---

Lord Kimball: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool gave the Bill a terrific welcome, particularly in the very difficult area in which he has to carry on his work. But I believe that no government ever commit suicide. If the polls were suddenly to swing against the present Government, I think that we could face the Bill being brought back to Parliament immediately after the Easter Recess. In that case, it would be important to realise that, in fact, the Bill is not matched by the necessary funding.

It is important that we put down a number of markers where major amendments will be required, and I want to deal with just three of them: the question of lighting nuisance; stray dogs; and some form of vehicle registration.

The great word in agriculture today is "diversification". In particular, one must think of people who grow cyclamen, cut flowers and pot plants. In order to bring these plants on at the right time, it is necessary to lengthen the daylight hours by artificial lighting. Equally, in order to get these things to the market on time, it is necessary to load under arc lights at night. We will need an assurance—I am glad that my noble friend has mentioned this—that these points will be covered in the Bill.

I am glad that we have discussed the question of hardworking communities whose only chance of enjoying games is often in the evening hours when it is necessary to have floodlighting. For football, tennis, even cricket, you need to extend the daylight hours. That is important for many in this country.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 195
 

As for stray dogs, I was concerned about the failure of the Government to give an adequate answer to the Kennel Club. The police will be relieved from their duty of looking after stray dogs. If you lose a dog now you get in touch with the police. They will tell you that it has been run over or, much more often, the dog will have gone off hunting or, more likely, gone looking for a bitch. If it is found it is handed over to the police. They will contact the owner if the dog is wearing a collar. If the collar is missing, the owner can inquire at the local police station whether a dog has been handed in.

In no way can this duty be taken over by the local authorities. They will not have a 24-hour service. You cannot work from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on an issue of animal welfare. I am so glad that my noble friend made this point. It is essential that stray dogs should be handled by the police and not by the local authorities.

I am also concerned about the business of repairing your own car on the road. There are a lot of us who do not know what goes on under the bonnet of any motor car. As I understand it now, it would be an offence for the local handyman to come on to your forecourt or the road in front of your house in order to repair your car.

We seem to be getting into a muddle over who actually owns a car. The original owner retains the fiscal responsibility for a vehicle unless they can demonstrate that they have notified the DVLA of the transfer of ownership. But in a recent case highlighted by the Daily Mail the new owners had failed to register the transfer of ownership, so the original owner was held responsible for a fine, although he had not committed any wrong.

There is a lot of work to be done on the Bill. If it is to make further progress, I hope that it will be taken on the Floor of the House and not in one of the committees upstairs.

8.17 p.m.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I would like to approach the Bill from the rural perspective and I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner.

In the past, litter and fly-tipping have all too often been seen as urban problems. I am keenly aware from my past experience that the regeneration of deprived urban neighbourhoods often has to start with a general clean-up, in order to create that sense of pride in the area you live in, to counteract the despondency and civic apathy that all too often exists when an area has taken on the appearance of an unofficial dump.

However, fly-tipping has now reached epidemic proportions throughout our islands and most recently very noticeably in our countryside. Some of us have been quoting figures; my favourite one is that the local authority records seem to indicate that there are now 75,000 incidents of fly-tipping per month—that is, one incident every 35 seconds. Not all local authorities keep records and certainly not all incidents are reported. For instance, most farmers near me have been affected by fly-tipping in recent years and often they just clear up the mess and do not report it.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 196
 

Nowadays, it is not only cookers, fridges, beds, mattresses and rubble that get dumped. There might be so-called commercial reasons for dumping such large items, or there might be misunderstandings, following the landfill tax, about what can be disposed of free of charge at the local tip. But what I cannot understand is that now black bags are being thrown out of cars, splitting and spreading their household detritus all over the countryside. Is it not cheaper and less trouble to wait for the weekly free domestic collection than it is to drive out into the countryside and throw it away? Or maybe there are some councils which limit the amount of waste they will accept?

In the same way as urban civic pride starts with a clean neighbourhood, this is doubly so of our precious countryside. So I genuinely support the Bill. I am glad that littering and fly-tipping will be treated as serious crimes; that dumped cars are going to be speedily removed; and that initiatives such as "Flycatcher" are going to make it more difficult to pollute our countryside.

Actually, policing the pollution of our countryside by litter and fly-tipping is not such an insurmountable task as it would at first appear. In my experience, in the same way as there are favourite places locally to have a picnic, so there seem to be favourite places to get rid of old bedsteads or whatever. For farmers whose gateways, footpaths and bridleways are thus continually desecrated, it is extremely disheartening. As an aside, most farmers cannot take much more disheartening at the moment.

This leads me on to the one point of opposition I have to the Bill. As has already been mentioned, in Clause 20 material changes appear to be being made to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It seems to be the Government's intention that litter authorities should be able to serve litter-clearing notices on owners and occupiers of land without them having the defence that the material was fly-tipped. Has the Bill been rural-proofed? As far as the countryside is concerned, this is wrong. Is fly-tipping the fault of the farmer?

The Bill goes on to provide that in the litter-clearing notice the litter authority may specify steps to be taken to prevent future defacement. I understand that those steps will usually involve measures to keep people off the land in question—fencing and so on—again at the expense, in the countryside, of the farmer. The message seems to be that the farmer is at fault for allowing people on to his land.

I put it to noble Lords that fly-tipping is a problem for society and is indeed exacerbated by fiscal policies, policies on landfill and even local waste collection policies, however otherwise appropriate they might be. I also put it to noble Lords that all too often the sites that get littered are those to which the public has easy access; for example, the start of bridleways, footpaths and byways open to all traffic. They cannot, and should not, be made alien to the public. Thus while elsewhere the Government rightly try to encourage access to the countryside, here they seem to be taking a different view, or at least wiping their hands of the consequences.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 197
 

As has already been pointed out, Clause 20 differs from Clause 50, which deals with controlled waste. In that clause, there is a much more sensible process whereby an occupier can appeal the notice if he neither deposited nor knowingly caused nor knowingly permitted the deposit of the waste. That would seem to be an entirely reasonable defence, which should also apply to Clause 20.

Politically, as far as the countryside is concerned—I recognise that there may be a different set of circumstances in towns—I think Clause 20 is a blunder. If the Government wish farmers to be entirely hostile to the visiting public, then by all means make them the public's pooper-scoopers free of charge to the public purse. I think that would be a huge mistake.

8.23 p.m.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, last weekend at home in Bradford I read the local newspaper, the Telegraph & Argus, as I always do. On Friday, the front-page story concerned a young woman who was fined £100 for throwing a cigarette end from her car window. She was waxing most indignant about the unfairness of it all and about people going around spying and making accusations. Presumably, she meant the people who reported her for throwing a cigarette end on to the road. I confess I gave three cheers.

Like, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I am one of those people who picks up litter, follows people with it and gives it back to them. I have long felt frustrated and angry about drivers who speed along littering the road with impunity. I have long wished it possible to pick up their empty cans and other detritus and put it on their doorsteps. So, as your Lordships might imagine, I can become positively incandescent on the subject of dog dirt in public places. My embarrassed family believes that it is a miracle that I have not been dotted by someone by now.

I welcome the Bill. I am grateful for the briefing material that I have been sent by many organisations, not least the LGA and London Transport. Possibly the most intriguing material was from Wrigley, the chewing gum company. It has joined this debate with its welcome recognition of the responsibility it bears over the issue of gum litter. It is interesting that Wrigley is busy trying to invent a biodegradable gum, which will certainly help. Perhaps it could also try to find edible wrappers. It costs tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to clean up chewing gum. If one looks at Leicester Square, for example, there is a permanent reminder of all the gum that has been discarded there over the years. The paving stones are still stained after the gum has been removed.

In its ten parts, the Bill covers a wide range of issues and is the result of two years of consultation and work with the Local Government Association and others. That means that it has the support of the cross-party local government family. Many of its objectives arise out of the everyday challenges that local councils, local police forces and local communities face in creating
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 198
 
the safe, clean and green neighbourhoods that residents and businesses want, as mentioned by the Minister.

As essentially a city dweller in Bradford and London, I should like to comment on those parts of the Bill of concern to me. It is a pleasure to speak to a Bill which combines the support of city and rural dwellers. I see the Bill as part of a process which the Government began some time ago with legislation as early as 1998. In the past few years I have spoken in your Lordships' House on such issues as anti-social behaviour orders, graffiti and clean streets. In other words, this is part of a continuum of legislation and activity which says that people must learn to behave in a considerate fashion towards their neighbours and their communities, and that if they do not do so there will be consequences.

The legislation builds on some of the pioneering work undertaken by local authorities. Other noble Lords have mentioned it. For example, I like the way in which Edinburgh has targeted fast-food restaurants and takeaway shops. Shops allowing discarded boxes and wrappers to build up outside their premises are fined as well as the customers who throw down their rubbish.

I give another example. The local newspaper in Oldham is joining forces with the council in its fight against graffiti. It is publishing a series of photographs of graffiti taken around the town in a bid to find the culprits. Those who are experts on graffiti will know that graffiti often have signatures or tags. Readers are urged to study the photographs and to name and shame those responsible. I wish them well.

In your Lordships' House, I have praised previously the work undertaken in this field by my London home borough of Camden. I was attracted by its imaginative approach to fly-posting, which is a huge and unsightly problem for the borough. Last week it successfully used its ASBO powers for the second time and served ASBOs on some of the employees of one of the largest fly-posting companies in the UK called, appropriately in my view, Diabolical Liberties. Camden Town's press release states:

"Diabolical Liberties has been engaged in illegal flyposting in Camden for the last eight years. During this time, Camden Council has gathered considerable evidence against the company, including from other organisations that work with them. In addition, a number of local authorities have provided Camden with evidence of Diabolical Liberties illegal flyposting activities, including Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, Cardiff, Nottingham and also Nottingham Police".

I quote that as a wonderful example of the co-ordination and co-operation across local authorities which needs to take place.

Camden's approach follows its successful action against Sony Music Entertainment UK in June of last year when that company agreed to cease fly-posting in England and Wales. That work has resulted in a 95 per cent reduction in the amount of fly-posting in the borough and has created a model demonstrating how innovative use of legislation can have beneficial results for the local authority.

All those initiatives illustrate how, through the employment of imaginative and innovative methods, local authorities can improve local environmental
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 199
 
quality and create a pleasant and safer place in which to live. This work will be enhanced further by the use of the powers available in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill. Local authorities will be able to develop further partnerships and enforcement work to create measurable improvements in local environmental quality.

I was particularly pleased to learn that the LGA is working with the retail sector on the problems caused by shopping trolleys, noise and lighting and has made joint recommendations on the wording of the guidance which may follow the Bill.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and recognise that it is designed to clarify responsibilities and help councils to deal with environmental crime more effectively. I hope that the Bill will succeed in its passage through your Lordships' House.

8.30 p.m.

---