Yes. If we were to leave out “may” and insert “shall”, as amendment 7 proposes, but not make amendment 8, obviously the highway authority would be required to make good the damage and be forced to recover the expenses reasonably incurred. I do not think that it would be sensible to oblige a highway authority under the terms of a statute to recover the expenses, which might prove difficult. It would be better to say that it “may” recover the expenses, which is why amendment 8 seeks to insert “may” in front of the word “recover” in the provision. That way, the highway authority would have a responsibility to make good any damage caused to the highway by adjacent works, but it would have discretion over whether or not to seek to recover the resulting expenses. I hope that is clear.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Chope
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 July 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
566 c476 
Session
2013-14
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-01-19 10:16:37 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-07-10/13071093001246
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-07-10/13071093001246
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2013-07-10/13071093001246