The harassment provisions in employment give protection for the treatment of people manifesting their religion in a way that is not available for people who are manifesting their political, aesthetic or cultural opinions. Religion and, indeed, philosophical belief—it is not exclusive to religion—is already given status. The hon. Gentleman need not worry that it is being treated like anything else. The fact that it is often in scripture or ethical teachings is, rightly or wrongly, acknowledged in the law. We should be careful; Scientology would be covered by his proposal, as would a whole series of other religions, sects and cults. The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful in what he is asking us to endorse. Secondly, his explanatory statement says:

“Indirect discrimination is still permitted if it is proportionate” under the test which we have already discussed, however it is framed, of clause 18(2)(d).

Again, we have the same problem, as the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If the proposal means anything—and the requirement that the amendment should be subject to clause 18(2) is the relevant issue—it does not add any additional protection and should not be accepted because it makes no difference. If it is his intention that subsection (2) should be diluted in some way, in respect of something that just happens to be

“stated doctrinal or ethical teachings” then for the reasons I have given, I urge the Committee to oppose the amendment.