Clause 18 - Extension of litter offences to all open places
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill
9:45 am
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment and Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He pre-empted a question, but it was not the question that I had in mind. My question is not why is the clause needed, but who will enforce this extension of the offence? We support tackling the dropping of litter anywhere in the open air in an area of a principal litter authority, regardless of ownership, as well as in water, such as rivers and lakes. A pond in Rawcliffe overflowed and caused substantial flooding in autumn 2000, and part of the reason for that was litter. Such a scenario would be covered by the provision, which is very welcome.
We want to know who will enforce the extension of the offence and how it will be resourced. Will it be a discretionary power or an obligation on the local authority? Taken together with other clauses, it is a substantial increase in what the Government are asking local authorities to do.
Proposed new subsection (4B) sets out the definition of the land in respect of which a person may give consent. Does the clause relate exclusively to publicly owned land? What is the position in relation to privately owned land? Is it the Government's intention that different conditions should apply? The clause does not state it but the explanatory notes tell us that there are a number of exceptions to the offences, set out in section 89 of the 1990 Act, which are being amended. I understand that consent may be given only in relation to a watercourse, lake or pond if the same person owns all the surrounding land.
In the Vale of York, land belonging to different owners surrounds ponds or lakes. On the Thornborough henges, which we hope will be saved as they date from Neolithic times, the land is owned by at least two, if not three, different landowners. After it has been quarried, some of it will become a lake and the land will remain in the hands of those landowners. How will the clause apply in such circumstances?