Lord Blencathra
Main Page: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important and enjoyable debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow on securing it. The fact that concerns have been raised in so many towns and cities across the country is demonstrative proof that there is a problem here that the Canal & River Trust must grasp. I pay tribute to my noble friend’s commitment in raising this issue. He has already tabled a significant number of Written Questions, raised this problem in Committee on the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and asked Oral Questions. His tenacity is to be applauded. I also congratulate my noble friends who have spoken strongly on this issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his contribution—he was also spot on in this debate. This is rather a frightening week for me. On Monday and Wednesday, on the crime Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I found ourselves in complete agreement on a number of issues, which we both found rather scary—and perhaps likely to be expelled from our parties for being in complete agreement. I am, however, also in complete agreement with what the noble Lord said today.
The Conservative Party has consistently taken a firm view on litter. In government, we launched the litter strategy for England and increased the maximum on-the-spot fines from £80 to £150 in 2018. Even before that—I think way back in 1992—I was appointed to a joint ministerial working group on litter. I do not think we achieved very much, as every Minister from every different department said, “It’s nothing to do with me; it’s their job to sort out the litter”. Nevertheless, we tried to tackle it way back in 1992.
Littering is, first and foremost, an issue of personal responsibility. It is utterly unacceptable that people feel that it is for someone else to clear up after them. Anyone who litters creates a problem that someone else has to come along and fix. It is a breach of the social contract. That is why we have tough laws, and we need punitive fines for this selfish and anti-social behaviour. That said, we all know that public bins are useful and essential. They provide ordinary people with the opportunity to do the right thing and dispose of their litter responsibly.
That is where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court. It is rather naive for organisations to say, “If we put out bins, people will use them. They will fill them up and they might overflow”. The whole point of having litter bins is that they will be used. There is a naive belief that if we do not have bins, people will take their litter home. People will say, “Oh my God, there’s no bin, I must take it all home with me”. That simply does not happen. In most cases, they will leave it behind. I am not sure whether it was the highways department or county councils—certainly in my own patch in Cumbria—that removed litter bins from laybys on A roads in the naive belief that, if we have no litter bins, lorry drivers and others will not dump their rubbish. That is absolute nonsense; laybys are stuffed full of litter.
I am a board member of a community interest company, CleanStreets, and we work hand in glove with Keep Britain Tidy, tackling cigarette litter on pavements. Over the past three years, we have had some considerable success, getting litter down by 18%. We spend a lot on research, and that shows that, in an area where there are smokers and no bins, the pavements are covered in cigarette litter. Believe it or not, if you provide bins, most cigarette users will use them. We also discovered that people do not like those posh bins, where you stub out your cigarette then poke it through the hole, because they feel that their hands will get dirty. They love a bucket full of sand where they chuck the litter. The point I am making is that if you provide bins, people generally will use them. If you do not provide bins, you will get excess litter.
On our pavements, we pay for the public service of having litter bins, but our tow-paths are different. They are a different story, but the principle remains the same. As my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow told us, the Canal & River Trust receives more than £50 million of taxpayers’ money every year, so the public do pay for the services they receive from the trust. Does the Minister agree that taxpayers should not have those services cut, given that they are paying for them? I agree with my noble friend that many will be shocked to hear that executive pay at the Canal & River Trust is at hundreds of thousands of pounds since the bins were removed. That feels like a misalignment of priorities. Will the Minister tell the Committee his view of that statistic?
I read in a recent article in the Sunday Times that the Canal & River Trust spent £6.7 million on fundraising costs, while raising just £6.7 million in donations. It is probably the only charitable organisation with a net-zero fundraising policy. Have Ministers looked into the financial management of the Canal & River Trust?
As part of our Litter Strategy for England, we established the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, of which the Canal & River Trust is a member. Can the Minister please confirm when the group last met and what discussions Ministers in his department have had with the Canal & River Trust in connection with its membership of the group? Does he agree that it is incongruous that an organisation that is a member of the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group has removed all the litter bins on their tow-paths? For complete transparency, I need to admit that, speaking three days ago on the Crime and Policing Bill, I condemned the terminology “fly-tipping” as too nice a term that diminishes the evil of what is currently happening with massive fly-tipping around the country.
Some of the facts we have heard over the course of this debate, from noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Macpherson and Lord Addington, have highlighted the seriousness of the problem and the fact that the Canal & River Trust does not appear to be taking the action needed to fulfil its existing statutory duties. Again, I ask the Minister whether he feels that Ministers have sufficient powers to hold the Canal & River Trust to account for its actions. What steps can Ministers take to encourage or require the Canal & River Trust to restore bin provision on urban canal footpaths? If the Minister does not feel that Ministers have the powers necessary to ensure that bins are restored to canal tow-paths, can he commit to reviewing the status of the Canal & River Trust itself so that publicly elected officials can have some control over how the money is spent?
Outdoor space is a much-prized commodity in our ever-growing cities. We need outdoor spaces to be cared for properly so that everyone can enjoy them and rely on them, not least as excellent places to exercise and keep fit. I hope the Minister will listen carefully to everything my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow has said and all the other comments from my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the necessity of restoring these bins and keeping our tow-paths in clean and pristine condition.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I am grateful to all who spoke, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, and I join the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in paying tribute to his tenacity in pursuing this subject. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, noted, we all took part in the debate on the Private Member’s Bill on environmental targets. His passion for keeping the canal tow-paths as clean and litter-free as possible was clear then, and I am glad to see that it is as strong now as it was in June. It feels much longer ago than that.
Litter is, unfortunately, a perennial problem across our country. As we have heard clearly today, it has an adverse impact on people’s everyday lives. It spoils our urban space, our rural spaces and the beauty of our countryside, as well as bringing serious risks to our wildlife and, indeed, to public health. Although it is an ongoing problem, the Government are not standing still when it comes to addressing the root causes of litter. As I was saying in the previous debate, we are committed to reducing waste by transitioning towards a circular economy. We have convened a Circular Economy Taskforce of experts to help develop an action plan for England. To combat behaviours driving litter, we will be bringing forward statutory enforcement guidance on both littering and fly-tipping. Or, rather, I join the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in calling it—I have forgotten what he said—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I have forgotten what terms I used on Monday or Wednesday this week. I did not call it fly-tipping. I honestly cannot remember; I could not find it when I was searching for it. It was “criminal waste disposal”, or something like that.