---

Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I would hate to deprive the noble Baroness of a proper response at this stage. I shall try to do that without going into too much detail. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that harassment applies only to premises and public functions, it does not apply to any of those other issues. I do understand why the noble Baroness is concerned about ““or effect””. But ““or effect”” is the same wording as is to be found in other legislation that is directly related to Jews and Sikhs, and it is for that reason that it is included—not least because simply to rely on the purpose and not the effect would mean that it would always be open to those who had the ““effect”” of discriminating to say, ““I didn’t intend it””. It is extremely difficult to dig beneath that and discover what their intention was. The way in which the legislation has worked to date in the other form was, indeed, putting those two together. So I would urge the noble Baroness to go in the other direction. We will debate these matters more fully when we come to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Our position, certainly so far, is that the way in which we have drafted these clauses does hold the balance. We have tried hard to take on board the concerns that we have heard all around the House about such difficulties and we do understand their sensitivity. I hope that I can provide the appropriate degree of reassurance to the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, about their proper concerns, but I say now that we continue to look at all these issues and will continue to look at them after this stage of the Bill.