Sue Doughty's front bench speech as Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Minister for the second reading of the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environmental Bill

12.33.57pm UTC (GMT +0000) Tue 11th Jan 2005

Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): Let me make it clear at the start that we welcome the Bill. All the evidence that we have seen suggests that the penalties are not strong enough to deal with problems such as fly-tipping, graffiti and the sheer volume of rubbish on our streets. In several Adjournment debates, the House has discussed how to deter people from committing environmental crimes. We know that action is needed. Although the Bill has drawbacks, the problems can be dealt with in Committee, resulting in an improved Bill.

We have to get across to people the message that they share responsibility for the appearance, the feel and the safety of our communities and that environmental crime matters. However, the Bill jumps around—in some ways, it is a dog's breakfast of a Bill, the result of the Government's failure over the years to consider whole systems for legislation. Now, we are left to tidy up. We have had a slew of legislation on tangential issues. The Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 was introduced solely to deal with reducing biodegradable waste, but it could have done so much more: it could have covered littering, fly-tipping and many of the other issues dealt with in the Bill. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which the Bill would amend, could have dealt more effectively with graffiti and fly-posting. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment is to be dealt with in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, rather than in a planning Bill. I get the feeling that we are taking the populist approach of giving people what they want ahead of the general election, but we know that people are asking for much of what is in the Bill, so while we regret that many of the issues have not been dealt with before, we will support the Bill that includes them.

We want clean and safe communities. It is essential that there is much better management both of the big problems, such as fly-tipping and the damage it causes, and of the smaller, more mundane problems of littering and chewing gum that cumulatively spoil our environment. When a neighbourhood is littered, when graffiti is present and where fly-posting is rife, the area is degraded and degenerated. When we fail to dispose correctly of the products that we have used or no longer require, we have a mess on our streets, in our rivers and in our countryside.

The Government have a mess on their hands now. Total municipal waste increased by 19 per cent. between 1997 and 2003. We are at the bottom of the European recycling league and municipal waste is continuing to increase. Our streets are littered with more abandoned cars than ever before: in the past two years their number has increased by 37 per cent. to more than 300,000 a year. The amount of high-level radioactive waste has increased by 9 per cent. and no one knows what we are going to do with batteries. Fly-tipping continues to increase—by how much we do not know. Last summer, I forecast that fly-tipping would increase as a result of DEFRA's last-minute approach to the provision of facilities for hazardous waste, but the Government say that it has not—their figures do not show an increase. I went back to the people who were reporting the increase—the farmers on whose land lorry-loads of asbestos have been dumped. They tell me that, if they report the matter and the perpetrators are not caught, the authorities charge the farmer for tidying up, so they say nothing. There is a slew of unreported waste littering our commons, our farms and our countryside. It must be dealt with, which is another reason why we support the Bill.

I have met farmers who have repeatedly been stuck with the problem. Even if they have seen someone dumping waste on their land, the Environment Agency has not had the resources to follow up on detection so that it can secure a conviction and penalties. Under the Bill, the Environment Agency will continue to face a shortfall in its resources for detection. Getting a conviction and penalties is great, but detection is extremely important.

Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Lady accept that some landowners—only a few—abuse the system? Waste is brought in and they do not ask too many questions about what is being tipped. We need the Environment Agency to be more proactive about enforcement. Does she share my hope that the Bill will achieve that?

Sue Doughty: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point and one with which we must deal. There is a difference between people who are willing to litter the countryside or have their land used in that way and those who are innocent victims of others who arrive at night, dump stuff and disappear, to leave others with the cost. I am worried about the Bill requiring owners to clear their land if they were not responsible for the litter or the dumping.

It is amazing that the Tories are not supporting the Bill. They say that it

"focuses predominantly on urban issues while neglecting rural areas".

That is flawed thinking. Does the Opposition's amendment mean that it does not matter that streets look like tips? Does it mean that people should have to tolerate mess day after day? Does it matter that not enough is being done about abandoned cars? Do the Tories think it acceptable that someone living in a private house should set up a car dealership and park cars along the road to the detriment of the entire community? That is being allowed in Guildford, and nothing is being done to eradicate the problem. I am astonished. Do the Tories want fly-tippers to keep the means by which they commit their crimes and not have the vehicles seized that are being used for that purpose?

It seems that a hugely imaginative step is being proposed. It is one that the Environmental Audit Committee recommended, as did other bodies. We can start to see some remedies taking effect. If we are to have more building in the south-east on brownfield sites, we need to manage the waste that will be produced. Construction waste must be better managed and we must introduce legislation to deal with that issue, but the Tories oppose that approach. Will they be happy when construction waste continues to appear on farmland, in quarries and on commons? Is that what they want? They do not want to deal with fly-tipping on farmland, even though the National Farmers Union supports the Bill. Are they no longer talking to farmers?

The Local Government Association, which is chaired by the Tories, is backing the Bill. As I have said, the Tories are not doing so in the House. The Tories do not want spot fines for those who drop chewing gum on the streets, yet councils face enormous costs in clearing that nuisance. Westminster city council—I think that it is Tory run—spends £90,000 a year on removing chewing gum. There are 300,000 pieces of gum in Oxford street, but nothing is being done to change the disgusting habit of throwing used chewing gum on the streets. It seems that that is what the Tories want. Their approach is opportunistic. They are running after a bandwagon that is missing.

Dr. Whitehead: In pursuing the hon. Lady's puzzle about why the Conservatives are opposing the Bill, can she offer us any explanation? Was it Christmas? Was it a decision taken immediately after a long Christmas lunch? Has the hon. Lady any view on the matter?

Sue Doughty: The hon. Gentleman tempts me but I will not go along that route. It is a question that requires a few moments in the early morning while we lie awake worrying about the matter. It is something that can be questioned. I am not sure about the reason.

I am worried that the Tories are not proposing anything to sort out the mess. Rural policy is wider than restoring fox hunting. The problem with environmental crime is poor management. Fly-tipping in the countryside is being left for landowners to sort out. There is a lack of management.

Dogs are out of control and present a nuisance. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said—he is no longer in his place—it is not a matter of urban versus rural. It is an issue that affects us all. If we are to get tough on crime, we must not walk away from environmental crime that ruins communities.

The Bill deals with what is obvious and visible, but it is beginning to will the end without the means. We want to ensure that funding is available to local government. It is clear that it will need pump priming. I accept that there may be savings in the end but there must be a realistic beginning. I was interested when the Secretary of State touched on that topic. I look forward to hearing more about it in Committee.

We are faced with increased mountains of hazardous waste. The door is wide open for cowboys and we need to do more to tackle the problem. There are only minor penalties on conviction for those who spoil our environment. Perhaps we are all in agreement that they are too low. They do not provide an incentive to stop the man in the white van agreeing to remove rubbish and then dumping it as soon as he can. They do not do much to stop fly-posting or anything to deal with the litter associated with street handouts. It is clear that the penalties need to be increased if they are to present real incentives.

As the Environmental Audit Committee said, we also need to ensure that courts are prepared to impose real fines and not opt for the lowest penalty when the issue comes to court.

The Secretary of State suggested that owners should limit access to sites subject to fly-tipping. We need to ensure also that when that is done a periodic review is undertaken. When alleys are gated off in urban areas or lanes in the countryside, there should be full consultation to ensure that access is still available to farmers and that they are not penalised.

The Bill could do much but it has weaknesses. There is the fixed penalty system. Who is handing out the fines? Are there opportunities for appeal? What is the position of persistent offenders? The garage to which I have referred—it was a private house a few years ago—constantly exceeds the number of cars that are permitted to be parked on the road. That situation is factored into its costs. A fine of £100 is probably not sufficient in those circumstances.

Will councils employ private contractors? If so, how will they be managed? In my constituency, and I am sure in many others, car clampers have come to work on behalf of councils. They have been predatory and disgraceful in their way of working. They have extracted penalties equivalent to a week's wages. There seems to be little opportunity of appeal and I want to ensure that people are entitled to justice when issued with fixed penalties.

We have problems with parish councils that become litter authorities. I am not criticising the larger parishes that are successful and hold elections for their members but there are too many parishes where the members are unelected. I would not want an unelected parish council to have the powers that are proposed. If we want quality parish councils, we want elected parish councils.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Does she agree that the Government were right to make the elected requirement a key element of the quality parish councils, and encourage parish councils to make use of the powers that the Bill will provide in the context of becoming genuine, well-run and elected councils?

Sue Doughty: I welcome the Minister's comments. I hope that we will hear more in Committee about how the process will work.

We have a problem with Traveller encroachment. Somehow, it seems that farmland is, again, no longer considered important. Those of us who have farms in our constituencies constantly hear of the devastation that may be caused after Travellers have illegally occupied land and left it in a mess, with asphalt laid and other problems. These are issues that we need to consider in Committee. It is clear that they need sorting out. I have no problems with prosecutions where people fly-tip. If there are powers to take away vehicles, and those vehicles are used to tow Travellers' caravans, there needs to be clarity, because there may be a human rights issue. I hope that the Government will be able to provide clarification.

I agree with the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who mentioned the tragic incident involving a child in a car in the countryside. We must deal with abandoned cars in the countryside as well as abandoned cars in the streets. Abandoned cars are a blight on the countryside, cause pollution and, as we have heard, are a hazard.

There is also the problem of houses in multiple occupation where there are broken-down cars awaiting repairs. The Government are right to draw attention to the problem. With increased brownfield development and infilling in towns leading to reductions in parking places and several people sharing a house, there is often not just one householder. If two cars break down that belong to two owners in one house, how will the Government deal with that? There is less off-road parking for private vehicles than there used to be, particularly in urban areas. There is a balance to be struck between the people who live in an area, who have a reasonable right to maintain their cars on the street if there is nowhere else available, and the people who live around them. More clarity is required.

Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford) (Lab): I certainly agree with the hon. Lady about people who may need to maintain their car on the street, but would she not draw a distinction between an individual maintaining one car and someone running a business in the street?

Sue Doughty: The hon. Gentleman is right. We do not want people to repair cars on the street for profit and there is nothing in the relevant clause that we dispute. There are gaps in the Bill, including, for example, the import and disposal of nuclear waste. Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), regularly urge the Government to address the problem of nuclear waste, and it is time that they did so. Only last month, however, they announced that they are going to allow foreign nuclear waste to be buried in the UK. It is a pity that the way in which we deal with nuclear waste is not covered by the Bill.

There is no mention of penalising people who deliver junk mail, even when householders express a preference about not receiving it. We are the junk mail capital of Europe. We do not need all that junk mail and if someone says that they do not want it, we should make sure that their wish is respected.

Mr. Challen: What about "Focus"?

Sue Doughty: "Focus" is a high-quality leaflet and I am sure that no one would regard it as junk mail. [Interruption.] As I have just been told, it is informative and factual.

We welcome the freedom that the Bill gives to local authorities. Unlike the Conservatives, we welcome an end to the insistence that an authority should always contract out the functions of disposal. Surrey county council, for example, is bound into an inflexible 25-year contract that costs a fortune to maintain and does not allow it to move easily to more sustainable waste management. That is wrong. If a local authority has the skills and the ability to undertake disposal and can compete with private business, why should it not do so? We should create the flexibility to put better waste strategies in place.

There is another dog that did not bark. People have talked endlessly about allowing councils to make variable charges for waste management. In its report of December 2002, "Waste not, Want not", for example, the strategy unit identified a package of measures to reduce the growth in waste volume, including more freedom for local authorities to introduce variable charging and schemes that reward households that increase their recycling and reduce waste volumes. Such schemes included council tax discounts for households that compost waste, rewards and prizes for homes that recycle rubbish and variable charging schemes to reduce council tax for people who recycle the most.

The Secretary of State, however, appears to be going backwards. In The Sunday Times of 8 August 2004, she accepted that while there were political risks there was

"potential for significant long-term gains."

What are those risks? There is unanimity among the main parties in the Local Government Association, which supports the proposals. In Parliament, however, that is not the case. Have the Government rejected the proposals out of cowardice, and are the Tories going backwards because they would prefer to accuse others of stealth taxes than introduce constructive proposals of their own? Another Government scheme that could result in increases in recycling will not see the light of day.

Moving on to the problem of noise, I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that the Bill does not go far enough. It deals with faulty burglar alarms, but not faulty car alarms, which plague some individuals. Excess road and air noise are a sheer misery for certain neighbourhoods. Constituents of mine who live by the A3 suffer day in, day out from excess noise—they cannot sleep and their walls rattle. That is not acceptable, but there is nothing in the Bill to deal with the problem. However, we welcome the opportunity to gate alleys and snickets. There was a successful pilot in Liverpool, where 5,200 alley gates were installed. Domestic burglary has been reduced by 24 per cent., but we must ensure that access is granted to people who require it. We must consider what happens when they no longer need access, but we must also make sure that the emergency services fully support such gating. They must be provided promptly with information and maps so that they know which roads are open and which are not. Too often, the police are not provided with such information, and they lose the opportunity to catch miscreants because they do not know where to go.

We welcome action on light pollution, but there are worrying exemptions. In Committee, I hope that we can discuss permissive action. BAA invited us to take part in an environmental safari at Gatwick airport, so that we could see how it had attempted to reduce light emissions and make the transition to lighting from renewable energy sources. It has undertaken a voluntary initiative to save money and reduce light, but exemptions should only be introduced after consultation. They should not be automatic, because much more needs to be done. If a car showroom is opened close to a residential area light is shed everywhere. The problem is not picked up in the planning application, and it is only when the garage has opened that the council says, "We never expected that to happen." People need lighting for safety purposes, but it should be directed downwards, not outwards and upwards.

The Bill should address the problems caused by other pollutants. After a weekend of devastating storms and floods leading to loss of life and huge damage—the House will sympathise with the distress experienced by the people of Carlisle—the Government have missed the opportunity to tighten local government powers on climate change adaptation and mitigations. Climate change is the responsibility not just of national and international Government but of local government. We are concerned about the way in which fixed penalty notices will work and we need to look at that in Committee. On Thursday, we will debate the report by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit on some issues covered by the Bill which, in general, we support. It needs to be improved, but it is definitely time to introduce it.

Extract from the Minister's summing up (Alun Michael)

The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made a positive contribution in which she stressed the shared responsibility that we all have for our environment. She made clear the Liberal Democrats' general support for the Bill, although she said that she would challenge and probe some issues in Committee, as she is right to do. However, she was not right to say that the Bill "jumps around". It is comprehensive, then specific: the unifying theme and central principle is that of joined-up action at local level and specific proposals are made on the various aspects. The Bill provides a real opportunity for local authorities, the police and the communities that are served by both to work together, and I hope that Liberal Democrats in local government will seize that opportunity.

The hon. Lady acknowledged the cumulative effect of individual decisions on littering and such things as gum stains. She also acknowledged the difference between responsible farmers and landowners and those who are part of the problem. I share her surprise at the Conservatives' opposition to the Bill—although I am also delighted by it, because it makes it clear that they do not understand what they are doing. She made an important specific comment about car alarms. In fact, car alarms can be silenced under the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, which amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include

"noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street".

The provision allows local authorities to enter or open a vehicle, if necessary by force, to silence a car alarm and to remove the vehicle from the street to a secure place. I hope that greater use of that provision will be encouraged by the Bill's comprehensive approach to alarms on premises.

The hon. Lady rightly referred to Travellers and their impact on some communities—something that I have experienced in my constituency. She also made the case for greater flexibility in deciding whether to contract out waste functions. Greater clarity in waste disposal targets and improvements brought about by the Government, particularly the comprehensive performance assessment, which has been mentioned several times, make the narrow requirement that the Bill will remove unnecessary. I look forward to discussing in Committee some of the other concerns that she highlighted.