Equality Bill [HL]

I entirely agree with the aim of the amendment. Indeed, in Amendment No.   212B and in other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and myself, we have sought to write into Part 2 discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and to do so in a fairly detailed way. I speak now purely as a technician, and I apologise. My difficulty looking at this amendment in isolation is   that one cannot give the new commission these functions which cover sexual orientation at age until Parliament has decided on the exact scope of the substance of the provisions, and the exceptions to them. It is difficult to phrase exceptions appropriately. I believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, do that, and we will come to that much later. However, if one were to imagine this commission faced simply with a provision of this kind, with Parliament not having taken the key decisions on what is the scope and what are the exceptions, then the commission itself would have to make up the exceptions as it went along. It would find it hard, for example, where it was balancing the issues of personal privacy and sexuality. I entirely agree with the aim; my Private Member’s Bill tried to do the same thing, and the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is trying to do the same thing. However, the amendment on its own would not work. On those technical grounds and not for any other reason, I believe that it is not the appropriate amendment at this stage.