Endnote
67. It is clear that, across the range of fly-tipping,
fly-posting, litter, graffiti and noise problems, the greatest
issue is not one of resources, nor of powers, nor even of sentences
for offenders, but of willingness to act and of effective co-operation
between stakeholder organisations. Of course there are some resource
issues. If the Agency and local authorities are properly to tackle
the growing menace of fly-tipping, they need the money to do so.
There are also powers issues, particularly in the areas of fly-tipping
and fly-posting. Some things currently are too difficult to do
or cannot be done at all which would greatly help to remedy current
levels of environmental blight—such as the easy and effective
prosecution of the managing director of a company which blithely
uses fly-posting to increase profits and just smirks at the local
environmental degradation which this causes. As we stated in
our Sixth Report of this Session, there are also sentencing issues.[71]
68. As EnCams pointed
out with regard to litter, graffiti and general local environmental
quality, the resources available to local authorities are by and
large sufficient, but those within councils dealing with these
issues often lack the necessary diligence, enthusiasm and persistence
to make those financial resources work effectively.
Occasional strategies and initiatives, and temporary grime-busting
task-forces are not sufficient to the task of improving the quality
of our local environment in any real way. The
war on local environmental blight has to be mainstreamed within
local authorities. Co-operation within and between councils must
improve, and likewise between national government and its agencies
and those that act on a more limited geographical basis. Joined-up
action against anti-social behaviour appears to be working: we
hope that action against local environmental degradation, which
is linked in many ways to the anti-social behaviour agenda, will
soon begin to pay similar dividends.
71 HC126 (2003-04). Back
|
