COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 14 October 1981)

§ The Earl of Mansfield
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 10.
Consideration of these amendments falls into a number of groups. It may well be that the labours of the House in this regard will be considerably less than might appear from the list of amendments. In fact, they come into about 26 packages, if I may so call them. While speaking to Amendments Nos. 1 to 10, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 12 to 25, 32 to 35, 40 to 42, 45 and 46, 48 to 51, 53 and 54, 59 to 66, 70 to 72, 74 to 100, 102 and 103, 105 to 110, 113 to 115, 124 to 126, 131, 133 to 135, and 139 and 140.
At I think the Report stage when this Bill was before your Lordships' House my noble friend Lord Selkirk drew the attention of the House fairly forcibly to the misunderstandings which could arise from the use of the words "titled" and "non-titled" as shorthand expressions which were intended to make the Bill easier to follow. In the ensuing debate it is no understatement to say that his objections were strongly supported by your Lordships. In view of the eventual decision to which the House came and the obvious 381 feelings on the matter, the Government have of course reconsidered the drafting.
I said then, and I think everybody agrees, that some kind of shorthand phrase is essential if the Bill is to be intelligible. The number of amendments changing "titled" to "entitled" number some 100. It indicates how cumbersome it would be if one had to spell out the precise identity of individuals referred to in the Bill without resorting to some kind of abbreviated term. I say that because, unfortunately, no very neat phrase has come to our rescue to lay all doubts as to style as well as to meaning.
I do not in any way wish to seem ungenerous either to my noble friend or indeed to the decision of the House, but I cannot really commend the amended forms, "entitled" and "non-entitled", as significant improvements in brevity or, indeed, elegance of expression. But in the sense that they do bring greater clarity of meaning to the Bill and remove the sense of ambiguity which my noble friend so persuasively argued in front of your Lordships, I commend them to the House.

The Earl of Selkirk
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for agreeing to the views expressed by the House with a clarity rarely reached in this House on any occasion. I see nothing lacking in clarity or brevity or conciseness in the words which have been put in here. I am grateful to my noble friend because I suspect that behind the scenes there has been a battle royal of a major character. I do not know who the belligerents were—whether they were those higher in the pecking order or perhaps the draftsmen. What I do know is that it aroused the utmost fury in the Scottish Law Commission, who burst into print on the subject. I wrote an admirable reply, but for some reason the editors of The Times do not seem to think that replies are necessary. Whether this is on a direction from Australia or New York it is not for me to say. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for agreeing to this, which I must say leaves no doubt that this is a greatly improved Bill.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
My Lords, it is certainly an improvement. It was pointed out I think even at Second Reading how wrong it was to have this very important Bill spattered about with rights given to "titled spouses", which seemed rather as though we were dealing in many ways with our own affairs here. I regret very much that it had to wait for another place to put this right.
I am sure many of your Lordships will be dismayed by the formidable list of amendments which are here—140 of them. If we had done our job properly in the first instance there would probably have been only about 30. We should have seen our way through this and not been terrified that someone might have to delay their visit to Blackpool in order to get rid of all these amendments. I think the noble Earl is very wise. He is commending something to the House which is certainly worthwhile, and it is much clearer.