I must confess to being confused by the noble Lord’s argument. He started with a passionate point about making the law more accessible and understandable to the ordinary bloke, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, was concerned about. But how can it serve that purpose to have two words instead of one in circumstances where we already have had very experienced lawyers disagreeing
as to the meanings of those two words? I note that the noble Lord has not advanced any view on the difference between “substantial” and “significant”. It seems to me that his recipe would confuse the layman.