§ The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, on Second Reading I drew your Lordships' attention to the unusual nature of this piece of legislation and to the possibly unprecedented language in which it was expressed. My concern was with the theological assertions contained in the language which might not be understood or subscribed to by other than the members of the denomination of Islam known as the Dawoodi Bohra community, who stand to benefit from the legislation. Since I said that your Lordships would want to look at this on Third Reading, I intervene now only to thank the committee for removing the features of the Bill which caused me that concern. I have no further objection to it.
§ The Chairman of CommitteesMy Lords, I am naturally extremely grateful to the noble Lord. He was anxious about the Bill and we ensured that he received all possible information about it. We have amended it extremely heavily in the Unopposed Bill Committee, and I hope that it is now in the good shape in which he finds it to be.
The Earl of HalsburyMy Lords, I do not want to waste the time of the House by pettifogging, and I am sorry that I came across the points that I wished to raise only at lunch-time today. I apologise to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the short notice that I have given him about my questions.
First, is the individual named Dr. Burhanuddin—I cannot pronounce it—a British subject, and can a non-British subject promote a Bill? That is my first question. The second relates to the semantic distinction between meaning and naming. A name does not mean anything; it just identifies a person. It is a proper noun. However, a compound noun—that is, the title of something such as the Institute of Cancer Research—not only identifies an individual but also means something, so that if the institute started breeding racehorses instead of doing cancer research, the courts could take notice of the name of that organisation as part of its meaning and decide whether its directors (or whatever) had behaved ultra vires. I am a bit concerned that we do not have any kind of interpretation clause in the Bill, so that compound names (which I cannot pronounce) which may mean something in Arabic have an official translation into English which would in case of need allow the courts to interpret what they mean.
§ The Chairman of CommitteesMy Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl is having a problem with the Bill. I had hoped that the preamble adequately explained the unpronounceable—I have to agree with the noble Earl—and possibly incomprehensible names. Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin is obviously an individual. The next name that presents complications is Dai al-Mutlaq. That is the office. I suppose that I should be in deep trouble with the Bishops' Bench if I were to try to translate that into an equivalent in the established Church of this country.
1570 The next name, Dawat-e-Hadiyah, is that of the mission. The final name that may present difficulties is the Dawoodi Bohra Community. I do not believe that any further explanations would greatly assist the courts. This is a simple, straightforward Bill designed only to cause the holder of the office to be a corporation sole. I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied with that explanation.
§ The Chairman of CommitteesMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.