Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lucas (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].


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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c206GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Children Compensation Courts Accidents Common law Liability Insurance Extracurricular activities Personal injury Negligence Outdoor education Schools Training Regulation Voluntary work Risk assessment Small claims
Legislation
Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk