New Clause,—(ACCUMULATIONS OF RUBBISH.) (Hansard, 28 July 1961)

§ Sir K. Joseph
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
787 Clause 27 in the Bill as drafted is limited to giving local authorities powers to deal, on a once only basis, with sites which have rubbish on them where the rubbish is caused by the demolition of a building. In Committee and on Second Reading, several hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), suggested that this power was not wide enough and argued that a local authority should be entitled to see that such a site was kept in a decent state whether or not the bad state of affairs on the site was due to the demolition of a building or not.
I explained that we were limited here, in general, to Clauses which were well precedented in local Acts and that such a power to require maintenance in decent order of a site is not precedented, the precedents applying only to vacant sites where the rubbish upon them arose from the demolition of a building, even then being limited to a once-for-all operation by the local authorities.
I reminded the Committee that there are powers under Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, though I confess that they are not quite as unambiguously effective as, perhaps, might be wished. I pointed out, also, that it would not be fair to impose, as several hon. Members wished, an invariable obligation on the owner to clear up the rubbish on his site when, in fact, it might not be the owner's fault, or even the occupier's fault, that the rubbish found its way there.
During the discussion, it emerged that there is a handful of precedents, including one recently in a London County Council Bill, giving a local authority power in certain circumstances to clear away rubbish on a vacant site regardless of whether the rubbish came there as a result of the demolition of a building or not, provided that the rubbish is seriously damaging to amenity, but at the local authority's own expense.
The attitude of the hon. Member for Fulham was constructive. He said that that power is rather mingy, but it is better than nothing. As it is precedented, my right hon. Friend has now decided to suggest to the House that such a power should be included in the Bill. Hence the new Clause.
788 The new Clause provides that the site must be a vacant site, that it must be in a built-up area, because, obviously, this is mainly an urban problem and not a rural one, and the local authority must resolve that the rubbish is a serious damage to amenity. The owner or occupier is safeguarded by being given 28 days' notice so that he may do the job himself if he wishes to avoid having strangers on his land, or he may appeal to the magistrates' court if he feels that the local authority is exaggerating the damage to amenity. There are other provisions in the new Clause to safeguard the local authority against an evasive owner or occupier.
I stress that the new Clause gives powers to a local authority in addition to the existing powers under Clause 27 of the Bill and Section 33 of the 1947 Act. I hope that it will be accepted.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)
It must be the first time that a Minister has introduced a Clause with five subsections and with the rather startling title, "Accumulations of rubbish." In fact, the Clause is very much more useful than its name might imply. I am very happy to see it on the Notice Paper. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, I raised the matter in Standing Committee, and we are greatly obliged to the Government for having taken up the idea and put it in a form which they feel could properly be included in the Bill. I have only a few points to raise.
I take it that I am right in thinking that the cost of the operation of removing the rubbish will fall on the local authority. There does not seem to be any provision for requiring the owner to make a contribution. Although, in strict justice, he has been responsible for it and he ought to pay some of the cost of removal, if that were to be required it would be difficult to work administratively and it is not really important compared with the job of getting the site clear, which is what the people in the locality, the actual ratepayers, will want. I take it that the local authority must bear the whole cost. However, it would not be very great.
I am a little worried about subsection (5), the definition of "rubbish." In Standing Committee, on several Clauses we kept stumbling over the rule which I understand the lawyers call the 789 ejusdem generis rule. If I understand it aright, that would mean that, if we said in subsection (5), in the definition, rubble, waste paper, crockery, metal and any other thing. the words "other thing" would have to be interpreted to mean other things of the same kind as rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal. I believe that that is the significance of the ejusdem generis rule.
I notice that in subsection (5) the words are rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal, and any other kind of refuse. I hope that I am right in assuming that that means what any ordinary person would take it to mean and it does not provide that the rubbish must be of a kind like rubble, waste paper, crockery and metal. It would be very odd if the ejusdem generis rule—the words mean "of the same kind"—could cover the case where in a Bill one deliberately used the words "any other kind." I hope, therefore, that we may take it as certain that any kind of refuse is covered by the new Clause. I think that we all know what refuse is. It is something which has been left there because nobody wants it.
The subsection continues but does not include any material accumulated for, or in the course of, any business. I put this case which I consider to be far from imaginary. Certain work has been done in the neighbourhood of the site. While the work was being done, timber was accumulated. For the time being, that may look rather unsightly and tiresome, but, of course, one cannot ask the man to clear away the timber he needs for carrying on the work in the neighbourhood. But let us suppose that, when the work is completed, there are a few shabby bits of timber left about which the man just cannot be bothered to remove because they are not worth the trouble of removing. Would such material left on the site be touched by the new Clause? If not, I should regard that as a pity. I hove that the Parliamentary Secretary will reassure me about that.
Finally, is it the Minister's intention to draw the attention of local authorities in a circular to this new power and the desirability of using it where there is need? I do not suggest that it will be necessary to have a circular on this topic alone. It is very likely that the Bill as 790 a whole will give rise to the need for a circular informing local authorities of several things, and I feel it would be wise to include in any such circular a note about the new powers they acquire under this useful new Clause.

§ Sir K. Joseph
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) for what he has said. He is quite right on the first two points which he raised. This power is to be exercised entirely at the cost of local authorities. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not likely to be a very expensive operation. It is more in the nature of a small tidying-up operation which may have an effect on environment disproportionate to the expense. The reason why we are not seeking elaborately to require owners or occupiers to contribute is that the local authorities' powers are not precedented in that way.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would or would not constitute refuse. He was right in his definition of "refuse", and, rather than spoil the accuracy of what he said, I will not repeat it. He gave an example of some timber which had been left at the end of a job after the bulk of it had been used. In the last resort, any case must be for the courts, but there could well be a situation one day in which the local authority thought that something had been abandoned whereas the person who nut it there thought that it had not. That is why owners and occupiers are given a protective 28 days' notice so that they can apply to the local authority, and, if necessary, go to the magistrates' court.
If a person dumps something which he thinks is of value on someone else's site, he has only himself to blame if no one protects him. There could be an interesting case about the exact stage at which an old car chassis is metal, in which case it comes within the new Clause, or is something more than metal, in which case it might be outside the new Clause. This decision must rest on the facts.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about a circular. My right hon. Friend will direct local authorities' attention to their powers under the new Clause when he sends out a circular on the Bill.