Proceeding contribution from Oliver Heald (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).
Compensation Bill [Lords]
The hon. Gentleman is at cross purposes with me on this matter. Is he seriously saying that we should make Lord Hoffmann’s speech in the Tomlinson case clause 1? If so, I cannot agree with him. Clause 1 is supposed to be a clear statement of an aspect of the law that needs to be declared so that people can go on school trips, enjoy their scout outings and the like. We do not need to try to second- guess the judges in the way that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The idea that a judge is not able to decide on and explain a ““desirable activity”” is preposterous.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 447 c435
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Consumers Accountability Courts Companies Advisory services Fees and charges Liability Exemptions Legal opinion Marketing Negligence Voluntary organisations Regulation Trade unions Voluntary work Claims management services
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:57:09 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328954
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328954
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328954