Litter on Canal Towpaths Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Katz

Main Page: Lord Katz (Labour - Life peer)

Litter on Canal Towpaths

Lord Katz Excerpts
Thursday 20th November 2025

(1 day, 4 hours ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Katz Portrait Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

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—

Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Lab)
- Hansard - -

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.

However, as we were saying, the trust is an independent charity, and the Government do not direct its management or operational decisions. Similarly, the annual grant does not stipulate how much is spent on any activity eligible for the funding, including litter management. That is a decision for the trust to make based on operational need at any point.

Having said that, there is close contact between Defra and the Canal & River Trust at all levels. To respond to the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, Defra officials meet the trust’s senior management formally three times a year to discuss issues around the use of the grant funding; that may well include litter management arrangements, as appropriate. There is regular contact between the CRT’s chief executive and senior Defra officials. I can also confirm that Minister Hardy is due to meet Campbell Robb, the new chief executive; I do not think that a date has been set for that meeting yet, but it is certainly in train. Moreover, I can commit here that Defra officials plan to raise the issue of litter management with the CRT at their next meeting; indeed, it has commissioned a paper from the CRT on the issue.

It is fair to point out that the trust’s decision to remove litter bins from tow-paths was not taken in a vacuum. In fact, I can tell noble Lords that the trust carried out an assessment of the likely impact of this move prior to making the decision; the results indicated that it would be broadly neutral. A key consideration was that, where the bins are in place—I cite the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, and agree with what he said—they attracted the dumping of litter or fly-tipping around them. The trust noted that, before removal, the cost of servicing the tow-path bins was some £400,000 a year. Since their removal, the cost of dealing with litter on tow-paths has more than halved; the resulting savings are being reinvested in the upkeep of the network infrastructure.

The trust is very aware of its statutory duty, under Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to keep the land for which it is responsible clear of litter and refuse. It is for the trust to work out how best to comply with that, taking account of the standards in the statutory code of practice on litter and refuse. The annual grant provided by the Government to the CRT is a contribution to support its network and infrastructure management, including via a range of eligible activities that are enumerated in the grant agreement; litter management is included in that list of activities. However, the grant agreement does not specify how funding should be allocated. I stress that that is a decision for the trust to make, based on operational need at any given point.

I contend that it is evident that the trust continues to take littering seriously, with its staff and volunteer teams—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, it is both staff and volunteers—regularly engaging in clean-ups. The trust has some 5,500 volunteers across the country who carry out a range of activities, with 2,800 of them in waterside and conservation tasks that include litter picking. In respect of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the impact of volunteers and volunteering activity in the CRT, it is worth noting that those numbers have increased by some 20% in 2024-25, as compared to 2023-24: the figure for 2023-24 was 4,566 but, in 2024-25, it is 5,473. It is an active target for the CRT to increase the number of volunteers and the range of volunteer activity in which it engages; that is part of its work as a charitable organisation.

These activities are carried out in work parties on a weekly or monthly basis. They are, as I have said, very much in line with the trust’s charitable objectives and its original policy intent: creating greater community involvement in the running and care of local canals, as part of the transfer from the old British Waterways Board to the CRT more than a decade ago. Last year, 300 trust volunteers gave more than 34,000 hours of their time in London. A litter sweep of the nine-mile Regent’s Canal takes place at least once a week; I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, that that may explain why, in our experience, it is in a good state. This is a full day’s work for four operatives and generally fills a workboat to capacity with seven-tonne bags of litter and larger items. The trust’s contractor also undertakes around 60 fly-tipping clearance tasks each month in this area alone.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others have discussed the status of the funding of the CRT. It was taken out of public ownership by the former Prime Minister David Cameron as part of the big society experiment, and I want to stress that the Government’s funding is but a part of its total income. It is on a journey to self-sufficiency. We are limited in our time, so we cannot go into the detail of that decision, but we have to accept that that means the CRT receives money from a range of sources, so it is not simply for the Government to tell it what to do. I say to the noble Lord that government cannot take more powers without taking more control, and I am not entirely sure that that is what this Government want. I would certainly be surprised if the Benches opposite were calling for nationalisation of the CRT, but perhaps we can all be surprised.

The trust has increased its fundraising income by nearly 20% over the last two years. It generates annual income through its boat licence fees and mooring charges of around £55 million; commercial arrangements with utility and water companies generate around £45 million, and returns on its investments and property holdings amount to around £52 million.

We are running out of time, so I will conclude. Fully addressing littering and dumping rubbish involves changing people’s behaviours. Improving awareness of the impacts and consequences of littering through educating and encouraging behavioural change is something that we can all play a part in, along with local authorities and, in this case, the trust. I hope that I have provided assurances that the CRT continues to take seriously its responsibilities for tackling littering on its tow-paths, notwithstanding the removal of litter bins. The Government are also taking forward a number of initiatives to strengthen nationwide action on littering so that we can all better enjoy our surroundings, be they in the city, in the countryside or on canal tow-paths.

Committee adjourned at 4.46 pm.