New clause 15 - Employment Equality Regulations (amendment)
Equality Bill [Lords]
1:30 pm
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and 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.