§
Second Schedule, page 54, line 15, at end insert:
("On granting to any person the right to withdraw support from any land the Commission shall require that person to give adequate security for the payment of any compensation likely to become payable as a result of the exercise of that right.")
§ The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
§ Because the Amendment is unnecessary having regard to the Amendment in page 55, line 3.
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, this is an Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, I think, on the Committee stage of the Bill. On the Report stage your Lordships accepted a Government Amendment by which the Coal Commission underwrote the cost of damage which occurred owing to subsidence. It would therefore seem unnecessary that security should have to be given by the colliery proprietors in order to show that they are of sufficient substance to make good the damage, in view of the fact that of course eventually, if they are unable to meet it themselves, then the Coal Commission are liable, by the Amendment which your Lordships agreed to at a later stage of the Bill. I think your Lordships would agree that, if we had had a yet further stage of the Coal Bill, this Amendment would have been dropped. It was inserted before we put in the words which your Lordships accepted, and I hope that now you are agreed that we should not insist on this Amendment.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—[Earl Stanhope.]
875§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, inasmuch as I moved the Amendment which your Lordships accepted, perhaps I ought to explain that when I moved it there was no provision for compensation in the event of the surface owner suffering damage through subsidence except against the lessee and the lessee alone, and it was feared that, in the event of the lessee being unable to meet the claim for compensation, the surface owner would have no remedy whatever. In consequence I moved the Amendment which was carried. The principle of my Amendment was that, instead of the obligation to pay compensation being put upon the Commission, the Commission should insist upon an obligation that the lessee afford adequate security for meeting any claim for compensation that might arise. The reason was that I did not wish to see any extra burden put upon the Commission. However, as the noble Earl pointed out, at a subsequent stage of the proceedings an Amendment was moved putting the whole burden of compensation on the Commission if the lessee were unable to bear that burden. I realised that, when that Amendment was accepted, my Amendment was unnecessary. Accordingly, if I may respectfully say so, the proposal of the other place to delete this Amendment should be accepted.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.