Compensation Bill [HL]

Many would contend that such planting is not environmental improvement, but I think that those who plant those trees think that they improve the environment. All that I will say about trees is that we have reached a remarkable situation in London, where the plane trees are very much a feature. As I understand it, every time a plane tree is removed, it is now replaced not by a plane tree, but by a cherry tree. I have been told that on very good authority. A decision has been made to change the face of London in that way because cherry trees are safer than plane trees, in view of the dangers that many Members of the Committee have referred to. Without going too far in that direction, I want to defend the wish to define. As the Committee will be aware, we are not debating Amendment No. 13. It was put forward as an alternative because in a private meeting the Minister challenged me to go away and come up with an alternative to Clause 1. I have had the finest brains in the law spending midnight hours coming forward, first, with Amendment No. 3. I am pleased that so many Members of the Committee have approved of that amendment. I foresaw that the Minister would rightly say, ““Yes, you are redefining ‘desirable activities’ as a facility for the purpose of public benefit. What does that mean?””. Therefore, I thought I had hit on a brilliant move in taking the Government’s definition of ““public benefit”” out of the Charities Bill and repeating it in this Bill, and then having that subject to amendment and improvement. At least the Minister would not be able to say to me, ““You have fallen into the same trap of which you are accusing me in producing a phrase that has not been tried and tested””. In fact, ““public benefit”” has been tested many times, but I thought that it might be helpful to the Committee if I set out in detail what I think could well be a definition of that phrase. The key is Amendment No. 3 and I am pressing the Minister to justify the use of the phrase ““desirable activity””, to give us an idea of where it has come from—whether it is a sudden impulsive legal idea; whether it is the only phrase in the English language that has not been tested by the courts and therefore it is de novo, without any track record, without any baggage; or whether there is a more genuine reason for trying to find a way to define activities that are in the public benefit without saying that they are for the public benefit. My Amendment No. 3 gives a clear alternative to that.