Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, and on the basis of what has been said, I wonder whether we actually need the words ““benefit”” or ““desirable””. Why, in this legislation, should we imply that what we are saying applies only to something that is in some way approved of morally? Surely, the court could decide at the time whether the moral approbation applies to the activity or whether it is illegal, undesirable or in some other way not to be supported. Why do we need those words in the legislation? If an activity is provided for the public, why does it need to be provided for the public benefit? Could that not be dealt with in the general course of a case? Surely, that would remove much of the difficulty. If one removes ““desirable”” from ““activity””, one achieves much the same effect.
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].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c216GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:19:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287439
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287439
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_287439