HL Deb 15 May 1958 vol 209 cc378-92

3.27 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I very much hope that we shall find that it is generally welcome in all parts of the House, as indeed it was in all parts of another place—a somewhat rare but nevertheless desirable state of affairs. This small and, I think it might be termed, wholly inoffensive measure has been very generally welcomed throughout the country. All organisations—and they are like the sands of the sea, without number—who are concerned with the preservation of amenities throughout the country and in the countryside are in support of this measure and welcome it. I would mention only two, because I think they have really borne the heat and burden of the day: the "Keep Britain Tidy" Group, which is sponsored, I believe, by the National Federation of Women's Institutes, has been a tower of strength in this matter, and I think it is significant also to realise and to know that all the local authority associations are in support of a measure such as this.

I do not think it will be necessary for me to try to make out the case against litter. I think we are all fully aware in this House, in any case, of the shameful and disgusting mess that the countryside is in and that measures are long overdue to try to control and correct it. But it may be convenient if I briefly sketch what is the immediate background of the measure that is now before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will be aware, probably, that there have already been three Bills in recent years on this subject. The first Bill, I regret to say, fell by the wayside and did not get very far. The second, though it reached Second Reading in another place, fell on somewhat stony ground; and weeds, in the shape, I regret to say, of Her Majesty's Government, grew up and choked it. But the third measure which we now have before us has fallen on good ground and now comes to us in a form which I sincerely think may commend itself to your Lordships. It would be churlish of me in the extreme if I did not pay tribute, with your Lordships' permission, to the patience, skill and assiduity of a Member of another place, Mr. Rupert Speir, who introduced the Bill there.

If therefore I do not actually endeavour, in the short time I shall detain your Lordships to-day, to make the case against litter, it is because I prefer to confine myself to an explanation of the clauses in this very modest Bill. I think we must all admit that this is a short and simple Bill. It could hardly be shorter. There are but two clauses, and no Schedules. It is in language which is a very good approximation to plain English—and we could not ask for better than that. It is a simple Bill and I hope that it may prove generally acceptable. We must always remember, however, that good intentions may pave the way to Hell, and I think it would be advisable for us to look at this Bill for a moment to see whether there may be in it hidden dangers that may have unforeseen disadvantages. Having studied this Bill with great care, I should like to bring forward one or two points which may conceivably trouble your Lordships, and attempt to allay any fears to which those points might give rise.

In general terms, and first of all, I think we must satisfy ourselves that there is a mandate for legislation of this sort. I personally think that that is abundantly clear. The very fact that all these organisations, and the local authorities themselves, are behind this Bill shows, I think, that there is a general desire for legislation of this sort. The next point which it is most necessary always to bear in mind, in dealing with a measure of this sort, is this: Is this a pettifogging, vexatious interference with the justifiable liberty of the subject? Is this "Mrs. Grundy" legislation of the sort that we do not want? I do not think that we could possibly describe this Bill in those terms. I do not think that the liberty of the subject can go so far that the subject must be at liberty to spread broken bottles on Brighton beach, or to deposit unwanted iron bedsteads in St, James's Park. I think that that is not liberty but licence, and that it is high time that such licence was checked.

The third matter that I think should concern us in general terms is whether this Bill is necessary. Are we here duplicating other powers? Is this matter already covered by other legislation? I should be deceiving your Lordships if I did not say that this is, as it were, the rock on which the previous measures foundered. But I would rather not say "rock" because, greatly daring, we came nearer to this "rock" and we found that it was not really a rock but only a shadow, and that there arose the problem which we foresaw: that the by-laws which already exist in many parts of the country, and which were thought to be adequate, have not in fact proved effective.

Far be it from me to enter into a debate on the theory and practice of by-laws. The Lord Chairman of Committees might resent my poaching over that ground, and I should feel quite unable to deal with the matter. But I think it would be fair and proper to say just this, that surely the essence of by-law legislation is that it is a local circumstance for which one is legislating. This matter of litter is not local; it is national. There can be no reason, I would submit, for there not being national legislation and a national Statute for its abatement. Wherever we arrive at a state of affairs when something is of national application, then we have a national law to deal with it. It is not only the extremely heinous offences that warrant national laws. Not only do we have a law for murder; we have laws also against exceeding the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. Therefore I think there are quite justifiable grounds for saying that this matter of the nuisance of litter is of such wide and national importance that it deserves national treatment.

If anything further needed to be said it would be simply this: that, while the by-laws do exist, and have existed for many years, the problem is still with us—they have not, unfortunately, proved effective. If anyone should say "We shall be usurping the functions of the local authorities; they will resent this", my reply would be that that is not the case; that the local authorities, through their organisations and associations, are supporting this legislation and are desirous that ii should come into force. They do not consider that we are poaching on their preserves. This little Bill is so reasonable and undictatorial that it is not even proposed that the by-laws should be superseded; the by-laws will still remain in force until, as one hopes, when they come forward for review some of them may be repealed. A prosecution can be brought either under this Bill, when it becomes law, or under the by-laws. It is worth noting, however, that this Bill goes a little further than the by-laws and that the penalty is slightly more severe—£10 instead of £5.

There are one or two other specific points that might conceivably cause difficulty to your Lordships, and I would attempt to anticipate them, if I may. First, there is the question of the unwitting offence. If this Bill had been passed into law and one of your Lordships had the misfortune to drop his glove on going home from this House this afternoon, would he have committed an offence under this Statute? I am advised that he would not have committed such an offence, because the words "and leaves", in the third and fourth lines of Clause 1 of the Bill operate. Those words give an intention or deliberateness to the act which is, I am advised, not present in a wholly accidental leaving or depositing of the litter or the glove. But, quite apart from that, I am sure that the success of the operation and the enforcement of this measure will depend wholly on the reasonableness with which it is used. That, of course, applies in regard to a good many other Statutes.

Another point upon which I should like to touch is the vexed one of private land. I am advised that if private land, as such, to which the public have no right of access, had been included we should have been in very deep water with the law of trespass and other things. Private land, as such, does not come under the Bill, except—and this is very important—in so far as Clause 1 says If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place in the open air … and so on. That is to say, if one is eating one's lunch in a lay-by (which is a public place in the open air to which the public have right of access without payment) and should toss a sandwich paper, banana skin, or even the beer-can of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, over the wall into a private field or a private garden, one is caught, because one has deposited "from" an open place. Similarly the offence is committed if one is walking on a footpath or right of way through private land and deposits litter right or left from this public place on to land, whether it be private or public land.

I have been told that there was a fear that certain legitimate sports or pastimes might he in difficulties under this measure. "What about a paper-chase?" I was asked. I believe that we are all right there if the depositor of the paper (which in certain circumstances could, of course, be litter) has obtained the consent of the owner. All land, whether public or private, has some kind of owner, and there will be the onus to find out who is the owner of the land, whether public or private, over which the paper-chase is held. Provided that his consent has been obtained, an offence will not be committed under this Bill by those who go in for that pastime.

Another question which was considered: will this make it quite impossible for anybody to go to a football match at Wembley Stadium or the enclosure at Ascot without fear of prosecution afterwards?—for there is always a most dreadful mess after these occasions. I am informed that the Bill as drawn will make it perfectly safe for your Lordships to go to Ascot without fear of prosecution, because that is a place to which one has to pay to go, as also is Wembley Stadium. The offence will be created only in an open space to which the public have right of access without payment. Presumably it is assumed that the half-crown received by some noble Lords for allowing the public to walk through their gardens must partly provide for a man to clean up the banana skins afterwards. If I am not wearying your Lordships, there is another point which may be worth mentioning. Your Lordships will see in subsection (1) a reference to an open space which appears at first sight to be rather curious. It says: …for the purposes of this subsection any covered place open to the air on at least one side and available for public use shall be treated as being a place in the open air, I am informed that that adequately covers the bus shelter, which is an open space, covered but open on one side; so that it will be an offence for anyone to throw used bus tickets or sandwich paper out of a bus shelter.

There is another covered place open on one side about which we may find we are in trouble. That is the church porch. What about confetti? What about the well-nigh universal custom of throwing confetti on to the blushing bride? I am informed that we shall indeed commit an offence if we throw confetti out of a church porch or into a church porch or churchyard unless—the saving words—we have the consent of the owner or authority concerned. I suggest, therefore, that at weddings it should be made very clear—perhaps in future a notice will have to be posted up—whether the vicar and churchwardens have given permission for confetti to be thrown. I have heard it said that we might overcome this difficulty by using edible confetti, so that the confetti, having been thrown, would be consumed by the fowls of the air. Personally, I believe that it would be a much more desirable procedure that, before we possibly commit an offence, we should make sure that the vicar and wardens have consented to this practice. For—and let us make no bones about it—some of them object.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, are we to assume that confetti is not litter if it sticks to the bride; that it is then all right?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I should say that the bride cannot be defined as a public open space to which the public have access. Perhaps it might be wiser if I did not go into any further details but simply confined my last few remarks to the second subsection of Clause 1. Your Lordships may conceivably have had some difficulty in understanding, and may have wondered, why particular bodies are named as bodies which shall have power to institute procedings. The reason is that such bodies have not now any such general power to spend money on a matter of this kind, and it is felt that they must be protected against the rapaciousness of the Public Auditor who might wish to surcharge councillors with the expense of prosecution. If this Bill passes as it is now before the House, there will be no risk of those of your Lordships who are county councillors being surcharged if you or your council should institute a prosecution under this Bill.

I think there is little more that I need say. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 refers to Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will, I hope, say a word about that. The law in Scotland is very different, and I understand that these are matters which there have to be dealt with by a gentleman known as the procurator fiscal. I am not optimistic enough to believe that the passing of this Bill will immediately end the whole problem of litter, for obviously that will not be the case; but I do feel that it is a desirable and a worthwhile advance that we should have a moderate and a proper sanction universally applicable throughout the whole country. There is a terrible habit growing up among some of the young in this country. When one asks them to do something, or not to do something else, they are apt to turn round and say, "So what?" It is a very embarrassing position when that happens, and one has no sanction, when there is no answer to, "So what?" I feel that there must be in the background this sanction which can be used—I am sure that it will be used with tolerance and not extravagantly so that we shall be able to tidy up our countryside, and not only our countryside but also our towns, by, in the last resort, prosecuting those who make such a disgusting mess of it. I beg to move that this Bill be given a Second Reading.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

3.51 p.m.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, this Bill, as the noble Earl has so ably, moderately and humorously explained, is a Private Member's Bill belatedly blessed by a hesitant Government, and it now comes before us as a non-controversial measure for our consideration. I have no hesitation myself in giving my unreserved support to its passage through your Lordships' House. But I cannot say that it gives me great pleasure to support it, for the fact is that the need for such a Bill is a sad commentary upon the social habits of a very large section of our people. It is a reflection upon the attitude of our adults and our adolescent population; and to some extent may even be regarded as a criticism of our educational system.

This attitude to litter is not confined to slum dwellers who know no better and whose housing conditions do not encourage habits of tidiness; it is equally prevalent among the minority of motorcar users, whose revolting droppings every week-end penetrate deeper and deeper into the once almost inaccessible countryside. Years of example, persuasion and exhortation by a minority of socially-minded men and women have had little, if any, effect. Hence the need for this Bill, mild and moderate though its terms are, which makes the scattering of litter a statutory offence for which a penalty not exceeding £10, maximum, can be imposed.

The Bill applies to England, Scotland and Wales; and I cannot imagine any county council or local authority not welcoming it. Many local authorities, conscious of the expense and annoyance that litter scattering imposes, have adopted local by-laws to deal with the situation, but have found them not wholly effective. In the City of Glasgow, although litter baskets in great numbers and at considerable cost have been fixed, and although on trams and buses, also at considerable cost, receptacles for tickets have been attached, they have not prevented the scattering of litter in the streets, even though the baskets and receptacles are to some extent used by a number of people. For myself, I am pleased to see that in Scotland offences can he dealt with in courts of summary jurisdiction, for this presumably implies (I stand to be corrected if I am wrong) that offenders will be tried by baillies and police judges, who, for the benefit of the mere Sassenach, are men and women who are still members of local authorities although acting as what would be called in England magistrates. Offenders would come before these people, who are, as I say, members of local authorities, and who will therefore have a truer appreciation of the seriousness of the offence, knowing what the cost is and what the trouble is, and be able to explain to offenders what this annoyance and expense mean which their thoughtless actions create.

Nobody will pretend, as the noble Earl has pointed out, that this Bill will either prevent or remedy the evil of litter scattering; but it will, one hopes, have a restraining effect upon some who otherwise would not know any better. Side by side with the proposed deterrent in the Bill, advantage must still be taken of modern methods of mass communication, so that children in schools, adolescents in their hostelings and hikings, and adults in their motoring and holidaying, may be made to understand the wickedness of this habit of litter scattering and shamed into decent behaviour. I am very pleased indeed to be able to give this Bill my complete support.

3.56 p.m.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, congratulated Mr. Rupert Speir and his associates in the House of Commons on having succeeded in getting the Bill through the House of Commons up to the point that it reaches this Chamber. Having had some experience in the past of passing Private Members' Bills through both Houses of Parliament, I heartily endorse what the noble Earl has said in that respect; but I should like to add this. I feel that the noble Earl, in sponsoring the Bill in this House to-day, has earned the gratitude of the nation in so doing, particularly for the reason that he has expounded it so eloquently and so admirably to your Lordships this afternoon.

Seeing that I myself happen to have taken an interest in this subject a couple of years ago, perhaps I may, with your Lordships' permission, quote Questions I have put and Answers I have received, because it will adequately cover a great deal of ground that I might otherwise trespass upon this afternoon. On July 10, 1956, I asked the Government whether they would introduce a Bill which would render persons who dropped litter about liable to prosecution and on summary conviction to a maximum penalty of one month's imprisonment without the option of a fine. Of course, I knew that that was asking too much; but I knew also that it would give some publicity, as it did and as my postbag showed, to this particular problem. The answer of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, was as follows [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol 198, col. 677]: My Lords, the Answer is, No. Having thanked the noble Earl for that incisive Answer, I then asked him this: May I ask whether nothing can be done to prevent these human pests from desecrating the countryside and the beaches with eyesores wherever they go? Is it not a shockingly bad example for the young to see their elders indulging in these disgusting and abominable habits? The noble Earl said: I agree that it is a shocking example for the young to see older people leave litter all over parks, highways, commons and open spaces … Again, on July 25, I asked [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 199, col. 199]: May the House take it that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing every possible means and investigating everything that it may be possible to investigate in order to put these abominable litter-mongers and human pests 'on the spot'? To that the Earl of Munster replied: My Lords, the answer is …in the affirmative I pass that over. I leave your Lordships to draw what deductions you may like from that Answer and its consequence. But, at any rate, we have now arrived at the stage, I am glad to say and I feel the country is glad to say, when thanks to Mr. Speir and his associates in the House of Commons, and the noble Earl to-day, we have a measure which will bring into operation, as I hope, the objectives which so many people in this country have in view.

The success of this measure depends fundamentally upon making the people of this country litter conscious. I feel sure that when this Bill becomes law, Her Majesty's Government and the various bodies who have been engaged in doing everything they can to push forward the objectives which the Bill has in view will put their heads together and evolve some scheme or schemes in order to carry out the Bill's objectives. As the noble Earl has said, these apply to the old as well as to the young—I am not sure that they do not apply more to the old than to the young. The noble Earl said that sometimes when he puts something to young people their answer is, "So what?" That carries the noble Earl no further, and carries us no further, but we all know that if we can get the young young enough and put them through an intensive course, they will respond to it—that has been instanced in other countries, for example, by the Hitler youth. I believe it to be the case that the schools in this country are doing that very thing.

But the youth will not respond unless they see their elders doing the right thing, and I feel sure that it is to the elders that the main plea should be made. What is the use of the British and Scottish travel organisations inviting foreigners to this country to see the beauties of our countryside if, when they arrive and go to such beauty spots as the Surrey hills, which have only recently been declared to be a place of natural beauty, they see one mass of abominable litter. I feel that the noble Earl would agree that the main plea should be to the old, and that some method should be evolved whereby they can be made litter conscious. I think that these are the objectives we have to achieve and which I hope that this Bill will achieve. I give it my hearty support.

4.3 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS of BARLOCH

My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, and to the honourable Member in another place who introduced this Bill. I am particularly glad to note that the local authority organisations have supported it and have admitted that proceeding by by-law is ineffective in matters of this kind and requires to be supplemented by general legislation. There is another aspect of the matter which is closely related to what is contained in the Bill but which. I am afraid, is not covered by it—that is, the nuisance and offence which is caused by dogs, particularly in large cities. Attempts have been made to deal with this by by-laws, quite ineffectively, and I venture to throw out the suggestion that there is an opportunity some day for another Public Bill which will deal with this question and help to put an end to a noxious, disgusting and injurious practice.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, before we pass from this Bill there is one aspect I should like to submit to the noble Earl. Anybody who drives along the roads of this country will have noticed that wherever motor coach parties stop to have a picnic meal at the side of the road there is a shocking display of litter. Would it not be possible in this Bill to hold the motor coach companies responsible? It would be impossible for the police, subsequent to the committing of the offence, to find out the identity of the individuals responsible for throwing the stuff out. Would it not be possible under the Bill to find some system whereby we should be able to "go for" the driver or conductor, or better still, the motor coach company concerned?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I am glad to be able to express the Government's support of this Bill. As noble Lords have already said, it was welcomed in another place and outside Parliament as well. It is a short and simple Bill, but I do not think it is any the worse for that. I hope that it passes in its present form, so that there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that the dropping of litter is a statutory offence which renders the offender liable to a maximum fine of ten pounds. I hope that this will re-enforce the National Parks Commission, the Keep Britain Tidy movement, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and all the many private and public associations who have to deal with these matters and will bring about a great improvement in the appearance of our countryside and streets.

4.8 p.m.

LORD HAMPTON

My Lords, I have only a word to add in support of this very necessary measure, and that is to call attention to the fact that in many cases the local authorities, those who draw up the by-laws, will be guilty of an offence under this Bill—and for two reasons. One is that, as we have all seen, they have by-laws on high poles so defaced by the weather and lack of renewal that nobody can read them and much too high for children to read. The second is that they provide litter baskets made of very open wire mesh with open tops; and when they are full and a strong wind conies along, it gets underneath and scatters the litter out of the baskets all over the surrounding country. I have stood and watched that happen. Why cannot local authorities have solid containers made, with tops shaped something like a milk can, so that litter, once inside, could not be removed by any wind that happens to pass? I would also put in a plea that the local authorities should empty them rather more often and not allow them to get filled right to the top so that, at the first wind, out goes their contents, making more mess than any casual passer-by could be guilty of.

4.9 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, perhaps before the noble Earl replies your Lordships would allow me to say a word in commendation of the Bill and to underline what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton? Getting this Bill on to the Statute Book is hardly halfway in dealing with this problem. I have been actively engaged for thirty years or so in the work of the National Trust and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and this has always been one of the worst problems we have had to tackle. The National Trust have power to make by-laws, and in many instances have made by-laws under which the depositing of litter is an offence. But the making of a by-law of this kind is only a short step on the way to abolishing litter. It is extraordinarily difficult to enforce a law of this kind, and unless the noble Earl and all of us can succeed in persuading the local authorities, in particular—because they are in the best position of all to enforce a law of this kind—to do their bit, and unless more urgency and enthusiasm is put into enforcing this Bill, when it becomes an Act, I am afraid that we shall see litter deposited just as much in the future as we have done in the past. Therefore, I hope that attention will be paid to the problem of enforcement, which is a real problem.

4.11 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, there is one point that I should like to mention, following on what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said. I think it is important that there should be instituted a certain number of prosecutions when the Bill becomes law; but it is even more important that these prosecutions should be given a good deal of publicity, both in the local and in the national Press. I am sure that it is far more important to do that than to put up notices such as we see in the parks: "This park is beautiful. Please keep it so". That, I think, is a pure waste of money. However, if a good deal of publicity can be given to the fact that Mr. Jones or Mr. Brown has been fined £10 for leaving the paper that wrapped his sandwiches lying about, that would go a long way to stop people from doing it. I trust that prosecutions will be given the fullest possible publicity.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Earl to one further aspect of this. Your Lordships have been thinking and talking in terms of litter in the form of confetti, banana skins, orange skins and so on. I know of people who abandon motor cars in the countryside. Will it be possible for them to be moved and the offender charged?

4.13 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and for the warm welcome and support that this Bill has received. I do not think there are many specific questions that I need answer. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, came last, but perhaps I might deal with it first. Undoubtedly, an abandoned motor car, an abandoned bedstead or an abandoned piece of balana peel, would be classed as litter; and one of the matters that was considered at great length in Committee in another place was the dumping of old iron, and so on, on bombed sites, which it is thought will be caught under this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did not actually ask a question, and it would not be for me to say what will be the proper practice in the Scottish courts of first instance, although I have no doubt that what the noble Lord said is correct.

The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, said that we should all have to become more litter-conscious, and indeed, we must. He invited me to put the young through an intensive course, as I understood him. I will give serious consideration to that— and especially my own young. I do not think this Bill can be held to cover the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, but I do think it is a serious matter. The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is an excellent one, and I think it links up with the matter of prosecution that was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Amulree. Obviously, it will be desirable that there should be one or two prosecutions quite soon after this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will. Those points will then come out. I am sure they will be give publicity by all the organisations who are so anxious that these powers should be known—the "Keep Britain Tidy Group "and the other organisations with which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is associated. I think the prosecutions will come, and I hope no difficulties will arise. I am not a lawyer, and I should not like to say" off the cuff "how we can cope with the litter from the charabanc if we cannot identify the actual person who deposited it. However, that point will have to be looked into.

I do not think there are any other points to which I need reply—noble Lords will forgive me if I have omitted any—and I will only say how glad I am that there is this general welcome for the Bill, and express my gratitude to the Government for giving it their support.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.