REMOVAL OF BUILDERS' SKIPS CAUSING DANGER OR OBSTRUCTION (Hansard, 17 February 1970)

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 14, line 27, after second "a", insert "police".

§ Mr. Speaker
It would be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 36, in page 14, line 27, leave out "in uniform".

Earl of Dalkeith
These are very small probing Amendments. Is there any special reason why a plain clothes policeman should not be entitled to perform this function? I also want to be assured that this does not mean that a police sergeant cannot do so.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I regarded these Amendments, as the hon. Gentleman described them, as probing Amendments designed to elicit an explanation of the use of the terms "constable" and of "constable in uniform".
The Amendments would enable a plain clothes constable to require the removal of or to remove a builders' skip which is likely to cause danger or obstruction. It is standard practice in an Act of Parliament to refer to a "constable" without including the prefix "police". For instance, the Police (Scotland) Act 1956, refers throughout to a "constable", which it defines as … a constable (including the chief constable) of a police force". It covers a policeman of any rank.
The reference to a "constable in uniform" is quite deliberate. It is highly desirable, in the interests of the public and of the individual who is being required to remove the skip, that the authority of the constable should be immediately apparent, especially as the skip may have been deposited with the permission of a highway or buildings authority. We drafted the Clause with this in mind. There is a precedent in Section 2 of the Road Safety Act, 1967, dealing with breathalyser tests. I hope that the noble Lord will agree, with that explanation, that it is right that we should insist on its being a "constable in uniform".

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in line 31, after 'authority', insert 'or a buildings authority'.
Under the Bill, power in respect of builders' skips is exercised by both the highway authority and the buildings authority. Clauses 22 and 23 deal with this aspect. For the first time, however, we see that the highway authority is being given power in relation to builders' skips 301 for purposes other than building purposes, whereas under Section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959, power to give authority to deposit skips is given to the building authority alone.
Under this provision a highway authority is given power to require the removal or repositioning of builders' skips, and we wonder if this will lead to confusion. We have two different sets of authorities, both with power to authorise the depositing of skips, but, when it comes to their removal, power is vested in only one authority. Why does not the building authority have power to require their removal in certain circumstances as well?
We can discuss this question in detail in Committee on another building Measure which we shall shortly be discussing upstairs. Since this is the first occasion when the power is being split, as it were, we must ensure that we have got the provision right because we do not want there to be confusion.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
This subsection enables a highway authority to require the removal or repositioning of a skip where there is a contravention of Clause 22. The possible contraventions are, first, that the skip is in a road without the consent of the highway authority, or, secondly, that there is a breach of a condition that the highway authority attached to its consent; for example, that the skip is in a place where it is not authorised to be.
The Amendment would authorise a buildings authority to require a skip to be removed or repositioned in such circumstances. This is unacceptable, for it would be inappropriate that the buildings authority should penalise infringements arising in the province of the highway authority. This is the more necessary because there should be no overlapping of functions. Clause 22 specifically applies to the use of builders' skips which are not being used for building operations. The reason is that under Section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959, a buildings authority can authorise a person to occupy a street temporarily in connection with building operations, and this enables it to attach conditions to the use of builders' skips in streets for building operations.
302 It is, therefore, unnecessary to make double provision by also giving the highway authority control over skips used for building operations. In case of emergency, of course, a constable in uniform could require the removal or repositioning of such a skip under Clause 23(1). We therefore have an emergency mechanism if there is doubt. A constable would be acting in the knowledge that an obstruction was being caused, and he could order its removal whatever else applied—that is, whether the skip had been rightly or wrongly placed, by whichever authority it had been placed there and whether or not consent had been obtained. If a nuisance or obstruction was being caused, he could have it removed.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
For the guidance of the House, would the hon. Gentleman say what liaison there is in cases like this between the highway authority and the buildings authority in the siting of skips?

§ Dr. Mabon
There is always the possibility that the two authorities will not act together, but it must be recognised that the primary responsibility rests with the highway authority. We are concerned with obstructions on the highway and with the various use of skips on the roadway. We must have a mechanism to insure that if there is danger, albeit temporary, to the proper flow of traffic, the powers in the provision should be available. For this reason it would be unwise to add a reference to the buildings authority. Naturally, the buildings authority has its place and is entitled to give authorisations. However, we should not include or confuse these activities with the activities of the highway authority. Although these activities are sometimes the same, they are not always identical.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in line 40, leave out "of the condition".
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on a Government Amendment to subsection (2) which was made in Committee.