Litter on Canal Towpaths

Question for Short Debate

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact that litter on canal towpaths owned and maintained by the Canal and River Trust is having on urban communities.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this important debate on an issue that has caused concern for canal users up and down the country. Outdoor recreation is essential for people’s well-being and health. We want more people to get out and about and the tow-paths are fantastic open spaces. Sadly, this summer, many of our tow-paths looked like Birmingham during the bin strike, discouraging people from using them for outdoor recreation. We need to change.

Earlier this year, campaigners began to speak out about the appalling amount of litter on our canal tow-paths. The Cleaner Canals Campaign has been documenting this growing problem on social media. Thanks to its efforts, the media has reported on the problem, with stories appearing on BBC News and in the Sunday Times, the Islington Tribute and the Prime Minister’s own local newspaper, the Camden New Journal. The photographic evidence shows that coffee cups, pizza boxes, Deliveroo takeaway packaging and beer cans have been piling up on the tow-path all summer. This is because people living in the centre of our cities are using our canal tow-paths as recreational spaces and there are no bins.

Residents in Stockton-on-Tees, Hayes, Islington, Manchester and even the Prime Minister’s own constituency of Camden have all raised litter as a huge problem. This is clearly a national issue. I live in Macclesfield. The principal engineer for the canal in my own area, built in 1831, was Thomas Telford. The canal is a great resource for walkers, runners and boaters, located on the edge of the Peak District. Historically, it transported coal, raw cotton, silk and finished goods into Manchester and down to the Midlands along the Grand Union Canal. What has connected Macclesfield to the world is now a vital outdoor space for local people. I use it regularly for marathon training. It is an idyllic and beautiful part of the country.

Until two years ago, the Canal & River Trust, which manages a number of our navigable canal tow-paths in England and Wales, provided bins all along our tow-paths, so that canal users could dispose of their litter responsibly. This is a question of personal responsibility, but it is also incumbent on the taxpayer-funded Canal & River Trust to maintain bins so that people can do the right thing and responsibly dispose of their litter. The trust, which has just welcomed Campbell Robb as its new chairman, says that it has saved £500,000 annually by removing the bins. Additionally, it has claimed that removing the bins has not caused an increase in litter. The evidence gathered by campaigners is clear: litter is a huge problem on urban tow-paths. In urban areas, the Canal & River Trust lets business premises to cafés that operate on the tow-path. Much of the litter that we see is an externality of business activities that directly benefit the trust.

It is important to remember that the trust has a statutory responsibility to manage litter on the tow-paths, as Ministers have confirmed in previous Answers to Written Questions. The background to the trust’s decision to cut bin services is its claim that it does not have the finances to maintain the bins. It is not only cutting bin services but campaigning for additional taxpayer funding from government. However, the £500,000 that the trust says that it has saved is just 1% of the £50 million that it receives from the taxpayer. The amount that it saved from removing the bins across London and the south-east was £250,000. At the same time, the Canal & River Trust’s latest annual report revealed that pay for its executive team has increased by £300,000 since the bins were removed. The CEO’s pay is now over £200,000 a year.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow on his steadfast support of this important issue and for obtaining this debate today. I first became aware of the growing concern about the amount of litter on canal tow-paths when my noble friend tabled his amendment to the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, earlier this year. I agreed with him then, and I share his view that the removal of the litter bins by the Canal & River Trust is hugely regrettable.

We have over 2,000 miles of navigable canals in England and Wales, many of which have tow-paths that allow people to enjoy our beautiful countryside and admire our fascinating canal infrastructure heritage. In urban areas, the tow-path is an even more vital open space as an area where people can get a breath of fresh air in heavily built-up areas. The level of concern among the campaigners who are fighting for bins to be reinstated on canal tow-paths is testament to how much people value their local canal tow-paths.

My noble friend explained the problem clearly in his speech. It really is appalling that the Canal & River Trust is not listening to the concerned campaigners across the country who want the bins put back. I simply cannot understand why the trust is refusing to do the right thing and reverse its decision on this. The fact that campaigners have managed to get the media’s attention, as they have over the past year, shows that this a genuine problem.

My noble friend has spoken about our canals being an eyesore and that piles of litter will discourage people from using our tow-paths. I will focus on the impact that litter on canal tow-paths has on the environment and wildlife. Beside every tow-path is a canal or river, and they are home to a whole host of wildlife, including coots, moorhens, ducks, cormorants and others. All these are negatively affected by litter. When people leave their food waste and plastic rubbish on the tow-path, the wildlife on our canals is bound to be at risk. Whether it is from getting entangled in plastic packaging or consuming dangerous items, litter is a threat to wildlife. The excellent House of Lords Library briefing for this debate, citing the Canal & River Trust itself, confirmed that,

My Lords, I shall not repeat at length the points so eloquently made by my noble friends Lord Evans and Lord Trenchard. I will, however, make one or two slightly different points.

As my noble friend Lord Trenchard has identified, litter by canals can have three principal impacts. The first are environmental—the plastic and other waste, as referred to by my noble friend. Secondly, there are the public health and safety risks that arise from the presence of waste, particularly biological waste, dog waste in particular, and those posed by debris building up in channels and drains, which can obstruct water flow and, in turn, damage canal infrastructure, which will probably cost a good deal to correct.

Thirdly, there are the further economic costs in relation to the disposal of litter, particularly litter that has got into the waterway itself. The Canal & River Trust estimates that the costs of dredging are £100 to £200 per cubic metre, depending on certain variables. It is undoubtedly true that the trust has removed a lot of bins, and it would probably say that it is not going to fit any new ones unless the local councils or others are going to pay to collect them. The trust would probably say that that is part of the funding squeeze it says it is experiencing. Avoiding new bins has been its practice for many years, although the policy of removing them is undoubtedly new. Trust staff rarely pick litter but, as has been observed, there is a ready body of willing volunteers who are vital to the administration of the canal network who help in many ways, including through picking litter, as has been identified by my noble friends.

I know that the Canal & River Trust is seeking to rationalise its estate and in particular to sell property that is not core to the waterways, to try to plug what it perceives to be a spending gap. The property that was transferred to the trust included a number of buildings that were some distance from the network. The obvious targets have already been sold, but there are still some more to be sold in relation to the canal network that may raise further money. It must be said that some of these properties are probably better cared for in private hands, because there is not money in the trust to maintain those properties.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in the gap. First, I should mention that I, too, make regular use of canal tow-paths: I often walk along the Grand Union Canal, either through Camden and Islington or, mainly, from Boston Manor, through Osterley and down to the Thames in Brentford. My experience may be unusual, in the sense that I do not detect a huge amount of rubbish; certainly, in London, the trust seems to be doing rather a good job. I do worry about restoring bins. I think a lot of London boroughs have found that, the more bins you set out, the more people will put rubbish in and around them and thus create a real problem. I therefore have some sympathy for the trust in its endeavours.

Like others, though, I worry about funding. My recollection is that the last Labour Government had already decided to bring the British Waterways Board into co-operative ownership, and it was then the Conservative Government that introduced the trust. But—I speak as a former Treasury official—they did endow the trust with a reasonable amount of money, and it is still open to it to earn fees through effective management of marinas and so on. So, unusually for someone speaking in the House of Lords, I do not believe that throwing more money at the issue is the solution.

I do think that volunteers, as other noble Lords have mentioned, have a critical role to play. Is there anything the Government can do to encourage volunteering? Doing voluntary work around the canals is very rewarding; they are an amazing part of our country’s heritage. So, when the Minister replies, I hope to hear of his commitment to encourage volunteering in this space.

My Lords, this is a debate where I think most people will have some input, because they have walked beside a waterway. We all know that, if you are going to walk beside a waterway as a leisure activity and then face piles of rubbish and, let us face it, dog excrement sitting in its lovely little plastic containers draped around the place, along with crisp packets and drink cans, that is not a pleasant experience. We have the Canal & River Trust, which is supposed to make us use the waterways, and, if they are not pleasant, you will not use them—so why is it there? Case closed.

However, is the primary duty to make sure these are navigable waterways or something we can access along the side? I hope the Minister will be able to clarify this. It seems to me that the only argument about this would be that we know we need it to keep the waterways open. Let us face it: bins are not as expensive as lock gates. They do not have the same implications for water management and flood prevention. You name it—there is a whole structure there that we have to manage properly and that the Canal & River Trust will have responsibility for, at least in part. So, to get the best out of this, we have to maintain the paths as something not only accessible but pleasant.

We then come to what the Government should do about this. They could try—I would not recommend it—to say, “Well, this just isn’t our job”. Well, it clearly is, or at least they have some influence there. What are we doing to make sure that access to this is maintained in a usable format for these purposes of recreation, so that it is safe and pleasant? Bins will be used and will occasionally overflow, and it will depend on the time of year you are out there, and on the structure and the access going around it—so there will be no “one size fits all”.

If the noble Lord has found a nice stretch of waterway, possibly we should all get the address. But I have been down once when it was a warm day, and a few people had sat down there, possibly with one of those barbecues or something—the bane of many people’s lives—and a few beer cans. “Is there a bin around here? Sod it, they can clear it up afterwards”. That happens. It will always happen. Any planning structure that does not take account of it is guaranteed to fail.

My Lords, this has been an important and enjoyable debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow on securing it. The fact that concerns have been raised in so many towns and cities across the country is demonstrative proof that there is a problem here that the Canal & River Trust must grasp. I pay tribute to my noble friend’s commitment in raising this issue. He has already tabled a significant number of Written Questions, raised this problem in Committee on the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and asked Oral Questions. His tenacity is to be applauded. I also congratulate my noble friends who have spoken strongly on this issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his contribution—he was also spot on in this debate. This is rather a frightening week for me. On Monday and Wednesday, on the crime Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I found ourselves in complete agreement on a number of issues, which we both found rather scary—and perhaps likely to be expelled from our parties for being in complete agreement. I am, however, also in complete agreement with what the noble Lord said today.

The Conservative Party has consistently taken a firm view on litter. In government, we launched the litter strategy for England and increased the maximum on-the-spot fines from £80 to £150 in 2018. Even before that—I think way back in 1992—I was appointed to a joint ministerial working group on litter. I do not think we achieved very much, as every Minister from every different department said, “It’s nothing to do with me; it’s their job to sort out the litter”. Nevertheless, we tried to tackle it way back in 1992.

Littering is, first and foremost, an issue of personal responsibility. It is utterly unacceptable that people feel that it is for someone else to clear up after them. Anyone who litters creates a problem that someone else has to come along and fix. It is a breach of the social contract. That is why we have tough laws, and we need punitive fines for this selfish and anti-social behaviour. That said, we all know that public bins are useful and essential. They provide ordinary people with the opportunity to do the right thing and dispose of their litter responsibly.

My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I am grateful to all who spoke, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, and I join the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in paying tribute to his tenacity in pursuing this subject. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, noted, we all took part in the debate on the Private Member’s Bill on environmental targets. His passion for keeping the canal tow-paths as clean and litter-free as possible was clear then, and I am glad to see that it is as strong now as it was in June. It feels much longer ago than that.

Litter is, unfortunately, a perennial problem across our country. As we have heard clearly today, it has an adverse impact on people’s everyday lives. It spoils our urban space, our rural spaces and the beauty of our countryside, as well as bringing serious risks to our wildlife and, indeed, to public health. Although it is an ongoing problem, the Government are not standing still when it comes to addressing the root causes of litter. As I was saying in the previous debate, we are committed to reducing waste by transitioning towards a circular economy. We have convened a Circular Economy Taskforce of experts to help develop an action plan for England. To combat behaviours driving litter, we will be bringing forward statutory enforcement guidance on both littering and fly-tipping. Or, rather, I join the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in calling it—I have forgotten what he said—

I have forgotten what terms I used on Monday or Wednesday this week. I did not call it fly-tipping. I honestly cannot remember; I could not find it when I was searching for it. It was “criminal waste disposal”, or something like that.

I am happy to join him in that sort of terminology or to call it environmental vandalism, which is a phrase I certainly used when responding to the noble Lord in that debate in the Chamber.

We are modernising the code of practice on litter and refuse in England, and refreshing best practice guidance on the powers available to local authorities, to force landowners and building owners to clear up their premises. That address in part the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about involving local authorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans, has focused on the problem of litter on canal tow-paths, particularly those belonging to the Canal & River Trust. He gave examples of complaints, particularly from parts of London where littering has increased noticeably since the trust removed bins from its tow-paths in 2023. I am pleased that he cited my own local paper, the inestimable Camden New Journal. Like the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, I walk stretches of Regent’s Canal in and around Camden. While I am not trying to evade the point of the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has brought, I also find that some stretches are no worse than they used to be in terms of litter, and some stretches under the Westway, around the Paddington area, have always been bestrewn with lots of fly-tipping. It is a problem. I observe hotspots, anecdotally, but I will say no more about that.

I challenge the argument that reducing government funding for the trust is to blame for the removal of litter bins. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said, the Canal & River Trust is publicly funded, but it is not only publicly funded. The current annual grant provided to the trust—£52.6 million—constituted 22.6% of the trust’s total annual income of £232.6 million last year. The grant is but a contribution towards the trust’s total waterway maintenance costs of around £100 million a year. We have some agency, but not exclusive agency. I will come on to talk about this in a bit, but we are not the only funder of the organisation.