OPERATORS OF COMMERCIAL TIPS (Hansard, 16 March 1972)

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 19, at beginning insert: 'Subject to the following subsection'.

§ The Chairman
I suggest that it will be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 16, in line 25, at end insert: (5) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence of contravening subsection (2) above to prove, in relation to any deposit of waste, that he was unaware that the waste was of such a description that section 2 applied to it; but this defence shall be available only if he also proves—
(a) that he took care to inform himself as to the nature and chemical composition of the waste from persons who were in a position to provide such information; and
910
(b) that he neither knew nor had any reason for supposing that the information given to him was false or misleading.

§ Mr. Griffiths
That is convenient, Sir Robert, as the first Amendment paves the way for the second, the purpose of the two being to create some consistency between the provisions in Clause 2 and Clause 3.
In the case of a person who is required to give notice before the removal or deposit of waste, Clause 2 provides certain statutory defences, but as the Bill is drafted no such defences are available to a person who is required to give notice that the waste has been received. We are, therefore, taking this opportunity to put the matter on all fours.
Perhaps I should assure the Committee that the defence provided by the Amendment will require any person charged to prove, first, that he was unaware that he was dealing with waste to which the notification procedures apply; second, that he sought information about the nature of it from persons who would have known about it; and third, that he had no reason for doubting what he was told. The point is that the person charged can shelter behind information given to him by others only if there was no reason for him to doubt the information that he was given. In other words, he cannot simply turn a blind eye. Turning a blind eye will not be a sufficient defence, and he will not be able to rely on information from an obviously uninformed source.

§ Mr. Cormack
I assume that he will have to produce written evidence.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I think that is for the courts to determine. But what is important here is that we must provide the same statutory defence in the case of a person who is sending the refuse out of a factory and the person at the other end who is receiving it. It would be for the courts to judge what type of evidence they require for his defence to be established.

§ Mr. Dalyell
We think that this is fairly tough but nevertheless right. But are we not putting the burden of proof on those who have to prove themselves innocent rather than on the supposition that they are guilty? I should like to hear some comment on that because the 911 burden of proof, particularly the burden of proving that one was unaware, could be quite difficult.

§ Mr. Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is tough. But the proof would be, in the first instance, that some noxious or polluting matter had been received. There would be no doubt of that. That would be the fact. The question is whether the person who had received it knew about it. The point I was making was that he would have had to strive fairly hard to make sure what he was receiving. After all, he would be the operator of a tip. Therefore, it is not in the least unreasonable that he should take every possible step to ascertain what he was receiving. I think that must be right.

§ Mr. Cormack
Does not this underline the need for as much documentation as possible on every occasion? If there is to be documentation, the man has something that he can produce. That is very important.

§ Mr. John Silkin
The Opposition are well satisfied with this. It is fairly tough. I hope that we do not fall too far into the European habit of accepting guilt rather than innocence as a basis of our law. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I do not propose to have a referendum on that.