Compensation Bill [HL]

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.