§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
4.57 am§ Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)I was going to start by saying, "When the drama is over", but I think that, after the last hour, I should say, "When the farce is over." When the farce is over, the crowds disappear and all that remains is the Adjournment debate; so it is with my topic this evening, or this morning—or whatever it is. When the town centres empty of people, all that remains is the litter.
My central point is that litter is a form of pollution—pollution of the environment in its most basic and common form. It occurs throughout the country. Litter is a form of pollution with a very simple cause. One does not need a chemical factory pouring effluent into a river, or a smokestack discharging into the air, or a vehicle with exhaust emissions —just ordinary people dropping litter, as a result of laziness, thoughtlessness, carelessness, plain disregard or loutishness. That pollution is very visual, spoiling our streets, the alleyways and corners of our built environment and spoiling the natural environment of our countryside, especially on verges beside roads as litter is often lobbed out of cars. It also spoils our beaches, parks, open spaces and other places of recreation.
Litter is also a health risk, as it includes rotting material, broken glass, jagged metal, dangerous objects, cigarette ends and other things that can be picked up by young children. Dog fouling constitutes an even more serious health risk in the form of toxocariasis—a disease carried in dog faeces—which can be picked up by children playing in a fouled area and which can damage their eyesight.
Litter pollution has a much simpler solution than most other forms of pollution. There is no need to fit filtering devices to chimneys, to set up purifying processes in chemical plants, or to develop an integrated transport policy to reduce car usage, or even to devise a climate change level. The answer is simple: do not drop litter and do not leave the dog dirt behind. The ordinary person may feel that large, pollution-type issues, such as reaching Kyoto targets, are beyond their grasp and must be left to Government, but litter control is something which we can all understand and share in—and yet we do not.
The culture in the UK is that we live and walk around in our own litter until it is cleared up. That bad habit is acquired early. In all my years as a teacher, children told me that they cared about the environment. They wanted to save the whale and protect the ozone layer, but they dropped litter all over the school grounds. Despite the efforts of teachers, school playgrounds must be the most littered places in the country, although litter is everywhere.
The current approach—national and local—concentrates on paying to have litter cleared up afterwards. People judge councils by how well they keep the streets clean. People expect litter to be cleared, and many councils do a relatively good job, but it costs the taxpayer about £400 million a year. That figure is based on an estimate from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions of £323 million in 1996, which did not include parks, beaches, special events and fly-tipping recovery. Waveney district council spends £470,000 a year just clearing up mess.
849 Why do we not change course to concentrate more on prevention than on clearing up? Why not stop people dropping litter and leaving dog dirt behind? There has been recent legislation. Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concentrates mainly on clearing up the mess, placing duties on councils to ensure that their land is clear, to designate control areas, to set standards and to put up litter control notices on places such as takeaway food outlets. I read recently that the Government plan to plug some of the gaps in the Act by making Railtrack and other railway companies responsible for clearing railway lines. However, this approach resembles the legend of Sisyphus, rolling a rock for ever up the hill. When it comes to clearing litter, we never completely succeed.
The 1990 Act went further by introducing fixed penalty fines of £25 that could be levied by authorised council officers, a recognition that prevention and deterrence had to be applied. Similarly, and for the first time, the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 put dog fouling on the same basis as litter on designated land. It also introduced fixed penalty fines.
Dropping litter and failing to clean up after a dog are offences. There is a fixed penalty system of enforcement. However, the record of the application of the law is interesting. In 1996, there were 626 prosecutions under the 1990 Act, resulting in 468 convictions. The following year, there were 505 prosecutions, and 352 convictions. In 1997–98, 297 fixed penalty fines were paid. That makes just a few hundred cases in a country of 56 million people. I do not believe that that is because not much litter is dropped. The laws are not being enforced, and there is evidence of a worsening situation. In 1990, there were 2,543 prosecutions, leading to 2,212 convictions.
The point is that there are few convictions. In Suffolk in 1995, there were only six convictions from the seven cases taken to court. In 1996, there were five convictions from seven cases. Those figures do not mean that Suffolk is litter free. In the Waveney district council area, there have been no recent prosecutions and no fixed penalties for litter. There has been just one fixed penalty for dog fouling.
Why is the law not enforced? What have councils done to respond to the 1996 Act? A Tidy Britain Group survey showed that 40 per cent. of councils have adopted it, and half of them have adopted fixed penalty fines. Ninety eight per cent. of councils have appointed dog wardens, but, in most cases, those amount to one or two people. Only 47 out of 474 councils employ litter wardens—again, I suspect that those consist of only one or two people. They are meant to deal with millions of litter droppers and the 6.9 million dogs in 5.38 million households that produce 1,000 tonnes of faeces daily, which I am told that half the dog owners never clear up.
When we bear in mind the fact that litter and dog wardens are involved in other activities, such as campaigns, education drives, poop-scoop promotions and so forth, it is clear that the resources are scarce to enforce the laws. That is why the laws are not working. The fixed penalties are not being used and, at a cost of £500 per prosecution, the number of prosecutions is falling.
People say that they are very concerned about litter and dog fouling. Surveys show that to be the case time and again. The Tidy Britain Group survey, which compared the people's attitudes to local environmental quality 850 issues, put dog fouling at the top of the list with 80 per cent. and littered streets at 60 per cent. If we compare that with poor street lighting at 37 per cent., and broken pavements at 33 per cent., we see that people want something done.
When I was a member of my local council, we conducted an extensive survey of residents. Litter and dog fouling were at the top of the list of complaints and issues that people wanted more done about, yet the mountain of litter to be cleared up remains as large as ever.
We have had campaigns for as long as I can remember. I can remember the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign when I was a small boy, and I can still see the logo in my mind. Now, we have more bins than ever before throughout the country. The sad conclusion is that when it comes to litter, education does not appear to work—and I say that as an ex-teacher.
When I was leader of my local council, I went out one morning with a team that clears up Lowestoft beach in the summer. We went out at 5.30 am and I found out what a back-breaking job it is to clear the beach. People come there because it is a blue-flag beach—a clean beach. According to the English tourist board, it is the best beach in England. I asked the cleaners whether people were dropping less litter and respecting the beach. The answer was no—people were dropping even more.
We have to concentrate on enforcement against those who drop litter. We must adopt the principle that is applied to other forms of pollution, which is to make the polluter pay. The problem is that councils do not have the resources to do so. We must allow councils to keep the revenue from fines or have the Treasury return it to them to be ring-fenced within councils for enforcement purposes. Then councils would use the fines to employ more litter and dog wardens, who would enforce the law against the polluters. We would change the culture of the country in a relatively short time.
Two problems are usually cited when I suggest that idea. First, I am told that it is a case of the perverse incentive and that a council should have no pecuniary interest in prosecution or giving a fixed penalty. That is a narrow legal view, which is not shared by the people at large. The council, as the community's representative, should have every incentive to bear down and drive out that anti-social activity. It is perverse that we tolerate the present situation. We have a law that is not enforced and councils without the resources, and the police, probably understandably, feel that they have more serious matters than litter on which to concentrate. Constituents tell me of police who walk past when people are seen dropping litter.
There are precedents for councils being allowed to use revenue from fines for enforcement. Councils regularly enforce and keep the penalty receipts from people who default on paying car park fees. We have residents' on-street parking in my constituency. The council uses the fines from that to finance the officers who enforce it. A few months ago, it was seriously suggested that the revenue from speeding fines should be used to set up more speed cameras, which were the reason people were caught and fined in the first place. We should go that way with litter.
Secondly, people ask whether the suggested approach would work. Would people who were not police officers be able to accost litter louts? Would litter louts pay up?
851 It is already happening. People are paying fixed penalty fines, but it is not happening on a large enough scale. The main areas affected—the town centres—often have closed circuit television cameras. I am told that when people are caught on CCTV committing other offences, the police have only to tell them that they have been caught on camera for them to admit their guilt. That would happen with dog fouling. If wardens confronted offenders and said, "I saw you drop that litter or fail to pick up that dog dirt and you have been caught on camera," those people would admit it. They would rather pay a fixed penalty fine than risk going to court to face camera evidence and the maximum fine of £2,500. Such a system would quickly change our culture. If people knew that they would be caught, the overwhelming majority would not drop litter. I draw comparisons with the laws on seat belts and crash helmets, which were the subjects of long campaigns with limited success before real laws were adopted and enforced.
I am pleased that the Government have today published the document "A Better Quality of Life". It sets out principles, including making the polluter pay, the enforcement of regulations and the improvement of local surroundings. The section on local environmental quality refers to litter and states:
Poor local environmental quality can detract from town and city living in particular".Litter contributes to that. Zero tolerance of such offences can send the right signals to criminals and help fight crime in general. It is important that we take the fight against litter seriously.Recycling fines would cost the Government virtually nothing. The Government get little income because there are few fines. If we overcame the litter problem, we could use the bulk of the £400 million that we spend on clearing up on more worthwhile and constructive services. If we were prepared to take this strong step, it would be popular. Litter will continue to blight our environment and cost us money as long as we permit it. Let us get serious and make the polluters and litter droppers and those who allow their dogs to foul the streets pay. Let us enforce the law of the land properly.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale)Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for doing your duty. We often forget that people such as you are here until the end of the day. I thank also the Labour Members, and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who have stayed beyond the call of duty.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing this debate on the enforcement of anti-litter laws. I am pleased to respond on an issue that should concern everyone. It is commonly held that we are a messy nation and that there is far too much unsightly litter blowing around the streets of Britain. While the annual cleanliness index compiled by the Tidy Britain Group has shown a year-on-year reduction in the amount of litter in our streets, my departmental postbag confirms that many people are still concerned about what remains and want something done about it.
The amount of litter in the streets may not be due to a lack of legislation or local authority action through cleansing regimes. All local authorities take these duties 852 seriously, as my hon. Friend said. He has considerable knowledge of the subject, particularly as an ex-leader of Waveney district council.
Only today, Newham council has announced a borough-wide series of new and co-ordinated initiatives aimed at improving the environment and, of course, raising awareness. As part of that initiative, the borough will begin to target particular areas to tackle a variety of local environmental problems, including litter. On a lesser scale, some local authorities may wish to take the opportunity to provide thoughtfully sited bins as part of their anti-litter strategy, and to use imaginative and innovative designs. That is sensible when we consider the many innovative designs that are available.
It is important to educate people, and particularly the young. It often amazes me when I see litter bin designs that have been around for many years, which clearly do not do their job. Litter blows out of them throughout the countryside, and especially around parks and town centres. We have not yet tried to use innovative designs that will attract children to use litter bins, although areas of the United States have gone down that path with much success. In this country there has been basic recycling education, especially with regard to bottles and tin cans. That has captured the imagination, particularly of young people.
I am glad to say that bins for cigarette smokers have been introduced outside the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. In many continental countries, ash stub areas are placed within litter bins so that people are encouraged to extinguish their cigarettes in litter bins rather than stamp them out in the streets. Sometimes the great design techniques that we have in this country do not lead to designs that might be incorporated in standard designs to try to educate people.
On the positive side, I am informed that local authorities in England spent more than £330 million in 1997–98 on their street cleaning and litter responsibilities, and that the budget for 1998–99 was even larger. When they are spending such sums in future they might consider corporate design or even competition among school children to try to encourage young people to be educated in litter awareness.
§ Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)May I put to the Minister a suggestion that I have put to the Colchester local authority with regard to hot food takeaway establishments? I know that they are not responsible for what their customers do with the packaging, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if these establishments formed their own litter patrols, covering about a 100 yd radius outside their premises, that would go a long way to reducing the amount of litter that is left for local authorities to pick up? There is also the curse of chewing gum, which disfigures many of our pavements.
§ Mr. MealeThe hon. Gentleman is right. I hope to deal with such points later in my remarks.
The simple truth is that much of the litter on the streets should not have been dropped or allowed to remain in the first place, and there is legislation to deal with these matters. That legislation can be split into two distinct parts. There is the enforcement of anti-litter laws as they apply to those who drop litter, and the enforcement of legislation that requires litter authorities to keep their areas reasonably free of litter.
853 As my hon. Friend knows, it is already an offence to throw down and leave anything so as to cause, or contribute to, the defacement of any public place by litter. The term "litter" has a wide interpretation which can include such things as cigarette butts and, as the hon. Member for Colchester said, chewing gum. The law therefore deals with what is done with the thing rather than what it is.
It is a common belief that no one is ever prosecuted for dropping litter. That is clearly not the case. The police and local authorities may and do bring prosecutions, which are heard in magistrates courts. Members of the public may report offences to the police or their local authority, who will decide whether legal action is appropriate. In 1997–98 there were 505 prosecutions for the dropping of litter, of which 352 were successful, with an average fine of £115. All police cases were dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service, which decided whether a case was sound, whether it was in the public interest and whether it was a proper use of public funds. However, even a straightforward case costs between £500 and £800 to bring to court, so for each case there is considerable pressure on the public purse.
Local authorities may prosecute their own cases or appoint authorised officers who can issue fixed penalty fines to anyone who they have reason to believe has committed an offence. Those fines were increased to £25 in 1997, and 650 fines were collected in 1998–99.
Because of the scale of the problem in certain areas, and the fact that the police deal with other priorities, many people ask why there are not more litter wardens on our streets. My answer is simple—decisions to appoint litter wardens are left to the discretion of local authorities in the light of local priorities and resources. It is left to them to decide whether litter may be more efficiently tackled in other ways, such as education and increased cleansing.
I disagree with my hon. Friend's assertion that the argument for education has largely been lost. Other countries have a better record in educating their population. One example that I would cite is Cyprus, where young people of all ages at all schools are responsible for a portion of the beach in their area. Every school child participates in collecting the litter on that part of the beach throughout the year. A sum of money is paid by the Government to the school for that activity. It certainly educates the children of Cyprus to a high degree. The areas where mainly resident Cypriots live are very tidy. The tourist resorts bring 2.5 million tourists a year to that wonderful country, including 1.9 million from Britain. It is the tourists who are responsible for most of the litter.
Despite the perceptions of some members of the British public, almost a quarter of local authorities have already appointed wardens, and I would encourage more to do so. One of the reasons given by local authorities for not employing litter wardens is that the fines that they collect, which substitute for fines in the courts, are returned to the Exchequer. I know that my hon. Friend knows something about that, as he has frequently raised concerns about the matter with my Department.
I accept that keeping the fines may prove an incentive to local authorities. I can inform the House that my Department is in discussion with the Treasury on the issue of hypothecation of the litter fines and also those for dog fouling. I know of my hon. Friend's knowledge of the 854 subject, if only because of the numerous questions that he puts to the Office for National Statistics. As with litter, local authorities have a duty to keep public land clear of dog faeces. Furthermore, allowing a dog to foul may be an offence if the local authority has a byelaw against fouling or if the land has been designated under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996.
The maximum fines are much heavier in such cases—£500 and £1,000 respectively. The 1996 Act allows local authorities to appoint officers who can issue £25 fixed penalties for fouling offences. Almost 300 fixed penalty fines were issued in 1997–98.
With regard to litter, local authorities may take matters into their own hands if the problem is caused not by individuals, but by larger concerns—a problem to which the hon. Member for Colchester referred. In that respect, they may issue a street litter control notice to the occupiers of premises to prevent the accumulation of litter and refuse in and around any street or open land adjacent to any street. The types of premises, which are described by an order made by the Secretary of State, can be commercial or retail premises such as cinemas, theatres or fast-food outlets.
A street litter control notice specifies an area of open land that adjoins or is in the vicinity of the premises and makes reasonable requirements for the clearing of litter or refuse on it. The definitions for the street litter control notices were broadened in 1997 to include betting shops and lottery outlets—presumably that was an expression of the number of losing punts—and in 1997–98 nearly 70 notices were issued by local authorities.
Failing to comply with a requirement of the notice may result in a court order being made and a subsequent maximum fine of £2,500. Local authorities may also designate certain types of land as litter control areas, such as markets, industrial estates and sports arenas if they are of the opinion that the state of the land is likely to be detrimental to local amenities. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is sitting on the Front Bench. He is an ex-leader of Sheffield city council and was fully aware of the need to control littering in and around the sporting arenas of which that fine city has so many. I see the smile on the face of the hon. Member for Colchester.
Designating land a litter control area places a duty on the occupier to ensure that it is, so far as is practicable, kept clear of litter and refuse. Failure to comply with a litter control area order can result in substantial fines. I said earlier that there is also a mechanism to ensure that local authorities carry out their responsibilities. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 permits any person to make a complaint to a magistrates court on the ground that he is aggrieved by the defacement of land by litter or refuse.
Proceedings may then be brought against any person under a duty to keep land clear of litter —
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past Five o'clock.