§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. HayI had an Amendment on the Order Paper to this Clause, in page 11, line 15, to leave out subsection (3), but as it has not been called I should like to draw the attention of the Government to the point which I had in mind. In subsection (3) there is a reference to the substantial commencement of works. It seemed to me that the word "substantial" might be capable of misunderstanding unless there were some clear definition in the Bill of what was meant. We must have some sort of test of when it could be said that works had been "substantially begun." Would substantial commencing of works mean when the equipment for digging up the road and carrying out the operation was on the site, or would it mean that the roadway surface itself would have to be penetrated before the works had been "substantially begun"? I feel that we should have some clarification on that point.
The second point I had in mind was whether or not a second notice was really necessary. I can conceive of a situation arising where there might be delay in commencing works, whether substantially or not, and it seemed to me rather unnecessary for a second notice to be given if the first one could be held in abeyance for a short time until the impediment which prevented the commencement of the works could be removed. Those are my two short points, and I would be grateful if they could be considered between now and the Report stage.
§ Mr. BarnesI certainly agree with what the hon. Member has said. I came into the Chamber rather hurriedly and was not able fully to digest the point that he was enunciating, but I undertake to look at the two Amendments which have not been called, to consider his observations, and see whether any clarification is needed on the Report stage.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.