The point of the amendment is to change the wording from

“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” to the wording used in the European directive. We do not think that we should do that; it is unnecessary and our phrase is better. The phrase in paragraph (d) has been used for a long time to describe objective justification in British law and its full meaning is well understood by courts and tribunals. Means that are “proportionate” must be “appropriate and necessary”, which are the words that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon would include. Both concepts are included in the test that we have used, but they need not be necessary in the sense of being the only possible means of achieving a legitimate aim. It is sufficient that the means are not more discriminatory than any other means that could have been chosen to achieve the same end. Since the test encapsulates what objective justification is, the words “objectively justified” would add nothing at all.

There is a risk that changing language well established in British law could lead to an excessive narrowing of the scope of justification beyond what the directive requires, because that change could be—and “necessary” has been—interpreted very strictly by our courts. However, they are obliged to interpret the legislation compatibly with the directive and they know how to do that. In a nutshell, this is well-tried and well-used language that everybody understands. The hon. Gentleman’s proposal adds nothing, so we see no point in the amendment. Therefore, we respectfully invite him to withdraw it.