§ Mr. PowellI beg to move, in page 25, line 44, to leave out "in respect of," and to insert "equal to the."
The wording of the subsection is not adequate to achieve the objects with which it is drafted. The intention is that the whole of the expenses incurred as specified shall be reimbursable in compensation—or so I understand it. The analogy, for example, in page 27, line 31, where we read:
shall pay to the authority an amount equal to the cost reasonably incurred.strengthens me in that view. I notice, further, that the Minister has in view a similar Amendment later, in page 38, line 8. I gather that a change of wording here would be in accordance with the intentions of the Government.
§ Mr. BarnesThe Amendment would be an improvement, and I accept it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. HaySubsection (1) provides that if damage is caused to the property of the street authority or the street managers in the street, the undertakers have to pay compensation. What is to be the compensation in the case of controlled land, where damage is caused to it or to any property which is on the controlled land? Will there be an equal obligation to compensate on the part of the undertakers?
§ The Attorney-GeneralDamage resulting from negligence in the execution of the work?
§ The Attorney-GeneralYes, I understand there will be.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.