JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jun 2010

Litter Pollution: Discussion

Chairman

We will discuss the increasing litter problem in Ireland. All Oireachtas Members and the public are aware of an increase in roadside littering and dumping throughout the country. Our general observation, without scientific evidence, is that the problem has been getting worse in recent times. I am pleased to welcome Dr. Tom Cavanagh and Mr. Conor Horgan from Irish Business Against Litter, IBAL. We are joined by Mr. David O'Connor, Fingal County Council manager and vice chairman of the environment committee of the County and City Managers Association, Mr. P.J. Howell, director of the environment, economic and social development at Fingal County Council, and Mr. Louis Duffy, director of the environment at Cork City Council. We are also joined by Mr. Ronan Mulhall, Mr. Jonathan Cullen and Mr. Gerry Byrne, from the waste policy section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The format will involve a presentation from each of the three groups, followed by a question and answer session. We will take the three presentations together.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Dr. Tom Cavanagh to make his presentation, followed by Mr. David O'Connor and the departmental officials.

Dr. Tom Cavanagh

I thank the Chairman and committee members. We are grateful to be here because we are interested in this matter. We are anxious to improve matters and we have put much time, effort and money into this on a voluntary basis. We are totally supportive of doing anything we can to help.

IBAL was set up in 1996 as an alliance of businesses with a shared belief that Ireland's prosperity is influenced significantly by a clean environment. We only deal with cities and towns, which are significantly cleaner than when we started. We have photographic evidence and measurements that, when we started in 2002, only two towns in Ireland measured up to European norms. Now, 39 out of 55 of the towns with populations of 6,000 or more measure up.

Local authorities respond to the fact that a list is produced. Those at the top try to get better and those at the bottom try to get away from the bottom. At times local authorities can be upset but the system works when one measures and goes public. We are not looking for anything out of this but we see this as a worthwhile objective. I could talk more about the desirability of this for Ireland but I will refer to this later.

Achieving the end result is not a case of pressing a button or waving a magic wand. It can be achieved by a number of small measures. We pick off a number of small measures every year and we try to achieve them. National primary roads at seaports and airports, where tourists get their first impression of Ireland at the point of entry, are a current concern. The Government provides money to the NRA, which distributes it on a mileage basis to different local authorities under the heading of maintenance. The NRA is seen as responsible but there is not much it can do because it must give the money to local authorities whether the local authority does the job. Everything is included under the term maintenance and local authorities will naturally say they do not have enough money. We are not pressing for more money to be allocated but the NRA has the carrot but not the stick. This does not provide value for money to the Government. The NRA is supportive of our suggestion that when moneys are distributed, a specific sum should be designated for cleaning. A schedule should be produced because every road and airport is different. Representatives of Fingal County Council are present. The areas around the airport are crucial because 70% of tourists arrive through Dublin Airport. Traffic is always stopped, which is when people open their windows and throw out rubbish. Those roads need to be cleaned every week. The new section of motorway in Laois needs to be cleaned twice a year but that degree of sophistication does not exist. The NRA would like if each local authority produced a plan, as it is supposed to, describing its needs for its road responsibility. The NRA could then distribute funds accordingly. The money in question should be a separate item. If one sends money to a county council it can virtually do what it wants with it. The amount given last year was €45 million but the NRA has no control over it. When things go wrong the NRA is blamed but there is nothing it can do. It is a very bad structure.

We are also very concerned about gum and feel that biodegradable gum is the only way forward. Several county managers have suggested we campaign for a ban on gum but that might be difficult. However, one could make it more attractive for manufacturers of biodegradable gum to come forward by giving them help through the taxation system. Taxing the gum we use at the moment would encourage the arrival of a biodegradable gum.

University College Cork was given €250,000 by the State to develop a biodegradable gum and it has done so. It would be a great development from the point of view of jobs for Ireland if its project could be brought to its final stages but there is no incentive because the world gum market is dominated by one manufacturer. The last thing it wants is any change because if conventional gum was replaced by a new type of gum, it might not be able to regain market share. The Irish Government almost brought in a tax on gum three or four years ago but the company pulled out all the stops, even engaging the American ambassador in its cause, and the Government bowed. That was a terrible mistake. Several county managers told me we did not fight a hard enough battle but we are voluntary whereas the company has a lot of funding. It can employ lawyers and PR people to ensure there is no change.

There are several precedents for the resistance one can expect to meet when changing something in this way. When unleaded petrol was introduced, car manufacturers said there would be accidents and that engines would burn out. The Government put on the tax and, after three months, it was all forgotten about. There are already several gums on the market and I have a biodegradable Mexican gum with me today. The gum in UCC is made up of very simple products and is cereal based, while current gum is oil based. This is organic food and one can swallow it after one has finished chewing it. The cost of the raw material, per item of gum, is lower but the gum manufacturers would have to completely retool themselves to make it. We call on politicians to have the courage to stick their neck out by slapping a ban or a serious tax on gum. In a fairly short time the problem of gum will be gone.

We think the Litter Pollution Act 1997 is weak but I will not go into the detail as I have probably exceeded my time. We were involved in the legislation with the previous coalition Government in 1996 but, unfortunately, it was rushed. The then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Brendan Howlin, was responsible for it but the Government dissolved before the Act was complete and the enforcement element remained very weak. It is very hard to enforce a litter Act. It cannot be done in respect of gum or when people in cars stop at an airport and throw stuff out of the window.

The Minister wanted business to be responsible for the visible part of their property, including entrances and grass verges out to the middle of the road and car parks in supermarkets, but he eventually conceded that it could only go as far as the channels. It meant the occupiers of property in the main streets of a town were responsible for keeping that area clean at all times. He took responsibility away from local authorities in order to reduce their costs but the law is not enforced. Local authorities are service providers and do not see themselves as policemen. Litter wardens are ill-equipped and have no power of arrest. We are a business organisation and we admit that business does not play its part by cleaning outside its shops. However, it is very rare for anyone to be fined.

Cities have lagged behind but European cities are improving and they see this as an important issue. Some six months ago we received a call from Copenhagen asking us to go over to help them. The corporation in Copenhagen had been set a target by the state of making Copenhagen the cleanest city in Europe by 2014 and it was going to achieve it, though Zurich is currently regarded as the cleanest.

If Ireland were to become one of the cleanest countries in Europe it would be of great benefit to us and it is attainable. The towns that are clean in our league stay clean. They do not spend any more money but have an attention to detail and better organisation. The people want this so the State should aim to be as clean as the Nordic countries or Switzerland, Austria or Germany. In April, 500,000 people went out to clean up the streets and that is indicative of the popularity of the project. With leadership from the top, and everyone pulling together, it is achievable without significant extra cost. Clean countries spend less keeping themselves that way than dirty countries.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cavanagh. I ask Mr. David O'Connor, Fingal County manager, and vice chairman of the county and city managers' association environment committee, to make his presentation.

Mr. David O’Connor

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. I will take up where Mr. Cavanagh left off and comment on a few things he said. I hope to be able to provide more information on roadside littering and littering in general. I am in the happy position of being able to say that all the towns in Fingal are clean to European standards, so I feel a bit more comfortable than I otherwise might.

There is a serious litter problem on our national and regional roads. I find it hard to disagree with anything Mr. Cavanagh said on the way funding is allocated. The NRA has distributed money but all of us have been consumed with making good after the exceptional winter. The money we get is in a big block and none of it is isolated for litter management or for any particular function. The exceptional weather conditions this year meant we spent the money on damage done to safety barriers by vehicles going out of control and on the surfaces of roads. We spend what we have on infrastructure in the first instance, perhaps to the neglect of litter.

Our ultimate aim as managers is to ensure the safety of our staff and there has been a significant upgrading of the level of protection we provide to people working on the motorway. Members who have travelled on a motorway recently will have noticed the elaborate procedures. A huge truck with big arrows tells people to change lanes because working when cars are going by at 74 mph is a very dangerous thing.

I concur with Mr. Cavanagh in his analysis of where the concentration on litter removal has to be. On the new Cork road litter tends to accumulate at the lay-bys, in particular as one gets closer to cities or big centres of population. Mr. Cavanagh also mentioned the issue around the airport. In April this year a 21 km stretch of the motorway from Gormanston to the Dublin Port tunnel was cleaned of 33 tonnes of discarded litter. Of that, 19 tonnes were discarded general waste and 9 tonnes recyclable delaminated remoulds. These can be seen on roads and are particularly dangerous at night. Other waste included timber pallets, waste wood and steel. One morning I saw a couch on the middle of the road.

It is important to be aware of the proportion of general waste made up by litter. We have a landfill in Fingal that takes in approximately 74,000 tonnes of waste. Approximately 20% of that is made up of litter and fly-tipping. The latter is where people have thrown away washing machines and other domestic waste in concentrated areas. Approximately one fifth of the waste we have to deal with is litter, which is a very high proportion.

Waste and litter control can be broken down into three areas: education, collection and enforcement. There is not a local authority in the country that does not devote time to education. We have environmental awareness officers who tell people about what is going on and advertise and promote civic responsibility. We get a particularly good response at primary school level. A number of schools have green flags. The teachers involved deserve great credit for the promotion of a level of responsibility among schoolchildren at primary level but there seems to be a problem at secondary school level. We have not had the same level of resonance with secondary school students as we have with children in primary school. We suggest that secondary schools should be targeted more.

I cannot say enough about Tidy Towns groups, local community groups and residents groups. Many local authorities promote responsible behaviour in that regard. In addition to the Tidy Towns competition there is also the Entente Florale and other such competitions that promote a tidy environment. There is no question that businesses benefit from that.

We all have different experiences with enforcement. In Fingal we received 3,200 direct complaints about littering to a hotline in 2009. From that, approximately 1,400 fines were issued by the six litter wardens, of which 700 were paid directly. A further 280 cases were brought to court resulting in 70 successful prosecutions. That is just a snapshot of the experience in one local authority. There is a gap between the 700 and the 280. That is because, as Mr. Cavanagh has said, it is quite difficult to follow up. In some cases one might not find the people who have littered. The cost of the combined services dealing with litter in Fingal County Council in 2009 was €5 million. That gives an indication of what is involved. I am happy to answer any questions. I hope what I have said gives a general indication of how local authorities deal with the issue.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. I invite Mr. Ronan Mulhall, a departmental official, to make a statement.

Mr. Ronan Mulhall

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to address the meeting on the topic of litter.

The most recent data from the national litter pollution monitoring system and Irish Business Against Litter indicate that significant progress has been made in the past decade on the level of litter in Ireland. The national litter pollution monitoring system sets out to measure the extent and severity of litter pollution using a litter pollution index which has a scale of one to five, as follows: 1, unpolluted or litter free; 2, slightly polluted; 3, moderately polluted; 4, significantly polluted; and 5, grossly polluted. The monitoring has shown that the percentage of areas found to be litter free or slightly polluted has risen from 48% in 2002 to 70% in 2009. This progress has also been reported in the Irish Business Against Litter results in the same period, where the percentage of areas deemed clean to European norms has risen from 14% in 2002 to 65% in 2009. The improvement in Ireland's performance is as a result of the combined efforts of the public, community groups, local authorities and groups such as IBAL.

There are a number of elements to addressing the litter issue. One is the provision of a legislative framework containing assignment of responsibilities, methods to enforce such responsibilities, and where necessary, penalties for failure to meet the requirements of the legislation. The legal framework to tackle litter is the 1997 Litter Pollution Act. The penalties set out in the Act have been increased over time, with the most recent amendment being the increase in the on-the-spot fine for littering to €150 in 2007. The 2003 Protection of the Environment Act also amended the penalties for litter offences, increasing the maximum fine on summary conviction from €1,500 to €3,000. In regard to enforcement, the number of on-the-spot fines issued in 2009 stood at almost 23,000, while the number of prosecutions stood at more than 3,000.

Another key element, as mentioned by other speakers, is awareness raising. The Department provides €1 million annually to local authorities for a range of anti-litter awareness activities. In addition, the Department provides funding for a range of initiatives to support and foster pride in the appearance of the local environment such as the national spring clean, Tidy Towns and the green schools programme. The Department has also engaged with industry and business to minimise litter pollution. An agreement was reached with the Irish Banking Federation to minimise the volume of ATM receipts issued and the associated litter. This involved changes to ATM software to require a sequence of on-screen commands to request a receipt, awareness messages being carried on ATM screens and the banks signing up to a range of measures to deal with litter around their branches.

Notwithstanding the progress made, the Minister and Department remain concerned at the litter arising, particularly along roadsides and in some of the most scenic areas. The offenders are damaging not only the environment but also the economy, as littered areas portray Ireland in a very poor light to both tourists and prospective investors. In April, the Minister allocated €1.5 million over the next three years to support the maintenance and cleaning of scenic areas during the peak tourism season. The Minister is also establishing an action group of the relevant State agencies to address rural and roadside litter. The group will look at the issues and will report back to the Minister with recommendations within four months. The group will also engage with relevant stakeholders during the course of its work. While responsibility for litter and its prevention lies with each individual in the first instance, the Minister and the Department will continue to work with a range of partners in tackling litter pollution.

Chairman

Members will ask questions and then the witnesses can reply rather than going back and forwards for each question and answer. That will give everyone an opportunity to ask a question.

The recent survey shows an improving situation in regard to the incidence of litter, but we would not be having the meeting if we thought that was the case. Our experience of travelling local roads does not tally with the survey. Perhaps the witnesses will outline how the survey was carried out. The meeting was called because we feel there has not been an improvement in the situation.

The survey showed that cigarette butts accounted for 45% of litter and food related to 30%. A total of 75% of the problem relates to fast food — throwing the chip bag and box out of the car window a mile or two out the road — and cigarette butts. Do the representatives of IBAL think the fast food industry should be summoned before a group such as it to discuss the issue? I stress that the problem relates to customers of fast food outlets creating rubbish rather than the outlets themselves. It is the people of this country who are responsible.

If local authorities did not have to spend €5 million collecting litter they would have an extra €5 million to spend on local authority services. It is a wasteful exercise going around after people to pick up their rubbish. The witnesses might not have put it as bluntly as that but they are the facts. I invite the witnesses to comment on those two points.

Another factor that has contributed to the increase in roadside litter is the cost of waste collection services, which have got very dear. Times are harder. The annual cost of a wheelie bin in my county is €400. I can understand many households not wanting to pay that fee. I accept the service has been privatised but the cost of waste collection in itself is contributing to the problem.

I am interested in hearing about the legal situation. It was mentioned that Fingal County Council got 70 prosecutions out of 280 cases. While we are not here to criticise, we must ask whether the courts take this issue seriously enough. I can imagine the consequences of the local authority saying, during serious cases in the District Court associated with drugs possession and assaults, that it wants to prosecute somebody for throwing a cigarette butt out the window. I would imagine it is often hard to secure convictions. Is the delegation happy with the circumstances that obtain? Would increased fines be of benefit?

We recognise the work of Tidy Towns committees and the green flag programme. The people responsible are the good people, the converts. It is a matter of trying to find the people who are not tied to any such organisations.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I thank the delegation for its presentation. It addresses an issue of great concern to everybody. One need only travel the roads to see at first hand the great problem that exists. I have noticed of late that towns and cities, especially the major ones, and even smaller villages have improved. The serious problem at present is that the main roadways and the county roads seem to be targeted by unscrupulous people who simply dump litter on them. In rural areas, there does not seem to be sufficient detection. In the most public areas, people are more likely to be caught. I would like to see offenders caught.

Tourists travel on many of our country roads and are not confined to the national and regional roads. They have a serious problem with littering in the countryside. As the Chairman said, it is not a case of takeaway wrappers but of plastic bags full of litter.

As a rural person, I believe local community people will have to be brought into the process much more. When I see the type of voluntary work the Tidy Towns groups do in towns and villages and that done by local communities, I realise we must support them much more. Perhaps a lot of the money now being given to local authorities for combating litter should be targeted at local communities. People go out to pick up litter voluntarily and can be seen on the roadside in the evening. Participation in this kind of activity must be increased. Local communities should make some little gain for the type of work they do. Perhaps the money they would receive for their work could be invested in some development in their village or locality.

I would like to see the fines doubled. Somebody who throws a plastic bag of rubbish out a window onto the side of a road should receive a very serious fine. One would think twice about doing it if there were a fine of €5,000 or €6,000. Whatever it takes should be done. The problem must be stopped because we are destroying our countryside.

Chewing gum is a different problem. It is a great problem. I am delighted Mr. Cavanagh said a gum has now been introduced that does not have to be discarded when finished. This is a very positive development and should be followed up. Gum has presented a major problem, especially in major cities.

I believe Mr. Louis Duffy was in Cork County Council. Has he moved on to greater things? He would be sorely missed at the council because he is doing a lot of positive work on the environment in Cork. I worked with him and found him very helpful. I know this relationship will continue.

The plastic bags initiative was very successful. Unfortunately, I have not seen anything similar since its introduction. We should be thinking along those lines again and take it a step further. When we used to drive along the road, we used to see plastic bags in every tree. I am thankful the problem is no longer so prevalent.

The money being allocated for combating litter is not being spent on this purpose. It is being spent on the maintenance of roads rather than on litter collection.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I welcome the delegates. Litter prevention is very important to the future of tourism and the environment and should receive high priority among all stakeholders and, more important, the general public. It is, therefore, important that we discuss such issues at this joint committee.

I acknowledge and commend organisations such as IBAL, the Tidy Towns committees and the various voluntary and community groups around the country that are leading by example. People are putting their best foot forward and trying to seek support within their own communities. This is the best approach. In some cases, they are receiving very good support from local authorities and, in other cases, they are very frustrated because they feel they are being treated as a nuisance by their local authorities.

I was a member of a local authority for almost eight years and can appreciate how the prioritisation of funding is very important to a local authority. Mr. O'Connor cited a very good example. When the maintenance grants became available, the damage done to road surfaces, drains and gullies was obviously the priority. Litter collection has very low priority and we need to be very frank and honest about that. It is not the top priority and not a safety matter. It is really just a matter of keeping areas, including roads, looking quite well. We need to address the fact that litter collection is low on the list of local authorities' priorities.

Mr. Cavanagh referred in a roundabout way to having a vision for cities and towns. There have been improvements with regard to litter in urban areas and local authorities have invested quite an amount of money in litter bins and simple physical infrastructure that helps tackle litter. However, challenges remain.

It is interesting to note businesses are responsible for their premises out to the pavement edge. Local authorities need to focus on this a little, improve awareness among businesses regarding their responsibilities and try to encourage them to keep their premises clean. If they do not respond, one must go down the enforcement route. That is certainly a step in which the local authorities could be more proactive.

We need to think outside the box. We have traffic wardens, and we should possibly consider some student initiatives for the summer that would try to inform businesses and communities of ways in which to address the litter problem.

I concur with Deputy Christy O'Sullivan that one of the main problems is fly-tipping in the countryside. There is no doubt but that it is probably a response to having to pay for waste collection. My opinion, which I have no problem expressing in public, is that it is not and should not be acceptable to consider dumping in the countryside to save a few bob. I have seen washing machines and televisions thrown by the roadside. In fairness to the local authorities, they accept such goods free of charge. It is probably as troublesome to dump them by the roadside as to bring them to a bring centre. This needs to be said and awareness needs to be generated in this regard.

I compliment RTE for the series it ran last year, "The Enforcers", which was also sponsored by the Department and local authorities. It highlighted the problems that exist with fly-tipping and the investment needed to catch such people, with cameras and court proceedings. That should be re-emphasised and we should make examples of people. The stick and the carrot approach is needed, where the carrot is to support community groups, Tidy Towns committees and IBAL and school initiatives, while using a stick against offenders. If we need to introduce stronger legislation, we need to know where the weaknesses are in current legislation. I had hoped we would be given specific pointers at this meeting to show us where legislation could be improved.

Many of the cuts in local authorities have affected positions such as school liaison officers who make presentations in schools. There are, however, other ways to reach out to school pupils using the Internet, Facebook, Twitter and similar sites. They all use the Internet now, it is the main means of communication. Local authorities and the Department must move with the times and start looking at ways to use the Internet so we can reach out to the public and the younger generation in a cost-effective manner. There is scope for improvement.

I have been advocating the maintenance of roads. There is no reason there should not be an electronically mapped database in every local authority. At the moment there is an ad hoc system where area engineers go out and may record which road has been maintained but we should have a proper asset management system for national and local roads, with electronic mapping, so all engineers, local authorities and the Department can log in and see what maintenance has been done on any road. This would be a worthwhile investment, allowing us to see what roads had maintenance carried out and the nature of the maintenance. We could include litter clearance.

This proposal would also be a great way to collect information and to measure the performance of local authorities in this area. The local authorities have targets and objectives and this could be one of them. We should set targets for local authorities and see clearly where money is being spent. If all expenditure goes towards filling in potholes and clearing gullies, we will see that across all local authorities and be able to measure how some are more efficient than others in addressing the litter problem.

We must come back to this area, it is serious. Fly-tipping is getting out of control and landowners are being unfairly lumbered with much of this. I even feel sorry for Coillte at times because it has tonnes of material dumped on its woodlands and is left to clear it up. Local authorities say that those responsible for the land should deal with it but that is unfair. We must all work together to improve the litter problem. Perhaps IBAL or the County and City Managers Association could make some suggestions on improvements to the legislation.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I welcome the delegations and thank them for their contributions. All of us are to blame in some way for litter, we should not blame the Department and county councils for the problem. We all see people littering but we do not do anything about it, expecting someone else to do it. There should be funding for councils to use remote cameras to detect people wherever littering is taking place. They have been very effective at recycling sites, detecting many offenders, and should be used on a wider scale. Has the council any authority to use these cameras to record dumping on private property? In north Kildare there is extensive dumping in the bogs and mobile cameras would have a great effect.

Any funding that has been targeted at communities is well spent. I have seen communities spending days on clean ups and the amount of rubbish recovered is enormous. We need to teach communities to prevent littering. Funding should be made available for community bins in towns and villages where communities take an active role in litter prevention.

The green flag programme for schools is a great idea, it is very well run by the Department in conjunction with local authorities and local schools. I would question the lack of visibility, however, of the local authorities when these green flags are being raised. We must go out and be with the children, parents and teachers, highlighting the importance of the scheme.

I listened once to the EPA make a presentation here that claimed a large number of businesses have not registered for litter disposal. Is that true? Some small businesses would dispose of their refuse in their own bins at home.

I heard the county managers talk about how much it costs to clean up a motorway. Could we get some facts and figures on that? Health and safety requirements put an enormous strain on the finances of local authorities. The plastic bag levy was an effective way to do away with plastic bags. Is there any other scheme that could be devised to help us to rid the countryside of litter?

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I thank the delegations for their presentations. It is very important that bins be available for people to put litter in. We can appeal to people's better nature as well as introduce enforcement. There is a general desire among the public, that is tapped into now and again, to protect the environment. People are willing to recycle.

I was in Japan and the Japanese have bins to separate different types of waste. That sort of bin could be tried out in parts of the city centre. It might encourage people because they may like the idea of recycling, which would lead to them to think more about litter. On the issue of bins for dog dirt, is there any plan to put more such bins in place? The situation is not as bad as it used to be but it can still be a problem. When facilities are available people are more likely to use them. Is it planned to provide more than what is currently available?

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I thank the guests for appearing before the committee and discussing this matter. In any work I do in my constituency in regard to anti-social behaviour, littering is at the top of the list and infuriates local communities, particularly those who take a pride in the place in which they live and work. It impacts on tourism. I have had e-mails recently about the state of some local roads. It appears that things have got worse rather than better in recent years and it has an impact on health.

Deputy Tuffy mentioned the problems with dog littering. There is a problem with cat littering. I had an e-mail yesterday from a family whose daughter has developed an illness as a result of playing with faeces on a public area in an estate. It is an issue that occurs relatively frequently because people do not take care of the waste produced by their animals. I recognise the good work that is being done.

As a regular user of the M1, I am shocked to hear that 33 tonnes of rubbish were removed. I question whether any attempt was made to trace the origins of some of that rubbish because surely there must be identification on some of the rubbish which would enable the perpetrators to be brought to task for their anti-social actions. Are there statistics to show how we compare on an international scale with other countries, particularly in western Europe? Are we worse, better or more or less the same as other countries when it comes to roadside rubbish? We need to do more.

I agree with what my colleagues said in regard to education. I salute the good work done by many schools but we need to do more. It is not just about educating the young members of society, it is also about trying to get through to people of my generation who continue to litter and completely abdicate any responsibility for taking care of their local communities.

It is also a question of enforcement. I do not think we do enough to ensure those who litter are brought to justice. Perhaps there is a need for more rigorous legislation. I would be interested to hear the views on that issue.

I agree with previous speaker in regard to facilities. I do not think my county of Meath has got enough facilities, such as dog litter bins, and litter bins in general. It is an issue of financing of local authorities — the money is not there for the consistent emptying of bins and the provision of bins in the first instance. In terms of a cost benefit analysis it would prove worthwhile. I note that €5 million was spent in 2009 by Fingal County Council. It is a shame that so much money was spent on curing the situation when, perhaps, more could have been spent on prevention. I am not speaking specifically about Fingal County Council but in general. We need to spend more at the prevention phase by putting the bins in place and increasing education within society because it is clear that local economies, tourism and health are suffering.

Chairman

I will go back to the Irish Business Against Litter for a response and follow in the same sequence. Various comments have been made. I ask the witnesses to respond as best they can to the comments which have been generally supportive of the work being done. We are all discussing a shared problem.

Dr. Tom Cavanagh

I am disappointed that some speakers did not think we had specific things in place. We said things that are quite specific. I will come to three things that we said. We would like to make a case at some stage, in some forum, that it would be good for Ireland to set itself a very lofty target, that we would like to be one of the cleanest countries in Europe, that means, in the world. That may be for another day.

The issue that was probably closest to the minds of Deputies was that of dumping in rural areas. We deal with cities and towns so we are not expert in that area. However, we did commission a small town to check on how many residences in the town had obvious arrangements to take away their rubbish. Those carrying out the check thought that about 30% of the houses did not have any arrangements. Where the rubbish went is another day's work. Perhaps evidence should be provided to the local authority that one is disposing of one's rubbish properly in the same way as a person must have a television licence. That is only a thought from a distance because this is not really our area.

We mentioned the issue of gum. Gum is different from all other kinds of rubbish. I appreciate there is more cigarette paper and cigarette butts on the ground than anything else but gum stays for 25 years. One can sweep up the rest of the rubbish but gum remains stuck to everything. It is already banned in third level institutions, railway stations and so on and in many places gum is not for sale. It is banned in other countries.

Banning gum or imposing a serious tax on it to bring about the end of conventional gum and launching on the world market a biodegradable gum would be a fantastic step for Ireland. It is achievable and can be done at the stroke of a pen, by the use legislation, which is the area of responsibility of members. We cannot do anything about that as citizens.

I speak with a smile on my face to the officials from the Department. If they enter into another voluntary agreement with the gum industry, all hell will break loose. As a product, it is by far the worst in terms of damaging the environment given that it stays almost forever. We speak about corporate responsibility or corporate greed, one can imagine what I think it is. It is a major corporation making a good deal of money saying, "To hell with the environment, we will make money." That the Government would have anything to do with that organisation turns my stomach.

The second point is the NRA. I repeat, the NRA is prepared to segregate an item in its €45 million allocation, as it was last year, when it hands it over to the local authority. It wants the local authority to send back a cleaning schedule based on the money it received and the NRA will monitor that. It wants the power to do something about it if the local authority does not deliver, perhaps not to give it the same amount of money next year or it may emerge that some local authorities are not getting enough. The NRA will work on that issue if it gets freedom to manoeuvre but it has no freedom at present.

Enforcement is difficult. The issue of increasing fines is difficult. It is very difficult to catch individuals dropping gum or litter. Litter wardens will get much more business done when chasing cars parked in the wrong place because the cars cannot move. The courts were mentioned. We know that in Britain the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had the same problem. It arranged, I do not know how, that the judges would come to a conference where it tried to explain to them the importance of its litter Act, and hoped they would be more understanding of what should be done when people came before the courts.

The Litter Act is not being enforced. Increasing fines is good publicity but it does not change anything. A specific issue that is not being enforced is that every property owner is responsible for the area outside his or her property. A property owner cannot run away. A private individual caught on the street does not have to give his or her name. The litter warden is powerless and cannot arrest the person or insist on getting a name. The individual in question can say "Good luck" and walk off. However, a business cannot run away. That includes fast food outlets. The Act provides that fast food outlets can be made responsible for 100 m in all directions from their properties. We measured supermarkets during the year and we got very bad results because of their carpark areas and so on. Lidl, and I should not mention it, was by far the worst.

My third point is that we enforce the Litter Act against business. We should deal with the tax on gum or get rid of conventional gum through taxation measures. We should enforce the law against business and give the NRA power to deliver on clean primary routes. These are three simple things that can be easily done.

Mr. Conor Horgan

Let me respond to Senator Hannigan's question as to how we compare with other countries. In 2007, IBAL commissioned a European study comparing Dublin with 11 other comparable cities across Europe, such as Hamburg, Zurich, Amsterdam and so on. Ireland and Amsterdam finished at the foot of that league. That was not specifically in relation to roadside litter, but if members want to use it as a proxy, one could take it that we do not fare well.

Another member asked for a measure on a par with the plastic bag levy. We think a levy on gum could be just that. There are various fiscal measures that could be taken, one of them could be to classify biodegradable gum, not being oil based, as a foodstuff, qualifying for a zero rate of VAT, unlike conventional gum. This would be a soft incentive to further the development of a product that is not oil based. I noted that the Government's publication of the report this week was quickly followed by the organisation ASH asking for a tax on cigarette butts under the principle of the polluter pays, which may be a sound example. There is a precedent for this. Earlier this year in San Francisco, they introduced such a tax to help with the clean up of cigarette butts and that has been followed by calls in the city for a similar measure for chewing gum.

Mr. David O’Connor

I will cover many points. The Chairman raised a number of seminal and cross-cutting issues that a number of other contributors raised on how littering is being treated by the courts. Our experience is not very good. We definitely think that increased fines would be a help. That is the first solid suggestion. We can cite one example where CCTV was used and prosecutions were achieved in the District Court, where a number of cars were identified and fines of €2,000 were issued. Unfortunately, that was appealed to the Circuit Court and the appeal resulted in the fines being reduced to less than €100 in each case. Dr. Cavanagh's point on the education of the Judiciary or a general awareness of what a significant matter it is would be worthwhile. Increased fines may help, however, to concentrate the minds of people.

The cost of waste services for cigarette butts and fast food in particular, was raised. There are measures in place to follow up litter that is around business premises but unfortunately that cannot be applied half a mile up the motorway, because one cannot make the connection with the outlet. I completely agree with the contributors who said that investment in local communities is always well worthwhile. We have many examples. Last year alone, we did 200 community clean-ups and I am convinced that the value for money we got from the contributions we made to local communities was very significant. It promotes responsible citizenship as well. Senator Coffey asked whether this was on the priority list in the local authorities and I think he portrayed the reality of people having to deal with roads that are ground up completely by frost and how litter falls into place. Our motorway system is very new so it could not be expected that we would now have to expend the same amount of money that older systems might have. The expenditure per kilometre in the UK is about €70,000 per kilometre. In Ireland it is €20,000 per kilometre. The roads would not need that much to be done because most of them are very new. It would be nice to see that amount being increased. We have to grasp the issue of maintenance.

Fly-tipping was raised by Senator Coffey. He re-emphasised the carrot and stick approach. I take this opportunity to thank the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which gave enforcement grants this year. We found them to be very helpful. We hope also to use some of the grant for beach patrols this summer, because we want to monitor if people are bringing home their waste to ensure that everybody can enjoy the beach.

The use of Facebook and those types of media should be investigated. I identified secondary schools as a gap that should be followed up. We have put an advertisement in local cinemas. It lasts only 50 seconds but it is raising awareness. It is two still photographs one after the other of a very polluted place and a very pleasant place, with a low key voice-over. Coillte Teoranta suffers very significantly from dumping and it is a serious issue for it. One only has to look at the entrance to forest parks to see that it is suffering.

Deputy Fitzpatrick mention CCTV which I dealt with and the fact that people always litter. The behaviour of people is the fundamental problem. I know that is the case in our area, and I have consulted with Mr. Louis Duffy, director of environment in Cork County Council. Our mayor and chairman would definitely have a presence at the awarding of a green flag and it is his suggestion that it should be an annual event. The connection between the local authority and the green flag is not there to the extent that it might be. I was asked how much it cost to clean up the motorway for that stretch. It cost about €10,000 to clean that stretch for those two days.

Deputy Tuffy raised the availability of bins and the separate collection systems. Dublin City Council had a system of bins for separate collection but it was not a success. People did not discriminate between what they were throwing away on the street. That may be down to the design of the bins, but it was not a happy experience. Senator Hannigan raised the issue of the pride of local communities in their area. He is absolutely correct as that is the key to unlocking community interest. He asked about the traceability of rubbish. Wherever we can, we trace, if we find correspondence or other material that is traceable to an individual or household, we do so and we have prosecuted people on the basis of the evidence we have found. It is not that easy. People are cautious and they try not to include material that is traceable to themselves, but it has been used.

The money we have used to clean up litter on motorways would not have been diverted from somewhere else, it would be money given to us by the National Roads Authority for general roads maintenance. It is not that we are taking money from anywhere else.

I think I have covered most matters.

Chairman

I will invite Mr. Mulhall from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to comment.

Mr. Ronan Mulhall

The Chairman raised a number of items. The survey is largely based on urban areas, so we would be aware of concerns about roadside litter and, in particular, rural litter, hence the establishment of the action group to look at those specific issues. It will draw on the National Roads Authority, the Department of Transport, the office of environmental enforcement from the EPA as well as local authorities and Fáilte Ireland. The use of CCTV has been mentioned by a number of contributors and again the expertise of the office of environmental enforcement can help in regard to how best that can be deployed to tackle the issue. In terms of the composition of the litter, food was one element and gum is a significant proportion of that food litter. On the cost of waste collection, the Department does not have a role in setting the charges but it is something that is being looked at as part of the review of waste policy. Also in the review of waste policy, the report that was published in November suggested that the extension of levies and the use of economic instruments such as levies on disposable items should be considered. In the broader context, the item used as an example was disposable razors but the measure covers all disposable items. The issue is more about securing convictions and detections rather than fines. Significant fines exist and there is a possibility that where there is a significant deposit of waste, one can take action under the Waste Management Act, which has higher and more significant penalties. Regarding supporting that level of enforcement action, the Department funds 120 waste enforcement officers across the local authorities. There is a degree of enforcement, particularly in the case of fly-tipping and greater deposits of waste.

We support Tidy Towns and green schools. The other issues raised concern the introduction of tax and more bins, which is a matter within the realm of local authorities. I refer to international statistics. Very few states maintain litter monitoring and of those that do, we come out a little higher. We can find this information and send it to the committee.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Where there are specific items such as televisions, dishwashers and washing machines disposed of indiscriminately, there is a number on the items or a paper trail. It is rare that people are looking for a second-hand television; they are disposed of when they are finished. Is tracing the person who purchased the items ever considered? This may not be possible where the people are very smart or where they dump bags of rubbish and make sure there is nothing inside to identify them. In the case of electrical goods, surely it is possible to trace the owners.

Does the Department have a specific figure on what littering costs? Has this been considered directly? People have raised the matter with me in regard to tourism. The condition of our countryside will have an effect on whether tourists visit Ireland again and we cannot assess that cost. Have councils considered the cost of littering?

Chairman

There must be a connection somewhere between this problem and the smoking ban. Until that point, most smokers remained inside. Now, people must smoke in the street. Inevitably, there are more cigarette butts outside pubs in Ireland. It should be possible to follow that issue through. In the courts in my region, local authorities systematically checked the pavements on Monday morning and brought to court every pub with cigarette butts outside its door. Where a box for cigarette butts was not attached to premises, the judge fined the pub. Where the pub had a box attached to the premises, the owner could suggest he took reasonable action. Can we impose a by-law under which premises that sell cigarettes must provide boxes outside the premises? I refer to pubs in particular. Judges viewed publicans who had one of these boxes outside their premises as making an effort to provide a receptacle to collect butts. The judge had no mercy on those who did not provide such a receptacle. Perhaps one of the witnesses can comment on this, following on from the smoking ban.

When fines are imposed in court, do the fines go to the Courts Service or to the council? If the money was given to councils, there would be greater incentive to pursue offenders.

There is much talk about the NRA. I can understand the NRA sees itself as a transport authority. Funding for roads has moved from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the Department of Transport in recent times and the amount of money devoted to littering is a matter more germane to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government than to the Department of Transport and the NRA. The NRA will tell us this is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I can see this is not a top priority for the Department of Transport and it may pass the buck back to the delegations.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

Dr. Cavanagh made reference to litter outside business premises.

Dr. Tom Cavanagh

That is the law and it is not being enforced. Is Deputy Fitzpatrick referring to pubs?

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I refer to chewing gum outside premises, which is also litter.

Dr. Tom Cavanagh

We cannot do anything about chewing gum. Once it is on the ground, it stays.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I have seen it being taken up but it is litter. In Naas, all shopkeepers wash the footpaths and shop fronts as they get ready for the day's business. If someone comes along and drops a cigarette butt outside the shop, it is hard to expect the person behind the counter to be out on the footpath all the time watching it happen. There must be a sense of fairness when someone talks about shop fronts and litter.

Dr. Tom Cavanagh

I am not saying shopkeepers should be cleaning the footpath every two hours but in most towns shopkeepers never sweep outside their shops. Some do but, by and large, shopkeepers do not. There is a weakness there and that measure would be a good starting point.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I hope the litter wardens do not go for the easy touch.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick. As someone who was in business and cleaned the street every morning and sometimes at lunchtime, it is very unfair if a person is taken to court and fined because of someone else. One cannot monitor this 100%. People in business are under enough pressure to survive. They cannot afford to have someone standing at the door waiting for someone to drop some litter.

Mr. David O’Connor

In theory it should be possible to trace electronic goods but I am not sure of the extent to which shops retain a record of serial numbers. It is ironic, given that all those items can be disposed of at no cost by bringing them to a civic amenity site. The cost was significant before the WEEE directive, which is an exceptional European measure for which the Department deserves credit.

The connection to the smoking ban is interesting. I will consider this.

Chairman

Where does the money generated from fines go? What is the role of the NRA versus the role of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

Mr. Ronan Mulhall

One comment referred to the cost of litter in a given year, which was €96 million in terms of the clean-up cost last year. The fines go to local authorities.

Chairman

I am pleased to hear that.

Mr. Ronan Mulhall

We have had initial discussions with the NRA. We have both the NRA and the Department of Transport on the group so that we can establish the relevant roles of the various State agencies.

Chairman

At this stage we have completed our discussion. I thank the three organisations who attended the meeting. I apologise if an organisation felt it could have contributed to the debate but was not invited. We considered inviting An Taisce to talk about the green schools or the Tidy Towns group but we decided to stick with three groups. I thank them for their contribution. We all have a greater appreciation of the issue and the difficulties involved.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 June 2010.