Clause 16. — (Interpretation, etc.)

Orders of the Day — Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 26 July 1957.

Alert me about debates like this

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 10, leave out from "works" to "providing" in line 11.

Photo of Mr David Renton Mr David Renton , Huntingdonshire

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

The Amendment makes a drafting change in the definition of "structure" in the Interpretation Clause. It is fascinating to recollect that we have had endless arguments about how very simple things should be defined. There is in the Bill no comprehensive definition of the word "structure", but it is a word which has been judicially interpreted on a number of occasions and in various contexts. We thought that on the whole it was best to leave the definition in general to the courts, but there was doubt whether the Bill covered roads, railway tracks, car parks and aircraft runways and we therefore provided in the definition that there should be no doubt.

At this very last stage their Lordships found a further difficulty which we in the Commons had not anticipated. It is that the definition left doubtful the position in respect of a railway tunnel and also perhaps doubtful various things constructed under or partly under and partly above the ground, such as a brick or concrete-lined well or a bore-hole. That looked a most terrible difficulty, but the Parliamentary draftsman has found a most simple and, I am told, a cast-iron way of overcoming the difficulty. It is that we should simply leave out the words: constructed on the surface of any land for the purpose of Therefore, the definition will read: structure' includes any works providing passage or hard standing for persons, animals, or vehicles, including railway or tramway vehicles and aircraft". I hope that with that explanation the House will agree with the Lords.

Question put and agreed to.