Environment Bill

Written evidence submitted by Peter Silverman MA MSc of Clean Highways (EB16) www.cleanhighways.co.uk

House of Commons Public Bill Committee on the Environment Bill 2019-21

Preamble

The environment we live in includes everything we and our families experience when we step outside our homes and workplaces - the pavements we walk on, the highways we drive along, the parks and school playgrounds, the air we breathe, the countryside, our beaches and inland waters as well as the land on which our food is grown.

Our wellbeing is adversely affected when this environment becomes compromised whether by pollution, defacement by litter and refuse, damage to biodiversity or by climate change.

An environment bill should not, in my opinion, exclude any part of this environment from its remit without a good and legitimate reason and certainly not to avoid exposing government failures.

OEP/ Exclusion of highways / Statutory duty on litter

This bill however excludes our highways (including pavements, verges and embankments) from its remit – the very part of the external environment in which people spend the most time.

This is because "highways" will be regarded as "other structures" (C41 (c)).

The OEP will therefore only be able to investigate breaches of the Environment Protection Act’s S89 - Duty to keep land and highways clear of litter etc as it applies to "land" such as parks. It will not be able to investigate duty bodies who fail to keep their "highways" clear of litter.

The only recourse the citizen currently has is to take the duty body to court under EPA S91 – Summary proceedings by persons aggrieved by litter. Following which he may find himself several thousand pounds out of pocket. This rarely used procedure is simply not fit for purpose. I have been involved in 6 cases as a complainant and once as a Mackenzie friend to an MP.

Contrast this with a complaint about the failure of a duty body to comply with FOI legislation. Anyone can complain to the Information Commissioner without any financial risk.

The Bill should be amended so that the OEP can investigate the failure of public authorities to comply with any duty they may have under the Environment Protection Act’s S89 - Duty to keep land and highways clear of litter etc. The main authorities concerned would be local authorities and Highways England.

To see what people say about the littered state of our highways please refer to Clean Highways – HAVE YOUR SAY at https://www.cleanhighways.co.uk/comments

Why "natural environment" instead of "environment"

I believe that the decision to make the Bill about the "natural environment" rather than the "environment" as a whole (natural and built) was to exclude highways so that the OEP would not be able to investigate the failure of Highways England to comply with its EPA S89 duty.

The same approach was taken when Highways England was set up in 2015. In the first Road Investment Strategy Key Performance Indicators were set for regarding "noise" and "biodiversity" and "air quality" but not for "litter". As a result, the statutory monitor, the Office of Rail and Road, chose not to investigate HE’s compliance with its EPA S89 duty.

If they had done so it would have exposed the decades of mismanagement of litter on the Strategic Road Network (now managed by Highways England) by the DfT.

I would be happy to give oral evidence

March 2020