Equality Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order to renew for a further year the obsolescent legal framework in which our men and women serve. We know that it is obsolescent; the Government have said so. We know that it is due to be replaced; they have said that too, and the noble Baroness has confirmed it, with the promise of a tri-service discipline Bill to be introduced later in this Session. The Defence Committee in another place published, in the dying days of the last Parliament, a carefully considered and thoroughly well-documented report on matters that this important Bill should address and on how the parliamentary proceedings on this Bill could most usefully be conducted. Those suggestions included making time available to look at draft clauses in advance of the full text; also for as wide a consultation as possible. I venture to suggest that Members of this House and those of another place are very much among those who should be consulted. The Commons Defence Committee suggests that draft clauses would be a very good way to do that. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness what are the Government’s proposals for handling the successor legislation to the measure we are now debating. Why, after all these years of preparation, 10 or more, are there still no draft clauses available, only weeks before the full text is to be introduced? The noble Baroness apologised for the use of the words ““modernise”” and ““harmonise””. To some extent she explained them. I think that we will want to come back to those issues later in the year. She said that the noble Lord, Lord   Drayson, was looking forward to debating the Bill later this year. I also very much look forward to debating it and to improving it wherever possible. Correction Additionally, in col. GC 100, two Motions taken formally were omitted. They follow the first regulations on the Pension Protection Fund and precede the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005. The entries are as follows: