Litter and Fly-tipping: England

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Bob Blackman

Thursday 25th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Encouraging good habits at a young age is definitely the way forward. One of the problems in my local area is the fast food restaurant near the school: we see from the litter how long it takes young people to eat their food as they walk back to the school. They deposit it where they choose and the consequences are littered streets and concerned residents. Even worse, some young people throw it in someone’s garden. They think, “I’ve finished with this. What do I do with it? I’ll throw it in the garden.”

On numerous occasions I have told my local authority to provide litter bins on the routes between schools and the fast food restaurants. I remember an exchange with some officers who said, “We’re not going to do that, because the consequence is the litter bins will become full and then we’ll have to pay someone to empty them.” We might think, “Hang on a minute, surely it is cheaper to do that than to clear up the litter,” but logic did not prevail in that case. I think there is a semblance of a duty—we took a lot of evidence on this—on fast food restaurants to keep the place clean.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that not all fast food outlets operate with the same disregard. In my constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, McDonald’s is good. It employs people to clean up around its restaurants and it organises volunteer days for its staff to do my local park. Some fast food chains take a responsible approach to the matter.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. McDonald’s is clearly a shining example of what should be done. Its food is all right—I would not say it was great, but lots of people love it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

That is a clear concern. It depends, of course, on the contract that has been set up between the local authority and the supplier. In London—I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman’s area—we have done quite a detailed study of this issue, and it is local authorities implementing the charges, not contractors. In my borough, it is a direct service—it is not even being provided by an outside contractor, which demonstrates that there is a particular problem.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

To reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), there was a perversity when bulk refuse charges were introduced in Tower Hamlets, in that the concerned citizens who were reporting bulk refuse were the ones being told, “You have to pay the charge for the removal of that piece of bulk refuse,” even though it had been fly-tipped by somebody from somewhere else. Tower Hamlets had to go back to free collection of bulk refuse, because otherwise citizens would not report it out of fear that they would have to pay for the removal of something that was not their responsibility.

[Bob Blackman]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. That has happened in a lot of local authorities up and down the country.

I will move on to bulky waste, to which the Chair of the Select Committee also alluded. There are duties for certain items to be collected when someone buys a replacement, but I think we will all have seen beds, sofas, garden furniture and ordinary furniture just dumped on the streets and left to rot. The reality is that much of that, and mattresses in particular, could be collected at the same time as people are buying new ones. I have seen certain local authorities that routinely go around and collect mattresses that have been left in particular areas. In areas with houses in multiple occupation, landlords will turn out the beds on a routine basis, especially when there has been a turnover of people living in those properties. When there are mattresses on the street, they have to be collected and dealt with. Surely there should be a duty on suppliers, as part and parcel of the process of delivering mattresses, sofas and other items, to collect and take away the old ones and dispose of them free of charge to the individual who is buying the new product. The Government should look at that in order to reduce costs.

The other issue with fly-tipping is that it is definitely on the increase. We have to combat it in every way, shape or form. Two types of fly-tipping are of particular concern. There is fly-tipping on the public highway, which hon. Members have mentioned, along with fly-tipping on street corners and all sorts of areas of the public highway that tend to be out of sight. People just wander along and either dump their rubbish from a car or, alternatively, dump it on service roads, whether to shops or domestic properties, as access points to garages. They are often the biggest problem of all, for the simple reason that they are on private land, so local authorities will say, “Nothing to do with us; you have to pay for that rubbish to be removed,” whereas residents say, “Well, it’s nothing to do with us. We didn’t dump it there in the first place.” The rubbish then builds up and up, till it becomes a health hazard and finally the local authority has to step in, remove it and try and identify who was responsible. It is often good luck if they find anything associated with the individual who dumped it in the first place. Often that is not possible.

I suspect this will be difficult, but we will have to look at what the duties are to collect fly-tipping on private land and whether any can be passed on to local authorities or whether there is some other way of dealing with fly-tipping on service roads. I know this is of great concern to many residents up and down the country, and there do not seem to be proper regulations to control it.

Christmas Adjournment

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Bob Blackman

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I join the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the House staff a happy Christmas and a great 2014. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, a fellow West Ham supporter, especially on the day after one of our rare wins this season, which has struck a cheerful note. I will not speak on as many subjects as he did. I want to cover only two—the Deputy Leader of the House is nodding in approval—which are the individual case of my constituent Mrs Afsana Lachaux, and the firefighters pension dispute, about which I shall speak briefly.

Afsana Lachaux is a friend of mine, who has been a constituent. She moved to Dubai, but is now stranded there. She is a UK citizen and a Muslim in a Muslim country, but being a woman, she is at a great disadvantage because she is in dispute with her husband over the custody of their child following the breakdown of their relationship.

For nearly three years, I have tried to help the family to resolve this case. I had very good support from the former Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and I have engaged with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), while our staff in Dubai have also tried to do what they can to help, so I am not making any criticism about that. There has been criticism from the family, who do not think that enough is being done by me, the Foreign Office or our consular staff in the Emirates, but if I was in the family’s position, I would probably feel exactly the same. Their relative—their mother, their sister—has been completely stranded. She has been accused by her estranged husband, who has a record of domestic violence, of all manner of criminal activities. She has been arrested by the Dubai police. She has been jailed. She has been beaten up. She has had the most horrendous experiences at the hands of the Emirati authorities in Dubai.

Sadly, although Afsana is a Muslim, because she is a woman in a Muslim country and because she is being reported by a man, even though he is French and, I believe, is not a Muslim, she has to explain and defend herself to each set of police officers who come to arrest her and, when she goes to report at police stations and is detained, she has to go through the elaborate process of explaining her circumstances all over again. She is not able to work and is surviving on what her family can send to her from London.

To compound Afsana’s misery, she found out last month that her husband had divorced her and had successfully sued for custody of their child in a sharia court in Dubai more than 12 months ago. The rule in the UAE and under sharia law is that if 12 months have lapsed and the decision of the court has not been challenged, it is no longer appealable and is upheld. She was divorced and lost custody, but was not even aware of the fact.

As Members can imagine, this woman, who has been brutalised, feels totally isolated, completely let down by everybody in authority and persecuted by the authorities in Dubai. She has now found out that she has lost those legal cases. That is a dreadful situation to be in.

I am taking the opportunity to raise the matter this afternoon to demonstrate to the family that people here care about Afsana and that the Foreign Office and the consular officials are working on the case. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has agreed to meet me and I have had meetings with his predecessor on the matter. We have tried to meet the French ambassador. I have had a meeting in the past two years with the UAE ambassador. Sadly, given that child custody is involved and given the nature of the case, it is very difficult to penetrate the legal procedures in the Emirates and in Dubai.

I want to place on the record my appreciation for the efforts that have been made. I hope that we can redouble them to help Afsana escape and to challenge the custody decision of the courts in Dubai. Afsana’s sister, Rosina Aman, who is my constituent, and her son, Rabbhi Yahiya, will appreciate everything and anything that can be done to help their relative.

The second issue that I want to raise is the firefighters pension dispute. There is pretty much consensus among those on both Front Benches that the retirement age for firefighters had to be changed. That was certainly the case when I was fire Minister. The terms of the pension scheme were that firefighters had to take compulsory retirement after 30 years’ service or on reaching the age of 55. It was felt that a number of firefighters could work and wanted to work past that. The changes to the rules were supported by the Labour Government and they have been amended recently by the coalition.

There has been a big change in the situation that has led to the fire disputes that have raged across our country for months. When we put forward our proposals, my understanding was that firefighters would not be penalised if they had to retire early on the basis of fitness or health and that their pensions would not be unfairly reduced if they could not stay on until 60. That has changed partly because of the cuts, partly because of austerity and partly because of the success of the fire service in reducing the number of calls, fires, deaths and injuries. That is partly the result of better building regulations and procedures being introduced over the past 50 years, notwithstanding the point that the hon. Member for Southend West made about fires, which was entirely valid. Overall, because we mostly live in double-glazed and insulated homes with central heating and because fewer people smoke, there are fewer fires. The fire service’s education and prevention teams have been extremely successful in reducing the number of fires, and therefore the number of injuries and fatalities. The authorities therefore think that we need fewer firefighters and fire stations.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we discard far too early the experience of firefighters who have given most of their lives to saving lives? If firefighters are not fit to do the really physical work, there are key jobs that they can do in fire prevention, fitting smoke alarms and giving general advice to all sorts of public authorities. Their experience should be used for the betterment of society, not thrown away.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is exactly the point that I was trying to establish. When we anticipated the extension of the retirement age to 60, we did not think that every operational firefighter would be fit and healthy enough to work until 60. We thought that opportunities would be found for them in back-room jobs in fire prevention, school education and all manner of support roles to ensure that we took advantage of, and did not waste, the experience that they had accumulated over many years on the front line. However, because of austerity and the cuts and reductions that have been made in the service because we do not need as many fire stations and firefighters, there are many fewer such positions for firefighters who are not fit to fulfil other duties.

Under the new rules that the Government are trying to push through, firefighters are faced with a massive reduction in their pension if they go before 60. We never anticipated that there would be such a punitive element in the pension arrangements because, as part of the new deal, firefighters are being asked to contribute another 2.6%, which takes their deductions up to 12.6%. Many of us know the fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and we have a lot of time for a number of the things that he does. Everyone on the Government Front Bench keeps describing the firefighters pension scheme as generous. It is a good scheme, but they are expected to pay 12.6% for it and the reason for that is deaths and injuries. The scheme is valid and valued, as it ought to be, because of the nature of the job.

Colleagues regularly stand up in this House to applaud the role that has been played by the emergency services in dealing with some tragedy, disaster, flood or storm. These people risk their lives for us on a daily basis. In their view, they are being forced to take industrial action because nobody is listening. They might have to take a hit of up to a 50% cut in their pension because they cannot last until 60. I am 61 and am relatively fit. I know what that job is about because I did it for 23 years. I know what it is like to be on strike. No emergency service worker wants to go on strike. They risk their lives for 365 days a year and then they have to walk out the door and deny the community that they want to protect the ability, discipline and professionalism that they have built up.

This is a monstrous situation. My appeal to the Deputy Leader of the House is that he takes the strong message back to the fire Minister, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Prime Minister that we need serious negotiations. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, if there are places for firefighters to work away from the front line, they will fill those places.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Bob Blackman

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

It would be shocking; indeed, it would be shocking if the emergency services did not have the keys to access such a gate when they arrived at the scene, which in my experience they always do. To my knowledge—I will bow to anyone else’s superior knowledge—there has never been a situation where the emergency services required access to such a gate but were prevented because they were not carrying the keys.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Is it not also the case that the emergency services have a statutory power of entry when they are fulfilling their duties under the appropriate legislation?

[Bob Blackman]

I cannot imagine that anyone who was acting under the authority and direction of a member of the relevant services would be prosecuted for that.

In summary, on behalf of the promoters, I hope that I have given sufficient explanation to enable the mover of the amendment to withdraw it, rather than pressing it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, it would be incumbent on the person served with the PCN to substantiate that the contravention was down to someone else, in the same way as they would make representations against any other PCN. The local authority would then examine those grounds, and if they were relevant and someone else was responsible, the PCN would be withdrawn and issued to the relevant person. That is exactly how local authorities deal with highways offences.

Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with potential immobilisation. Clearly, local authorities in London want the power to immobilise a skip if they deem it appropriate, but of course if a skip is in a dangerous position on the highways, the last thing they are going to do is immobilise it; they will want it removed. If, however, it is in a reasonably safe position and a notice to change the lighting has been issued, the local authority could step in, light the skip and immobilise it using the devices on the market that allow that to be done, making it safe for pedestrians and other road users. At the same time, they could pursue the person who has contravened the rules. A local authority would do that only if it was appropriate to do so, which is quite right. Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with that issue.

One of the challenges is what is in the skip. Obviously local authorities need the discretion to remove anything that is inappropriate.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

If I remember correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) pointed out on Second Reading that many people did not realise that skips could be immobilised, given their size and weight. However, the hon. Gentleman has just explained that such devices are available. When it is safe, their use may be appropriate to prevent people from flouting their responsibilities when they place skips on our roads.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue.

In summary, let me say on behalf of the promoters that we accept amendment 11 and oppose the rest of the amendments in this group. Part 3 of the Bill deals with appropriate action to make London streets safer when people put skips on the public highway, by ensuring appropriate fines and enforcement action when people break or flout the rules. We will accept amendment 11, but I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press the other amendments.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The reality, of course, is that this Bill is being promoted not by the Government, but by London local authorities and TfL. They have been subject to considerable pressure from the pedicab trade, and most of the people concerned are individuals who ply their trade.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is responding to a key question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). Notwithstanding the obvious disappointment that clause 17 is likely to be dropped when the Bill goes into Committee, does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that that means there will be no regulation of that industry, which many people say is an accident waiting to happen?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that a voluntary system of regulation is needed and should be attempted. If such a system does not work, I am sure that we will return to the matter in a further such Bill in future.