Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair) We now move on to a rubbish
debate—about litter on motorways. I call Sir Mike Penning to move
the motion. Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) I beg to move,
That this House has considered litter on motorways. On a very
serious subject, hopefully we can also have some calming measures,
if you know what I mean, Mr Hollobone. Other colleagues have
indicated to me that they would join the debate this afternoon, so
I wonder...Request free trial
(in the Chair)
We now move on to a rubbish debate—about litter on motorways. I
call to move the motion.
(Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered litter on motorways.
On a very serious subject, hopefully we can also have some
calming measures, if you know what I mean, Mr Hollobone. Other
colleagues have indicated to me that they would join the debate
this afternoon, so I wonder whether you could bear with them, Mr
Hollobone, if some of them arrive a little later.
My constituency is boundaried by the M1, M25 and A41. The state
of the rubbish on those motorways is an embarrassment to me as
the constituency’s MP, and as an MP in general. I freely admit
that the rubbish has probably been thrown out of the windows of
cars—by passengers as well as drivers. Some of it comes off the
back of refuse lorries that, inappropriately, do not have the
correct tarpaulins to stop that happening.
Whatever the reason, the rubbish will start to disappear in the
next few weeks. It is not going anywhere—it is just that the
grass and weeds are growing, and they will cover it up. It is
still not only a hindrance but a danger to our wildlife. Some of
the areas where the motorways go are areas of outstanding natural
beauty, on which wildlife very much rely. In my spare time, I
love bird watching. It frightens me to look at some of the
nests—especially at the end of the seasons, when we start
clipping our hedgerows and other such things—and see what the
birds think is safe to put into their nests.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate.
Anyone who knows me will know that littering is my biggest
bugbear; it is infuriating. A key concern that highways workers
have relayed to me is the health and safety risk that litter
poses to them when they have to clean it up. Does he agree that
the issue is not given enough consideration?
I think not only that it is not given enough consideration, but
that it is a national disgrace. I specifically picked on
motorways because of the legal responsibility Highways England,
the Highways Agency or whatever it wants to call itself today—it
has renamed itself several times since I was the Roads Minister.
I do not know why it has spent so many thousands of pounds of
taxpayers’ money renaming itself. If the brand is decent, it
should not be renamed. If the brand is bad, it should be renamed,
and that seems to be exactly what Highways England or the
Highways Agency—Highways something—has been doing. It has a legal
responsibility for its network, which includes not just motorways
but some A roads.
We should have better enforcement and use the technology that we
have. If we can prosecute people for going two or three miles per
hour over the speed limit—I am all for that; I was a Transport
Minister—we can use the same cameras to prosecute people who
throw litter. I am sure that, like me, colleagues have seen
footage of people on the motorway driving down the road—there is
the car, there is the numberplate, there is the face, there is
the phone—and exactly the same technology can be used for people
chucking litter out of the car.
Penalties almost certainly need to be stronger. Perhaps we should
do something not dissimilar to what I did when I was the Minister
and we brought in the driver awareness course. Fines and points
were not working, but the evidence showed that drivers actually
drive better and slower after they have done such a course.
At the end of the day, we have to do two things. We have to
educate people through courses such as the driver awareness
course, and we have to make sure the person or organisation
responsible for these highways takes action. I picked the
motorways because it is not like in our constituencies, where it
could be a borough council, a district council, a county council
or a unitary authority; there is a single body legally
responsible for motorways and some A roads under section 89 of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We have got to the
ridiculous stage where individuals—I will talk about John Read
and the Clean Up Britain campaign—are almost certain to use
section 91 of the Act to take National Highways to court. We have
the right under the Act to say, “You are not doing what you are
supposed to be doing, which is to clear up the mess on our
highways.”
When I applied for this debate, I was thrilled by not only by the
excellent paper produced by the House of Commons Library, but by
John Read of Clean Up Britain, Policy Exchange and the RAC
Foundation. I also thank the Sunday Express for helping to
highlight this issue last weekend. They have all come together to
say, “What can we do to stop this blight, predominantly on the
English countryside, getting worse and worse?”
As I said earlier, the litter will soon start to be covered over
as the plants grow, but in the autumn, when the frost comes,
there it will all be. What surprised me enormously was some of
the commentary coming from National Highways. It produced a
lengthy paper saying that it regularly checks the highways, and
that more than 60% do not have any rubbish on them. All I can say
is that they should have gone to Specsavers, or other places that
are available, to check their eyesight when they drive back and
forth to work on our highways. Litter is a danger not only to our
wildlife—I have seen aluminium tins on the side of the road that
have been there for so many years that they are starting to
degrade, and plastic does not degrade in the same way—but to the
staff clearing it up, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and
Hamilton West () said. There have to be
road closures and it has to be done safely.
Interestingly, other countries seem to have solved this problem
quite well. Any of us who go on holiday this summer to Germany,
France or Spain will see that their highways are not covered in
trash. Many people from this country will go to Florida, which
has large five or six-lane roads. The hedges and grass are not
covered in trash, and any litter is certainly not all chopped up
when the grasscutters come along and it has not been picked
up.
We have to ask ourselves why. Is it a cultural thing, or is it
because the organisation that is legally responsible for clearing
up rubbish is doing so? Frankly, if someone has broken the law
and they get a community project, I cannot think of a better way
of paying back into the community than being in a team that goes
out and safely clears the rubbish from the sides of our roads.
When I was in the Minister’s position, I was told that that was
not possible because it was not safe. I used to be the Health and
Safety Minister as well, at a different time, and it could be
made safe. It is safe for workers to do it, and some of the stuff
they have to pick up is truly horrible. We will not go into that
in this debate, but Members can imagine what gets thrown out of
car windows.
The question has to be, why is National Highways not taking this
issue seriously? The organisation cannot be taking it seriously,
because it has given contractors contracts but is not monitoring
them. Following a freedom of information request to Mr John Read,
National Highways came back and said:
“We don’t undertake audits of our contractors’ work for litter
clearance.”
How do they know that 60% of the roads are clear if they are not
monitoring their own contracts? It baffles me.
Under the Secretary of State, the Department for Transport has
introduced key performance indicators for National Highways, but
litter is not one of them; it is just part of something else and
seen as not that important. I say to the Minister that it is
important. How can we have a key performance indicator for the
contract issued to National Highways by the Secretary of State
that does not take into consideration the legal responsibility it
has to the public? This is public money being spent on behalf of
the public through the Secretary of State.
Mr (Old Bexley and Sidcup)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate.
Many of my constituents express many of the concerns that he has
already outlined. On the point about legal responsibilities and
KPIs, we also have an issue that is applicable not just to
motorways, but to A roads. In my constituency, we have the A2 and
the A20, where there is general confusion about who is legally
responsible for cleaning the litter from the hard shoulder and
the verges. Transport for London often says that it is the local
council’s responsibility, and local councils often dispute that,
because they are obviously Transport for London roads.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside strengthening the
KPIs, we also need to have legal clarity about who is responsible
for litter on motorways and our A roads? I echo his enthusiasm
for encouraging community volunteer litter pickers who want to go
out and help, but who are told no because of health and
safety.
My hon. Friend has made several points that I completely agree
with. As I said earlier, National Highways is responsible not
only for motorways; it also has some A roads in my own part of
the world. What was the M10 is now the A414, but it still has
responsibility for that road. I do not think the organisation
knows that, because it has not been anywhere the road since the
day it ceased to be a motorway. I wrote to the Secretary of State
and what I think was then known as Highways England, asking
whether there was any chance that it could come along and pick up
some of the signage that is lying on the roadsides, getting rusty
and acting as a blight on animals and on the safety of someone
who has pulled off the side of a road in an emergency. The
signage is still there today.
The point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley
and Sidcup (Mr French) is making about who is responsible is
actually quite crucial. I mean, when I was the Roads Minister, I
did not realise that with the M10—I live right next to the M10,
although I know it is now the A414—the Highways Agency had kept
responsibility for it and several other A roads. So that could be
resolved very simply by the Minister dropping our hon. Friend a
line to say that “the legal responsibility for the A2 lies with
X”. I am sure that the Minister could get his officials to do
that; that is what I might have done if I was the Minister. But
who knows?
Regarding the other point that my hon. Friend the Member for Old
Bexley and Sidcup made, there are lots of volunteers out there
today, going out and picking litter up; I have some in my own
constituency and they do a fantastic job. There is that issue and
there is actually the payback issue. People who are blighting my
community in myriad different ways and who may get a community
order should have to be supervised out there to clean the
roads.
If anyone goes to Florida, they will drive down wonderful, clean
roads. One of the reasons is that Florida actually uses people
who are incarcerated to go and clear the roads. They are not
dangerous criminals, but they are people in for short-term
sentences. Of course they are not chained up or anything like
that, but if they scarper—the sort of language that my
grandmother would have used—they will eventually be found and at
the end of the day they would not have any parole. They are not
going to be attacked if they scarper, and they are already
starting the payback. In our open prisons, why could we not have
that today in parts of the country? It would be slightly
difficult with some of the open prisons in, say, Norfolk, because
there are no motorways in Norfolk. Payback and should mean
payback.
The Minister might say to me, “Well, actually, the contracts are
set in stone over a period of time with National Highways and the
KPI is set.” But if he looks carefully at the legislation, he
will see that the Secretary of State has the powers at any time
to deviate the contract, so the KPIs could be changed.
I think this is an issue of national importance. We can talk
about it being rubbish, or trash, but we have some of the most
beautiful countryside in the world, in my opinion. We should
cherish it. There are people demonstrating out there, yesterday
and today, because they passionately believe—I do not agree with
their motives and how they are trying to do it, but I do agree
that we have to protect our countryside.
Over the years, we have put lots of roads right the way through
some of our countryside, and that countryside is being blighted,
day in and day out. Frankly, looking at the correspondence,
particularly from National Highways—I am sorry, Minister, but I
do not think they get it. They just talk to me. Among the
briefings, they are talking about the responsibility of local
authorities. Well, no local authority in the country has
responsibility for clearing up the motorways. They—National
Highways —have it. The title of this debate was specific, so as
not to have that debate about local government. The narrative
here is purely about National Highways.
There are lots of things that are probably not fully in the
Minister’s bailiwick, and I share his frustration with some of
that, because I used to sit in that chair and think, “I’d love to
have done that,” and, “I would love to do this.” But if we have
the will, we have the way. Fines need to be increased. If people
want to throw stuff out of car windows—some of it the most
abhorrent products that we do not particularly want to discuss
today—they should be penalised for it.
Similarly, however, if an organisation has the legal
responsibility in law, set by this place, that it is their job to
clear up that mess—go and give them some powers if we want to use
the cameras in a way in which we can actually enforce the issue.
They cannot cop out of this; it is actually in statute whose
responsibility it is. The KPI can be changed, so that the
regulator can step in and actually say, “You’re not fulfilling
your contracts,” because if that does not happen, we will have
individual members of the public taking this
organisation—National Highways, which is funded by the British
taxpayer—to court for a breach of the Act. To me, that is a
crying shame, but if it happens I will fully support that
commitment to go to the magistrates courts.
5.04pm
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel
Hempstead ( ) on securing this debate. I
agree with almost everything he said.
Litter is something I have repeatedly raised concerns about with
National Highways and, previously, Highways England. It is
unacceptable for my office to have to repeatedly raise the issues
of litter, lack of effective maintenance and general poor
standards of work with National Highways. I am pleased that the
Transport Committee, which I am a member of, recently wrote to
Nick Harris, chief executive of National Highways, about some of
these issues, particularly the nearly 40% of the strategic road
network that either has widespread litter or is heavily affected
by litter.
Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South frequently raise
concerns with me about the disgraceful levels of litter and the
bad impression that people get when visiting or travelling
through our area on the strategic road network. One of my
constituents said to me recently when I was out in the community
that one of their relatives had visited from overseas and was
completely shocked to see the standard of our highways and the
scale of litter accumulating at the side of the road. As my right
hon. Friend said, overseas we do not see the same scale of
littering at the side of the highway.
Staffordshire is at the heart of the UK, with several key routes
passing through it. We have seen major problems with litter and
poor maintenance on this road network, and there are concerns
with our motorway network, particularly on the M6 and around its
junctions. The issue is not reserved to the motorway network.
There are also major concerns about trunk roads, which are also
under the auspices of National Highways. The A50 and A500 cut
right through the middle of Stoke-on-Trent, and that has a
significant impact on the surrounding communities. While these
routes provide important strategic connectivity, they also cause
many problems, including air pollution and litter.
The problems with litter have at times reached epic proportions,
and I am extremely concerned about some of the wider maintenance
standards, such as with vegetation management. The severe lack of
grass cutting by National Highways has resulted in roundabouts
and verges in the centre of Longton and Meir being totally
neglected. Given that these roads cut through predominantly urban
areas, standards of maintenance need to be different from those
used in more sparsely populated areas. National Highways
currently conducts only an annual cut, meaning verges become
totally overgrown and completely filled with litter.
The lack of effective vegetation management has resulted in
significant litter build-ups gathering in the overgrowth and
attracting vermin. Following our calls, Stoke-on-Trent City
Council has thankfully stepped in to cut some of these areas,
including the most sensitive locations in town centres, which are
still the responsibility of National Highways, but this really
should not be happening. National Highways should take proper
responsibility for the land that it owns.
On the point of vermin, littered food attracts wild animals such
as mice, rats and foxes. Drawn so close to vehicles moving at
speed, these animals have a higher risk of being killed. Many of
them carry germs and disease, and it is not a nice job to have to
clean up roadkill. Does the hon. Member share my concerns about
the increased risk of animal deaths resulting from litter?
I agree that those are very serious concerns. Health and safety
concerns were mentioned earlier regarding the impacts of the
litter and the disease that could be carried by rats and other
animals. That is a serious concern.
One of the things we have seen in our area because of the lack of
effective maintenance is anti-social behaviour, with resultant
massive build-ups of litter, including alcohol bottles and drug
paraphernalia on National Highways land. As regards health and
safety and the operatives who will have to remove some of that
drug paraphernalia, that is extremely concerning. If there are
syringes and things like that there, they will have to wear
specialist safety equipment. I recognise that some projects have
been undertaken to address some of the vegetation management in
our area, but we need a far more comprehensive and proactive
routine maintenance approach—and to a much higher standard than
some of what we have experienced so far.
The situation is overly complicated, with differing
responsibilities for different roads, and we heard earlier about
some of the confusions in Bexley. That is repeated in a number of
places around the country. Motorways are entirely the
responsibility of National Highways. However, it is suggested
that National Highways takes responsibility for litter collection
on only some of its major A roads, even though the land is in its
ownership. On many National Highways A roads, local authorities
have to clear litter, so we see different standards across the
country.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, I
commend many of the volunteers—particularly those in
Stoke-on-Trent South, who have been doing an incredible job
across the constituency in addressing some of the litter issues.
However, they simply cannot do that on many highway locations,
where safety is a serious concern and where we need National
Highways or others to remove some of the litter.
National Highways has now started to form litter partnerships
with local authorities, which is a positive step forward. Those
partnerships are important given that it would be totally
unsafe—impossible, in many cases—to undertake litter collections
on parts of the National Highways network without road closures.
There needs to be effective co-ordination for litter picking to
take place when those roads are closed for wider maintenance.
On the point about collaboration with local authorities, the
financial burden should not fall on local authorities for
something that is the legal responsibility of a different
organisation. If that happens, it will spread around the country.
That would be wrong, because it is not the financial burden of
the local authority.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We see lots of
pressures on things such as social care and everything else that
local authorities have to deal with, so it is totally
unacceptable that, in addition, they have to routinely clear up
litter on many of those roads.
As I mentioned earlier, Stoke-on-Trent City Council has to cut
the grass on many of the areas for which National Highways should
take responsibility. Yet because its policy is for one annual
cut, which is totally insufficient and results in massive
build-ups of litter, we do not see the standard of service we
need, and the financial impact for local authorities that have to
deal with that is significant. In many cases, it just does not
happen at all and we see the continued build-up of vast
quantities of litter on much of the highway network.
I hope these partnerships, alongside other measures being
undertaken by National Highways, result in a step change in the
standards we need to see and in dramatic improvements, which have
to happen, on what we have experienced previously. Forty per
cent. is far too much of a blight on the network. Indeed, as my
right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said, there is
far more than that and it is potentially an underestimate of the
scale of the challenge. It is vitally important for people in
Stoke-on-Trent, those visiting and the wider environment that we
have an effective approach to maintenance and litter control on
the strategic network. I thank my right hon. Friend for the
debate. It is about an important matter, and I hope the Minister
will address all the issues.
5.14pm
(Dartford) (Con)
First, I apologise to you, Mr Hollobone, for not giving advance
notice of my intention to speak in the debate. I want to make a
fairly short contribution. I congratulate my right hon. Friend
the Member for Hemel Hempstead ( ) on securing the debate and I
apologise also to him for not being here for the very beginning
of his speech, which I am sure was as outstanding as the latter
part.
This is a genuinely serious issue. I cover the M25 and have the
A2 in my constituency; nearby are the A20 and M20. There is no
doubt that this is a growing problem; it is a worsening
situation, which is very challenging to deal with. I am, frankly,
sick to death of driving down the A2 and seeing this sea of
litter along the side, particularly at junctions. The Darenth
interchange is in my constituency, which is in an appalling
state.
I am blessed in my constituency to have a large number of litter
picker-type groups, which have done a fantastic job assisting the
council and complementing the work that it does in picking up
litter. The volunteer groups go out and collect litter. Some have
been clearing litter from the junctions, but there is clearly a
danger there—a significant risk.
When they contact National Highways, they are told not to go to
the junctions—“Don’t go there; we advise against that because of
the obvious dangers.” Some have been to those junctions and have
taken away bags of rubbish, but there are all sorts of hazardous
issues in doing that, not just traffic. So we are very reliant on
National Highways taking the lead on this growing problem. It
needs to show the lead. We are very reliant on it to clear up the
litter.
Of course, National Highways do not drop the litter. People drop
the litter, and I agree that that is the responsibility of those
ignorant people who are throwing rubbish out of the window when
they are driving along. I accept that sometimes it can be
inadvertent, or negligent, but sometimes it is deliberate. Items
are being thrown out of car windows and lorry windows, ensuring
that the sides of the roads are an eyesore that we are all,
unfortunately, getting used to seeing.
Does the hon. Member think that more frequent signage reminding
motorists not to litter and the potential consequences of a fixed
penalty notice would make any material difference to the levels
of littering seen on the motorways? Would that be a worthwhile
investment?
I agree with the hon. Lady that that would make responsible
people more aware of the issue, and they would act even more in a
responsible manner. However, I do not feel it would have much of
an impact on the ignorant people I spoke about earlier, who do
not give a damn, frankly, about anybody else. It is someone
else’s problem—“I am going to throw this rubbish out of the
window and someone else is going to have to deal with it.”
Unfortunately, those people are not going to change because of a
sign.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on the issue of fines. My right
hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead touched on this point
in his speech. We now have camera technology that can give
motorists fines for blocking box junctions, going through red
traffic lights, speeding and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for
Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) will know about the ultra-low
emission zone cameras, as will the Minister, although we will
leave that issue to one side at the moment.
The technology is able to pick up motorists doing almost anything
it seems, apart from when they litter. I would certainly welcome
a change in policy so that we use the camera technology that
already exists to target those vehicles responsible for rubbish
being deliberately thrown on to our motorway verges and to issue
fixed penalty notices to the registered keeper of those vehicles.
That would have some impact on the blight that is hitting our
country, alongside our motorways, up and down the country. I
would like to see more of that happening.
This is a big and growing problem in my constituency, and not
just there, but around the whole of the country. It is not just
Dartford or Hemel Hempstead or Bexley or Stoke-on-Trent that
suffers; it is the whole country. We are seeing a lackadaisical
attitude from National Highways, which should be taking the lead
and upping its game. The current situation is not tenable.
5.19pm
(Sheffield, Brightside and
Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairpersonship, Mr
Hollobone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel
Hempstead ( ) on securing this debate. I
know he has raised this important issue many times in the past
and it is an issue to which he is fully committed. I thank all
hon. Members for their contributions.
Motorways provide vital links between towns and cities across the
country. They contribute tens of billions to our economy by
helping to make sure our shelves are stocked with food, medical
supplies and everything else that we need. However, litter on
these roads is a serious issue that affects all those who use
them, as well as the wider environment.
Littered motorways pose a risk to safety. Objects can obstruct
drivers’ views or cause problems with grip, if caught between a
wheel and the road. Furthermore, the impact of litter discarded
on motorways stretches far beyond the roads themselves. It adds
to pollution, which, as we have all seen, has a devastating
impact on wildlife, especially in our oceans, seas and rivers. We
have all seen shocking images of rubbish piled up on and around
our motorways. There has been a failure to properly deal with
it.
For instance, in 2020, a Channel 4 report showed huge piles of
rubbish covering areas around the M25. Taxpayers’ money has been
handed out to private firms to keep our motorways clear of
litter, but incidents like this raise important questions that
need answering. Although the vast majority of drivers do the
right thing and dispose of their rubbish properly, a small
minority cause problems.
Resources for picking up litter are important. However,
preventing litter from being dropped in the first place is a
lasting solution. I am aware of calls for greater penalties and
better enforcement of anti-littering laws to incentivise drivers
not to throw litter out of their car windows. Can the Minister
confirm, either in his speech or in writing, the number of fines
handed out for motorway littering? What steps has he taken to
ensure that all those who litter are held accountable?
I thank the hon. Lady for her gracious comments. Sadly, National
Highways does not have powers to issue fines, unlike local
authorities. Almost certainly, enforcement through the use of
cameras must be done by the Department for Transport unless we
are going to change the statute, which is a separate subject for
another day. It does not have the power to issue fines. I wish it
did; on the other hand, perhaps not.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.
National Highways reports directly to the Department for
Transport, so it falls to the Minister to hold it to account and
ensure that it is upholding its statutory duties. What
discussions has he had with National Highways about littering?
Does he believe that all contracts handed out to private
companies to keep our motorways free of litter are offering
taxpayers good value for money? What steps is he willing to take
if the problems do not get resolved?
As well as holding National Highways to account, there are a
range of wider measures that the Government could introduce to
tackle littering, but, as we see all too often, they are dragging
their feet. Deposit returns for drinks containers have been shown
to cut down littering, including on motorways, but that will not
be launched until 2025, despite widespread public support for an
earlier introduction.
I am concerned that such delays mean that the Government target
to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042 is already
behind schedule. I conclude by once again commending the right
hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead for securing this debate.
Littering is a serious problem, which blights all our
communities. It must be given the attention necessary to create a
cleaner and safer environment for everyone who uses our motorways
and highways.
5.23pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ( )
It is an absolute pleasure, as ever, to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my right hon. Friend the
Member for Hemel Hempstead ( ) for bringing this debate to
Westminster Hall. I believe he served as Roads Minister for
almost two and a half years; I hope to have even a fraction of
that time in the role and to do as much work as he did in this
area at the start of the coalition Government. I also thank the
hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (), my hon. Friends the
Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), for Stoke-on-Trent
South () and for Dartford (), and the shadow Minister,
the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough
().
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead raised many
issues that I will approach head on through my response on behalf
of the Government. The Government’s vision is of a road network
free of litter. We believe that there is a lot more that we can
do to keep the strategic road network, which includes England’s
motorways, clear of litter. Litter is not only an eyesore, as
hon. Members on both sides have mentioned, but environmentally
damaging in numerous ways. It can risk the lives of the people
who need to collect it as well as those of people on the road
network itself.
The Government’s litter strategy for England is owned by the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it sets
out the aim to deliver a substantial reduction, across
Government, in litter and littering within a generation. The
litter strategy brings together communities, businesses,
charities and schools, to bring about real change by focusing on
the following key themes: education and awareness, improving
enforcement, and better cleaning and access to bins. Those three
themes have been picked up by hon. Members across the House in
this debate. Influencing public behaviour and discouraging
littering from occurring in the first instance is important in
delivering lasting improvements. We will work across Government
and with anti-littering organisations to help achieve that
vision.
The responsibility of National Highways was a key theme of my
right hon. Friend’s speech, and the responsibility for clearing
litter and sweeping carriageways is indeed governed by the
Environmental Protection Act 1990. National Highways is
responsible for litter collection on motorways and on some trunk
roads. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley
and Sidcup about the A2 and A20; the area is around the M25 and
what is before and after it, but I will get the specific maps to
him.
Relevant district and local authorities manage litter collection
on roads in the rest of England. National Highways does have its
own litter strategy, which aligns with wider Government strategy
and has similar themes. Within that strategy, National Highways
has committed to keeping the strategic road network predominantly
free from litter without compromising safety, and delivering that
affordably. National Highways staff undertake regular road
inspections along the network to identify litter, detritus and
safety hazards and they arrange for appropriate action as soon as
possible, in line with the DEFRA code of practice on litter and
refuse. Obviously, their main priority is to maintain road safety
on the network.
As a former Roads Minister, I understand how it is when an arm’s
length agency is sending notes saying, “This is what we do.” But
it is completely different out there in the real world. I am
sorry, but if National Highways is out there checking regularly,
it really needs to get its eyes tested. The situation is
appalling. Year after year, the same places are
involved—particularly the junctions. In my part of the world, the
M25/A41 junction is literally piled high year after year, and I
have never seen it cleared. The Minister has a responsibility to
the taxpayer to turn around and say, “This isn’t working.”
Mr Holden
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point. Most weeks,
I drive up the A1 and M1 to my North West Durham constituency, so
I know exactly the issues he is raising. I will write to him
about the specific issues around the roads in his
constituency.
I want to go into a few more details, but we all want the issue
to be addressed. Obviously, safety is paramount when clearing
litter from the network. The roads are often fast running a lot
of the time, with high volumes of traffic. Litter picking usually
requires traffic management and sometimes overnight working as
well. Relevant organisations across Government work closely with
other litter clearing organisations to improve the operational
effectiveness of clearing wherever possible.
National Highways has previously utilised the Ministry of
Justice’s community payback project scheme to assist with those
clearances. Offenders have been involved in removing graffiti and
rubbish at service stations as well. As my right hon. Friend will
know, the Government still own a significant number of service
stations on the national highway network. The scheme was
suspended during the covid pandemic; I undertake to write to him
about that and about what we are doing to push National Highways
to make more use of it going forwards. Due to safety
considerations, the opportunities for using offenders can be
limited.
More broadly, the simple fact is that if litter was not dropped
in the first place it would not need to be picked up; that is why
influencing behaviours is an essential component of tackling the
issue. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South and
for Dartford made that point as well. To answer one of the
questions posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and
Hillsborough, I had a meeting with the chief executive of
National Highways today and raised the issue of littering. In
fairness to my officials, I have meetings every couple of weeks
with the National Highways chief exec, and this was one issue
that was raised today.
I have also spoken with National Highways about a broader
awareness campaign. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for
Dartford who made the important point that there is aggressive
littering and more passive littering, and it is particularly
important that we do all we can to make people aware of the
impact littering has on not only the environment but everyone’s
enjoyment of travelling across the country and our rural
environment. There is a campaign currently in the offing to
tackle this, because National Highways is aware of how much of an
issue it has become.
National Highways uses research and evidence to inform
anti-littering interventions, such as car and lorry-height bins,
which people may have seen as they leave motorway service
stations; anti-littering posters; and signs to encourage positive
littering behaviours. I will write to hon. Members who have
attended today’s debate about what more National Highways is
doing in that space. Campaigns and messages such as “Don’t Drop
Litter, Bin It” and “Keep It, Bin It” have been shown on electric
message boards across the National Highways network, and there
have been digital display sites at traffic hubs and motorway
service stations across England. Feedback from road users has
shown that that type of messaging can make a difference in
reducing the amount of littering on certain parts of the network,
and I want National Highways to do more of it.
We are continuously looking for other ways to influence littering
behaviour, and we work with anti-littering charities, such as
Keep Britain Tidy, and use their research to develop other
interventions. National Highways supports the annual Great
British Spring Clean, which raises awareness of roadside litter
and encourages people to dispose of their litter correctly or to
take it home. This year’s campaign was the seventh year that
National Highways has been involved, and over the previous six
campaigns it has collected over 60,000 binbags full of litter
across the road network. National Highways also engages the
commercial transport sector via its recently established
professional driver experience panel, and littering behaviour
campaigns throughout 2022 were aimed at road user groups who
admit to having a propensity to litter, which includes commercial
vehicle drivers.
Road users are also encouraged to report any instances of
littering on the network to National Highways. There is also
guidance available on many local authority websites, as well as
other applications, to assist members of the public in reporting
litter. All those interventions work towards engaging the public
and preventing littering on the network in the first place, but
this is a societal issue that does not just affect the wider road
network. It will take work across wider Government and
anti-littering organisations to continue to drive change in how
littering affects areas.
I get the feeling that Minister is coming to a conclusion. All
that work is taking place for the future, but unless we address
the KSI issue, and unless there is some penalty for the agency
not doing what it is required to do, the regulator cannot
intervene, because fulfilling its legal requirements is not a KSI
for the agency.
Mr Holden
I will come directly to the point about the KSI later. I have
made a note of my right hon. Friend’s comments.
The debate has focused on litter on the motorways, but I must
briefly highlight the work National Highways does with local
authorities to combat litter on the roads. National Highways
works closely with local authorities to resolve issues as far as
is practicable. I will go into a bit more detail momentarily, but
there is some good work with local authorities across the
country, and the issue requires that interaction between National
Highways and local authorities. To continuously improve
collaboration and partnership working with local authorities,
National Highways shares its maintenance and traffic management
plans to allow litter collection to be carried out safely and
simultaneously with maintenance, to help bring efficiencies to
the process. NH provides a single point of contact to facilitate
the co-ordination of litter clearance and provides an induction
programme for local authority staff, which includes guidance on
how to work with NH and signpost to further information and best
practice. The Department expects NH to work with and support
local authorities as much as possible to tackle litter on the
wider strategic road network, and also at junctions, as litter
does not stop at authority or National Highways boundaries.
Performance monitoring is one of the key drivers of the comments
of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. The
importance of litter to the Department and National Highways is
highlighted by the fact that it is one of the performance
indicators against which National Highways is monitored. The
percentage of the strategic road network where litter is graded B
or above under the DEFRA litter code of practice is measured.
Grade B is defined as a network that is predominantly free from
litter and refuse, apart from some small items. National Highways
has committed to reporting against that metric annually. However,
performance is monitored more regularly by the independent
Highways Monitor, at the Office of Rail and Road. I will ask
National Highways to write to my hon. Friend the Member for
Stoke-on-Trent South about its policy regarding his council.
rose—
Mr Holden
If my right hon. Friend will allow to continue for another minute
or so, he can jump in, if he needs to, on the KSI.
The Highways Monitor provides monthly advice to the Department on
the performance of National Highways across all its performance
metrics, and there is continuous dialogue between the three
parties on opportunities for improvement.
I want to ask the Minister about the accuracy of that data. As we
heard earlier, we have serious issues with grass and other
vegetation disguising litter. Once it is cut, it reveals huge
amounts of litter. I therefore question the accuracy of the data,
and I wonder what the Minister’s view is on that.
Mr Holden
As I said, I will write to my hon. Friend about that, because it
is an important point. If there is not proper monitoring, we
cannot know what is going on. I want to get to the bottom of
policies on grass cutting and other things.
National Highways and the Highways Monitor will report litter
performance to the public in their annual reports, providing
increased transparency. That happened only in road investment
strategy 2. That is the era we are in now—between 2020 and
2025.
As hon. Members know, in 2021-22 National Highways reported that
61% of the network was graded A, which is no litter, or B, which
is a small amount of litter. That means that a large proportion
of the national highways—39%—has a significant amount. Although
that is an improvement on 2020-21, which was about 49%, there is
clearly still a lot of work to do. I do not underestimate that.
Those grades are alongside DEFRA’s litter code of practice. The
data for 2022-23 will be published this summer, so I ask hon.
Members to keep an eye out for that.
I think what the Minister is saying to me is that, since I was
the Minister, the regulator has not been allowed to look at the
individual performance indicator, which is part of the KSI—it can
look only at the KSI. Is he saying that the regulator can now
look at the performance indicator on its own, or is it still
allowed to look only at the KSI? If it is allowed to look only at
the KSI, litter will not be on its agenda. He can write to me if
he wants.
Mr Holden
If my right hon. Friend gives me a short amount of time, I will
come to exactly what he is after.
NH believes that this improved practice over the past couple of
years is due to sharing best practice between regions, more
detailed data on targeted litter collections, and improved
engagement with local authorities and authorities that clear
litter on A roads, including Transport for London. We are
currently developing the third road investment strategy, and
continue to explore further metrics for inclusion in it—my right
hon. Friend might want to put some specific KSIs in. That will
include a performance specification and possible improvements to
the specific metrics, including on litter. I will write to him on
the specifics of what National Highways has to report, on what it
is held accountable for and on those KPIs.
Mr French
I have a constructive suggestion for the Minister and the
Department on producing new metrics. They will be familiar with
the job of clearing up TfL’s mess by now—excuse the pun, but it
is very deliberate. On the issue of responsibility and the impact
of litter going on to motorways, we must consider consumer
behaviour. However, there is an issue with some of the junctions
that we have all spoken about, where litter is being blown
through boroughs from TfL roads—I have mentioned the A2 and the
A20. Certain boroughs want to clean the roads and some do not,
and that is adding to the problems on motorways. When producing
KPIs and working with other bodies, I suggest that the Department
ensures that they have their own practices in place, so that this
does not add to the pressures on National Highways.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is about local
authorities working together at TfL level in London and with
National Highways, and I will ensure that his views regarding key
performance indicators are taken into consideration.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead that
the performance indicator is there. There is not a target; this
is about monitoring at the moment. That is for RIS2, but KPIs
might be exactly where we want to go at the next stage—I want to
make that clear to him. We are working to ensure that there are
targeted metrics in RIS3 and that the KPIs focus on the things
that are most important to road users, and it is quite clear from
today’s debate that keeping the highways litter-free is one of
them. The current situation is not tenable, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Dartford said, and I will speak to National Highways
about the specifics as we look at its KPIs for RIS3. Progress
will involve considering responses to the forthcoming public
consultation on the National Highways strategic road network
initial report, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members, and
interested parties, to feed into that. As I said earlier, there
are discussions about introducing an awareness campaign going
forward.
Regarding enforcement and the use of technology, I have spoken
about using education and awareness to influence littering
behaviours, and about the work and performance of National
Highways in clearing litter from the SRN. I want to cover
enforcement and penalties, because right hon. and hon. Members
also mentioned them. The Government understand that enforcement
plays a key role in this regard, especially for litter thrown
from vehicles. The enforcement of penalties for littering is
owned by DEFRA, and we work closely with it and National Highways
to improve enforcement options. Local authorities may issue fixed
penalty notices for littering offences committed in their areas
where it can be proven that litter was thrown from a vehicle.
The Littering from Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil
Penalties) Regulations 2018 make provision about reporting
littering from vehicles in England. In recent years, the
Government have bolstered local authority enforcement powers by
raising the upper limit on fixed penalty notices for littering
and by introducing powers to issue the keeper of a vehicle from
which litter is thrown with a civil penalty. As I said, I
recently spoke to National Highways and visited its site at South
Mimms, where I saw some of the cameras in action. National
Highways passes on evidence of the most egregious cases of
littering and fly-tipping, but more could be done to co-ordinate
its work with local authorities. I will come on to some of that
work, on which we are doing a pilot at the moment. In the end,
though, it is for local authorities to decide whether to pass on
that information and whether they believe they have sufficient
evidence to take enforcement action in any given case.
I was going to ask the Minister about enforcement powers. As he
has alluded to, National Highways does not have such powers. Is
there no possibility that we could consider giving National
Highways some of those powers? I have previously had discussions
with the organisation about other offences being committed on its
network that it is totally powerless to deal with.
Mr Holden
That is a broader debate, and it is up to Parliament to decide
where these powers lie.
I would like to give a shout-out to a few local authorities. I
will mention a couple of other examples later, but North
Lincolnshire Council, Newark and Sherwood District Council and
North West Leicestershire Council are three that National
Highways has said it works very closely with. In the majority of
cases, they do prosecute when information is passed on. National
Highways is also working closely with Brighton and Hove City
Council and East Hampshire District Council too, and I will come
on to East Hampshire again.
This is very important. Is the Minister saying, as I think he is,
that if an alleged offence takes place on the motorway, a local
authority can prosecute that individual or vehicle?
Mr Holden
I am, and in certain cases the police might prosecute if it is
something more dangerous. National Highways can pass the
information to local authorities so that they can prosecute. For
the fly-tipping of some larger items, where for example people
pull up at the side of the motorway and dump large quantities of
rubbish, although the financial responsibility for clearing it up
would be with National Highways, the local authorities could
prosecute. For local authorities, it could be a win-win in terms
of prosecution. National Highways clears it up, but the local
authority can issue fixed penalty notices. Government guidance is
available for local authorities on dealing with litter and
issuing fixed penalty notices in the code of practice on litter
and refuse.
Litter may also fall from vehicles that have insufficiently
secured loads, as hon. Friends mentioned. That comes under
section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and enforcement in that
area is conducted by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and
the police, as it is a more serious offence. Road users can
contact the DVSA if they wish to report incidents. Hon. Members
will probably be aware of people increasingly using dashcams to
make such reports to the police and local authorities.
National Highways works with local authorities and the DVSA to
ensure that enforcement is carried out where particular issues
are evident. That has included providing evidence to local
government and the police authorities from its camera network.
That is the most effective method of enforcement, because the
police and other authorities can look at a range of potential
infractions in one go, rather than National Highways doing so in
isolation. Currently, National Highways does not have the power
to issue fines or prosecute, as it is not an enforcement agency;
its focus is on safety and maintaining the road network.
The Government have no plans to give National Highways
enforcement powers in tackling litter offences; however, the
company is keen to use technology to help transform the roads it
manages and create a road network that supports a modern country,
and it is keen to work with local authorities to prosecute. I
undertake to write to all local authorities after today’s debate
to say, “When National Highways pass information to you, please
do use it to prosecute,” so that they are all in the same space
on that. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for
Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, National Highways does
not itself issue fines; it is up to individual local authorities
to do so.
The Government and National Highways are exploring the potential
to harness technology to tackle littering, such as using
numberplate recognition cameras for littering enforcement and to
influence littering behaviour. We are trialling the use of
geofencing to push anti-littering messages to customers’ devices
at 29 lay-bys on the A50 and the A180. In lay-bys where no bins
are provided, we will push the message to encourage people to
take litter home. Where bins are provided, their use will be
encouraged. That activity will also enable us to better
understand lay-by use. We will help to monitor those messages and
their impact on the build-up of litter.
In partnership with East Hampshire District Council, in one of
the more interesting developments in this space, we will shortly
trial the use of CCTV to capture evidence of people littering in
lay-bys in the south-east. We often have more issues in those
lay-bys when there is stationary traffic. That is also one of the
reasons more issues tend to occur at road junctions. East
Hampshire will then issue fixed penalty notices or pursue
prosecution —some cases will be very egregious—as appropriate.
National Highways is unable to do that, because it is not the
litter authority, but it wants to work with the council on it.
Litter and vegetation will be cleared at sites so we will have
the best ability to monitor the effectiveness of this approach. I
will monitor the issue closely and, if it works well, I will
happily look at rolling the pilot out more broadly to other local
authorities across the country that are keen to do more work in
this area.
We have also looked at using dashcams on National Highways
vehicles, as well as artificial intelligence from moving
vehicles. However, we have not yet found a cost-effective
approach that works on littering.
For any approach to work, we need the relevant litter authority
to partner with National Highways. I really hope that more local
authorities will follow the lead of those local authorities who
are working with us on this.
I will write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel
Hempstead on driver awareness courses for littering offences.
There have been some increases in fines in recent years, and I
will write to him on what we are doing in that space as well. On
community service, I will make sure that National Highways
reaches out to authorities more, particularly post pandemic.
Let me finish by reaffirming my thanks to colleagues for this
insightful debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend is satisfied,
at least to some degree, with my response, which makes clear that
we recognise the importance of tackling litter and holding
National Highways’ feet to the fire to do more in this space.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough
mentioned the Deposit return scheme.
I understand her criticism. It is important that we get it right.
We can see from what has happened in Scotland that not getting it
right can cause more problems than it addresses. I want to make
sure that we are in the right place on that scheme.
On private company contracts, my understanding from a
conversation I had earlier today is that some of those privately
managed contracts on parts of the motorway are in areas that are
most clear of litter. If I find any specific issues on those
contracts, I will write to the hon. Member for Sheffield,
Brightside and Hillsborough.
We will continue to work hard to support the Government’s wider
ambitions around litter. We are confident that National Highways
shares that ambition. As we move forward, it is important to
continue to improve how we can hold it accountable for preventing
and tackling litter on England’s strategic road network.
5.52pm
Having sat in his seat, I know how difficult that must have been
for the Minister. In good faith, he has espoused what the
Government would like National Highways to do. I do not think I
am going to hold my breath on that. I know that is sceptical,
perhaps even arrogant, but National Highways makes so many
promises, not just in this area, but in others too, and does not
come through on what it promises.
It is very simple. I do not want a special project in my part of
the world—I guarantee that the junctions I have alluded to in
this debate will get done in the next couple of days. That is not
why I wanted this debate. I wanted to highlight that this country
is blighted by rubbish. I specifically picked on the motorway
system because there is one organisation that has a legal
responsibility. This place put a legal responsibility on it to
protect the environment and clear this mess up. Up until now,
that has not been happening. Wherever the figures come from—that
almost two thirds of the network is clear of rubbish—I am really
sorry, but someone needs to go and check. All they need to do is
drive down the motorways in my part of the world, under the
junctions, and they will see.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered litter on motorways.
|
