Clause 15. —(PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORISED DUMPING.) (Hansard, 14 April 1967)

§ Mr. Cordle
I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 12, line 17, after 'vehicle ' to insert: 'or any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle'. As it stands, Clause 15 makes it an offence to abandon without lawful authority a motor vehicle on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway. 1544 The Amendment is designed to bring within the scope of the offence the abandonment on such land of the residue from the breaking-up of a vehicle, which would not be a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Bill.
This activity is a particular problem in some areas and is as damaging to amenities as the activities caught by the Clause. It should be noted that the activity would not be caught by subsection (1,b) because the residue rubbish will not have been brought as such to the land for the purpose of abandoning it.

§ Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid (Walsall, South)
It is with some regret that I find myself in opposition to this Amendment, because I think that I can claim, without boasting, to have taken some part, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), in the formation of the Civic Trust, from whose inspiration much of the Bill stems. However, I oppose the Amendment because it seems to go so far as to make the position almost untenable. I am sure that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) has in mind is the abandonment of what I call the carcase of a motor vehicle. But the Amendment does not say that, It refers to any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle". May I quote an example from my personal experience? I had the misfortune the other day, when it was windy, to have the blade of my windscreen wiper blade blown off. I was unable to retrieve it as I was travelling at a reasonable but permitted speed. It was, therefore, not found. Clearly, the blade is something which appears to have formed part of a motor vehicle", but there is no suggestion that it was part of the apparatus for deep sea diving or for dealing with oil contamination. It could be proved to have formed part of the motor vehicle. But I should be a rather sorry figure if I appeared in court in breach of the proposed provision because I allowed something which appeared to form part of a motor vehicle to be left on the highway.

§ Mr. Channon
The test is whether my hon. Friend had abandoned it. If it merely fell off at speed, does he submit 1545 that the court would find that he had abandoned it?

§ Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid
If I had thrown a baby out of the window of my car when travelling at speed, I could certainly be said to have abandoned it.
This brings me to a major question, which is how to trace the ownership of these abandoned vehicles or parts of vehicles. A large number of abandoned vehicles are not the property of those in whose names they are registered. They are the property of hire purchase companies which have sought to repossess them and have failed to do so, and the vehicles have been abandoned. Therefore, the mischief of the Amendment will fall not on the guilty owner, even in the case of the carcase of a motor car, but on the hire-purchase company which is financing it and which will already have made a considerable loss due to the defaulting of the hirer. The situation will be very complicated.

§ Mrs. Corbet
May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the wording of the Clause, which places the responsibility for the abandonment and the penalty firmly on the shoulders of the person who does the abandoning?

§ Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid
That is very good. The problem is still how to trace the abandoner or owner. He can only be traced through the number plate and great difficulty will be caused to the hire-purchaser—

§ Mr. Gibson-Watt
I do not believe that my hon. Friend is entirely right when he said that the car can only be traced through the number plate. I have made some investigations into this. Every motor car has a chassis number. This is something which should not be overlooked and it is well known to local authorities for tackling this matter very efficiently.

§ Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid
I am very glad, and I think that this will set a lot of minds at rest, but I still think that when we are dealing with parts of a motor vehicle, the necessary protection afforded by the number plate and the chassis number may not be available. This is a piece of very loose drafting. I have no doubt that there will be an attempt to 1546 gloss over it and there will be some suggestion that only the size of the thing … appearing to have formed part of the motor vehicle. will be taken into consideration. We are here to make laws not to interpret them. That is the duty of others.
I suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends that this is something which does not make sense at all in the context of what we are trying to do, which is to improve amenities. The words … any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle go far too wide for anyone in the courts to have any idea of what it is about. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend, with his great devotion to this, should have allowed this very lax piece of wording to have got into a Measure which will be of modest assistance. This is a genuine attempt to improve amenities. We cannot start off by saying things which do not stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.
This Amendment has surely not been sponsored by anyone with legal training, although if it has been drafted by the Department, I take back what I say. I would be very surprised if the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would have put its name to an Amendment phrased in these very wide terms. Pending further clarification, I must reserve my position.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I must emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) that his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), whose names are attached to this Amendment, have taken very careful advice from the Government. We have gone into this matter quite thoroughly with both Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I think that the hon. Gentleman was arguing his case more along the lines of Amendment No. 37 than Amendment No. 36. I do not quarrel with him on this, because he was attempting to argue on the question of losing or abandoning. When we come to Amendment No. 37, which, again, is an Amendment tabled by the 1547 sponsors of the Bill, with the Government's complete acceptance, we can discuss this.
We have not done this lightly. It has been a matter for great discussion between the sponsors and the Government. We have had several meetings and the draftsmen have gone into this matter as thoroughly as possible. It is not a loose and fancy-free way in which we have proceeded. I hope that he will not be too harsh with his hon. and right hon. Friends. We must take into account the hon. Gentleman's argument, however. I am certain that we need to look at this from a drafting point of view to get it quite right.
I do not follow what the hon. Gentleman's objection is, in principle, to this Amendment. I am trying hard to see this, but it seems that the case put up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch was quite sensible. We are anxious to bring in the parts of the motor vehicle so that we get it absolutely right because this Clause deals with the clearance, not just of the vehicle as such, but of any part of it. That is the intention. With regard to the onus of proof, this comes in the argument on Amendment No. 37, and here I think that the hon. Gentleman might be concerned—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are on Amendment No. 36 at the moment.

§ Dr. Mabon
I realise that I am in breach of order, but the hon. Gentleman was, if I may say so with respect, arguing the case principally on Amendment No. 37.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been out of order I would have called him to order. I thought that he was arguing Amendment No. 36.

§ Dr. Mabon
So did I, Sir, but unless I am very stupid this morning, I cannot quite see the point of the argument which the hon. Gentleman advanced on Amendment No. 36. Taking the whole Clause, as it would be rewritten with the intention of the sponsors, on the Government's advice that it gets to the point which we have discussed at considerable length in Committee, I am content to leave any further argument on the hon. Gentleman's observations until our next debate.

§ Mr. Cordle
Further to that, perhaps I may help my hon. Friend on this point. This Amendment deals with the problems of gipsies, and others who strip cars, leaving bits and pieces about the place, usually causing a very serious litter. The effect of the Amendment is to apply the penalty to motor vehicles and anything appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle.

§ Mr. Cordle
I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 12, line 29, to leave out from 'that' to 'unless' in line 30 and to insert: 'he may reasonably be assumed to have abandoned it or to have brought it to the land for the purpose of abandoning it there shall be deemed to have abandoned it there or, as the case may be, to have brought it to the land for that purpose'. This Amendment was drafted with the full approval of the Government, indeed by them. The effect of subsection (2) at present is to shift the onus of proof on the question of abandonment on to the alleged offender if he left the thing in such circumstances or for such a period that it may reasonably be assumed that he abandoned it.
It is directed against a possible defence to proceedings under the Clause that the intention was to retrieve the vehicle or thing and that it was not therefore abandoned. The Amendment shifts the burden of proof in the same way on the question of whether the thing was brought to the land for the purpose of abandoning it there and is directed against an unmeritorious defence to proceedings on the grounds that the thing was not actually brought to the land for that purpose, that is that even if it were abandoned, the intention to abandon was not formed until the thing was there.
This Amendment bites only on abandoned things, other than motor vehicles. In the case of the latter it is not necessary to prove that it was brought to the land for the purpose of abandonment. This is the essential difference between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of subsection (1).

§ Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid
It is not my wish to appear as the Devil's advocate in this matter. I particularly do not wish to be pleading the case of those who fill the sides of our roads with litter. I am very conscious of this because, living in 1549 the County of Kent, I cannot go through the small towns neighbouring the Greater London area without being conscious of the enormous rash of caravans to this area. They are not caravans in the old sense, the sense of the Raggle taggle gipsies, with the dog and the horse. These are mobile homes, pulled by motor lorries. They are now camped on the side of the main road, but they are in no sense abandoned. I do not think that the Bill deals with them. I am not here to defend them, but I do not think that they come under the Clause.
I should like the sponsors to tell me what happens to the person whose car breaks down. Sometimes cars which break down are in such a parlous state that the person from the garage has one look and says, "I will charge you a fiver to tow it away, and all you will get is the scrap value for it." Such a car would not be brought to that piece of land for the purpose of abandonment, but it has been abandoned because the owner, perhaps not having the means, simply is not prepared to pay the garage for towing it away.
Is he to be subject to prosecution as a result? It may well be a good thing that he should be prosecuted; I would not wish to argue that. But I am interested in what defence he has because he has dumped the vehicle on that land and abandoned it when he meant to do nothing of the sort. Really, the car has abandoned him.
I put these questions because I have the privilege of sitting on the bench and I can visualise a very large number of headaches arising from points of this sort. They will be argued by intelligent young barristers, and a great many very stupid, unpaid magistrates will have to deal with these very intricate matters. All they can do is to refer to the Bill, and what consolation do they get from that? So I should like the sponsors to tell me how they would deal with these points.

§ Mrs. Corbet
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 14 which says that it shall be the duty of the local authority to provide places where refuse may be deposited at all reasonable times. So the man whose car breaks down and who does not want to pay the garage £5 for towing it away can have it deposited at the place which the local authority pro- 1550 vides. This will probably be done at a small charge.

§ Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid
Even if that is so, I still think that a young barrister would have no difficulty in defending his client by asking where the local authority has provided a special dump and which local authority has done so. Do the sponsors think that every local authority will provide a dump as soon as the Bill becomes law? I do not think so.

§ Mr. Speaker
I thought that the hon. Gentleman had completed his speech.

§ Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid
No, Mr. Speaker. I gave way to the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am so sorry.

§ Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid
Still speaking from the point of view of a stupid, ignorant magistrate, I wonder what the devil one will do. I will not name a local authority, because that would be casting aspersions, but I can think of several local authorities in the area covered by the court in which I sit which would not be very forward in providing such dumps. I think that the barrister would find it very easy to tie up the police witness, perhaps by saying "Yes, but the dump is 15 miles away and it would cost my cient £10 to have his car towed there."
Then the magistrates will have to say, "Shall we convict the man or not?" I know that the magistrates on my bench would scratch their heads and say, "Poor chap. He was doing his best and meant no ill. We will dismiss the case." As a result, the police would find it difficult to bring another case. That is why I press these matters. I am as keen as the sponsors are to see the Bill go forward in appropriate form.

§ Mr. J. E. B. Hill
After listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), I cannot help wondering, although I support the principle of the Amendment and the Clause in general, what the position will be if a child who has been given a motor tyre to play with as a hoop rolls it around and then leaves it in a field. It seems to me that, if some one were officious, the penalties to which the child might be exposed would be somewhat excessive.
1551 I hope that the Minister will consider the point more deeply for a later stage. It might be that "lawful authority", at the beginning of the Clause, is not quite the right safeguard. There seems to be difficulty with a child who may wish to abandon a toy on which he does not place much value although it forms part of a motor car and would be covered by both this Amendment and the previous one.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I am advised that as long as the owner of the car in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) intends to retireve the car—in the case where the vehicle has broken down—he has not abandoned it. One would not need a very clever lawyer to argue under subsection (2) that there was no intention of abandonment on the part of the person who left his car on some land in such circumstances. But if an alleged offender decided deliberately to leave his car there because he did not want to spend any money on getting it disposed of in the proper way, he would be regarded as having intended to abandon the car and to have done it recklessly. Such a man ought to be caught, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that principle. As a result, we must have provision of this kind. If a person intends to abandon his vehicle, he ought to do so in the proper place and pay whatever charge is involved. If he does not, he should be liable to conviction.
The case that has been argued for strengthening the Clause and making it viable is a strong one. We have deliberately sought to shift the onus of proof in regard to abandonment on to the alleged offender. If the hon. Gentleman reads subsection (2) again, he will see that it stands very well. It takes the point that he has made about one being unduly hard on a person who did not intend to abandon the vehicle or any part of it.
Subsection (2) and the Amendment together read: For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a person who leaves any thing on any land in such circumstances"— the proposer stressed that— 1552 or for such a period that he may reasonably be assumed —that is, by the magistrates— to have abandoned it or to have brought it to the land for the purpose of abandoning it and so on. It seems to me that the magistrates are given great discretion, and I think that the person who is innocently in breach of the provision will have a good defence.
The Government think—I am sure that the sponsors will agree—that the Clause ought to be strengthened to deal not only with vehicles but large parts of vehicles littering the countryside and in some cases the roads. We are in favour of the Amendment.