correct to point out that the harassment provisions were taken out against the Government’s wishes through a Division in the House of Lords. Part of the worry—I do not want to go into specifics—was that there were wide exclusions in the original Bill, even on harassment, which were then narrowed on Report in the House of Lords after consultations, which seemed, at least originally, to exclude some schools from the need to avoid harassment. I know that the Government thought that they had the balance right by the time that they made those amendments on Report, but the House of Lords was not persuaded of that. Nevertheless, the right not to be harassed still exists because of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Minister is right to point out that schools will have to have regard to that when operating under the exemptions.

Finally, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to consider the issue of exclusion, which is not provided for in subsection (2), but is allowed for elsewhere. I hope that he will consider that carefully. I agree that it may not occur frequently, but even one occurrence of that, or people feeling that they cannot change their religion because of the threat that that might affect their continuation at that school, would be a serious   loss of certain freedoms. In view of the fact that the Minister has agreed to reconsider that small area at least, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 112, in clause 49, page 30, line 38, leave out ‘or repeal’.

Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 113, in clause 49, page 30, line 40, leave out paragraph (c).

No. 114, in clause 49, page 31, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 115, in clause 49, page 31, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

These amendments concern the power of the Secretary of State by order to amend the legislation, in so far as it provides for the amendment or repeal of exceptions in subsections (1) or (2), for an additional exception to clause 48, and for making

“provision about the construction or application of section 44(3)(d) in relation to section 48.”

Each of those provisions raises different issues. As a general rule, I do not much care for powers that can be made under statutory instrument. After all, we spend a great deal of time in Committee considering the legislation, when the reality is that it can then be changed in important and fundamental particulars merely by a one-and-a-half-hour debate in the House of Commons, with no opportunity to amend the Government’s proposals. Therefore, I would like the Minister to explain why each of these provisions is included in the legislation in their current form, and to justify the necessity for each of them.

Amendment No. 112 deals with subsection (3)(a). I have left open the option for the Secretary of State by order to amend an exception, but not to repeal one. Why do the Government require a power to perform such a repeal by statutory instrument to an exception that has been heavily debated in Parliament?

I feel rather less strongly about additional exceptions, because an addition is different from a repeal, but what about paragraph (c) which refers to “construction”? Can the Minister explain in what circumstances the Government might make provision about

“the construction or application of section 44(3)(d)”?

We addressed that earlier. It is to do with the criteria of discrimination,

“which A cannot reasonably justify by reference to matters other than B’s religion or belief.”

On one showing, that opens up a very considerable hole through which the Government can alter this legislation at will in future.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to make two points. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman treats repeal and addition differently. Obviously, he is probing and he is entitled to frame his amendments as he wishes, but this relates to the point I raised earlier that every exemption given   for one organisation—in this case it happens to be a faith school—potentially has serious implications for the freedoms and choices of others. In cases involving faith schools, those are implications to do with religion.

The idea that it is okay to add an exception for faith schools under clause 49(1) and a clause 48 exemption, but not to repeal provision for faith schools is open to question. There is a sort of favouritism—I hate to use the term—towards faith groups.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I would take the same view if the legislation were intended to provide an exception for faith schools or non-faith schools. It just so happens that in this instance it concerns faith schools. The basic principle is that the state imposes a burden, and there is a profound philosophical difference between the state being able by statutory instrument to impose another burden and the state by statutory instrument being able to remove a burden. That is the basis of the differentiation I make.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

That is a fair argument, which could be balanced by the argument that in the case of repeal both Houses have already agreed what should happen. It could be argued that primary legislation should be necessary to revoke the consent of both Houses. That might not apply to an exception, on which debate had not already taken place, and an affirmative resolution might be appropriate.

That is a relatively minor point, and my other point is also a minor one. I believe that the House of Lords made a similar amendment elsewhere in the Bill to curtail the Government’s ability to make changes of the kind in question by statutory instrument, or at least to ensure that that was done in a certain way. Does the Minister recall that, and would such amendments make the clause consistent with another clause in this part?

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, clause 49(3) gives the Secretary of State order-making powers to vary exceptions in the light of experience. I hope that I can reassure him that the Government do not intend to establish powers under this clause that would drive a great hole through the Bill. Far from it. We want a facility to ensure that we can make minor adjustments and amendments to the Bill in the light of experience. Through our engagement with stakeholders across the board we have arrived at a set of well worked proposals that will, largely, work in practice. However, we want to allow ourselves the flexibility and room to improve the measure in the light of experience. Debate on a previous clause showed that there is a need always to maintain the right balance between institutions’ and individuals’ interests. Through experience we may learn to achieve that slightly better than we now envisage.

Amendment No. 112 would remove the power to repeal an exemption. That would render us helpless if, in the light of experience, we discovered that an exemption in the Bill was not having the intended effect and was disadvantaging certain groups. All members of the   Committee would want us to be able to change that. Amendment No. 113 would restrict the power to make changes to the application of the test of reasonable justification in relation to indirect discrimination in schools. I cannot speculate now on what the particular instances might be. If I could see that far into the future, I might have brought them forward for inclusion in the Bill. However, we need the power to make such variation as we learn from experience.

Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 would remove the provisions to allow a degree of flexibility in an exception or clarification that might be needed in different geographical locations. That involves an important point. Education is a devolved matter, but the issue of equality is not, so we need to ensure the right balance between our equality legislation and the different systems for providing education around the United Kingdom. We do not have a one-size-fits-all approach and we need the facility to develop things accordingly.

I know that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has strong views about order-making powers and I did not think for a minute that he would let an opportunity go by to bring those concerns to the attention of the Committee. However, the affirmative procedure is to be used and both Houses would need to agree any amendments in the normal way. Such opportunities can arouse significant debate in and out of Parliament. All that would be dealt with properly and in consultation with stakeholders, in a coherent and positive way. I hope that notwithstanding his general reservations about order-making powers, the hon. Gentleman will see the merits of those set out in the clause as an opportunity to improve the Bill in the light of experience.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

With three words to go, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I am curious about something. I found the other clause that was amended. Clause 65 in the Bill that originally went to the House of Lords stated:

“The Secretary of State may by order amend this Part so as to—

(a)create an exception to a prohibition ...

(b)vary an exception to a prohibition ... or

(c)remove an exception to a prohibition”.

That is now clause 63 of the Bill, which states that the Secretary may by order only do so to “(a) create an exception”, or “(b) vary an exception”, but not to repeal an exception. I should be interested to know how that now relates to the provisions that we are discussing.

Clause 51(1) is about public authorities. It seems either that the House of Lords decided that they should do only one of the provisions, or that there was a particular reason for reducing the scope in relation to public authorities, but not in relation to the clause under discussion.

Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

Order. For the benefit of the Committee, the Minister does not have to answer for what happened in the House of Lords, but if he wishes to do so—

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

That is very kind, Mrs. Anderson. Either the hon. Gentleman is on to something, or he is not. I am not going even to try to respond in detail to   the point that he has just made, but I shall consider it carefully. If he is not on to something, I shall be able to write to him to explain why so that he can relax.

I accept that as legislation is developed between different Houses and at different stages within this House, there are potential inconsistencies in different parts of the Bill. If he is on to something, we shall want to address it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out what may be an issue. If it is not, I shall be only too happy to write to him to put his mind at rest.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)

The Minister is, as ever, reassuring in his manner, and in the circumstances I shall not press the amendment to a vote. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon rightly highlighted amendments in the other place to a further clause—clause 63, as it now is. I am pleased to see that they took place. They show that it is possible to rein in the Government’s tendency to seek to legislate by statutory instrument. However, the Minister has made a good case for keeping in the Bill the particular statutory instrument powers under discussion, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.