Vol. 505 No. 6
I move:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government's failure to ensure the proper implementation by local authorities of the Litter Pollution Act, 1997, the Waste Management Act, 1996, and the Packaging Waste Regulations of 1997, and calls on the Government to set out immediately a concrete plan, providing for the necessary investments, to ensure the full implementation of these provisions immediately.
I wish to share time with Deputies Durkan, Donal Carey and Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Despite the existence of an impressive array of legislation, some of which was mentioned at Question Time, there is an enormous problem in the handling and management of waste. There is not yet a culture of waste mini misation and the Government is not giving the leadership required to bring about a significant and lasting shift in behaviour. As a matter of common observation, private, collective and corporate behaviours are still vastly different from what is required if we are to begin to make headway against the problem of waste.
Examples abound. When Kildare County Council cuts the grass in the median of the Naas and Newbridge bypass and South Dublin County Council cuts the grass in the median of the Naas dual carriageway the mowers throw up an assortment of waste thrown from passing vehicles or blown off uncovered or carelessly covered loads. When groups of residents organise a clean-up in the green areas of estates or along roadways in the vicinity of towns they regularly cart away huge volumes of waste ranging from packaging, plastic and glass bottles, cardboard packaging to household durable goods.
It is a common sight to find fridges dumped in ditches. Abandoned car wrecks are still not an uncommon sight in bogs throughout the country or in forestry areas open to the public. The streets of our towns and cities are regularly carpeted in rubbish. The countryside abounds in unofficial dump sites. One would be tempted to think that the erection of a "No Dumping" sign by a local authority is taken an invitation to start an informal rubbish dump.
We are given to sticking out our chests and talking about how green and clean an island this is. There is a series of advertisements on television in which this country is referred to as the cleanest country in Europe. Most observers, including a great many tourists, would quickly come to the conclusion that, in terms of litter and rubbish, this is one of the dirtiest countries in Europe. We have some of the dirtiest towns and cities in the European Union in spite of a far lower population density.
In October last year the Government launched a policy statement on waste management with considerable fanfare Waste Management, Changing our Ways. It is a nice glossy document and contains the following apparently impressive targets to be achieved over a 15 year timescale: a diversion of 50 per cent of overall household waste away from landfill; a minimum 65 per cent reduction in biodegradable wastes consigned to landfill; the development of waste recovery facilities employing environmentally-beneficial technologies as an alternative to landfill; recycling 35 per cent of municipal waste; recycling at least 50 per cent of construction and demolition waste within a five year period with a progressive increase to at least 85 per cent over 15 years; rationalisation of municipal waste landfills with progressive and sustained reductions in numbers leading to an integrated network of some 20 state-of-the-art facilities, and an 80 per cent reduction in methane emissions from landfill.
As a wish-list, that would be hard to beat. I cannot find anything wrong with it as a set of tar gets and objectives. The Minister of State will probably tell me that, as it was only published in October last year, it is idle to be looking for progress at this point. It is impossible, however, to detect any movement in the direction of those targets. There is no sign of what is referred to in the document as the rationalisation of municipal waste landfills with progressive and sustained reductions to about 20 state-of-the-art sites. What we have instead is a series of proposals for new super dumps at various locations throughout the country.
There is a proposal for Loughrea, County Galway, which has been a source of contention for some considerable time. A series of sites are being prospected in County Clare. I do not know when this will come to an end. There is a proposal for a super dump in the Slievefelim Mountains which is justified on the spurious grounds that it is in a remote area. Siting a dump high up in the hills at a watershed makes no sense. There is a proposal for a major landfill dump at Silvermines, County Tipperary to which I will return. Similar proposals were made in the past. I understand there was a proposal by Limerick Corporation to site a landfill dump in the Clare hills, north of the city. I suppose we should be grateful that some of the planners of these monstrosities listen to some of what people have to say. People do not want landfill sites on their doorstep, but to site them in areas of natural beauty where they could pollute an entire river catchment area is not the answer.
There is a fear in some parts of the country that almost any hole in the ground or disused quarry will eventually become a landfill site, and this is not idle talk. Some years ago when Dublin Corporation indicated that it would have to cease dumping sewage sludge at sea there was great worry in the area of County Kildare between Naas and Kilcullen, where there are a great many disused sand and gravel pits, that they would be candidates for the dumping of sewage sludge. This did not enthuse the people of the area.
It will be argued that state-of-the-art landfill sites are different. "State-of-the-art" is taken to mean that rubbish will not be blowing around, that everything will arrive in sealed containers and will be covered. I do not believe that any state of any art can make a landfill dump an environmentally friendly operation. Apart from anything else, one cannot keep covering as one dumps. Inevitably, in any landfill site, no matter how well managed, there will be loose rubbish blowing around, scavengers, including birds and animals, odour and general inconvenience to the public in the surrounding area.
Neither, Sir, can I see any discernible progress in diverting construction and demolition waste away from landfill. In 1995, the last time a survey was done – although the Minister may say there is a newer one than the most recent to which I have access – approximately 1.5 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste was produced in this country. Over one third of that waste was recovered leaving one million tonnes to be disposed of in landfill. If I understood the Dublin Corporation plan correctly, 50 per cent by value of what goes into landfill dumps around Dublin is construction and demolition waste. It is a fair guess that the total value of construction waste now being disposed of in landfill sites is considerably greater than in 1995, despite the Government's targets. That seems to follow logically given the increase in the volume of construction activity and the lack of any sign of an increase in the rate at which construction and demolition waste is being recovered and used for other purposes.
We have regulations to reduce and deal with packaging waste. As far as I can determine, these regulations are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. A survey carried out by Repak at the end of last year showed just how little progress has been made. It showed also that most local authorities were doing little, if anything, to enforce those regulations. Many local authorities knew very little about the regulations and, in most cases, they had no administrative machinery to do anything about implementing them.
An examination of the Repak survey and the replies of the local authorities, most of which replied, is very interesting. The level of knowledge of what the packaging waste regulations require local authorities to do is minimal, the level of enforcement is minimal and, apparently, the level of knowledge among the firms which should be concerned as being targets, so to speak, of the regulations was minimal. There did not seem to be any great appetite to do much about it because there was no pressure on anybody. The local authorities did not seem to feel any great pressure on them to implement the regulations and the firms which produce and handle large volumes of packaging waste then felt there was no particular pressure on them either to do anything about achieving the objectives set out in the regulations.
We have regulations to deal with toxic and hazardous waste but, notwithstanding the fact some of the regulations have been in existence for some years, the Minister of State informed me today at Question Time in response to a parliamentary question that the Environmental Protection Agency is currently drafting a national hazardous waste management plan which will make recommendations for hazardous waste management. He informed me that it is anticipated this will include recommendations to local authorities regarding collection and reception systems for waste batteries. This is an implementation of regulations which have been there for some time. It is an implementation of regulations to deal with a problem, the existence of which has been known for some considerable time.
These measures should have been in place long ago. There are some operators who endeavour to work in accordance with the regulations, as they stand, but they find their position is undermined by pirate operators who have no regard whatever for the regulations. An operator who goes to the trouble of getting the necessary authorisations from a local authority and making the necessary connections with a firm in the UK for a proper place in which to dispose of used batteries, has to make a charge for this, but now finds he is being upscuttled at every hand's turn by pirate operators who collect used batteries, make no charge for them and do God knows what with them. They are certainly not disposing of them in any of the ways contemplated in the regulations.
Unless I am seriously mistaken, and I do not believe I am, it was only very recently that the Houses of the Oireachtas got around to the simple matter of having a system for the recovery of used batteries from the various bits of small electrical equipment we use. I have been unable to find out, because nobody seems to know the answer, whether there is a system for the recovery of used fluorescent light bulbs from Government and public offices, even in Dublin. Such bulbs contain some dangerous material, for example mercury, not at levels which make it toxic but certainly dangerous. As far as I have been able to find out, nobody knows whether there is a system in place even for recovering that material from Government offices. I have asked in all the places where it seemed appropriate but there was no answer.
There is one operator who currently offers a system for the disposal of fluorescent light tubes. As far as I can determine, the Environmental Protection Agency is not sure whether this is dangerous or hazardous waste. Up to recent weeks, there was protracted correspondence between the Environmental Protection Agency, which is the licensing authority, and the proposed operator. They could not agree on what was the appropriate system to deal with these bulbs.
That does not suggest we are serious about the implementation of regulations which are already on the Statute Book. There is no evidence to suggest we are moving away from landfill as the principle method of waste disposal. Some of the measures now proposed, as I already indicated, are based on various spurious grounds. The Slievefelim Mountains proposal is a case in point. Another such case is the proposal for Silvermines which is apparently being justified, at least in part, on the grounds that a railway spur, which originally served the mines at that location, is still in place. It has been suggested that this could be used to bring large volumes of waste to the site without putting a burden on our roads. On the surface, that has a certain plausibility but it disappears on closer examination.
Is our railway system really capable of carrying a substantial extra volume of traffic in the form of wagon loads of waste? We already have substantial safety problems to confront on our railways. The Minister for Public Enterprise recently announced a substantial investment programme to deal with safety problems on the railways. Until those problems are resolved, I do not believe any of us could be confident that the system could carry a large extra volume of waste.
The Silvermines proposal is based on the idea that it can take waste from a large number of counties around it. Unfortunately, between Silvermines and most of the adjoining counties, there is no rail link without taking a very long roundabout trip over our fairly thin railway system to get there. That would not make sense. I suspect the real essence of that proposal is rather different and that in reality the Silvermines proposal, like most other proposals, will require a large volume of road transported waste being brought to the site. I have no doubt – I may be a little ahead of the posse, though I see encouraging signs of change – that the thermal treatment of waste will have to be a very important part of our action in the future. However, I am not confident this is being handled properly. There is a proposal for a thermal waste treatment facility to deal with toxic waste beside Kilcock, County Kildare, on the border with County Meath. This is being justified on the basis of there being a nearby rail link. The proposal is that large tonnages of waste will be brought to the site by rail. However, the same or even bigger questions arise about the capacity of our rail system in this case. It is true that there are proposals to double track the railway line between Connolly Station and Kilcock, but that extra capacity is necessary to deal with the volume of commuter traffic on the line. The double tracking of the line is some years away and even when it is done there will be a serious doubt about the capacity of the line to handle large tonnages of waste for the proposed thermal treatment site.
The reality is that thermal treatment of waste using today's technology can offer a viable and environmentally acceptable alternative to our current over-reliance on landfill. Much opposition to thermal treatment of waste ignores technological developments in recent years and is based on the "not in my back yard" principle. Most of it could be dealt with if there was rational planning for the provision of a limited number of thermal treatment plants, which is all that is required. Technology is capable of handling a huge part of our waste problem, given some progress on minimisation etc. in perhaps half a dozen plants throughout the country.
To be effective, waste management policy, be it waste minimisation, recycling, landfill disposal or thermal treatment, must be driven by the Government. Given the technology now available and the particular dispersal of our population, we do not need a waste treatment facility in every local authority area. What is necessary is a small number of proper waste treatment facilities reasonably near major population centres on carefully chosen sites. This is where we encounter a problem. It is idle to expect that local authorities will readily volunteer to provide sites for that limited number of waste treatment facilities. Strategic decisions must be made at a different level on the basis of regional consultation. The Minister of State will probably say, as he did earlier this afternoon, that this is inconsistent with my principled position of giving more power to local authorities. However, it is not inconsistent. There are some areas of policy which will not be handled at individual local authority level. We accept this in relation to national roads and sometimes in the case of major water supply schemes and we must also accept it in relation to rational waste management policy. In short, it is time for the Government to start driving this process rather than reacting to it.
I thank Deputy Dukes for affording me the opportunity of contributing to this debate. I wish to underline some of the points made by him. We lack a clearly defined policy in relation to waste management. It appears as though the issue is being postponed again and again in the hope that something might happen, that somebody will break or blink and that as a result there will be a general acquiescence in dealing with the issue. The need for waste disposal and management is greater now than ever before. The population is set to increase fairly dramatically over the coming years. It is no harm to remember that the people we used to export on an annual basis are no longer going abroad to the same extent which means we must make greater provision for them at home. Part of that provision relates to services and the provision of infrastructure in general. This is one sector where provision should be made at an early stage, something which has not yet been done. The Government is shirking its responsibilities, hiving them off to the local authorities on the one hand and hoping that through entrepreneurial skills of one kind or other somebody will break through the maze and provide a facility which will meet today's requirements.
I wish for a moment to look back at the recent history of waste disposal in my constituency and in County Meath, the constituency of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. There was a very substantial plan in County Meath to locate a landfill facility on a greenfield site between two urban population centres. The issue was pursued over the past couple of years with strong local opposition. I do not know why people pursued that proposal which never had a chance of being permitted and which would have been totally grotesque given the planning history of the area. Yet it was pursued vigorously and, in my mind, wrongly.
The most recent intrusion in that area is the proposal referred to by Deputy Dukes for an incinerator at Kilcock. We accept that this issue will have to be tackled at some stage. However, the current proposal is to site an incinerator adjacent to the village. Some experts will say such a facility must be located adjacent to a town. However, Kilcock is recovering from job losses in the 1980s and is trying to reconstruct and rebuild itself by putting in place the necessary facilities to meet today's demands. The village is less than 25 miles from Dublin city and is an attractive area for residential development. Some genius decided that an incinerator should be located 200 yards from the village, 250 yards from a food processing plant and adjacent to the railway station and the national primary road network, namely, the N4-M4. No reference was made to the fact that since the motorway was opened the village has been completely bypassed and is isolated from the rest of civilisation. Nobody cared a whit for the village or thought the unfortunate people of the town would have any need to get onto the motorway or travel outside their immediate area. No interchange to the motorway was provided resulting in residents having to travel parallel to the motorway for four or five miles and get onto it somewhere else. I mention this to show the insensitivity of this proposal. I cannot understand how anybody thought the siting of an incinerator in the proposed area was a great idea.
The greatest demand in the area in the past few years has been for commuter rail services to alleviate the traffic congestion on the roads. However, somebody has now decided this would be a great location for an incinerator and that waste can be carried on the rail line. That was not the idea behind the development plan for the rail services or what people in the region thought would result from the plan. The people have been suffering long enough from road traffic congestion and the last thing they want is somebody saying that as the rail services have been upgraded and given the proposal for a second track it is time they were used to transport refuse to an incinerator.
The other issue is the proximity of the proposed site to the national primary road network. Of course it will be fine for people in other parts of the country, but I do not understand the logic of somebody suggesting that the hard pressed road network system in the area should be utilised by this facility which will serve the rest of the country. Neither do I understand how anybody came up with the proposal in the first place or thought it feasible or viable, particularly given that the site will in future be in the centre of a developing village. I cannot understand how anybody would have thought that would be a suitable location for something which is the equivalent of a 17 or 18 storey modern skyscraper, which will sit in a green field on the edge of the town on the horizon for all to see. Presumably somebody decided that this was the optimum location for such a proposal. I cannot understand the logic which led to that decision.
I make those points simply to underline the worry on two counts: first, there is little or no regard for the increased demand for the provision of facilities to deal with waste management and refuse disposal in general; and second, there is obviously no regard for where such facilities might be located. Certainly there is little regard for the aesthetics of and the visual impact on the area. There is little regard for the utilisation and erosion of the hard pressed services which are already in existence in such places by such facili ties in the event of them going ahead. Unlike many other people in my area, I would have to voice strong opposition to this proposal.
I know there will be those, including perhaps the Minister, who will say that here again is the NIMBY factor. In answer I would say that somebody should stand up with a proposal for a national waste management plan, put the proposals on the table and let us all have an input into the process. Until that is done, let us cut out this surreptitious nonsense where somebody sneaks in with a proposal in one county one day and in another the next. To go around in circles like that is not acceptable. This policy is unlikely to be successful and will very likely meet with stiff opposition.
If the Government is serious about plans in this area, it is high time it looked at it in a realistic fashion and laid down proper guidelines whereby people will recognise what is likely to happen. The Government should have a worthwhile plan which will ensure that somebody is not just going over the map with a pin and deciding a certain location looks good because it is near a town which has road, rail, telecommunications and other services and serves the rest of the country. As long as that kind of policy continues there will be no agreement on and acceptance of such proposals.
I support the motion as outlined by my colleague, Deputy Dukes. It is ironic that this is almost the week of the local elections. As we talk about all the things which local authorities should do, could do and have the powers to do and how local government will be enhanced for the future, nothing is said about this issue.
The Deputy should table a motion.
The Minister's hands are tied behind his back all the time. Surely the time has come to do something realistic about it.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): A few Sundays ago my wife and I went for a drive. We parked the car close to a forestry plantation and went for a walk along a lovely picturesque road. As we walked along I saw what appeared to be a sofa on the edge of the plantation a few feet from the road. I do not know whether the person who left it there thought what they did would come under the heading of waste disposal or if they left it there for weary people to rest on, but that is not the kind of waste disposal anyone wants. It is incredible in this day and age that there are people who have no respect for the countryside or the environment and who dump things wherever it suits them as long as it is some distance from their own place.
On the roadside one will always find the unwelcome plastic bag of rubbish, which some fool decided to pack into the boot of the car when he or she went on a scenic Sunday drive. I am a firm believer in fining people for littering. There are not half enough litter wardens. Without wishing to get into any difficulty with people about fines for speeding, I would prefer to see somebody fined £50 for dumping plastic bags on the roadside or a sofa on the edge of a plantation than to see a decent citizen fined for driving at 42 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. I know it is far easier to catch the people who break speed limits but if we are serious, we must do something about catching those who dump and litter.
On the spot fines will put manners on some people who seem to be devoid of even the basic manners. Such people would throw things in front of you as you walk along. I find it totally unacceptable that, despite all the training children receive from teachers to dispose of their plastic Tayto crisp bags, etc., in boscaí bruscar, we, as adults, seem to forget there are standards of cleanliness and neatness. I have the utmost sympathy for those in tidy towns who year after year get up early in the morning to collect garbage thrown around the previous night by louts.
We expect urban councils, town commissions and county councils to ensure that every town is clean and neat and they do their work well. I was happy to hear that Carlow town, for example, came fifth when it came to cleanliness in the last tidy towns' competition, but the town is only tidy because the urban council workers are out early in the morning collecting garbage which should not be there. We must catch the culprits, those who dispose of waste illegally.
We should make a greater effort to recycle waste. It is hard to figure out why we have so much difficulty separating glass, plastic and paper and why it must all go into one big waste container. If recycling can work in other countries, it should work here.
Having collected the waste, we must be careful to dispose of it properly. Landfill sites are becoming less popular, despite the fact that there are stringent regulations about sealing the base of the site. These regulations are no harm because we must protect the water supply. If we contaminate it, we will be in trouble.
The incineration system is one which must be tackled seriously. I know that every aspect of waste disposal falls prey to the NIMBY factor. We are all in favour of incinerators and suitable landfill sites as long as they are not located near us. They are not altogether a welcome sight. I am sure that in this day and age incinerators are less harmful than they were in the past.
We must be careful about the collection of garbage in towns and cities. If we opt to privatise services, we must ensure that we do not create a monopoly where charges could get out of control and where, as in the past, people receive waivers. That system should not be forgotten because old age pensioners must still be looked after.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann welcomes the major efforts by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to ensure full and effective implementation, by local authorities and relevant interests as appropriate, of the Waste Management Act, 1996, the Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations, 1997, and the Litter Pollution Act, 1997, through:
–policy development and clear policy direction on waste management, as outlined in the Minister's waste policy statement, Changing our Ways (1998) and on waste recycling where he will issue a further policy statement this year;
–extensive strategic study and progress in waste management planning;
–implementation of a comprehensive system of waste licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency, and waste permitting by local authorities;
–comprehensive updating of regulatory regimes to support full commencement of the Waste Management Act, 1996 from 20 May 1998;
–development of producer responsibility initiatives, including recovery-recycling initiatives by Repak and the Irish Farm Film Producers Group (IFFPG);
–targeted investment and support for recycling under the Operational Programme for Environmental Services, 1994-1999;
–advice and guidance to local authorities on their functions under the Litter Pollution Act, 1997, and the establishment of a new national litter pollution monitoring system;
–sponsorship of the successful National Spring Clean, 1999;
–initiatives and grant aid to raise awareness and support education on litter prevention; and
–a planned new National Anti-Litter Forum."
The motion tabled by the Opposition is opportunistic and cynical. It takes no account of, and does not accord recognition to, the substantial efforts which have been made by Government, local authorities and other agencies in pursuing and implementing progressive waste and litter management policies. It does not recognise the complexity and wide scope of the issues which are being tackled at present. It does not reflect the concrete progress which has been achieved to date in these areas and the ongoing nature of the work in hand. It does not even seem to take account of relevant functional responsibilities underlying EU policy principles applying to waste and the civic and moral responsibilities of the public in relation to litter. Accordingly, I must firmly reject the terms of the motion as proposed.
To date, the primary focus in relation to the operation and implementation of the Waste Management Act has been: the development and improvement of our waste management planning system as a basis for radical improvements in waste management practice and infrastructure; the implementation of an effective and comprehensive waste licensing and permitting system which ensures that waste recovery and disposal activities comply with high standards of environmental protection; the development of producer responsibility initiatives aimed at improved waste recovery performance; and the introduction of secondary legislation in response to EU and national requirements reflected in the Act. This work has been underpinned by clear policy direction, in particular the 1998 policy statement on waste management, Changing Our Ways.
The 1996 Act recognises that meaningful and comprehensive waste management planning is a key prerequisite to improved waste management performance and much effort has been devoted at national, regional and local level to delivering effective results in this regard. Local authorities are required to make waste management plans in respect of their functional areas, and the Environmental Protection Agency is required to make a national hazardous waste management plan.
Detailed requirements in relation to the preparation and content of local authority waste management plans were set out in the Waste Management (Planning) Regulations, 1997. From the outset, local authorities were encouraged by my Department to adopt a regional approach to this planning process with a view to the more efficient provision of services and infrastructure and to carry out preliminary waste management strategy studies to provide a context for evaluating available options and for identifying the measures, or combination of measures, most likely to optimise waste management.
The response of local authorities has been very positive. Some 32 authorities are involved in or have adopted detailed regional waste management strategy studies or are otherwise committed to the making of regional waste management plans. Grant assistance of more than £1.5 million has been allocated under the EU-funded Operational Programme for Environmental Services 1994-99 in respect of a number of these strategy studies.
The October 1998 policy statement on waste management, Changing Our Ways, is addressed chiefly to local authorities and is intended to provide a national policy framework for the adoption and implementation by local authorities of strategic waste management plans under which national objectives and targets will be attained. The statement outlines the Government's policy objectives in relation to waste management and suggests some key issues and considerations which must be addressed in order to achieve these objectives. In particular, it focuses on the need to give clear and practical expression to the requirements of the waste hierarchy by developing and pursuing integrated solutions which combine progressive policies with a sustainable and cost effective waste infrastructure.
The policy statement strongly endorsed meaningful strategic planning on a regionalised basis; a dramatic reduction in reliance on landfill in favour of an integrated waste management approach which utilises a range of waste treatment options to deliver effective and efficient waste services and ambitious recycling and recovery targets; greater participation by the private sector in the provision of waste management services; a more effective and equitable system of waste charging which provides incentives for waste minimisation and recovery; greater utilisation of legislative instruments extending the scope of producer responsibility initiatives; and the mobilisation of public support and participation.
Various ambitious targets were set for achievement over a 15 year timescale as outlined by Deputy Dukes. It is our intention to expand upon the policy issues and guidance outlined in Changing Our Ways with the publication later this year of another policy statement focusing on recycling and waste recovery generally. This policy document will address the factors and practical considerations which are relevant to the achievement of Government policy objectives and targets in this area. A number of relevant initiatives are already in place or in development and we are determined that the systematic approach being taken successfully in regard to strategic waste planning will also be pursued in the whole area of waste recovery and recycling. The new policy statement will provide firm leadership in this area and will outline the scope of measures which will be undertaken in the interests of a sustained expansion in recycling performance.
It is evident that, in their strategic planning exercise, which is well advanced, local authorities are being guided by Changing Our Ways and that regional waste management plans will seek to give effect to the policy objectives and targets outlined in that statement. In particular, the emerging regional strategy studies address the scope for, and make recommendations regarding the provision of, an integrated waste management infrastructure, including kerbside collection of recyclable materials in urban areas; bringing facilities for recyclable materials in rural areas; civic amenity sites and waste transfer stations; biological treatment of green and organic household waste, materials recovery facilities; recycling capacity for construction and demolition waste; thermal treatment facilities; and residual landfill requirements. The formal adoption of statutory waste management plans should be substantively completed by mid-autumn.
I am very pleased to acknowledge that local authorities have, in this planning process, demonstrated a willingness to embrace change and address sensitive issues in a realistic manner and I am confident that this positive approach will continue as they address the implementation of their plans. My Department will continue to liaise closely with local authorities as this planning process is brought to a conclusion and we will endeavour to provide ongoing support, advice and guidance to local authorities in regard to their development programmes.
It is evident that the development of requisite infrastructure within the seven year timescale envisaged in Changing Our Ways will represent a major undertaking, requiring wholehearted commitment on the part of Government and local authorities and active participation of the private sector. Significant capital investment will be necessary.
Support has already been provided for the expansion of waste recycling and other necessary infrastructure. Under the Operational Programme for Environmental Services 1994-99 an EU-funded programme of grant assistance in respect of local authority and private waste recycling infrastructure is currently under way, involving grant expenditure of more than £7.7 million in respect of some 70 individual projects. Grant assistance of more than £2.5 million has also been approved in respect of 11 projects involving hazardous waste management infrastructure. However, the scale of investment now required is of a completely different order. Based on the strategy studies and plans which have been completed to date, it is estimated that total capital investment required to meet projected infrastructural requirements in the solid waste area will exceed £600 million.
These infrastructural requirements can be best achieved through the establishment of public-private partnerships delivering integrated regional solutions. As outlined in Changing Our Ways, there is considerable scope for increased participation by the private sector in all areas of waste management in Ireland, including the establishment and operation of waste recovery and disposal facilities. Private participation can contribute not just capital investment in infrastructure but specialist expertise in the application of alternative and emerging technologies, a better understanding of the dynamics of the marketplace, especially in relation to recyclables, and, in some cases, greater operational efficiency and flexibility. It can also release local authority staff and resources for other productive uses.
Public-private partnerships are very well established in other EU countries and there is now considerable interest by the private sector in investment opportunities in waste management in Ireland. The potential for partnership arrangements is now being explored. A specially resourced unit has been set up in my Department to pursue the implementation of public-private partnership arrangements and will provide advice to local authorities with regard to procurement of necessary waste management infrastructure. This approach is fully consistent with the legal obli gations imposed on local authorities under the Waste Management Act, 1996, and will facilitate implementation of the ‘polluter pays' principle. Having regard to this principle and the need for meaningful waste charges which provide incentives for waste prevention and minimisation, Exchequer funding for requisite waste infrastructure would not generally be appropriate.
Part III of the 1996 Act provides for measures to reduce production and promote recovery of waste and, in particular, for the introduction of producer responsibility obligations in respect of individual waste streams. Significant producer responsibility obligations have been introduced in relation to packaging waste and farm plastic waste, and further such initiatives are under consideration.
In a voluntary agreement with Government, Repak Limited was established by Irish industry to promote, co-ordinate and finance the collection and recovery of packaging waste so as to achieve national recycling-recovery targets imposed under EU legislation. Repak Limited is an approved body under the Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations, 1997, and businesses participating in its waste recovery scheme are exempt from obligations which would otherwise apply under the regulations.
Repak Limited's activities are financed by fees from these member businesses. To date, the income generated has been applied mainly to support the collection and recovery of packaging waste from the domestic waste stream.
I am satisfied that useful progress has been made by Repak Limited since it became operational in July 1997 but there is considerable scope for further expansion of its packaging waste recovery activities. The company has indicated that it will develop its operations substantially during 1999. In addition to providing ongoing support for the recovery of domestic packaging waste, Repak Limited has set out to arrange for the free collection of up to nearly 90,000 tonnes of in-house packaging waste generated by members, to enter into contractual arrangements for the recycling of up to 112,000 tonnes of packaging waste and to support the development by an appropriate urban authority of an integrated "kerbside" collection scheme for domestic packaging waste. My Department will closely monitor the progress being made by Repak Limited in this regard.
An equivalent recovery scheme for farm plastic waste is being operated by the Irish Farm Films Producers Group and good progress has been made to date in the collection from farms and recovery of used silage wrap and other farm plastic wastes. During 1998, approximately 15,000 tonnes of farm plastics were sold subject to a voluntary levy, which funded the collection and recycling of nearly 1,900 tonnes of plastic waste. Work is ongoing on the development of further producer responsibility initiatives in relation to specific waste streams, including construction and demolition waste.
New waste management facilities are generally unwelcome to the public and invariably generate vigorous local opposition. In part, this is a legacy of past poor performance, particularly in relation to municipal waste landfills, which were perceived by the public to be a source of nuisance and environmental pollution, and were not subject to external regulation. It is essential that the general public has confidence that waste activities, which can have significant potential for environmental impact, are subject to rigorous and independent environmental control. Accordingly, Part IV of the 1996 Act provides for a stringent system of integrated waste licensing by the EPA in respect of all significant waste recovery and disposal activities. This is intended to ensure that high environmental standards apply in relation to the establishment, management, operation, closure and aftercare of licensable waste facilities. Licensing obligations are being imposed on a phased basis since May 1997 and will apply universally from 1 October 1999.
The licensing process is necessarily intensive. To date, the EPA has received 100 waste licence applications, granted ten licences and given notice of three proposed licensing decisions. Regulations have also been introduced providing for the grant of waste permits by local authorities in respect of specified waste recovery and disposal activities which need not warrant integrated licensing by the EPA.
An intensive programme of regulatory updating has been carried out under the 1996 Act and further new regulatory measures will be put in place during 1999. To date, 14 sets of regulations have been made under the 1996 Act addressing matters such as waste planning, producer responsibility obligations, the movement, transhipment and general control of hazardous wastes and public access to information, as well as waste licensing and granting permits. These regulations replace and, where appropriate, modify and update pre-1996 regulations which were revoked with effect from May 1998 and transpose all relevant requirements of EU waste legislation into Irish law.
Each local authority is generally responsible for the supervision and enforcement of the relevant provisions of the 1996 Act in relation to the holding, recovery and disposal of waste within its functional area. In order to facilitate authorities in the discharge of this function the Act provides local authorities with a wide range of enforcement powers and specifically provides for cost recovery in relation to monitoring, inspection and enforcement generally.
I am concerned that there should be effective implementation and enforcement by local authorities of relevant provisions of the 1996 Act, and of subordinate regulations. In this regard I consider that local authorities should maintain a strong and continuing focus on the implementation of environmental legislation generally.
Resource limitation cannot be considered an obstacle. The new local government funding system which came into effect on 1 January 1999 is providing substantial extra resources for local authorities to assist them in meeting their current expenditure needs. The local government fund will ring-fence about £600 million for local authorities' general purpose needs and to finance non-national roads. This is an increase of about £125 million on the equivalent provisions before this Government took office. The extra resources which the new funding system delivers will assist local authorities in addressing their responsibilities under the Waste Management Act, 1996, and other environmental legislation.
The Opposition motion focuses specifically on the enforcement of the Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations, 1997. Article 19 of these regulations provides that each local authority is responsible for the enforcement of the regulations within its functional area and requires authorities to take such steps as are necessary for this purpose. In addition to the general powers available to local authorities under the Waste Management Act, 1996, the 1997 regulations include a number of provisions intended specifically to facilitate the effective implementation and enforcement of the regulations.
I have no direct function in relation to the enforcement of the 1997 regulations by local authorities. Nevertheless, as these regulations are designed to ensure that responsibility for recycling packaging waste is spread equitably among packaging producers, I am concerned that producers who are compliant members of the packaging waste recovery scheme operated by Repak Limited are not placed at a commercial disadvantage by free-riders who evade their obligations under the regulations. Accordingly, my Department has, where possible, endeavoured to facilitate the effective implementation and enforcement of the regulations by local authorities generally, and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has on several occasions underlined to local authorities the importance we attach to the success of this important recycling initiative.
On the basis of the information available to my Department, a considerable improvement for the future in the performance of local authorities is required.
That is a matter on which we agree.
I consider that many local authorities must show greater practical commitment to the enforcement of the 1997 regulations and I hope that a more high profile enforcement effort will be apparent in the very near future.
Litter is a pervasive form of pollution which continues to attract the critical attention of our own people and visitors alike. It is a direct consequence of widespread anti-social behaviour by a significant minority of the public. It is essentially a local and individual problem requiring responses from local authorities, businesses, community groups and individual citizens. The role of Government is to motivate and energise those responses.
The Government has discharged part of its responsibilities by providing local authorities with an adequate legislative framework to combat litter. The Litter Pollution Act, 1997, which came into effect on 1 July 1997, provides local authorities with the range of powers necessary to tackle litter pollution more effectively and requires a new and more structured approach to litter management planning. The Act's provisions are extensive and cover a wide range of visually polluting activities.
The primary management and enforcement response to the litter problem must come from local authorities. They are in the best position to encourage and co-ordinate action across all sectors at local level to eradicate litter. While in the past a lack of resources was often cited as a reason for poor enforcement action, local authorities are now able to use some of the substantial extra funding under the local government fund to take a more active approach to their functions under the Litter Pollution Act, including the recruitment of additional litter wardens. My Department and I regularly urge them to do so.
I am satisfied that local authorities are stepping up their anti-litter operations. Local authority statistical returns provide suitable performance indicators. Local authority enforcement figures for the second half of 1998, the latest statistics available, show continuing increases in the number of litter wardens employed – 205 – and on the spot fines imposed – over 4,300. The latter figure, in particular, represents a substantial improvement of over 36 per cent on the corresponding figure for the first six months of 1998, which, in turn, showed a similar percentage improvement on the 1997 figures. Clearly, local authorities are using their extensive management and enforcement powers under the Litter Pollution Act, 1997, more actively to combat litter. Nevertheless, I would be the first to admit that much remains to be done to eradicate litter pollution.
Since taking office, I have made litter eradication a priority. I wish local authorities to take the strongest possible action to curb litter. I am especially keen that local authorities are seen to take the lead role at local level and to co-ordinate community-wide strategies to tackle litter in the context of their powers and duties under the Litter Pollution Act.
I see litter management plans as a key element in the local authority response to litter. The Litter Pollution Act requires elected members of local authorities to adopt a litter management plan. The Act specifies the format for those plans but the Minister has no direct role in their formulation or review. For that reason, a new independent moni toring system is being asked to review them so as to promote a high and even standard across local authorities and ensure that models of good practice are properly disseminated. There is no statutory obligation on local authorities to provide the Minister with copies of their litter management plans or to notify him of their adoption. However, the information available to the Department indicates that most, if not all, local authorities have now adopted plans and the majority have made copies available to me.
It is against such a background that I took the decision to introduce a national litter pollution monitoring system. I see the introduction of a national monitoring system as one of the most important components in our efforts to combat litter. Litter is a pollutant – if you can measure it, you can manage it. The development of an effective litter measurement system is necessary to monitor the litter problem and local authority progress in tackling it.
On 18 May 1999, I announced the awarding of the contract for the monitoring body under the national monitoring system to the successful consultants, Tobin Environmental Services Limited. The system will be fully operational by the autumn. A technical group representative of my Department and the local authorities will liaise with the monitoring body on an ongoing basis; agree the timetable for the work programme proposed by the monitoring body; and ensure that the results of the monitoring system are made available quickly to local authorities as a basis for targeted local action.
Under the national monitoring system local authorities will carry out local litter surveys to systematically identify the extent of litter pollution in their areas and prepare a report of each survey for submission to the monitoring body. The monitoring body will determine the methodology for the local litter surveys; obtain and review local authority litter survey reports to assess their effectiveness and report back to local authorities with the results of such assessments; assess each local authority's litter management plan; establish and regularly review best practices for the prevention and control of litter and circulate such knowledge to all local authorities; carry out random surveys to assess the general effectiveness of local authority anti-litter operations; and submit an annual report to the Department on its activities.
The national monitoring system will ensure that we have accurate information on a continuing basis regarding the nature and extent of the litter problem. A key feature of the system will be an independent review and assessment of local authority litter management plans to ensure that they are relevant, focused and appropriate to local circumstances. The monitoring system will bring greater transparency to the work of local authorities and assist them in identifying models of good practice and innovative strategies to combat litter. The monitoring body will liaise regularly with the local authorities and my Depart ment about the findings and conclusions of its monitoring and assessment activities.
The monitoring system will rightly highlight those local authorities taking the necessary steps to combat litter. There is an evident and compelling need to further step up enforcement action. Properly used, the national litter monitoring system will assist this process and be an effective management tool for local authorities to end the blight of litter pollution.
The Government is also pursuing a number of other measures to support local authority action on litter. One of these initiatives is National Spring Clean, which ran nationwide during April 1999. The campaign was organised by An Taisce with financial support of £90,000 from my Department and commercial sponsorship from Coca-Cola Bottlers and Wrigleys Limited. During April, more than 1,700 groups and organisations representing in excess of 150,000 people across the country took part in anti-litter initiatives to clean up their local environment and heighten awareness of the litter problem. Local authorities played a major role in assisting and co-ordinating events at local level. Every county council and county borough corporation and about half the urban district councils participated. This level of participation confirms National Spring Clean in only its first year of operation as a very effective vehicle to foster public awareness of the litter problem and harness public commitment to protecting the environment. National Spring Clean has become a key element in our programme to combat litter and will lead to greater successes in the years ahead. Its ongoing nature will give a particular profile to litter pollution and how it can be successfully tackled by local communities.
The Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, recently invited representatives of local authorities, the business community, the educational and tourism sectors, environmental NGOs, and community and tidy towns groups to participate in a National Anti-Litter Forum to review existing actions targeting litter and to develop a programme of measures to expand and enhance those responses. This new initiative will harness the support and energy of key stakeholders in tackling litter pollution. Its terms of reference will require it to identify further measures which would bring added value to the initiatives which we are already taking; define targets which the additional measures might achieve; quantify the cost of such actions; identify the sources, public and private, from which the actions might be funded; and recommend a programme for the implementation of these actions. We intend that the forum will present a report within six months of its establishment.
My Department's provision for litter awareness activities for 1999 has increased to £526,000 and we will be working with local authorities, business and the educational sector to secure effective implementation of the range of ongoing measures and to develop new initiatives. From this, a sum of approximately £300,000 is available to me this year to make grant allocations to county councils and county borough corporations to co-fund selected local authority public education and awareness initiatives on litter. The grants will cover up to 50 per cent of project costs, the balance being met by local contributions. I expect to notify individual local authorities of their allocations within the next few weeks.
I do not accept that there has been any failure on the Government's part to implement waste and litter legislation. By any objective standard, a tremendous amount of progress has been made on waste and litter management over the past two years. In terms of policy and legislative development, planning, public awareness and involvement, support for local authorities, waste licensing and implementation of producer responsibility initiatives, we are already light years removed from the situation which previously prevailed. Much remains to be done but we have put in place a solid foundation for future development and, in co-operation with local authorities and other public bodies, will pursue ongoing radical improvement in these important aspects of national environmental performance.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Howlin.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Howlin will speak tomorrow night and is expected to have ten minutes. In view of the Minister of State's early conclusion perhaps some flexibility might be exercised when it comes to Deputy Howlin's turn to speak.
Deputy Howlin will have seven minutes tomorrow evening.
The Labour Party supports the motion tabled by Deputy Dukes and I compliment him on bringing this matter to the floor of the House. We have a self image of Ireland as a clear and environmentally pristine country. Unfortunately the reality belies this image. Ireland is probably the dirtiest country in Europe because our streets and public spaces are blighted with litter. We have become a throwaway society and in every part of the country cigarette papers, cans, sweet wrappers and plastic bags blight what would otherwise be a beautiful landscape and environment.
The littering of this country is a disgrace. Litter is dirty and it is damaging our environment and our economy, particularly our tourism industry. Visitors find it difficult to understand why the country is in such an unkempt state. Unfortunately, despite having the excellent legislation introduced by Deputy Howlin available to it, the Government is doing little or nothing to stamp out the litter problem. I will later deal in greater detail with the Minister of State's contribution.
We are also the dirtiest country in Europe because we have the worst, most outdated and environmentally unsustainable approach of any country in Europe to waste management. Like most other European countries, we are producing too much waste. Our growing economy is giving rise to additional waste from industry, agriculture, construction and general consumer activity.
It is the practice in this country to dispose of waste by dumping it in a hole in the ground. Over 90 per cent of municipal waste is put into landfill sites. In doing that, Ireland is totally out of line with the rest of Europe. The European average for the disposal of similar waste by landfill is approximately 60 per cent and in more advanced countries where waste management is concerned, such as Holland and Denmark, the corresponding figures are 40 per cent and 20 per cent. In other words, this country dumps 4.5 times more waste into landfill sites than is the case in Denmark.
Ireland now has a major waste problem, first, because of what it does with its waste and what that, in turn, is doing to the environment, and, second, because it is becoming increasingly clear that Ireland cannot continue to treat its waste in this manner. No real alternative has yet been developed in practical terms. Given what the dumping of waste into a hole in the ground does to our environment, people are becoming increasingly opposed to the use of landfill as the major solution to our waste problem.
In many parts of the country people are opposing proposals to locate superdumps in their locality. A group from Silvermines demonstrated outside the Dáil a couple of weeks ago. Another group in Ballinasloe, County Galway, has expressed its opposition to a superdump in the locality. In my constituency, Dún Laoghaire, there is opposition to the overuse of the dump at Ballyogan in Carrickmines. No community is prepared to solely shoulder the burden for bad waste management practices.
What is wrong with our waste management strategy? Unlike other problems, we cannot say in this case that there is no legislation or that policy does not exist or has not been formulated. We have the legislation and the policy, at least on paper. The Waste Management Act, 1996, which was introduced by Deputy Howlin, established a framework for waste management. It is excellent legislation but is not being implemented by the present Government. The Litter Pollution Act, 1997, potentially effective legislation to deal with the litter problem, is not being enforced.
I deeply regret the standing back approach adopted by the Minister of State in relation to the enforcement—
The local authorities implement that Act, not the Government. Surely the Deputy knows that.
This is another example of standing back.
This afternoon the Minister of State referred to policing. The Government is not policing the Act.
Deputy Gilmore without interruption.
There is such a thing as political leadership. Unfortunately, that is not being shown on this issue and, as a consequence, our streets, cities and towns are a disgrace with litter.
There is plenty of policy. If documents could solve the waste and litter problems, they would be solved by now. Probably no other area of public policy has generated more documents, plans and studies than waste management. The Department's document, Waste Management, Changing our Ways, is excellent. It sets down a coherent policy for dealing with waste. It sets out targets which, if achieved, would be extremely encouraging. We might argue about points of detail in the Department's policy statement but the approach is right. It is based on the hierarchy of principles in waste management – prevention of waste occurring, minimising the amount of waste, reusing, recovery or recycling waste and using energy recovery strategies. Ultimately, the amount of waste which must be disposed of in a carefully managed way is minimised and reduced.
Stated policy, therefore, is about the reduction of the amount of waste which must be disposed of. Unfortunately, however, practice at every level, from Government to local authority, is based on the assumption that disposal, particularly landfill disposal, will be continued in practice. The national approach to waste management is schizoid. Policy statements on paper go in one direction while practice goes in the opposite direction.
The practical framework for the management of waste is based on disposal, not on minimisation, reuse, recovery and recycling. Local authority engineers, who have responsibility for managing waste in practice, are working on the assumption that we will continue to dump waste in the ground, that landfill will continue in practice to be the method of managing waste. The current drive to identify large dumps at various locations throughout the country is based on the assumption that dumping is the way we will deal with waste. It is, essentially, a way of buying time. If we can identify, locate and get the superdumps into operation, we will get another ten or 15 years of waste management by landfill.
The better practices and the policy which is formally stated on paper – reuse, recycling, conversion to energy and recovery of waste – are seen in practical terms as fringe activities. That must be the case so they can be included in the documents. Every local authority and Department produces waste management documents and all of them must say something is being done and push the right buttons regarding reuse, recovery and recycling. In order to justify pushing those buttons, the bodies concerned must be able to point to a FÁS scheme which is engaged in recycling activity in a corner of some council yard. The document produced by the local authorities, therefore, can say "we are committed to recycling, it is in our waste management plan and we are doing something about it". However, in practice it is no more than a marginal activity still being carried out on a pilot or experimental basis with no serious intention that I can discern to mainstream it.
I was in Nenagh in County Tipperary last week with my colleague, Senator O'Meara, and I saw an excellent recycling scheme in operation which recycled trees, paper, plastics, bottles and so forth. It is operated by a committed group of people working under a FÁS scheme in the corner of a public yard. They expect the operation to be closed down at the end of the year but they are seeking to have it mainstreamed.
I can offer another example from my own constituency. If I wish to recycle paper, I have two options: a paper bank is located at the back of a supermarket – I am not sure how much longer it will remain there because it is usually full – and another is located in the council's refuse tip, and one must pay to get admission to it. If I want to recycle bottles, I go to the bottle bank located beside my nearest supermarket. When I went there on the last bank holiday weekend, it was full and many bottles were left around it because there was nowhere to put them. Most people who want to recycle cannot get access to recycling facilities. There is a public demand for recycling but the facilities are not being made available.
I recently paid a visit to County Tipperary, visited the Silvermines area and met the local group opposed to the super dump. These are not recent converts to the environment. The village in which the local community has taken great pride is in a beautiful setting. It was afflicted with the rape of the natural resources of the area through the mining activity in the 1970s and 1980s. Now it will be afflicted with the residual waste problem of a number of counties.
One of the interesting points is the proposal that a private company will develop the dump. The issue which must be addressed is not whether there should be private sector involvement in waste management but at what stage in the cycle it should be encouraged to become involved. If it is encouraged to become involved at the end, at the disposal stage, it will encourage an increase in waste production. If the private sector is to be involved in waste management, it is preferable that it be encouraged to become involved at an earlier stage in the waste management cycle, either in the recovery or recycling stages.
The legislation and policy are in place and waste management plans are being drawn up by most local authorities. However, there is a lack of action. The Waste Management Act is not being implemented by the Government. On the question of reduction and minimisation, for example, the Waste Management Act allows the Minister to make regulations banning certain materials or forcing a reduction in their use. I have in mind materials such as plastics. There are fiscal means open to the Government to encourage the reduction in the production of waste. Such measures are not happening. The Waste Management Act has not been used to insist upon the re-use of materials where possible.
The Minister of State mentioned the Government's attempt to reach a voluntary code with the construction industry on the re-use and recycling of construction materials. One thing we know is that voluntary codes are not very successful where the building industry is concerned. Up to 50 per cent of the material in many landfill dumps operated by local authorities is construction waste, builders' rubble, and so on, most of which can be recovered, re-used and recycled, as happens in most other European countries. It is dreadful that so much construction material becomes landfill waste and adds to the overall problem. There should be a mandatory code for the recovery and re-use of construction waste.
We must become serious about recycling. It will not work if it continues to be left as a marginal activity run through FÁS schemes dispersed throughout the country. It must become mainstream and, for that to happen, there must be serious investment in a different approach to waste management. That investment must come from the Government and from the private sector if the right incentives are provided. The Government should change to that position rather than maintain its lethargic approach.
I was fascinated by the Minister of State's speech on the subject of litter. I almost had to pinch myself a number of times to be sure he was saying some of what he said. To judge from his speech, one would think that tackling litter was a complicated problem requiring a sophisticated response involving litter management plans, a national litter pollution monitoring system, local authorities conducting surveys to systematically identify the extent of litter, the preparation by them of a report for each survey which will have to be submitted to the monitoring body, the appointment of a firm of consultants to undertake the monitoring of litter and the establishment of a national anti-litter forum. This is all so much talk and reports. All this activity is probably doing more to add to the litter problem in terms of the amount of paper it will generate than it is doing to deal with the problem.
The litter problem is simple and the solutions are simple if they are effected. The first solution is that people stop throwing litter away.
We agree with that.
There is nothing complicated about it. To achieve that objective, people can do it voluntarily on the basis of good citizenship, and I encourage the use of the education system to bring about that desired code of behaviour. If that does not happen, and it is manifestly clear it is not happening, then the Litter Act must be enforced. That means more litter wardens, fines being imposed, people being brought to court and named and shamed, and a cultural change about throwing things away. To do that, instead of creating this extensive bureaucracy, with meetings, plans and documents to deal with litter, there must be a concerted effort for a period of time to enforce the new litter legislation. The Litter Act is relatively new and most people do not know what it contains and will not know until they are confronted with it.
If the strategy had not been adopted around Christmas each year for a number of years to enforce on a concerted basis the laws governing drinking and driving, the penny would not have dropped as it has now to a significant extent. The same must be done with litter. In addition to the litter wardens, local authorities will have to redeploy resources to enforce the Litter Act vigorously, without exception and in a concerted way over a certain period. If that is done, the message will get through.
In addition, people must understand the new provisions in the Litter Act with which they are not familiar. Most householders do not know they are responsible under the Litter Act for ensuring there is no litter outside their homes.
