DEPOSIT OF MUD FROM VEHICLES ON ROADS (Hansard, 20 June 1984)

§ Mr. Ancram
I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 61, line 18, after 'material', insert '(of whatever nature)'.
Clause 93, which the amendment seeks to amend, is designed to remedy the dropping from vehicles of substances which might cause danger or substantial inconvenience to road users. Despite the words "or other material" in subsection (1), the specific reference to mud and farm yard manure in the subsection might be taken to mean that the clause operates only against the depositing of materials by farm vehicles. That is not the case. The amendment will clarify that the clause applies to any type of material dropped from any vehicle.

§ Mr. Maxton
I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 61, line 21, leave out ', as soon as reasonably practicable' and insert 'immediately'.

The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 171, in page 61, line 22, after 'practicable', insert 'but not more frequently than once per day'.

§ Mr. Maxton
I appreciate some of the difficulties that might be involved. When one considers the substances that might be dropped on to a road — mud, clay and farmyard manure —there is a sense in which, unless those are removed immediately, the danger that they are to other people on the road lessens as the day goes on. As they dry out, other vehicles break them down, and they spread over the road and become less of a hazard.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who is a farmer, will know about the problem of mud on the road. In my youth—longer ago than I care to remember—I worked for a while as a farm labourer. On one occasion I was on the trailer behind the tractor and I had a run-in with a policeman about the mud being deposited on the road. Thus, I have some direct personal experience. Indeed, I was almost prosecuted for being offensive to the policeman, although luckily I was not. When he said that it was my responsibility to get rid of the mud on the road, I said that it was nothing to do with me, and that he should deal with the person responsible. I must admit that I did not quite use that language, and perhaps that caused me some problems.
However, the policeman was on a bike, and it is the person riding a bicycle who is most at risk if he suddenly comes across very wet mud or manure lying in the middle of a country road. It is easy for a cyclist or motor cyclist to skid on it and injure himself.
I accept that perhaps "immediately" is a bit harsh, but I do not think that "reasonably practicable" goes far enough. Such substances should be cleared up so that they do not create a hazard. If a tractor comes out of a field and deposits mud on the road, there is no reason why someone should not clear it up straight away. It should not be left for any length of time. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian does not seem to be on my side any longer. Of course not, because he is a farmer and this measure will hit him and his farm workers. However, I have seen people 411 come off motor bikes because of the problems created by mud on our roads. I believe that the provisions in the Bill should be much stronger.

§ Sir Hector Monro
My amendment is the reverse of amendment No. 170, and I am sure that the Minister is more likely to accept it. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is being quite impractical. He obviously hauled muck a long time ago, and has forgotten what he could, or should have done at the time. I am sure that my hon. Friend has discussed this issue with the National Farmers Union and that he will agree that one must look at it in terms of what is possible.
Often tractors and trailers have to go in and out of fields 20 or 30 times a day carrying silage, turnips, muck or kale. Some of the mud will, of course, be deposited on the road. However, such operations, particularly silage-making, involve team work. There are people cutting and people hauling, and someone just cannot get off the tractor to spend quarter of an hour cleaning the road with a brush and shovel, and putting the mud on to the side. That just is not feasible. We must decide what is practical.

§ Mr. Maxton
rose——

§ Sir Hector Monro
I shall just finish my little story. It is important to ensure that the road is clear before nightfall, and before there is any chance of running into the mud in the dark or of the mud freezing. As long as farmers put up "Mud on Road" signs, and are prepared to sweep it up before nightfall, they are doing all that can practicably be done. Any driver can see mud on the road in the daytime, particularly if there is a warning sign.

§ Mr. Maxton
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Sir Hector Monro
Come on, let's have it then.

§ Mr. Maxton
The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that sometimes gateways are on bends, and drivers cannot see the mud on the road. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if an accident is caused by mud on the road, the farmer should be insured so that he pays for any damage to people or property?

§ Sir Hector Monro
Of course not — the hon. Gentleman is once again being impractical. Farmers are not as irresponsible as the hon. Gentleman seems to think; they will not leave mud on corners. Ninety nine per cent. of mud on the road is obvious, especially if there is an advance warning sign.
Let us support what the farmers practically can do, which is to sweep the road before nightfall. They cannot be expected to do that after every trailer load of silage, muck or berries, otherwise the whole operation of farm work will grind to a halt. I want us to consider what is reasonable and possible, which is to do it before the danger period of nightfall. If that is done, I am sure that everyone will be happy.

§ Mr. David Marshall
I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). It is not only farm vehicles that cause a problem — there are problems with constructions sites and so on. It is not simply a case of mud being deposited on roads, but on the access to sites, such as a pavement that the public have to cross.
There have been a number of complaints in my constituency, where considerable redevelopment has taken place, of people in the winter having to wade through 412 inches of mud to go about their daily business. If a contractor—whether a farmer, haulier or whatever—deposits mud on the road, it is not impossible to clear it immediately.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
I wish briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). It is obvious that Opposition Members have never been potato or berry picking, or they would realise how impractical are their proposals. If we are dealing with the art of the possible—which is surely what we want to do—it is not possible to sweep up after every lorry load of potatoes or berries leaves the field. To do it once per day, and certainly before nightfall, is a sensible and logical way to tackle the problem. No one wants to leave the mud permanently on the road. The important thing is to ensure that we do not put into legislation something that will be impractical and will not be done. The sure way to bring the law into disrepute is to put into statute something that is neither practical nor possible.
I have a farming constituency. I have worked on farms.

§ Mr. Maxton
What?

§ Mr. Walker
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that simply because I am a town boy like himself I have never worked on a farm——

§ Mr. Maxton
I am not a town boy. I was not born in the countryside, but I was brought up there and I worked on a farm for 18 months.

§ Mr. Walker
I acknowledge that I did not enjoy the privileged upbringing of the hon. Gentleman. However, I have picked many potatoes and berries and I understand the practical problems—[Interruption.] I have picked raspberries — 90 per cent. of the raspberries grown in Europe are grown in my constituency. I have some real experience of what the amendment intends. If I speak with some feeling, it is because I have been approached by my local branch of the National Farmers Union. which recognises that if we put into law something that it cannot do it will bring the law into disrepute.

§ Mr. David Marshall
Why is it impossible or impractical to clean up on each occasion?

§ Mr. Walker
It is a small matter of whether we can sell our raspberries at the right price. The time scale is important. I am dealing with the possible. We do not wash to place on the agriculture industry—which is already facing the problems of weather and the time scale in which it has to work—an additional burden which is neither practical nor possible to carry out.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I enjoyed listening to this debate, partly as a farmer, and also as a Member for a rural constituency, where tattie growing is an important industry.

My hon. Friend
the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) raises the important point of what is practicable and what is not. If one has a crop of tatties, one may have to get on with the job of lifting them pretty rapidly, and get everybody who is available on to lifting the potatoes, putting them into trailers, getting them out of the field and into the store before they get frosted. When one is doing that job flat out with a limited work force,, it is not practicable to go sweeping the road in between every trailer load.
413 Both my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) say that they have experience of working on farms, and so have I. The three of us would not have taken kindly to our employers telling us to scrape up all the mud every time a trailer went along the road. There is a difficult practical point.
It is inevitable when agricultural work is being carried out, wherever it is, that at certain times of the year, when there is urgent work to be done which involves running tractors in and out of fields, possibly in bad weather, some mud will get on to the roads. On the other hand, we must take into account the interests of other road users and it would be unreasonable if, for weeks on end, the roads were allowed to get into an intolerable state. We have all seen cases where this has happened. I would condemn any farmer who allowed that to happen. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is sensible.
I should like some explanation from the Minister on one point. On one occasion, I put up a sign on the roadside warning motorists that there was mud on the road. The secretary of the local branch of the NFU came by and told me to get the sign off the road, because by putting it there I was accepting liability for putting mud on the road and could therefore find myself legally responsible for any accident that might result. Evidently, the legal advice is, "Do not give warning of mud on the road." If that is legally true, it is unfortunate, because it is desirable that there should be some kind of warning, and people should be encouraged to give warning. I seem to have given encouragement to my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, which was not my intention, but I hope that the Committee will not object to my giving it the benefit of my practical experience in these matters.

§ Mr. Dewar
We are always delighted and impressed with the practical experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—it is the impractical experiences that worry us. I do not want to prolong the debate. I am somewhat alarmed by the snuffling noises that I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who I think detects a road safety issue, which is usually good for 40 minutes' debate at the drop of an Order Paper.
The Minister may be surprised, but I think that the clause as drafted is satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is an impossiblist. That is a term of abuse in the Labour party, and I mean it in a non-technical sense. I am not trying to suggest that he has joined the Militant Tendency. I am suggesting that the standard that would be imposed on the farming community and others would be unreasonable. On the other hand, to write the words not more frequently than once a day would be dangerous, because there might be an unusual set of circumstances in which the road was made impossibly, and visibly, dangerous. If action were contemplated against the culprit, he could say, "I shall clean up once every 24 hours and it does not matter what happens in between each clean up." The clause as drafted provides that the cleaning up should be undertaken on the sensible basis of as soon as reasonably practicable", 414 which could be interpreted sensibly by a sheriff's court in an agricultural area. Presumably such a court could apply the test reasonably.
I think that the clause should be left unamended and that all the amendments should be thrown out. I am now in a sensitive state, because whenever I see the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rising to his feet and clutching an Order Paper, I am sure that he is about to tell us that at the end of the day he is glad that the amendment has been accepted, that he is surprised and that he is relieved that the Minister has not criticised the draftsmanship of his own civil servants.

§ Mr. Ancram
It is unique to hear that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is welcoming the position that I am about to take. Having listened to all the other contributions that have been made to the debate, I think that both he and I are somewhere between Scylla and Charybdis. It might be said that perhaps, as a result, we have it right.
I should tell he hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that this provision deals with a criminal offence and not with the civil law. His question turned on the civil law and I suggest that if he wants it answered he should go to an erudite lawyer such as his hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, who will be able to advise him on his civil liabilities.
The two positions which have been taken are very different and both are to an extent unworkable, one more than the other. For that reason, I contend that the Government have provided the right course. It is obvious that the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is not practicable. It cannot be practicable to impose a duty in all circumstances immediately to remove material that is spilt on the road. That could require the driver of the vehicle possibly to drive backwards to ascertain whether anything was falling off the vehicle and certainly to stop in the road immediately he saw anything falling off and to collect any such material. In the process he would probably cause an even greater hazard to ther road traffic than would have been caused if he had returned later to clear up the material.
I tell my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that there could be circumstances in which it would be necessary more than once a day to remove material which has been dropped in the road. That depends on the quantity of the material dropped, on the weather conditions and on traffic density. I accept that there are circumstances where a specific and strict requirement would be unduly onerous in the normal practice of farming. I must declare my interest in that respect. The words as soon as reasonably practicable give sufficiently flexibility for the different circumstances and facts to be taken into account. It seems that the clause as drafted strikes the correct balance and I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to withdraw their amendments.

§ Mr. Maxton
At one stage the debate was developing into a class war between the master classes of agriculture and the labouring classes with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettlestone (Mr. Marshall) and me representing the labouring class and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) representing the master class.
415 I accept that the wording of my amendment is defective in the sense that "immediate" is asking for the impossible. However, I am not happy with the clause as it is worded. It could be interpreted even more widely than the amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries. "Reasonably practicable" could be interpreted as being more than 24 hours and the hon. Gentleman's amendment is tighter and provides more control than the clause as drafted. I shall withdraw my amendment but I shall examine the matter again before we consider the Bill on Report to ascertain whether a further amendment should be tabled. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Maxton
I beg to move amendment No. 172, in page 61, line 28, leave out from 'person' to end of line 31 and insert 'who is the owner of the vehicle'.
After the debate on amendment No. 170, amendment No. 172 is even more important. As the clause is worded, a variety of people could be charged. If obstructions are not to be cleared off the road, accidents will happen. Let us put the responsibility — especially in agricultural circles—where it should rest. Responsibility should lie not with the farm manager, the foreman or the farm labourer but with the farmer.

§ Mr. Ancram
I believe that it is unreasonable to propose that the owner of a vehicle should be held responsible for the actions of the driver when he is not present, especially if the driver chooses not to heed the law. The amendment could lead to considerable injustice and cause considerable complications in the cases of vehicles which had been hired or leased. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

§ Mr. Maxton
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.