Hc 607 Litter And Fly Tipping In England

England is a litter-ridden country compared to most of Europe, North America and Japan. Levels of litter in England have hardly improved in the past 12 years and the best estimates are that litter costs the taxpayer between £717 and £850 million a year to clear up. Change is needed. There has been a 20% increase in fast-food litter in the last year. The Government should bring forward legislation requiring all shops, restaurants and retail food outlets to keep the perimeters of their premises free from litter. Responsible businesses are already doing this. In addition, the fast-food industry should introduce 'on-pack' information on all branded take-away and fast-food packaging to remind consumers to dispose of litter responsibly. The most frequently littered items are chewing gum and smokers' materials. Chewing gum and staining are difficult and costly to remove. This was a matter of considerable concern upon which the Committee deliberated at length. Levels of fly-tipping increased by 20% in the last year. There were 852,000 reported incidents but only 2,000 convictions in the courts. The Government should introduce a fixed penalty notice for fly-tipping for household items - the bulk of the incidents - and the industry must introduce a scheme to take away unwanted household appliances and furniture when replacements are delivered. In the end it is individuals who litter and fly-tip their unwanted goods, and it is this behaviour which needs to change. The Committee support a variety of behaviour-changing activities and campaigns to prevent littering.

This report follows up our November 2014 report on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham and covers two matters: the role of Ofsted and Louise Casey's inspection report on Rotherham. It is clear that the inspection arrangements that Ofsted had in place from 2007, when it became responsible for inspecting children's services at Rotherham, failed to detect either the evidence, or the knowledge within the council, of large-scale child sexual exploitation. The structured inspection method used at that time to inspect local authorities' children's services was designed by Ofsted and did not focus on child sexual exploitation. The result was a lack of intelligence and understanding in Ofsted's handling of Rotherham. Child sexual exploitation was missed as was the superficiality of Rotherham's response to inspection findings and its dysfunction. The Committee found Louise Casey's report on her inspection of Rotherham to be penetrating and instructive. It not only confirmed the dreadful findings in the Jay Report but, what was worse, revealed that Rotherham Council was in denial about child sexual exploitation.

The purpose of the report is to distil experience from this parliament and to assist the new committee in the next parliament. It considers how the Committee approached its work, the way it has used research and how this might be strengthened, and its own assessment of performance against the core tasks set by the Liaison Committee. It then suggests some matters the new committee might consider examining in the next Parliament. These include both 'unfinished business', topics the Committee looked at over the Parliament to which the successors might wish to return, and new developments, which the Committee considers will emerge as major issues over the next five years.

This report follows up one issue left from the Committee's 2013 report on the Private Rented Sector (HCP 50, session 2013-14, ISBN 9780215060730): whether or not England should follow Scotland and introduce a ban on letting agents charging fees to tenants other than rents and refundable deposits. The change in Scotland had only been made in November 2012 and when the Committee reported in July 2013 views on its impact were speculative and varied widely. The Committee therefore decided to wait two years from its introduction and seek hard evidence on the impact of the change in Scotland. The Committee sought evidence from a number of organisations representing tenants, agents and landlords in Scotland and have examined relevant published reports. The Committee concludes that the evidence available is not strong enough to reach a view on the impact of the ban on fees in Scotland. In addition, the issues around fees that were raised in the original inquiry are more broadly based than simply fees to tenants, as they affect the overall role of agents in the market and the transparency of that market. The Committee therefore call on the Department for Communities and Local Government to commission a comprehensive impact assessment of the effects of the introduction of a ban on agents' fees in England.

This publication contains oral and written evidence taken before the Committee in their inquiry into the Government's Climate Change Programme announced in March 2006 (in its White Paper 'Tomorrow's Climate, Today's Challenge' Cm. 6764, ISBN 0101676425). It includes contributions from officials from Defra, the Confederation of British Industry, the UK Sustainable Development Commission, Greater London Authority and local authorities.

Following on from a previous Committee report on sustainable housing issues (HCP 135-I, session 2004-05; ISBN 0215021517) published in January 2005, this report considers recent developments, including the Government's decision to increase the proposed rate of new build housing from 150,000 to 200,000 per year by 2016. Issues discussed include: the likely effectiveness of the proposed voluntary Code for Sustainable Homes in terms of achieving well-designed, energy efficient sustainable buildings; whether the Government is doing enough to promote the Code within the building industry and the general public; fiscal measures needed to reward higher building quality and greater environmental performance; funding for the timely provision of infrastructure such as transport links, schools and hospitals in main growth areas; security of water supplies and whether the Government, the Environment Agency and the water companies are doing enough to educate people about water efficiency. Overall, the Committee's report recognises the need for additional housing capacity but criticises the Government's failure to acknowledge the valid concerns about the environmental impacts of its house building plans, and its lack of planning to ensure the necessary supporting infrastructure is put in place to establish sustainable communities.

Keeping the lights On : Nuclear, renewables and climate change, sixth report of session 2005-06, Vol. 2: Oral and written Evidence

The Committee reports on the progress made by the Treasury in placing environmental objectives at the heart of its fiscal policies. This year's pre-Budget report (Cm. 6701, December 2005, ISBN 0101670125) is found to be inadequate, especially in the context of UK CO2 emissions actually increasing once more. No significant new measures were announced, and the Committee sees a continued slowing down of the Treasury's momentum in turning rhetoric into action. It believes the Treasury should redefine Air Passenger Duty (APD) as an environmental tax and that APD rates should more accurately reflect the carbon emissions of the flights to which they apply. Charging APD on flights rather than passengers could also act as an incentive to more efficient use of aviation fuel. The Committee also recommends action on aviation fuel duty, biofuels, car energy efficiency, steps to wean the economy off over-reliance on oil, stamp duty and council tax reductions for homes built or refurbished to high environmental standards. Each pre-Budget report should include figures on total revenue from the climate change levy, aggregates levy, and landfill tax. Although the Treasury accepts the principle of increasing taxes on "bads" rather than "goods" its reluctance for bold reform of the tax system mystifies the Committee. A Green tax Commission should be reconsidered, to develop a proper communications strategy to sell the environmental programme to the public. The Committee exhorts the Government to make moves on the climate change problem, as waiting for universal agreement is a recipe for stasis. Finally, the Committee regrets the Treasury's decision to abolish the Operating and Financial Review required from large companies, in that it appears to view sustainable reporting as an optional extra. It hopes that the proposed new business reviews will continue to require some form of social and environmental disclosure from companies.