CIVIC AMENITIES BILL

HL Deb 19 June 1967 vol 283 cc1209-33

4.48 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Procedure for making building preservation orders]:

EARL JELLICOE

This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 9, is a purely drafting Amendment. It merely reflects a slight difference between English and Scottish land legislation.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 26, after ("occupier") insert ("and in Scotland also on any lessee").—(The Earl of Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Penalties

15.—(1) In relation to an offence of cutting down or wilfully destroying a tree, or of topping or lopping a tree in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it, being an offence committed after the commencement of this Act, section 62(1) of the Planning Act and section 26(6) of the Scottish Planning Act (enforcement of tree preservation orders) shall have effect as if for the words "fifty pounds" there were substituted the words "two hundred and fifty pounds or twice the sum which appears to the court to be the value of the tree, whichever is the greater.

LORD MOLSON

moved, in subsection (1), after "it" to insert "or its character". The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 at the same time. This is intended to be a probing Amendment to satisfy myself that the clause will include instances where trees, without being positively destroyed, will be pollarded or lopped in an unsightly manner. It can be almost as destructive of the amenities of a place if pollarding is done in an unsightly manner. I am not claiming that this is a well-drafted Amendment, but I want to make sure that as far as possible any surgery on trees of this kind shall be done in accordance with the British Standards which have been laid down.

The Parliamentary Secretary in another place in Standing Committee spoke about the extremely valuable work which has been done by the British Standards Institution in describing exactly how work of this kind had been done. He undertook that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would do all it could to ensure that lopping and pollarding of trees was done in this way. It seemed to me, therefore, that it might be convenient to provide that if it were done in accordance with the principles laid down by the British Standards Institution it should be deemed that no offence was committed. I think it is important, while we are legislating on this subject, to make certain not only that trees are not wantonly destroyed, but that they are not mutilated in an unsatisfactory manner. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 6, after ("it") insert ("or its character").—(Lord Molson.)

EARL JELLICOE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he moved his Amendment. I am sympathetic with its object, but I think there is a difficulty here. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that one can apply surgery to a tree which will totally destroy its value, a tree which has been worthy of tree preservation order. If ineffective or inefficient surgery has been applied it may thereafter be worth a tree preservation order. In that respect I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord. I would agree with him, too, that his Amendment may be technically defective. As something of a layman in these matters, it seems to me to be defective in that he says, "destroy it or its character". Of course, that is bound to happen if you are going to cut the tree down, and the noble Lord's Amendment applies to the cutting down as well as to the topping or lopping of it. But that is by the way.

LORD MOLSON

It may be possible to destroy the character of the tree without destroying the tree.

EARL JELLICOE

That is perfectly so. As I read the noble Lord's Amendment it applies to the cutting down as well as to the topping or lopping. If you are destroying the tree, which is the cutting down, you must ipso facto be destroying its character, and I grant that it bites also on the second part. It may be a technical defect or it may not. I think the substance of the Amendment poses a difficulty. It talks of destroying the character of a tree. I myself find it extremely difficult to know how one is to be able to define the character of a tree. It is difficult enough when one destroys or changes the character of a person; and I should have thought that it is equally difficult in the case of a tree. I feel that this wording would give rise to great difficulties of interpretation. I feel that the clause as it stands probably goes about as far as it is possible to go at this stage. I know that it is the product of a great deal of very careful cogitation and deliberation between the sponsors of the Bill in another place and the Government, and I should have thought, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may say, that we would probably be wise to leave it as it stands at the present time, bearing in mind the very clear assurance which was given by the Minister in another place about the British Standards, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has quite rightly referred. He made it clear that he was quite prepared to bring this British Standard to the attention of local authorities in a positive manner. I should have thought that to a very large extent this would meet the noble Lord's point in substance. I am inclined to believe that we would be wise in this respect to proceed by regulation rather than by legislation, but I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may say on this point.

4.55 p.m.

LORD KENNET

We so fully sympathise with the purpose of this Amendment that we had a jolly good look at it, together with our legal advisers, and we ran into the difficulty of how you define "character" and, conversely, how you define "mutilate". On reflection it seemed that it would be creating too much difficulty for the courts to face them with either of those two words. That is the Amendment before the House at the moment. The next Amendment, which hangs with it, has the disadvantage that it puts the British Standards Institution into an Act of Parliament. It makes the law dependent on the standards set down by a body which is not under the control of Parliament. We found no precedent for this, and were doubtful of the desirability of writing the standards which may be developed by that institution, admirable as it is, into the wording of an Act of Parliament.

Having said all that, I would agree with the noble Earl that this matter of spoiling the trees without actually killing them is something which is best pursued by exhortation, possibly by circular or even regulation, by education both of local authorities and to the owners of trees and tree doctors, rather than by any attempt to lay down hard and fast rules in the body of an Act of Parliament. So while I accept 100 per cent. the noble Lord's purpose in moving this Amendment, I would agree with the noble Earl that it might be better if he were to agree to withdraw it on this occasion.

LORD FARINGDON

I hope my noble friend may reconsider his decision on this particular point. Shocking mutilation takes place on trees all over the country, and I feel that something stronger is required. With great respect, I should have thought that the difficulties had been largely met by taking the British Standards as a basis for criticism and approval. I hope the noble Lord will give this matter further attention, because it is of the essence of the amenity of our countryside and towns.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I agree both with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. There is nothing I hate more than a tree lopped in such a manner as completely to destroy its beauty. This is so often done. My noble friend the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, seemed to me to be saying that they were going to bring very forcefully to the notice of the local authorities the British Standards publication and the standards set out in that publication. We are trying to get at the owner of the tree rather than the local authority. Somehow we must get at the man who owns the tree in order to prevent him carrying out the mutilation which we all hate.

Although there may be some objection to the drafting I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that it may be possible for the legal brains in the department concerned to find some way of ensuring that any owner of a tree who destroys its beauty in this manner should be liable to a suitable penalty. I hope my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will look at this again between now and Report stage, if the noble Lord, Lord Molson, decides to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I hope very much that the noble Earl will look at this between now and the Report stage, because it is not quite so difficult a matter as I think both he and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made out. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, gave one good example of how a tree can be mutilated, that of pollarding it. But there are others. Supposing in the case of a conifer it was cut about 15 or 20 feet above the ground, that would mutilate it for life but would not kill it, and it might live for 30 or 40 years. Equally, with either a conifer or a hardwood, if the owner was in a spiteful mood and cut off all the branches on one side, it would make it look perfectly ridiculous. I think it would be your Lordships' wish that something should be incorporated in the Bill which would make this sort of thing at least more difficult, if not impossible.

LORD LEATHERLAND

On the Second Reading of this Bill I seem to recall I proclaimed myself a very dedicated tree-lover, and I still am. My back garden leads into Epping Forest, and I see in Epping Forest thousands and thousands of trees that were pollarded sixty or seventy years ago, with the result that the whole character of the forest has been radically altered. In fact, as this Amendment might have said, it has almost been robbed of its character in certain areas.

But I believe there are very great difficulties in accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, which has been supported in various parts of the Committee. I think the furthest we can go at this moment is to stand by the clause as it is now drawn, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, urges us to do. A difficulty which I see about accepting the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is this. Let us imagine the case of some ancient oak on a blasted heath which has been proclaimed to be an historic tree which must be retained. Let us assume, as is so frequently the case, that the branches die and become dangerous, and that it is absolutely essential for public safety to lop off the branches, leaving the trunk as the historic monument that it will be for, perhaps, centuries to come. Under the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the character of that tree will have been destroyed, and somebody will have been rendered liable to prosecution.

As I say, I should like to see the spirit of this Amendment somehow embodied in this legislation, but like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I do not see that this Amendment would have that effect. If, between now and the next stage, it is possible to devise some form of words midway between the two versions which will ensure what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is aiming at, I shall be as pleased as any noble Lord in the Committee.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

I hope that the Government will look very carefully at this matter. I live in Suffolk, not far away from where the last speaker lives, and there is no doubt that large parts of East Suffolk are becoming almost like Canadian prairies. Within some 500 or 600 yards of where I live about 30 acres of trees have been demolished in the last 12 to 15 months. Hedgerow trees are virtually non-existent. It may well be that in some way the existing law protects trees, but there seems to be an unwillingness, if I may say so, on the part of county councils to exercise their rights to preserve trees. I do not know how this situation, which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and other noble Lords have mentioned to-day, can be dealt with effectively. But I would plead with Her Majesty's Government to look at this matter in such a way that whatever else we do, we preserve as many trees as possible, and see that there is more adequate provision made whereby county councils can be called upon to exercise their rights more effectively than I think they are doing at the present moment.

LORD KENNET

With the leave of the Committee—

LORD CHAMPION

It is not necessary.

LORD KENNET

—I should like to intervene with one more explanation on this matter. I think we are losing sight of the shape of the discussion here. Before this Bill was introduced there was a penalty, under Section 61(1) of the Planning Act, for doing certain things to protected trees. The Bill, as it comes before your Lordships' Committee un-amended, separates two types of offences: what we may call major offences—that is, destroying or causing the destruction of a tree—and minor offences, which include the lopping of protected trees; and it then increases five-fold the maximum penalties for the major offence while leaving the penalties for the minor offence as they were. The effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would be to transfer an act affecting the character of a tree from the category of minor offences, where the penalty is unchanged, into the category of major offences, where the penalty is increased five times. So what we are discussing is whether or not to count the lopping of a tree as a major offence instead of a minor offence, as it would re-remain if the Bill were unamended.

LORD MOLSON

I think that the second intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary has been most helpful. There is no doubt that the discussion has gone a little beyond the scope of my Amendment, but that has really served only to demonstrate how widespread, in all parts of your Lordships' Committee, is the concern about the preservation of trees—concern not merely about their total destruction, but also about their mutilation.

In view of what has been said by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee about the importance of this matter, I hope that the noble Earl who is sponsoring the Bill and the Parliamentary Secretary will do their best between now and Report stage to devise a form of words which will give effect to what we all have in mind. I am fully aware of the difficulty of the task. Naturally, my own failure to devise such a form of words makes me sympathise with those who come afterwards and try to do it better than I have done. But that is what Parliamentary counsel are there to do, and I have confidence that they will not allow themselves to be frustrated in giving effect to what is quite obviously the wish of the Committee as a whole. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment; and I shall not be moving my second Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Procedure for making tree preservation orders]:

EARL JELLICOE

As I explained when speaking to a similar Amendment, No. 6, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 42, after ("occupiers") insert ("and in Scotland also on lessees").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Provision of refuse dumps]:

On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?

5.8 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

Having arranged debates on the subject of dumping several times in the last few years, I naturally have a great sympathy with the clauses in this Bill which seek to cure this unfortunate disease from which our countryside suffers. But I should like to make a few remarks as to their likely efficacy before we part with them. In the course of my wanderings it has appeared to me that there are really three sorts of waste which tend to find themselves alongside our country roads.

First of all, there is the waste from the largish firms. Only once or twice have I ever come across anything that looked like such waste, but I have come across an awful lot of dumping which I believed was probably surplus mess from small garages, decorators, building firms and the like. Then, of course, there is obviously a certain amount of private dumping, which is evidenced by such things as mattresses, pianos and the like. The solution provided by the Bill is: free tips for the private people, and charges for the trade. But one must always remember that the tips may be quite a long way away, and that very often they will be further away than the country lanes. Therefore it will remain much easier for a private tipper, or even the small firm, if they are tipping the smaller or medium-sized item such as tin cans, sacks of paper, bottles, beds—and even the piano—to tip on a dark night. When we come to cars—and these are the things that get all the publicity—we come to a special case. In many cases, the cars which I have seen dumped have been fairly well stripped, from which one can conclude that they have been in the hands of some small scrap dealer, who has taken out anything of value and has then dumped them by the wayside. Of course, they could not have been driven under their power, because he has taken out the important parts. There are, too, some purely private cars; they give one the impression that they are just cars that have died and will not go any further. The person who owns such a car will not be able to get it to the municipal tip.

The only perfect solution would be not only free collection, but frequent collection, because my experience leads me to believe that it is the infrequency of the collections which the local authorities are able to make that is the principal cause of dumping. Collection should be free, both for the private individual and for the trader. I do not want anybody to point out the difficulties to me. I know them, and they are immense. All I would say is that in my view the solution put forward in the Bill, which is perhaps the only solution the Government could put forward, in the light of their position vis-à-vis the local authorities, will not do a great deal to cure this evil.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Penalty for unauthorised dumping]:

EARL JELLICOE

This Amendment should be read in conjunction with, and paves the way for, Amendment No. 11. It is purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 6, leave out from ("abandons") to ("on") in line 7.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "highway" to insert: a motor vehicle or anything which formed part of a motor vehicle and was removed from it in the course of dismantling the vehicle on the land ". The noble Earl said: As I have just said, I think this Amendment is best considered with the previous Amendment to which the Committee have agreed. Since it is a little complicated to visualise the effect of three Amendments to this clause, I think it might be helpful if I were to read the start of Clause 19 as it would read incorporating Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and the following Amendment (No. 12). It would begin: Any person who, without lawful authority—

1. (a) abandons on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway a motor vehicle or anything which formed part of a motor vehicle and was removed from it in the course of dismantling the vehicle on the land; or
2. (b) abandons on any such land anything other than a motor vehicle, being a thing which he has brought to the land for the purpose of abandoning it there, shall be guilty of an offence …"

and so on. That is how the amended clause, if agreed to, would read. The present wording, a motor vehicle, or any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle was inserted at the Report stage in another place, in an attempt to bring within the scope of this Part of the Bill the abandonment of the carcase of a vehicle—that is, what remains when the vehicle is broken up. It could not have been caught by the original wording of the Bill. That is why the words "or any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle" came into the Bill.

It was pointed out in another place that a person who went for a picnic in the countryside in his car, who had not noticed that by mischance his windscreen wiper had dropped off, and who had left it on the land and driven away, would, technically, have committed an offence and would have been liable to the quite severe penalties in the first part of Clause 19. That was clearly rather unsatisfactory. I, too, felt that the words, "any thing appearing to have formed part of a motor vehicle" were extraordinarily wide. That is why the rather narrower phraseology has been brought in, which I think materially improves and tightens the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 9, after ("highway") insert ("a motor vehicle or anything which formed part of a motor vehicle and was removed from it in the course of dismantling the vehicle on the land").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.17 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

This Amendment is really consequential upon the two Amendments to which the Committee have just agreed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 10, leave out ("other thing whatsoever") and insert ("thing other than a motor vehicle, being a thing").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD LEATHERLAND

When we were debating this Bill on Second Reading I recalled the experience I have had, as a motorist, of seeing twenty vehicles abandoned on twenty miles of road. I have since learned that had I digressed from that for half-a-mile I could have seen another ten within a few hundred yards. It is very desirable that something should be done about this evil. But I also recall that on Second Reading we had some discussion about the word "thing" which finds a place in the phraseology of this particular clause. I think that some noble Lords were not quite happy about the inclusion of that word and suggested some other alternative word might be appropriate. The word "thing" refers to animate objects as well as to inanimate objects. I wonder whether that is really what is intended by the promoter of this Bill.

The Oxford Dictionary gives as one meaning of the word "thing", the word "creature", and I suppose that most of us are creatures and are hardly likely perhaps to be dumped in the ditch at the side of an arterial road. The Oxford Dictionary also defines "thing" as being "an entity of any kind; a being, including a person". If we search the pages of the poets we find many references to persons being described as "things". Shelley said: I wish no living thing to suffer pain". He was referring to an animate object, not to an inanimate object. Another of our poets said: He that getteth a good wife, getteth a good thing". That statement might be open to debate on its merits, but nevertheless "thing" is established, and we look to the poets, as the sources of inspiration of our language, that "thing" may be something that is living; it may be an actual human being. There is another of our poets who said: A goodly dame is an ideal thing". I am quite sure that that would be corroborated by anybody who from time to time reads the news about Hollywood.

Then there was a critic at a play, some hundreds of years ago, who said that he was: looking at a young thing in a box before us". Whatever we may think of his conduct, he has again established that a living person can properly be described as a "thing". If we come to more recent days, Dickens is known to have said to someone: You stupid thing". There is another of our great writers who said of someone that he was: the youngest thing I have ever seen in an Eton jacket. So I think it is established that the word "thing" does mean a living person.

In a discussion with a group of people not long ago, one man inquired of another about the state of health of his mother-in-law. The other man said, "Oh, that silly old thing." If that gentleman had taken his aforementioned mother-in-law along an arterial road and abandoned her in a ditch then, in accordance with the phraseology of this clause, he would have been liable to a very big fine, although probably he was performing a very valuable social service.

It may be suggested that this is a facetious line of argument, but I ask your Lordships to accept the view that it is a serious one. The task of interpreting the legislation will fall on the High Court Judges. They will have to decide what is meant by the word "thing". That may confront them with an almost insoluble problem. During the past week High Court Judges decided that a salary had been paid although it had not been paid, so when they have to wrestle with the interpretation of the word "thing" in this legislation I fear that they may find themselves up against more difficulty. All that I have said, ridiculous though it may sound, suggests the need for very great precision in the words we use in this clause.

LORD KIRKWOOD

As I was the person who brought up this point on Second Reading, may I say that I am in complete sympathy with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. I do not think that "thing" is a precise enough word to use. Would the noble Earl accept "something", and would he feel that a "thing" had been obliterated by "something", which was something of a greater personality?

LORD KENNET

If the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, without lawful authority, were to abandon a "goodly dame" or a "sweet little thing" or a "stupid old thing" on any land in the open air or on any land forming part of a highway two things could happen. Either the sweet little thing would walk away, in which case she would no longer be abandoned, or she would not be in a condition to walk away, in which case she would indeed he abandoned, and the noble Lord might find himself convicted under other provisions than those in this Act.

LORD LEATHERLAND

The noble Lord flatters me.

EARL FORTESCUE

We have heard strong arguments about the need to include animate objects. I hope that the Minister will be able to include in the Bill something to deal with the inhuman practice of some people of abandoning their dogs.

EARL JELLICOE

The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has given me a little food for thought. I have a feeling that probably the fears which he has voiced about the precise legal meaning which this phraseology is likely to bear, are not well founded. Nevertheless, in view of what he has said I should like to look at the words to assure myself that they will not catch fathers, mothers-in-law, wives and the rest. The word "object" might be a better word to use in this respect. I hope that the assurance which I gladly give to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland (that I should like to have another look at the precise phraseology and if necessary take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the Parliamentary draftsmen) will persuade the noble Lord, and others who share his views, to permit this Amendment to be agreed to.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

5.25 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

In this part the Bill follows the usual form. When society dislikes something it increases the penalties, brushes the thing under the carpet, and hopes that it has done its best. Unless you provide alternatives to the offence, and make certain you get the people who commit the offence, you are really no "forrarder". Clause 18(2) states that local authorities are allowed to discriminate about what they will or will not take on a refuse tip. Motorcars are extremely unpleasant to deal with at a tip, and unless it is quite certain that local authorities are to have facilities for the disposal of old motor cars it will be extremely difficult to stop people abandoning cars.

If we want to catch the people who abandon cars, I suggest the following course of action, which would make it more difficult for them to get away with committing the offence. In the log book of a motor car there appear the index number, the engine number and the chassis number. It is fairly easy to trace the owner of a car by the index number, but it is extremely difficult to do so by means. of the engine or the chassis number. It can be done, but it takes a tremendous amount of manpower. I suggest that we should set up a central computer and feed into it the three numbers of all the cars in the country. If a car is abandoned, the owner could be traced in a few seconds by means of these numbers. The intelligent and clever person will, of course, remove all three numbers from the vehicle, but that would entail a lot of bother, and in some cases the owner might decide that it would be worth while to hand over the vehicle at a legitimate place, rather than leave it on the side of the road. But unless facilities for disposal are available, and you succeed in catching the people, these punishment clauses will be of no avail.

LORD KENNET

The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there are facilities for disposal. The point made by the noble Lord about a computer service will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport.

LORD HAWKE

Can the Minister enlarge on the provision in Clause 18(2) which so far as I can see would allow local authorities to opt out of taking any form of refuse at their tips they like?

LORD KENNET

The noble Lord will notice that the clause also contains the words … without prejudice to the generality of their duty under subsection (1) …

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

May I raise a small point in relation to this clause? Subsection (1)(a) limits the application of the provisions to a vehicle abandoned on the highway, or "on any land in the open air". I imagine that my noble friend, when drafting the Bill, was primarily concerned with protecting the amenities of our pleasant land, as the Title indicates. I wish to call attention to the benefit which would flow from extending the provisions of the subsection to enclosed premises, such as off-street car parks and motor agents' premises, where motor cars are also abandoned. This problem of the abandoned motor car is with us in many forms, and I am sure that if the provisions could be extended a little further it would be to the general interest.

A survey conducted recently by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders revealed that over 2,000 motor vehicles were abandoned in such premises as those to which I have referred, some for as long as three years. Under the existing law there is no way to deal with this aspect of the problem, other, I suppose, than taking the vehicle and dumping it on the highway, which would bring the person concerned within the scope of the Bill. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would consider widening the clause a little to include such premises as I have indicated, with consequential amendment to Clause 20 as well. Such an Amendment would seem to be within the Long Title of the Bill and I should have thought it would not in any way prejudice the rest of it. I think that it would be most helpful if the noble Lord would look at this point between now and Report stage, and if he finds it acceptable perhaps I could put down an Amendment to that effect.

LORD KENNET

I will look at the point. At first blush it strikes me as open to question, because parking places and garages are usually private property. Garages are institutions run at a profit for the very purpose of receiving motor cars. If one takes a car to a garage and then goes away and never comes back, that seems to me a risk that a garage proprietor might properly reckon he has to run in the course of his everyday business. The proprietor then has to take the car away to one of the dumps provided by the local authority. If one takes a car to a roadside or a nearby farmer's field, then goes away and is never seen again, one is inflicting a wrong on the generality of the public, because a highway belongs to the public and the abandoned car looks horrible, and the farmer is not running his farm as a place where people can take their cars.

LORD RAGLAN

It has struck me that the responsibility and the expense of the removal of a vehicle devolve entirely on the local authority under the next clause. An owner can be fined for abandoning a vehicle, but he is not obliged to remove it. Is there not something of a gap in the Bill here? If an owner is found, would he not be obliged to remove an abandoned vehicle at his own expense?

EARL JELLICOE

I found the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, used in reply to my noble friend fairly convincing. It seems to be going rather far to place a mandatory obligation upon local authorities to remove these vehicles at their own expense. Nevertheless, I would be willing to consider this question further with my noble friend, though in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said I feel doubtful about holding out much hope that we shall be able to devise a form of words which would meet him.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Removal of abandoned vehicles

(2) Where it appears to a local authority that the land on which a motor vehicle is abandoned as aforesaid is occupied by any person, the authority shall give him notice in the prescribed manner that they propose to remove the vehicle in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section but shall not be entitled to remove it if he objects to the proposal in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period; and a local authority shall not be required by virtue of subsection (1) of this section to remove a vehicle situated otherwise than on a carriageway within the meaning of the Highways Act 1959 if it appears to them that the cost of its removal would he unreasonably high.

5.33 p.m.

LORD RAGLAN

moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "the prescribed period". The noble Lord said: This is only a probing Amendment. There was some discussion in another place on this part of Clause 20. Although I do not wish to be too hard on local authorities, it seems to me that this part of the clause might be too wide an escape route and might be used too often as an excuse for doing nothing. Perhaps I could point out that in the 1959 Highways Act there is no definition of a carriageway—at any rate, none that I could find—or even a definition of highway. That may lead to some argument, but not to insurmountable difficulties. I shall be interested to hear what is said in regard to this part of the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 41, leave out from ("period") to end of line 2 on page 15.—(Lord Raglan.)

LORD KENNET

On the question of definition I am informed that under Section 295 of the Highways Act 1959 "carriageway", means: a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles". The effect of my noble friend's Amendment would be that local authorities would have an absolute obligation to remove all abandoned motor vehicles, without any exception whatever, from any land, regardless of how much it might cost them. We have to think of the kind of thing that might happen. A car might go off a mountain road and plunge 600 ft. down into a deep ravine covered with impenetrable trees and thickets, under which it could not be seen by anybody where it lay and out of which it could not be taken, except perhaps by using an A-bomb. In such a case, it would be unreasonable to require an authority to remove it. We rest on the provision of the next Amendment, to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, which will do something to enlarge the scope of the obligation laid upon local authorities in this respect in comparison with what it was when the Bill left the other place.

LORD RAGLAN

I thank my noble friend for his explanation. I think that we shall have to wait and see how the clause works. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL JELLICOE

moved, in subsection (2), after "removal" to insert "to the nearest convenient carriageway within the meaning of that Act". The noble Earl said: I feel strongly that we are right to leave local authorities with an area of discretion here, for the sort of reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just adduced. The Bill as it stands contains no definition of what would constitute an unreasonably high cost of removal for a local authority. To a certain extent this is almost an inevitable difficulty, because of the problem of laying down any hard-and-fast criteria in the circumstances. But this Amendment at least narrows the area of doubt by making it clear that an unreasonably high cost would not include the cost of removal from the carriageway.

Under the Bill, local authorities have an absolute duty to remove vehicles which are abandoned on or by the side of the highways. Therefore it seems only right that they should not be allowed to include the cost of such removal in their assessment of what would amount to an unreasonably high cost. I am the first to admit that this Amendment goes only a small way to meet the sort of point which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has made, but at least it goes some part of the way and I hope that it will satisfy him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 2, after ("removal") insert ("to the nearest convenient carriageway within the meaning of that Act").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD HAWKE

I wonder if my noble friend would tell me exactly how far off the metalled road the highway, under the definition, extends. Unless it goes some distance, I foresee that once again this Bill is going to be pretty useless, because come of these cars are not just off the road but pushed into gaps in the hedge.

EARL JELLICOE

I shall have to take note of the point that my noble friend has made. The only definition of "highway" and "carriageway" is that contained in the Highways Act 1959, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred. My assumption is that it would certainly include the verges, which in the case of motorways like the A.4 can be very wide, but would not include gaps in hedges, which are more likely to be part of the neighbouring field. This is a point on which I should like to check, and perhaps I can communicate with my noble friend between now and Report stage.

LORD HAWKE

I think that it would be a good idea if my noble friend would look into this point in some detail, because many of these vehicles will not be wholly on the highway or wholly off it: they will be half on the highway and half off it. In such cases whose job is it to move them? It is important that it should be laid down.

LORD KENNET

We could be under some misapprehension here. The point of the Bill is to bind local authorities to remove abandoned motor cars, not only from a highway but from any land in the open air. The Amendment says that the only let-up from that duty is if the cost of removing them to the highway is excessive. I do not imagine that removing them from some hole in the hedge can be held to be excessive.

LORD HAWKE

I am not sure that the noble Lord quite appreciates the difficulty. He will discover that the real difficulty in the case of a field is that local authorities have a large area to clear. They have not the staff or the lorries, and if they can find a valid legal excuse for not touching one of these vehicles they will certainly take it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21:

Disposal of removed vehicles

21.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, the council of a county borough or county district or the Greater London Council may, in such manner as they think fit, dispose of any vehicle which is in their custody in pursuance of section 20 of this Act— (b) in the case of a vehicle to which a notice was so affixed and on which a current licence was so displayed, at any time after the licence expires;

LORD RAGLAN

moved, in subsection (1)(b), after "time" to insert, "after fifteen days". The noble Lord said: As your Lordships know, it is the custom among local licensing authorities and the police to allow a period of 14 days' grace from the time a motor vehicle licence lapses, so that a vehicle is not considered to be unlicensed until 15 days after the expiry of the licence. However, what a local licensing authority does is one thing, and what a local authority charged with the removal or disposal of vehicles may do is another. When a car has been standing in the streets for some months, it is easy to imagine those responsible for its disposal getting so fed up with the thing that they want to pounce on it as soon as they can and cart it away. This Amendment is to prevent a car from being so peremptorily removed. It is a small point, but I hope your Lordships will think it of some importance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 22, after ("time") insert ("after fifteen days").—(Lord Raglan.)

EARL JELLICOE

I was in some doubt as to the precise point that the noble Lord was on, and I am afraid that I was engaged in conversation with my neighbour as the noble Lord was moving the Amendment, for which I apologise—we were still, as it were, partly in the hedge. As I understand it, what the noble Lord is anxious to do is to apply to wrecks the 14-day concession which applies to expired licences. I have not been aware of any pressure that this concession should be extended, and I should not have thought that it was necessary. It seems to me that in the case of an abandoned wreck, a complete non-runner, it would be quite unnecessary. If it were included, I should have thought that it ought to be in the runners that I have provided for in the other parts of the Bill.

LORD RAGLAN

This is a case of a runner which is said to be abandoned but is still licensed.

EARL JELLICOE

But the clause on which the noble Lord's Amendment bites applies only to wrecks, and it would seem unnecessary, and indeed unjustifiable, to introduce this requirement in those cases.

LORD RAGLAN

I am sorry if I have misunderstood the position. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Removal and disposal etc. of other refuse]:

EARL JELLICOE

This is mainly a drafting Amendment the purpose of which is to express rather more precisely than is the case at present the intention behind the subsection. As at present drafted, the subsection will apply only to two of the main provisions in the relevant part of the London Government Act 1963. This Amendment means that it will apply to all four. The Amendment also means that an additional provision from Section 76(3)(b) of the Public Health Act 1936 will apply. I do not think I need bother your Lordships (though I should be glad to do so if you so wish), with further comment on what is a highly technical and purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 18, line 41, leave out from ("The") to ("shall") in line 45, and insert ("following provisions (which relate to the deposit and disposal of refuse), that is to say

1. (a) section 76 of the Public Health Act 1936 (except paragraph (a) of subsection (3));
2. (b) sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 15 of Part I of Schedule 11 to the London Government Act 1963; and
3. (c) without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) of section 28 of this Act, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of the said paragraph 15 so far as they relate to provisions of the said section 76,".—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

This, too, is a drafting Amendment. It paves the way for Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 20, leave out subsection (6).—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

This Amendment, like Nos. 6 and 9, is designed to make provision for the special requirements of Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 32, leave out from ("may") to ("sell") in line 35 and insert—

1. ("(a) provide places for the deposit of any thing removed by them under subsection (1) of this section;
2. (b) provide plant and apparatus for the treatment or disposal of any thing deposited at such a place; and
3. (c)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD LEATHERLAND

The only question I would ask is: do they ever throw anything away in Scotland?

EARL JELLICOE

Not money.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall start part of the Bill?

LORD WEDGWOOD

During the Second Reading debate I spoke on the permissive aspect of Clause 23 (1). I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the actual wording, which is that: the authority may if they think fit remove the article. I said at the time that I felt a greater direction was needed to impress upon local authorities that there was an urgency in this matter to clear up the countryside. I listened just now to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on mandatory clauses, and the consequent effect on local authorities, and also to the Minister's remarks on the extra expense involved. However, I feel that at this stage we should consider this matter before passing on to the next clause.

Would it be too much to ask the Minister to give his ideas as to what could be done to provide extra finance in order to facilitate the intention of local authorities, and to encourage them in that intention, to clean up the countryside, which I believe, and I am sure most of your Lordships believe, is a matter of urgency? Could he also give us an indication of the Government's thinking in this matter, and of what could be done to inject into this clause the urgency and direction which I suggest is lacking as it stands at the moment?

LORD KENNET

There are two questions here, and the first is one of injecting urgency into the clause. I understand that the noble Lord is not moving the Amendment, but is content with the wording of the clause as it stands. I believe he would be wrong to think that local authorities themselves are not imbued with a sense of urgency. They welcome the increased powers they ate getting under this Bill. Of course, it costs money to do all the things we are empowering them to do, and to do all the things we are laying a duty on them to do. The Government's thoughts on money for local authorities to do all the useful things they do are of a familiar nature. We wish we could give them more; we wish they themselves could get more by way of rates, without running into public opposition, which would stultify the whole operation. It is a familiar pattern of how much they can receive from the Government and how much they can collect in rates. Except in one or two very special cases, we do not distinguish in our grants to local authorities between one function they fulfil and another.

LORD HAWKE

The point raised by the noble Lord is a very important one and one which I have raised several times in debates on this particular question. The fact of the matter is that rural authorities in the country are going to carry a considerable burden on behalf of urban authorities. From what I have seen, a great deal of the dumping appears to be of stuff that comes from the urban boundaries, and until there is some method of adjustment the rural authorities are always going to feel that they are paying a lot of money to deal with rubbish that is not theirs; and their resources are not very big.

LORD KENNET

It is for that reason that the Bill empowers local authorities to combine together to make these arrangements. It might typically be an urban authority with a nearby rural authority.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.

5.53 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

The way for this Amendment was paved by Amendment No. 17. What has been done is very simple. Under Amendment No. 17, subsection (6) has been removed from Clause 23, and the intention is to insert it as a separate clause after Clause 25. The purpose of that is equally simple. It is that subsection (6) of the existing Clause 23 deals with removal of rubbish which has been deposited perfectly lawfully. The remaining subsections of Clause 23 deal with rubbish abandoned without lawful authority. Because of the discrepancy it was felt better to remove subsection (6) from its existing place and to insert it as a separate clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 25 insert the following new clause—

Amendment of 1961 c. 64 s. 34

(". In subsection (1) of section 34 of the Public Health Act 1961 (which provides for the removal by a local authority from a vacant site in a built-up area of an accumulation of rubbish which is seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood) for the words 'on any vacant site in a built-up area an accumulation of rubbish' there shall be substituted the words 'on any land in the open air in their area any rubbish'; and in subsection (2) of that section for the word 'site' there shall be substituted the word 'land'.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 [Interpretation etc. of Part III):

EARL JELLICOE

If it is in order, I would suggest that this Amendment and Amendment No. 22 are taken together. All that is being done is this. The definition of "the Common Council" is Being transferred from Clause 26 to Clause 28, which deals with definitions in the Bill as a whole. As "the Common Council" appears in both Part I and Part III of the Bill, this is obviously desirable.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

LORD KENNET

The new clause which I propose provides for the exercise of functions under the Bill in the Isles of Scilly. The Bill as it stands applies to the Scilly Isles, since they are part of England, but no specific authority would be responsible for operating the provisions of the Bill in the Isles. The new clause remedies this defect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—

Application to Isles of Scilly

(".—(1) The Minister of Housing and Local Government may, after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly, by order provide that any provision of this Act specified in the order shall apply to the Isles, subject to such modifications as may be so specified, as if the Isles were a separate county or a county district.

(2) The power to make orders conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall include power to vary or revoke an order under this section by a subsequent order thereunder.")—(Lord Kennet.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 [Interpretation—general]:

EARL JELLICOE

I have already spoken to this Amendment in moving Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 34, at end insert ("'the Common Council' means the Common Council of the City of London").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.