Equality Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the Minister for the understanding in her reply. She illustrates the dilemma as between generality and specificity. Last week,   what I call the Goodhart amendments were criticised for being over-specific, over-detailed or cumbersome, or some such. This provision, which mimics the constitutional format in respect of the judiciary, is as vague as is that provision, which is there to protect an important constitutional value. Although I am an optimist by nature, what I slightly fear, given the Minister’s reply, is that if I were to take away the amendment and spell out the functions that I am talking about—for example, in appointing the members of the commission ““in the discharge of its functions””—that would not meet with total glee and joy in Whitehall. However, if what the Minister is saying is, ““Spell out the functions more precisely, so that we know exactly what you mean””, then I hope that I can undertake to do that in discussion with her department. Then, on Report, we can find a way of securing consensus. I do not know whether that is what the Minister has in mind.