I keenly support the Amendment. Further to what the hon. Gentleman has said, the explanatory notes are quite strange. They state that it is not unlawful discrimination

“for a school to organise a different timetable for a pupil who has a baby, to help her fit her education with her parenting responsibilities.”

The implication is that, if pregnancy and maternity were deleted from the Clause as proposed under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, in some way schools would be prevented from taking such action. That is not right. I accept that it is not necessarily the argument of the Solicitor-General. Perhaps she will argue, as she did before, that the discrimination that we want to oppose is already covered under another heading, but I should be grateful if she clarified whether that is the justification. If it is, it would also not be unlawful for a school to refuse to admit a girl pupil who is pregnant or who already had a baby. Although that might be the position under current legislation, we should not permit schools to discriminate against pregnant pupils or pupils with babies in respect of admission, exclusion or any other detriment. I am concerned that the clause allows schools to do that, even if guidance and the public sector duty might discourage them from doing so. The Government are under a burden to show that the inclusion of paragraph (c) is justified. I look forward to hearing from the hon. and learned Lady.