---

Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, unfortunately, I asked for my name to be added to the amendments too late for it to appear before you now, but my name is there, even if you cannot read it. First, the Government have a fine record in the long march to secure justice for the gay and lesbian community. In particular, the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which I like to think that I helped to author, is a major step forward. Getting rid of the obnoxious Clause 28 was another example. In the field of employment, giving effect to European law was another. However, the Government have completely failed to meet the pressing need to deal with sexual orientation discrimination beyond the field of employment. Instead, they have chosen to introduce religious discrimination provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said. In my case, giving effect to core policy in my party, the large Private Member’s Bill that passed through all its stages in this House dealt with sexual orientation discrimination. It took four years in its preparation; there was huge consultation with every government department, with the CBI, the TUC and what are known as ““stakeholders””—an appalling term. No one could say that during those four years of preparation there was not great consultation. That also put the Government on notice three years ago that the topic needed to be tackled. The Government were then put on notice by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in Committee on the Bill. In Committee, I did an injustice to Stonewall that I want to correct. I criticised it for showing me the Alli amendments very late in the day. That turned out to be not at all the case; it was a misunderstanding in my office. I apologise for that. I also criticised the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in three minor respects, all of which have been met by the amended version now before the House. I am satisfied that there is nothing wrong with the amendments. If there is something wrong with the specifics, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what it is so that we know how serious it is and whether it can be put right. If we do not hear that from the Minister, I will assume that the amendments are fine and dandy and that, subject to brief consultation, they could be included in the Bill. I hope that it will not be necessary to test the opinion of the House; I hope that we receive absolutely cast-iron, positive responses from the Minister; but, if not, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has our complete support.