Equality (Titles) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall and Earl of Erroll

Friday 6th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment 2, which will make no sense without it. The rest of the amendments in the group —I have not worked out which ones they are and I am sorry for that; there are quite a lot of them—relate to wherever the Bill states,

“hereditary peerage or hereditary title”.

Where it does, I have taken out “hereditary peerage”, so that from then on the Bill will always read just “hereditary title”. It would then be consistent with Amendment 2 throughout. That makes it much simpler than changing it throughout. I recommend that we accept this amendment in order that Amendment 2 is logical. My challenge is trying to work out all the other ones which are the same. If you see something with my name on it saying “remove ‘hereditary peerage or’” it is in order to ensure that the Bill just refers to “hereditary title”. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 7 and 8 by reason of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My understanding is that it has already been debated, but I may be wrong about that.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Perhaps I might help on this. As a result of my two amendments being agreed, Amendment 9, which I do not think was entirely expected, may make the provision gibberish. I feel that part of what we might have to do on Report is tidy up, because we have several competing amendments all trying to cover the same subject. It may be wise if we tidy up on Report.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Perhaps I may take the noble Earl’s implied advice and suggest that, if that be the case, the amendment be not moved at this stage.