§ Mr. MaxtonI beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 66, line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. Last week, the Committee debated the subject of farmers depositing mud on the roads, the speed at which 13, in—they should remove the mud and the dangers created for road users in the countryside. I and my hon. Friend the 909 Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) put forward cogent arguments showing why farmers should be asked to remove mud as quickly as possible or, as I said, immediately.
I was beaten on that point, and I accept that. If mud, dung or anything else has been deposited on a road by farmers, especially wealthy farmers, the local authority should be reimbursed the cost it has incurred in clearing the road. It should not be a matter of thinking that the local authority can clear the road if it wishes. We know that in most cases if the legislation says "may" the local authority will not bother to clear the road. A statutory obligation should be imposed on local authorities to charge anyone who deposits mud from a vehicle for the cost of clearing the road. Conservative Members always claim to be the defenders of ratepayers, but I am sure that none of them will support me in defending ratepayers against the farmers. That is a different matter. Measures should be taken to ensure that ratepayers do not have to carry the cost caused by those who commit the offence of depositing mud on the roads.
§ Mr. McQuarrieI support the amendment. I have conducted a difficult campaign against my local authority and some of my constituents to remove mud from roads. Mud is regularly dropped so that roads are narrowed to the width of a cart lane. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should give serious consideration to the amendment. It is important that mud is removed from roads. A hazard is caused when mud forms after rain. When travelling in my constituency after rain, my vehicle has skidded over the road, and I am sure that the same thing has happened to my constituents. My hon. Friend should consider replacing the word "may" with "shall".
§ Mr. James Nicholson (Newry and Armagh)In my experience, building contractors are just as guilty of depositing muck on the roads. Perhaps they could set an example to the farmers in this respect. I support the amendment.
§ Mr. McQuarrieWith respect, I did not mention farmers. I only mentioned the depositing of mud on the roads. I entirely agree that building contractors often do the same. I was simply interested in getting the mud off the road and making the obligation enforceable as the amendment provides.
§ Sir Hector MonroI hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist the amendment. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) lost the argument last week and it would be a great pity if he were allowed to win it now. I shall not go into the details again, but one must be practical when dealing with agricultural operations. When one is hauling silage or potatoes or turnips out of the fields and into the farmsteading 20 or 30 times a day one cannot stop each time to clean all the mud off the road. The important thing is to get it cleared before nightfall in case it freezes or becomes slippery due to rain and oncoming traffic cannot see it. I believe that the clause as drafted is about right and brings home to all concerned their responsibilities in this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will leave it at that.
§ Mr. AncramI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for his support for the clause as drafted.
910 I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for 13anff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has been confused by his pair and, having listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) over a long period, I cannot say that I am surprised. The amendment refers not to the necessity of removing mud or other material from the road but to the collection by the roads authority or the district council of expenses reasonably incurred in removing it. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cathcart on other occasions, I am surprised that he wishes to impose an additional duty on local authorities, especially one that is incapable of fulfilment. The hon. Gentleman frowns, but on reflection he will realise that the amendment makes it mandatory for district councils and roads authorities to recover those expenses. That obligation cannot be fulfilled if the person responsible for depositing the material on the road cannot be traced.
It is worth recalling that the clause refers to the deposit of any kind of material from any vehicle, not just to deposits from farm vehicles when the culprit might be easier to trace. The amendment would thus force local authorities to go out searching for people who might have dropped things on roads without any assurance of ever finding them. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman would wish to impose such a duty on the authorities.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Is it not an offence under the Road Traffic Acts to deposit mud or other material on the roads?
§ Mr. AncramIf the hon. Gentleman had heard the Committee debate, he would realise that under clause 95 a person in charge of a vehicle who deposits material on the road and fails to remove it as soon as reasonably practicable commits an offence. If the local authority has to remove the material from the road, the clause at present provides that it "may" recover its expenses. The amendment seeks to make that mandatory. My point is that it is dangerous to legislate in such a way that it may be impossible for the authority to carry out a mandatory duty.
§ Mr. HughesThe Minister said that my hon. Friend's amendment would compel the authority to try to discover who had deposited the material, but the police must have a responsibility to do just that if the material deposited on the road constitutes a danger.
§ Mr. AncramFor any offence it is for the police to find the offender, where that is practicable. We are talking about practical applications in this case. The hon. Gentleman seeks to require local authorities to recover the expenses at all costs, however long it takes. If he thinks about it, that is impractical. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment on that basis.
I am confident that roads authorities or local authorities will not miss the opportunity to recover their costs where they can do so appropriately. It may sound strange for me to say this to the hon. Member for Cathcart, but it is better to leave these matters to the discretion of the authorities rather than for us to foist duties upon them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment on that basis.
§ Mr. MaxtonI shall first reply briefly to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who suggested that I am persecuting hard-done-by farmers. That that most heavily-subsidised group of entrepreneurs should get extra protection is beyond belief.
911 The Minister has got it completely wrong. Clause 95(2) states:
Expenses reasonably incurred by the roads authority or by the district council and necessitated by a contravention of this section may be recovered by them from the person in default.The important words are "in default". That means that the person has been found, taken to court and found guilty of the offence. However, I assume that a person cannot be in default in this country unless he has been found guilty of an offence in a court of law, unless the Minister is implying that someone can be found guilty in his absence, without knowing about it, and when the police do not even know who that person is. That is a remarkable supposition, but the clause says that the person concerned must be "in default".As I read that—perhaps the Minister wishes to clarify it—the person has been found guilty in a court of law as a result of an offence that he committed and for which he has been found guilty. The local authority has incurred expenses and, in that case, the authority should get from him the costs of its work.
I am not referring, nor does the clause refer, to those cases where a person or an organisation has dropped mud or another substance on the road, because the clause does not cover them. It covers only those who are known of and who have been found guilty in a court of law. The Minister's argument does not stand up to reason. Before I take a decision on whether or not to withdraw my amendment, I hope that the Minister will reply to this point.
§ Mr. AncramI must have set a bad example in describing the previous technical amendment to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), as that gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) ideas about legal construction. He should have taken previous advice from his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) before speaking.
I am making a straightforward and simple point. Clause 95(1) refers to a person who fails to remove the material that has been dropped as soon as reasonably practicable committing an offence. Clearly if a roads authority or a district council incurs expenses as a result of that offence it has a right to try to recover those expenses. The only way that it can do so is when somebody "offends" under clause 95(1) because, having dropped the material, he failed to remove it. Under subsection (2) the district authority or the roads authority can recover the expenses if it wishes. However, there could be occurrences where that person was not known and not available, but was still an offender in terms of clause 95(1) because he had fulfilled the provisions of the clause. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would cover those circumstances. It would put upon local authorities and roads authorities a duty that could not be fulfilled, and as a result would be bad law. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would advise the hon. Gentleman of that, too.
§ Mr. MaxtonI still do not think that the Minister is right, but the way in which we have considered the Bill—the Government wrongly tabled a series of amendments, which turned the Committee stage last week into a farce—means that we have not had sufficient 912 time to cover the Bill properly. This is essentially a minor technical amendment, so I have no intention of pushing it to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.