---

Equality Bill [HL]

I am grateful but I am not persuaded. This definition is narrower than the one that I seek. The Bill speaks of a requirement or a condition. The words ““requirement”” or ““condition”” are precisely the problem in Section 1(1)(b) of the Sex Discrimination Act and in Section 1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act. My words, ““provision”” or ““criterion””, which reflect other sources, are broader and more generous and capture what indirect discrimination is really about. The fact that the Government’s version refers to the practice has no substantial effect at all. That simply means more than one act; a series of acts. Therefore, I am dismayed to think that those who have advised the Government believe that they have given a more generous definition than mine and that they think it is a model for the single equality Bill. I hope to persuade them to the contrary. However, in the mean time—