UK Parliament / Open data

Compensation Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lucas (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bills and Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].
I see a great deal of attraction in the phrase ““public benefit”” in that it is understood; I find it immediately understandable. It seems to me to cover almost every circumstance where this rule should apply. I have severe objections to subsection (2) in Amendment No. 13, which is an entirely inappropriate list. Beyond anything else, it does not cover trees. Indeed, there was a celebrated case last year where a council was determined to cut down a conker tree because the kids were in the habit of climbing it to get conkers. That is exactly the sort of thing that we ought to deal with. A tree in a park is provided for the public benefit; that is sufficient to come in under this. I really do not think that we need this list; if we need a list it can be by way of illustration. I do not see the purpose of subsection (3) of Amendment No. 13, which rules in or rules out various categories of offender in a way that is unnecessary. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 13 is wonderful, and I would very much like to understand the reasons why that was not the phrase chosen.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

676 c206GC 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top