🗑️ Fly-tipping: Tatton

• Issue Highlighted: Esther McVey, MP for Tatton, raised the issue of fly-tipping in her constituency, noting it as a growing problem impacting local communities.

• Statistics: In 2023-24, England reported 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents, a 6% increase from the previous year. The most common incidents involved waste equivalent to a small vanload (31%) or a car boot load or less (28%).

• Local Impact: Specific instances of fly-tipping in Tatton include dumped tyres, household waste, and mattresses at various locations like Crowders Lane, the A556, and Holmes Chapel Road.

• Challenges in Reporting: The process to report fly-tipping to local councils is cumbersome, involving excessive communication and website navigation.

• Community Frustration: Residents, particularly in areas like Colshaw Farm, are upset about repeated fly-tipping and the lack of maintenance in their areas, such as overgrown verges and unrepaired streetlights, which exacerbate the problem.

• Criminal Activity: Fly-tipping is often not pursued despite available photographic evidence. Only 110 fines above £1,000 were issued in 2022-23, with many fines being less than £500.

• Proposed Solutions: Suggestions included higher fines, police investigations, and possibly adding points to driving licenses for perpetrators. CCTV was also mentioned as a potential deterrent.

• Council Policies: Restrictions on waste disposal facilities and changes in bin collection frequencies by local councils, such as Cheshire East, are seen as contributing factors to increased fly-tipping.

• Government Response: Mary Creagh, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, acknowledged the severity of fly-tipping. She emphasized the need for collaboration between councils, police, and the Environment Agency to tackle the issue.

• Enforcement and Innovation: The government is pushing for better use of enforcement powers by local authorities, including fixed penalty notices and vehicle seizures. Innovative approaches like using drones and social media to identify and deter fly-tippers were highlighted.

• Public Role: The public is encouraged to check waste carriers’ licenses to avoid contributing to environmental crime and to participate in community clean-up initiatives like the Great British Spring Clean.

• Organized Crime: The involvement of organized crime in large-scale fly-tipping was noted, with ongoing efforts to address this through the Environment Agency.

• Future Commitments: The government aims to force offenders to clean up their mess, tighten regulations around waste carriers, and work towards a circular economy strategy to reduce waste overall.

The session on fly-tipping in Tatton constituency displays a relatively low level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 2. Here’s a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind this assessment:

1. General Consensus on the Issue: Both Esther McVey and the Minister, Mary Creagh, show a strong agreement on the severity of the fly-tipping problem and the need to address it. McVey states, ‘Fly-tipping is not a victimless crime; the victims are the landowners, the local communities and taxpayers who are left to shoulder the cost,’ which aligns with Creagh’s stance that ‘fly-tipping is not just a load of rubbish; it is a serious environmental crime.’

2. Acknowledgment of Suggestions: McVey proposes several suggestions, including putting points on driving licences for fly-tippers, which Creagh acknowledges and says she will follow up on: ‘I take on board the point the right hon. Lady raised about the previous Government looking at putting points on driving licences, and I will find out where the DEFRA machine got to on that.’ This indicates a constructive dialogue rather than disagreement.

3. Shared Criticism of Local Authorities: There is a shared critique of the local councils’ actions. McVey criticizes Cheshire East Council’s decisions to limit waste collection and increase charges, suggesting these actions exacerbate fly-tipping. Although Creagh highlights the council’s high recycling rates, she does not directly oppose McVey’s concerns about local authority management, indicating a degree of agreement on the need for better local management strategies.

4. Constructive Proposals without Direct Confrontation: Both speakers offer various solutions and initiatives, such as CCTV usage, community involvement in clean-up campaigns, and legislative changes, without directly confronting each other’s proposals. Creagh discusses innovative approaches like those used by Stoke-on-Trent and Wolverhampton councils, which build on McVey’s call for effective strategies.

5. Lack of Point-by-Point Refutation: Throughout the session, there is little to no direct refutation or argumentation against each other’s points. For instance, when McVey mentions the difficulties faced by residents in reporting fly-tipping, Creagh does not refute this but instead emphasizes the need for councils to utilize their enforcement powers more effectively.

6. Examples of Disagreement are Minimal: The minimal disagreements seen are more of nuances rather than direct confrontation. For example, McVey criticizes the change in bin collection frequency and green bin charges as potentially increasing fly-tipping, while Creagh points out that DEFRA guidance aims to ensure no adverse impacts from such changes. However, even this is presented more as a factual point about monitoring and guidance rather than a direct challenge to McVey’s view.

In conclusion, while there are slight differences in focus and proposed solutions, the overall tone and substance of the session do not indicate significant disagreement. The dialogue remains cooperative and solution-focused, leading to a rating of 2 for disagreement displayed.