HC Deb 26 July 1957 vol 574 c797

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 25, leave out from "be" to "in" in line 27 and insert: reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to the expenditure which would have been incurred respectively by the Board or by the authority".

Mr. Renton

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Under Clause 5, when a drainage authority wishes to merge the carrying out of remedial works with works which it has to do itself in any event, and quite apart from mining subsidence, the National Coal Board is obliged by subsection (2)of Clause 5, as drafted, not unreasonably to refuse to make payment of the estimated cost which would be incurred by it or by the drainage authority in executing the remedial measures due to mining subsidence, whichever would have been the less.

That is the crucial point—that at the moment it is the lowest estimate made either by the Board or the drainage authority which will prevail. Further thoughts have led us to the view that it would not necessarily be right always to accept the lowest of the two estimates. Other circumstances may enter in. Therefore this Lords Amendment provides that the payment is to be the one which is reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to the expenditure which would have been incurred…by the Board or by the authority. That is, therefore, the dominant factor to be borne in mind, but not the only or concluding factor.

Question put and agreed to.