New clause 15 - Employment Equality Regulations (amendment)
Equality Bill [Lords]
2:00 pm
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.