Compensation Bill [HL]

I want to take the Minister up on a number of points she made. She emphasised many times that Clause 1 does not change the law but seeks to clarify it. I would be interested to know whether in British legal history there has been another instance of Clause 1 of a Bill not changing the law. Leaving that aside, is her mind open to the thought that clarification might not be best achieved by introducing a new verbal formulation into this Bill—I refer to the phrase ““desirable activity””? That phrase is not construed judicially. My noble friend Lord Goodhart referred to the recent clarification of the law in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council, which is a House of Lords judgment and will override previous case law and all future cases must accommodate to it. I am trying to be helpful, because we want to make the best of this legislation. Looking at it as a hoary old lawyer, I wonder whether having that phrase at the heart of Clause 1 without definition will not confuse further. Why cannot we have attached to Clause 1 some non-exclusive criteria which would help lay-people in particular? Non-exclusive is the emphasis here. That would leave the courts free to do their refining work on a common law basis, but it would give some help. I confess that I do not know what anyone would make of that phrase unaided.