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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The motion asks why no amendment has been made to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 to bring out what is considered to be the better approach to the issue in this Bill. Clause 43 has a definition of religion and belief that everyone considers appropriate, because it is aligned closely with the Human Rights Act. In clause 76, the Government propose that the old definition of   religion and belief in the 2003 regulations should be amended to account for the new definition.

In clause 44 a new version of discrimination has been drawn up as the result of an amendment in the House of Lords, which effectively merged two sub-paragraphs into one:

''A person (''A'') discriminates against another (''B'') for the purposes of this Part if on grounds of the religion or belief of B or of any other person except A (whether or not it is also A's religion or belief) A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treats others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances).''

Prior to that amendment, the wording was such that it appeared that if the religion was A's religion, it would be exempted.

The Government were right to make it clear that A's religion or belief would be covered, without necessarily conceding that that was the effect of the original wording, because the effect would apply whether or not the religion or belief was A's religion or belief, as long as the discrimination was on grounds of the religion or belief of B or any person except A. It does not matter whether it happens to be A's religion.

The 2003 regulations do not include the same definition. My new clause, which is by definition probing, was meant to ask whether the Government intend the same read-across. If not, why not? If yes, we would support it. Uniformity in this area of law is useful.

On Tuesday we mentioned an area where the Government have chosen not to make the regulations match the provisions in the Bill, which was the test for an exception for continued discrimination or discrimination by a religious organisation, religious charity or faith school. The Government argued that that was different because the organisations were small and should have a threshold different from and much lower than the controversial exceptions in the regulations. There is no clear reason why the basic definition of discrimination should be different, and I hope that the Minister can define the Government's intention.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

New clause 15 would, as the hon. Gentleman said, amend the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 by removing regulation 3(2), and I thank him for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the discriminator's religion or belief as defined in those regulations. The Government have already revised, in the other place, the definition of discrimination in what is now clause 44. It was never the Government's intention that the Bill should allow a person to discriminate against another of the same religion or belief, nor do we believe that that was the effect of the original provisions. Nevertheless, to put the issue beyond all doubt, we tabled amendments in the other place so that the position is completely clear.

The Bill does not enable a person to discriminate against another of the same religion or belief in the provision of goods, facilities and services. As the hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen, there is a link between how the issue of the discriminator's religion or belief is   dealt with in regulation 3(2) and how it was dealt with in the definition of discrimination in the Bill as originally drafted. The question, as he has rightly pointed out, is whether, having revised the Bill to achieve added clarity, we should also revise the regulations.

Regulation 3(2) makes it clear that the discriminator's religion or belief should not be a factor in considering whether discrimination has occurred in the area of employment or vocational training. However, I recognise that some have argued that regulation 3(2) may create a loophole whereby an employer, person A, could discriminate against someone else, person B, if that person was of the same religion but not, in the view of person A, properly observant. I can assure the Committee that it is not the intention or the effect of the regulation to allow discrimination in such cases.

A person who discriminates against any person because they do not share their beliefs would be covered by the regulations, as they cover belief as well as lack of belief. That means that person B would be protected if they did not share the same beliefs as person A, even within the same religion. In other words, it is the religion or belief of person B, not of person A, that counts. I am starting to wonder whether we should perhaps be using some sort of flow-chart.

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

I am following the Minister.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his attention. To give an example, an employer who was a Muslim could not deny another, more secular Muslim employment on the grounds that they were not religious enough. The religion or belief regulations have been in effect since December 2003 and are working effectively. There is no evidence to suggest confusion or that regulation 3(2) is being used as a loophole to allow people to discriminate against others of the same religion. That said, I recognise the concern, and the Government have already changed the Bill to make the position clearer. Given that we are moving towards the end of our consideration and that I have given way on very little, and having listened to the points raised today, I will take the issue away and have another look at it. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman is content to withdraw the motion.

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

We should welcome two things. First, the Minister has demonstrated an ability to tackle the issues in part 2—a pleasure previously restricted to her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). From that brief excerpt, she can see how much fun that was, and she too now has a good mastery of part 2.

Secondly, and more importantly, I am pleased that the Minister sees the point. As I think I made clear, I was not seeking to claim that the Government ever felt it would be right to discriminate in the way that some people might think was possible given the loophole. I am happy to assure her of that and I am grateful for her agreeing to take the issue away to see whether—for   the sake of consistency, if nothing else—it would be wise to make the relevant changes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

If the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) were present, he would now be sending a postcard to his mother. Before we come to new clause 16, I remind the Committee—my memory is not very long, but it does at least go back to Tuesday afternoon—that we had a substantial debate on most of the issues arising from the new clause and agreed to confine our comments strictly to matters of guidance. If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon wants to move the new clause formally, listen to the Minister and then respond, that is entirely up to him.