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.
Compensation Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Oliver Heald
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 June 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
447 c435 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
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