Litter Bill, 1981: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Brady,

Dublin South-East): The main purpose of the Bill is to improve the law relating to littering and, in particular to strengthen the hand of local authorities in dealing with litter offences and indiscriminate flyposting, graffiti and slogan-writing by means which include a fine-on-the-spot system for litter offences and stiffer penalties all round. The Bill also introduces new provisions relating to abandoned vehicles and unsightly accumulations of vehicles and disused articles.

I am sure it will be agreed that these are areas in which we badly need to improve standards in the interest of the environment and the enjoyment of outdoor life. Unlike many other environmental issues a solution to the problem of litter, graffiti, flyposting and the like does not call for the application of special skills or for a lot of expenditure. The remedy lies in our own hands. When people decide that they prefer clean surroundings to littered and untidy conditions and are prepared to make the small effort required to achieve this the problem will be solved.

The present position, in addition to reducing the enjoyment of outdoor facilities and amenities, has economic implications affecting, as it does, both tourist and development prospects, and it does nothing for our reputation abroad.

To change the position, as it must be changed, calls for a radical change in public attitudes. It would be consoling to think that litter conditions are the work of a few, or even of a minority. The conditions which confront us all can only come about from widespread carelessness and indifference. Many blame the young but even casual observation will show that many adults are blameworthy.

The Bill contains no magic formula, but what I am proposing should go a long way to ensure a cleaner and more enjoyable environment for everyone. The Bill is limited in scope to litter and some related problems, including abandoned vehicles. The limited scope is intentional. Work in reviewing the statutory provisions relating to other environmental matters is under way and I envisage further legislation in due course. That will be another day's work.

There has been a noticeable worsening in recent years in regard to littering, indiscriminate postering and graffiti — writing on public and private property. The writing of objectionable slogans is offensive to the vast majority of people and to visitors. There is no reason to suppose that existing trends will alter unless firm action is taken to bring about change. Conditions are especially bad in the urban areas — the bigger the area the worse the conditions generally. But these are not merely urban problems. In the countryside and everywhere people congregate for entertainment or recreation, litter mars the scene. Scenic areas, picnic places and beaches are scattered with consumer debris — paper, plastic, tins, glass and all the rest. Slogans and graffiti are found on walls and roads even in remote areas. Another serious aspect of the problem is the extent of roadside dumping of rubbish in suburban areas, on the outskirts of towns and even in the countryside. I should point out that the main impact of this legislation will be to obligate local authorities to play a very active role in clearing up this problem without delay.

In these matters we seem to have neither sense not sensibility. We should be able to do better and we must. The entire community suffers when the habitat is degraded. It is bad for the morale of people that they should be constantly confronted by litter and dirt as they go about their daily business. Neither are such conditions an attractive setting for enterprise and economic advancement. It is not surprising that litter and related conditions are among the most common causes of complaint by tourists and visitors.

Abandoned cars which disfigure the landscape in many areas are an environmental eye-sore as well as a resource loss, since scrap-metal can be recycled. A related problem is that of unsightly accumulations of vehicles and disused articles — household, agricultural or industrial — in prominent locations along important roads or in scenic areas. I am sure that all Senators can readily call such situations to mind — sites on which there are old cars or other vehicles, abandoned vehicles, old cookers, washing machines and the like; ancient tractors, cranes and other agricultural or industrial plant are kept in conditions in which they constitute a serious blot on the landscape or are a prominent eyesore. They may be intended for disposal as scrap, or for use as spares, and these are legitimate and important purposes. But it is reasonable to expect that some account will be taken of the environmental impacts and some effort made to minimise the adverse implications for the local community, as well as for tourists and visitors. With a little thought and a small amount of effort the worst effects of many of these sites could easily be avoided.

There is particular concern with the unsightly conditions that are associated with the increased trading in vehicle scrap and spare parts in and around the large urban centres. The condition of some sites, and their extent is a disgrace, but local authorities lacked adequate powers to take effective action in all cases. Again, it is commonplace to see vehicle repair and maintenance operations being conducted on or adjoining public roads and streets and leading to seriously objectionable conditions.

The Bill contains provisions enabling local authorities to deal with conditions in all the cases to which I have referred.

I believe that the problem of litter and untidyness must be tackled at local level mainly and that local authorities should be the principal agencies for dealing with them and for encouraging the necessary community interest and support. In line with this approach, there will be a duty on all local authorities under the Bill to take measures for the prevention, reduction and the removal of litter in section 2. Apart from collection and disposal work the local authorities will be empowered to encourage and assist public participation and to undertake publicity and educational measures of an advisory nature. These are very positive and very important powers, but it would be quite wrong to regard litter as simply a matter with which local authorities have to deal. The influence of parents, of schools and of community organisations of all kinds in supporting and complementing the efforts of the statutory bodies, and indeed, in pursuing their own initiatives, will be of decisive importance. I would like also to say, that the example that children can even give their parents is of vital importance because after all children are being taught civics in schools and it is the impact of such programmes in schools that children can teach their parents a lot in this respect as well. With this in mind local authorities have again been asked this year to promote campaigns of environmental care and improvement, seeking maximum co-operation and involvement from local community groups and business interests. There will be special emphasis in the campaigns on measures to control litter and on environmental clean-up operations, together with parallel measures for bringing about positive environmental improvements.

The littering offence as defined in section 3 is a re-inforcement and extension of the provision in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.

In future, littering caused in the course of carrying on a trade or in loading, transporting, unloading or otherwise handling or processing will be clearly an offence. Illegal dumping of refuse from a vehicle can be a major source of litter, and there are problems in identifying the culprits. The Bill provides, that where a vehicle is involved, the registered owner or other person having use of it at the time will be guilty of an offence, apart from the guilt of anyone else. It will be an offence to leave out a receptacle such as a bin for collection in such a way that litter is likely to result.

At present the maximum fine applicable on conviction for a littering offence is £10. The provision has not proved a deterrent. This is partly because of the impact of inflation on the fine but partly also because of the lenient view which the courts have tended to take of litter offences, as reflected by the imposition in many cases of a nominal penalty. The time has come for a more serious view to be taken all round of littering, and this should be reflected in the penalty provision and, hopefully, in its application.

The new limit under the Bill will be £800. This is a maximum penalty. I am hoping that in the early stages of the implementation of this legislation justices will mete out heavy penalties to perpetrators of littering offences. Example must be shown to get this legislation away to the start that we would all like to see our environment. A litter offence may range from dropping a wrapper in the street to dumping a lorry load of rubbish in an amenity area. It will be a matter for the courts to fit the penalty to the offence in a particular case, but I hope that substantial penalties will be imposed in all cases involving serious offences under the Bill.

As I have already mentioned, local authorities will have a duty to take measures to prevent, reduce and remove litter. It is just as important that occupiers should keep free of litter any land to which the public have access, or land where the litter would be seen from public areas. The Bill provides for this in section 4.

Much litter can occur in the immediate vicinity of business premises. It is reasonable to expect that persons engaged in business should keep the footpath and immediate environs of their premises free of litter, as indeed is done in shopping centres and by many individual shopkeepers. This is a problem that may be greater in some areas than others and is one where local knowledge and conditions should be considered. Under the Bill local authorities will have power to make by-laws requiring occupiers, specified classes of occupiers, or those in specified areas, to keep the immediate environs as defined in the Bill, free of litter. I hope, that the business community would go further, especially in the case of shops and premises which are a direct source of street litter, by providing suitable accommodation for the litter which they generate and by posting signs to encourage people to use the accommodation. The Department has already written to various trade organisations seeking the co-operation of their members in this matter.

The prosecution of litter offences through the courts is costly and time-consuming for local authorities. To ease the difficulties and to facilitate more speedy and more effective enforcement, the Bill makes provision in sections 5 and 6 for a fine-on-the-spot system. Under this system an offender may be given a notice by a litter warden employed by a local authority and would have 21 days in which to pay a fine to the local authority office. The fine initially will be £5 but this may be adjusted by regulation. If the fine is paid there will be no prosecution. It will be a separate offence for a person to obstruct a litter warden or to refuse to give a proper name and address when asked for it. Such a person will also be liable to arrest without warrant by a member of the Garda Síochána. These are necessary provisions to ensure the co-operation of suspected offenders with litter wardens.

I would stress that no one will be obliged to actually pay a fine. If a person who receives a fine-on-the-spot notice would prefer to take his chances in court, he may exercise an option in that direction simply by failing to pay the fine within the prescribed period.

Littering, as I have said, is primarily a local problem and it is right that there should be a degree of local discretion and some room for experimentation as to the most appropriate and effective enforcement procedures to adopt in local circumstances. It will, therefore, be left to each local authority to decide whether to apply the fine-on-the-spot system in their area or to deal with offenders by way of court prosecution alone.

There are practical difficulties of course in applying a fine-on-the-spot system to littering which do not arise, for example, with car-parking offences. I have taken full account of the difficulties. I believe the stage has been reached when most people want effective action to be taken to deal with this problem. The proposed system can make an important contribution in that direction, that it is a fair and reasonable system, and most importantly, that it will have the support of the general public.

The existing provisions in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 have not proved adequate to deal with the problem of fly-posting, graffiti, slogan writing and the like. Those provisions are directed only against the person who puts up posters or writes graffiti, slogans or whatever and, as this can be done at night, offenders are difficult to apprehend. In addition, no penalty is incurred by those responsible for the advertisements or those who benefit from them.

Under the Bill, the person on whose behalf an advertisement is exhibited or, in the case of an advertisement for a meeting or other event, the person promoting or arranging the meeting or event, will be liable for prosecution as well as the person who actually does the damage. The range of offences is being extended to cover the exhibition of articles such as banners or flags put up without permission. These provisions are in sections 7 and 8. There is an exemption for advertisements for public meetings and public elections provided the advertisements are subsequently removed. Likewise, advertisements that are exempted development will not be liable to prosecution under this provision.

Local authorities will be able to take action directly to remove offending material, or to have it removed. The local authority may deal with the matter by arrangement with the occupier and on agreed terms. Alternatively it can serve a notice requiring remedial action to be taken, and if this is not done the local authority itself may remedy the position and recover any expenditure reasonably incurred. It will be an offence not to act on a notice or to obstruct the local authority if it is enforcing a notice. An occupier will have a right of appeal to the courts where a notice is served, and certain other defences are provided for.

The effective use of these provisions by the local authorities will, I believe, go a long way in eliminating unsightly fly-posting which is now so widespread, and will facilitate the removal of graffiti and slogans in future. It has always been the problem with local authorities that they felt they had not got sufficient power behind them to act in identifying perpetrators of these awful offences. But this is all now enshrined in this new legislation.

I turn now to abandoned vehicles. Local authorities will be obliged under section 9 to provide places where vehicles and other metal scrap may be abandoned. There will be no excuse in future for abandoning those in unauthorised places. It will be an offence under section 10 to abandon a vehicle on land without the occupier's consent. Provision is made in sections 11 and 13 for the removal of abandoned vehicles from land, if the occupier consents or does not object and for their disposal in accordance with specified procedures. Vehicles abandoned on public roads or car-parks will continue to be dealt with under existing road traffic legislation. There is provision in section 13, however, to enable local authorities or road authorities to dispose of an abandoned vehicle, which is removed, without having to store it or go through procedures of publishing a notice etc, provided, in effect, they are satisfied that the vehicle is gone beyond repair. This will enable local authorities to avoid having to store useless hulks as they do at present.

The Bill makes provision in section 12 for dealing with vehicles or disused articles if it is in the interests of amenity or of the environment of an area. This could arise, for example, because of their unsightly condition or arrangement and their prominence. Very often, the necessary improvement in these situations can be brought about by relocating or rearranging the vehicles or articles or by providing suitable screening or fencing. Local authorities will be enabled to deal with such conditions by arrangement with the occupier or the person keeping the vehicles or articles on terms to be agreed. Alternatively, the local authority may serve notice requiring specified steps to be taken, including, if necessary, the removal of the vehicles and other articles. There is provision for a right of appeal against such a notice to the District Court. The local authority will have power to enforce a notice which is in operation and may recover costs and expenses. It will be an offence not to act on a notice from a local authority or to obstruct the local authority if it is enforcing a notice. Procedures are laid down for the recovery by the owner of the vehicles or articles removed and, if they are not reclaimed, for their disposal by the local authority. In order to avoid a clash of controls this provision, in effect, will not apply where land is being used in accordance with the terms of a planning permission.

The powers which the Bill will confer on local authorities regarding vehicles and other articles will greatly improve their capacity for securing the removal of eye-sores and improving the quality of the environment in urban and rural areas. For all offences under the Bill, except for the fine-on-the-spot for littering, the maximum fine of £800 will apply. This figure is fully warranted considering the extent of the problem that now exists.

I have explained the context in which I am putting forward this Bill and the main provisions. I recognise that there are other ways in which our environmental legislation needs to be improved and modernised and that work to deal with those is being advanced.

I believe that this Bill, confined as it is to litter and certain related problems, is well worth while in its own right and is urgently needed to deal with the problems which are immediate and should be tackled without further delay. The Bill is in the nature of a first instalment of new environment legislation, and I have confidence in recommending it to the House in that spirit.

Mr. P. Reynolds

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and wish him well in his appointment. I believe the Bill will be better dealt with on Committee Stage rather than on Second Stage because it is new and we will only get to the nitty gritty of it on Committee Stage. The Bill has my support and the support of this side of the House in every way. We know that the aim of the Bill, from listening to the Minister's speech this evening, is to keep our towns, villages and countryside tidy and clean. I am sure the Minister is much more aware of the conditions in urban areas than I am, but quite recently I had the experience of spending a short time in Dublin city and travelling from house to house in it. I have no doubt about the fact that the bigger the urban area is, the greater the litter problem. Only last night I walked across O'Connell Street and at the end of O'Connell Bridge there were nine, 10 or 11 bags of litter lying around for collection, I presume this morning. It was hardly late last night.

It is a great pity that we have to pass legislation to get people to do what they should be doing. If we had sufficient self-respect and respect for our built-up areas, rural areas and our country generally, we would be in a much better position, but, as the Minister has said this evening, the situation with regard to litter is worsening. It is desperate to think that we must have penalties as high as a fine of £800 imposed on people to try to get them to do what they should. It is equally bad to have to have an on-the-spot-fine of £5 and wardens appointed in each local authority to issue documents or vouchers to enable them to collect the fines.

Looking back over the years, one would have thought that the Bord Fáilte Tidy Towns Competition would have been more effective than it has been. One often wonders if the Tidy Towns Competition is operated in a way that lends itself to keeping a village or town clean, but I will come to that later. In my own county we have a scheme where the local authority of the area give a prize every year to the cleanest and the best kept national school. There is keen competition for it. Practically every school in the county enters. As the Minister said, it encourages younger people to keep the country clean. One often wonders if it would not be better had we less legislation and more support from local government, local community action, committees and so on. If those people could be encouraged by financial means it might be better. Take the cost to local authorities of refuse collection, which is increasing for each local authority annually. In my county people in some villages and rural areas are seeking this service and we cannot afford to provide it. There should be more community involvement. People generally should be more sensible about their responsibilities with regard to litter.

The penalties under the 1963 Act were ineffective. But those under this Bill, when it is enacted, will be much heavier and should bear results. Local authorities must appoint litter wardens. Even if they do appoint such litter wardens, will difficulty be experienced in getting people to come forward to give evidence in a court? I doubt that people will come forward. The provisions of the Bill cover all public places, roads, lakes, beaches, picnic areas and so on. What remedy will be available to the farmers whose land is situated beside beaches or picnic areas if people dump plastic bags, tins or whatever on their land? It will be their responsibility to have such litter removed. As the Bill stands I cannot see how such problems can be overcome. Nor can I envisage any other way of framing the Bill to so do. Not alone will such people who dump litter cause hardship to the farmer by his having to clean up after them but one must remember than some of the rubbish thrown on his land may be dangerous to his livestock.

Another matter not covered by the provisions of the Bill is uncovered lorries carrying offal from slaughterhouses which pollutes the whole atmosphere because there is a spillage of waste as they move along. The Minister will have to insert some clause in the Bill to solve that problem.

I am glad to note that billposting is included in the provisions of the Bill as this constitutes one of our greatest problems. Indeed, we in this House contribute to it from time to time. We seldom get back to remove posters when a meeting or an election is over. There is hardly a town in Ireland where one does not see somewhere abandoned cars, lorries or machinery. These are very unsightly. I am glad to see that something is being done about that aspect. It would not appear that to date local authorities will have to provide dumps. Indeed the recycling of scrap or abandoned vehicles would be more advantageous than the provision of dumps in the middle of bogs for such vehicles. Refuse dumps are very unsightly. People come in cars at all hours of the night and dump their refuse. Next day the local authority may or may not remove it. All known refuse dumps are infested with vermin. Something must be done about those.

With regard to the removal of abandoned cars, the Minister referred to the registered owner. But most of these abandoned cars bear no registration plates. It then takes a long time to establish who owns them. In the long run it would probably be much cheaper for the local authority to remove them.

Refuse collection in my county cost £120,000 last year. One of their vans collects refuse every day of the week and the cost escalates weekly if not daily. I have no doubt that the cost will be £200,000 next year. For that reason there must be some financial assistance forthcoming from the Department for this purpose so that they can at least maintain this source.

Mr. O'Toole

May I welcome the Minister and wish him success in his portfolio? I welcome the Bill, which is an essential one and long overdue. There may be some problems encountered in its implementation. My interpretation of this Bill is that it is the duty of local authorities to provide sufficient dumping facilities within their districts, affording local people an opportunity of using central dumps or else to provide them with overall refuse collection. This does not happen at present in most counties. I would not like, from a legal point of view, to have to defend anybody prosecuted under the provisions of this Bill as they stand. Unless local authorities provide adequate dumping facilities what access will people have to dumps for old cars, tractors and other unwanted vehicles? It is not easy for any individual to provide a dump in his backyard. If local authorities provided such accommodation, whether at a central dump or collection depot, most people would utilise such service to the full.

With the ever-increasing number of unwanted vehicles for disposal resultant on the ever-increasing number of new vehicles coming on the market, there is no provision by local authorities for getting rid of the former. I cannot see any prosecution proceedings succeeding until such time as we, at different local authority levels, provide a central dumping place to which people of a county can take their old vehicles or, as the Minister said, provide some facilities for recycling. There are agencies for the recycling of old car bodies. Some provision should be made for the collection of these vehicles. As Senator Reynolds pointed out, they are to be seen all over the country. They are dumped on commonages. While individual owners of lands may be prosecuted, it is very difficult to prosecute a number of people on a commonage where cars and other refuse are dumped both in daylight and at night. It will be difficult to bring a number of tenants, perhaps 50 or 60, to court and prosecute them for having that type of refuse lying about in open spaces on their commonages.

Much reference has been made to public places throughout the Bill. If a person dumps on an individual's land what protection has such private owner against such dumping? There is no provision in the Bill for that type of dumping. In most rural parts of the country local butchers and victuallers do not have access to abattoirs. There is no provision in the Bill for the dumping of offal from slaughterhouses. I know of many local butchers who provide a service in their own right throughout the country but who have no positive or identifiable place of dumping for their offal. Some of them dump in the sea, more dump in rivers, yet more dump on their own land. In this type of weather one can imagine the stench emitted from that type of dumping. There is no provision in the Bill, or no provision to be made by local authorities for dumping their offal. Such butchers will be prosecuted if they dump in central dumps; they are not supposed to dump offal from a slaughterhouse. I can foresee difficulties arising from the prosecution aspect. Where rivers flow onto the beaches along our coasts a lot of dumping takes place upstream resulting in a lot of refuse ending up on our beaches. Quite recently when asked by people in my county to provide additional refuse collection I was bluntly told that if the local authority did not provide such collection they would dump on the beaches. I am totally against that community spirit — dumping refuse on beaches — because it is dangerous for people having access to the beaches, people bathing and so on. Several accidents have occurred as a result of broken bottles and various other refuse left on beaches. It is the duty of local authorities to provide local people with sufficient dumping facilities. Some counties are better than others in this respect. More moneys must be provided for the provision of such facilities before one can prosecute people who are unable to dump their refuse or old vehicles. Unless there is provided a central dump or some other location where people can get rid of such vehicles we cannot implement the relevant legislation. From time to time in our local authority we hire people to collect refuse. We also hire open pick-up skips. They have no lids, birds peck at the refuse and they are very unsightly if left for any time. I suggest that that type of skip be abandoned. I suggest the use of a more modern type skip into which people could dump their refuse without access to birds, dogs and other animals on our public roads where such skips are located.

Education in our schools and at community level constitutes the only means of curbing this continuous problem. In an affluent society, with practically every commodity packaged in tins and various plastic containers more and more dumping facilities will have to be provided by local authorities. I suggest to the Minister that the question of commonages, abattoirs and that of people dumping on individuals' land should be examined before the provisions of the Bill are implemented and before people are brought into our courts and fined. As I read its provisions one could be fined £800 for dumping a wrapper just as one could be fined for dumping a vehicle. There is no relationship between the severity of the fine and an article dumped on our public highways or wherever. I suggest that local authorities be provided with more moneys for refuse collection and the provision of identified locations to which people would be able to take their refuse. I am sure most people would be only too willing to use central dumps were they made available within a reasonable distance of say 20 or 25 miles. I do not think anybody would mind travelling that distance in order to get rid of some unsightly object in his vicinity or perhaps even in his backyard or on his land. Farmers have a lot of unwanted machinery that could be dumped or recycled. Some guidance and education must be provided for these people.

I know the Bill is necessary. In a tourist country like ours it is unsightly to see so much waste dumped along our public roads. Nowadays one can take waste from one county to another. One can put one's refuse into one's car boot, drive across the border into the next county and dump it at night on any commonage, which is happening on a large scale throughout the country. Probably it will be innocent people who will be caught as a result of the implementation of this Bill. But before people are brought into our courts for dumping or prosecuted the Minister should take cognisance of the absence of facilities for the dumping of offal by, say, butchers, dumping taking place upstream in rivers and that on individuals' private land. I have read the Bill but as far as I can ascertain there is no protection for landowners if people come at night and dump refuse on their land. I welcome the Bill or indeed anything that would help to clean up our countryside. Being a tourist country everybody should contribute. I wish the Bill every success in its implementation. But I feel I should mention these loopholes. I feel also that the Minister should take a decision to provide the dumping facilities about which I have spoken.

Professor Murphy

First of all I should like to welcome the Minister. The last time he appeared in this House had something of a controversial nature about it, but that was the last Seanad so he is very welcome to this one, particularly with a Bill which is non-controversial except perhaps in some matters of detail.

Anyone in public life must be concerned about the problem and must welcome any attempt to alleviate it. The appropriate comment about the Bill is that it is overdue —"más maith is mithid". May I congratulate the Minister on supplying, for once, a good Explanatory Memorandum. By "for once" I mean that in my experience Explanatory Memoranda are generally a waste of time and paper. They simply repeat, unimaginatively, the complex phrasing of the Bill itself. This one does try to tell us what the Bill is all about.

It would make a good subject for perhaps a sociological or history seminar to discuss why it is that we are such an exceptionally scruffy people. It is something I do not like saying because I am committed to this country. But it is as well to recognise its faults. When we return from abroad, for example, from a western European country, the tendency is to shudder at the all-prevailing filth. It may well be that we are in this respect, as in some others, marred by the historical process, that we have come through history in a slightly maimed and crippled way. It may be that we are litter louts because we are anti-authority or perhaps because we were for so long, a rural people where littering did not matter very much in the sense that the litter was, so to speak, natural litter. The problem is — as Senator O'Toole mentioned — that we are now an affluent society; we are indeed an effluent society as well. The problem is caused by the detritus of modern technology. But if other countries can solve, if you like, the overflow of the consumer society there is no reason why we should not. I think we lack a sense of identification with public property. We do not readily identify with parks and roadways as belonging to us, as imposing an obligation on us. There is a sense of alienation here, a sense of contempt almost. It is by no means a class or locality phenomenon, because one sees middle-class louts as negligent in this area as are people from what one might call deprived areas.

What has failed is the voluntary campaign which has been at work intermittently for some time. We are all aware of the slogan but being aware of it is about all, we do not really implement it —"Don't be a Litter Lout". Perhaps one other possible cause of the phenomenon is that we, in Ireland, lack any real sense of the visual, we are not horrified by visually repulsive things. Apparently we can take in our stride enormous obscenities of buildings, violations of the line of streetscapes and so on. I think the litter problem is related to the lack of visual education.

I think it was Senator Reynolds who said that the problem is particularly noticeable in urban areas — that is true — and he instanced seeing several plastic bags in O'Connell Street last night. Perhaps the litter problem was on my mind coming into Leinster House this morning, but outside the gates of Leinster House itself there was an unsightly distribution of rags, papers and cigarette ends which certainly would not have impressed the Grand Duke of Luxembourg last week; presumably they were swept away for him.

By the way, I am glad the Minister suggested in his explanatory memorandum — though I could not see it borne out in the sections of the Bill — that the problem of, shall we say, unwanted flags and so on would be dealt with under sections 7 and 8. I take it that that means local authorities will have immediate power to deal with such offensive displays as marred Cork city centre for the greater part of last summer. I refer, of course, to the unsightly and sinister black flags put out by the supporters of the H-Block campaign and which apparently for a long time the local authority was powerless to do anything about. Perhaps they were afraid to do anything about it. But, whatever the reason, here was a newly developed amenity area in Daunt's Square in the centre of Cork city marred by such display. I hope local authorities will have new teeth to deal with that kind of problem.

There are other aspects of the litter problem which do not seem to be dealt with specifically in the Bill, though I notice the Minister has promised that there will be further Bills to deal with other nuisances. We have in our streets in recent times handsome new CIE double decker buses in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere and the upper deck of these buses is already defaced by graffiti and by cigarette ends. The habit of cigarette smoking — I speak with all the fanaticism of a convert — has, as one of its lesser but still serious manifestations, a very grave litter problem. I do not know if this can be dealt with under the Bill. I hope it can, but if not it should be dealt with in a further Bill. It is enough to make you weep when you see how underdeveloped CIE are in terms of rolling stock and then when they get new buses to see them almost immediately being vandalised in this unsightly and unhygienic fashion.

I come now to another matter which does not seem to be specifically referred to in the Bill. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsman was too genteel to deal with this, but since I do not suffer from the same gentility I have no such inhibitions. I hope you will not think it is too indelicate. I refer to the unsightly, unhygienic and nauseating sight of canine excreta all over our towns and our suburban pavements. This is intolerable. It brings up the larger issue of why we suffer such a proliferation of dogs in this country, which are nuisances in more ways than one. It is an example of the selfish individualism that we manifest as a people.

Other countries face up to this embarrassing problem, sometimes in ways that strike us as quite comical. In certain European cities the dogs are accoutred as babies are at home. In the United States it is my experience of going for a walk at night with my American friends and colleagues that they take their dog along on a leash, which is virtually unheard of here. They also bring along their little implements to deal with whatever process of nature may occur in the course of the walk. Why we cannot do that is beyond me. As the Minister suggests in his memorandum it would not cost a penny.

We will have to deal with the canine threat sooner or later, particularly if rabies come into this country, which is a very strong possibility. I have seen the most astonishing contrasts in this regard. I will leave it at this point. I have seen well heeled ladies and gentlemen presiding serenely over Fido's open defecations on our public pavements. A stiff fine should be imposed on them. I strongly urge the Minister, if this is not covered by the Bill, to bring in a Bill very quickly to deal with this.

I welcome the penalties in the Bill. The whole point of the Bill is to update the present ineffectual penalties. Like Senator O'Toole I hope there will be a distinction between the penalties, since some offences are much more heinous than others.

On the matter of dumps we all welcome the new responsibility and powers which have been given to the local authorities under the Bill. Are the local authorities always responsible in this area? What happens if the local authorities ignore their obligations under the Bill? Will there be a penalty for local authorities? I do not think, with respect to the local authorities, that they should have waited for this Bill to deal with such eyesores as the dump between Dingle and Ballyferriter, which is an exquisite introduction to the Kerry Gaeltacht, an area of unrivalled scenery. The other day I stopped driving on a scenic and lonely, beautiful mountain road through the mouth of the glen called Béal a Gleanna, between Reenaniree and Ballingeary in west Cork. I stopped precisely at the point in the turn of a road which affords you a marvellous view eastwards through a great valley and there underneath at this point were the substantial beginnings of a new dump. It would be wearing to give further examples of this kind of thing. One welcomes the provision for penalties in the Bill and one hopes that the enforcement will be systematic.

There are at the moment provisions for companies like Córas Iompair Éireann to enforce existing litter laws in buses and trains but they do not seem to have any real sanction. The Bill will be worse than useless unless it is determined to enforce it systematically. I welcome the Bill, which is not before its time.

Mr. S. Conway

Cé go bhfuil sé déanach sa ló nó déanach sna trí seachtainí ó thángamar le chéile, ba mhaith liom mo chomhgháirdeas a ghabháil leat as ucht do thoghtha mar Chathaoirleach den Seanad agus tá súil agam go mbeidh trí nó ceithre bhliana agat sa suíochán san sula mbeidh toghchán arís don suíochán chéanna. San am chéanna ba mhaith liom mo chomhgháirdeas a ghabháil leis an Seanadóir Charlie McDonald as ucht é bheith toghtha mar Leas-Chathaoirleach.

Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil an-áthas orm go bhfuil an Bille seo ós comhair an tSeanaid agus go mbeidh sé ag dul ar ais go dtí an Dáil chun é a reachtáil mar Acht Oireachtais. Measaim féin go bhfuil sé thar am go gcuirfí Bille mar seo faoi bhráid Thithe an Oireachtais. Táimid, mar adúirt an Seanadóir Murphy, ag féachaint ar bhruscar agus ní fheicimid é. Muna bhfuilimid ábalta é a fheiceáil lenár súile féin, ba cheart go ndéanfaimis iarracht an bruscar a fheiceáil trí shúile duine éigin eile.

Even though it is late in the day I wish to congratulate you on your selection as Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, I wish you at least four years for this term and another four years in the next term. I would also like to congratulate Senator Charlie McDonald on his selection as Leas-Chathaoirleach.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill because for too long we have turned a blind eye on the whole problem of litter in this country. Fly posting has been done indiscriminately all over the country not just in urban areas but in rural areas. In my 20 years as a member of a local authority I have argued and fought that something be done about fly posting. Eventually we have it in this Bill, and I am very glad of it. Most of the fly posting is done by people who are earning a substantial amount of money by the free advertising and publicity they get from fly posting. I hope that those who are engaged in running functions in which fly posting is done, when they contravene the law and the law is enforced, are heavily fined.

There is only one little worry I have about the complete banning of fly posting. It will affect those who travel around, giving quite an amount of pleasure to the young and to those who may be still young at heart. I refer to the circuses. Could there be some clause inserted that circuses could have a special type of bill posting they could put up and take down as they go from one village to another and one town to another? Since I was a boy and I suppose since all the rest of the Senators were children there was nothing we looked forward to as much as a circus coming to the village or the town in which we lived. Maybe those who were born in the larger urban and metropolitan areas would not appreciate the circuses as much as those in rural areas did. One of the pleasures I had of reading bill postings was when a circus came to town. Maybe the Minister might be able to help these people, who have a very hard life and still give an immense amount of pleasure to people of all ages all over the country.

We will have to get much more strict on dumped vehicles, because they are really the new defacers of rural Ireland. Not alone are those who dump cars defacers of rural and urban Ireland but the garage owners who leave their cars in the forecourt of their garages are defacing the country with this terrible type of litter. It should be incorporated in the Planning Act that any new garages that are built have enclosed compounds in which all those cars must be kept so that it will be an offence for a garage to have all these wrecks dumped where they are really an eyesore and where they catch the eye of not alone the local people but of visitors and tourists. I would be very grateful if the Minister would ask the Minister for the Environment to incorporte a clause in a Planning Bill so that this type of litter and defacement of the country would be forbidden.

There is another type of littering of our streets not alone confined to the larger towns and the larger urban areas but which has now come down into the smaller rural areas and even on to the roads, that is mobile shops, mobile markets, mobile fish and chippers. It seems to me that there has not been any attempt at all to curb the activities of those people. The people who are in business on their own account pay very high rates to the State for the luxury of providing themselves with a living, but those who are going around in mobile shops in market places and with their mobile cafeteria and fish and chippers only need a licence which costs something in the region of £5 or £10 per annum and they can trade almost wherever they like.

I believe a clause should be introduced so that anyone who wants to street trade, to run a mobile shop, or to run a mobile cafe should be made pay the local authority area in which they are trading a sum of money equivalent to the amount of rates the average shopkeeper pays. Not alone would they not be putting the shopkeeper at a disadvantage but this would curb the way in which they litter and destroy the streets and the roads of our towns and our countryside.

We will have to get much more strict with these many open lorries which are driven through our country and through our towns with a lot of offensive material. A lot of the liquids from those materials seem to start flowing out as soon as a lorry starts off after being stopped in a village or a town. It is really not alone an eyesore to see this stuff pouring along the road but I am sure it is a health hazard. It is offensive not alone to the eye but is offensive to the nostrils. The amount of penalty up to now for this sort of thing was so small that it was cheaper for the people who were providing this service of removing offal from one place to another to take the chance that they would be fined in court the maximum fine than to take suitable measures in order that their lorries were watertight and closed so that the offal could not fall from the top of the lorry and the odour could be got right through the towns and villages of the rural areas they were passing through. We have been far too lenient with these types of offenders.

There is another type of litter, which does not appear to be so bad, that we get from open lorries, that is the lorries that go along with their large loads of gravel and stone. In order that they can bring as much as they can they pile it up. This falls off the lorries along the roads. This is litter. It may not be the litter of plastic bags or fish and chip bags, but it is litter. It is ruining a lot of our roads and a lot of our countrysides. It is dangerous. I have often been driving along the road behind one of those lorries when the driver decides that 45 or 50 miles an hour is not fast enough to get to his destination and he goes at 60 miles an hour. As soon as he starts to go to 60 a layer of the stuff comes off. When you are driving behind him you wonder if your windscreen or your radiator will still be there when you get home. These are other areas in which we should be a little more strict.

One thing that particularly worries me is that while we are bringing in legislation to prosecute the offenders of dumping and to make the fines and the penalties more realistic we have not, as yet, properly tackled the provision of public dumping places. Any Senator who has served on a local authority will know that each week there are extra demands on local councillors to provide garbage services to rural areas and to outlying rural areas. Because many of us feel that these people are as much entitled to a service as their counterparts in the urban and semi-urban areas we are sympathetic towards their requests. If we accede to all those requests we then have another problem, where to put the stuff. We come along and say, "right, there is a quarry that has been used up and is no longer of commercial value and the owner of the quarry is prepared to lease it, rent it or sell it to the local authority". The engineering staff of the local authority put it to the county council that this would be a suitable place in which to establish a dump. The next morning or maybe that night when the local councillor arrives home from the county council there are at least 60 cars outside his house with the petition that the dump is not put in that area because it is in their area.

Maybe at times they are right. Maybe the standards that are laid down for dumps are not sufficient. I do not think there is a national standard for dumps. I think that the Department of the Environment should have consultation with the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards and say to them. "Look, we need a standard for the places in which we are going to dump the household and commercial refuse of this country. We need those standards to be so high that at no time will the places in which we have these dumps be of an offensive nature to the people who are living within half a mile of where they are set up." Until we tackle the problem of the actual area in which we are going to dump we may be talking a little bit pie in the sky about penalties for dumping. If we do not have official dumping places of a sufficiently high standard that will not be offensive to anybody we will not be allowed by the public to put in those dumping places and there will be no place in which to dump refuse. There are counties where there are no places to dump refuse. The local authority of which I am a member, are finding it more difficult day by day to find places where we can dump ordinary household refuse.

When this Bill has passed into law it is important that the teeth be shown. There is no point in passing a Bill if it is not enforceable or enforced. This is what has happened with a lot of laws. While superficially they are good, they are not enforceable or have not been enforced. If we had enforcement of litter fines, that people become public spirited, it might help us in the great problem we have with ordinary law and order. If this small thing was tackled at an early stage and if people got used to the fact that they do certain things in order to be members of society, they would not resort to other types of law breaking and disorder. When I was young and going to school in Naas there was a story told about a young man who was up for stealing a sheep. He was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. The executioner asked him had he one last request. He said: "Yes I have, I would like to whisper something into my mother's ear." His mother was brought up on to the gallows. She stood beside him and he whispered into her ear but she screamed and stood away. When she did this the people discovered that he had bitten off her ear. They asked him why he had bitten off her ear and he said: "If she had punished me the day that I brought home the penny I had stolen I would not be here today for stealing a sheep." We should do the same thing with our laws.

Mr. Byrne

Ba mhaith liomsa, os é seo mo chéad uair labhairt sa tSeanad nua, treaslú-leat as ucht do ghradam nua agus, freisin, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an tUasal Ó Brádaigh. I would like to welcome this Bill because it sets out to control the whole problem of litter which is causing such ill-effects in our community, our countryside, and is a source of annoyance to many people. I would like to qualify my welcome for the Bill not in a contentious manner but, as a member of a local authority, certain aspects of the Bill touch me. A certain word has been used a lot in the debate here today, that is the word "abandoned" in connection with abandoned vehicles. In some sense, this Bill is like an abandoned baby foisted on local authorities to implement without any mention anywhere in the very fine introduction to it by the Minister of the money to pay for its implementation.

We read in the Bill that it provides for measures to be taken by the local authorities. We read elsewhere that steps should be taken by the local authority. Again we read that the local authority should introduce a system of litter wardens. All this effort will cost money, and I am sure members of local authorities will appreciate the point that I am making. Unless adequate funds are made available to local authorities, this Bill will not bear fruit.

As we all know since the derating of houses and the subsequent grant-in-aid system carried out by subsequent Governments, local authorities throughout the country are floundering under increased costs and costly bank deficits. They are becoming increasingly frustrated by the efforts to provide even the statutory demands that are imposed on them. Each year Bills are passed in this House which impose further financial strains on local authorities. For instance, the recent Fire Services Bill, which passed through the House in the last term, made no provision for funds to be made available to local authorities. I appeal to the Minister to look into this matter of making sufficient funds available to the local authorities.

With regard to the question of litter we all know that litter is one of the side effects of a consumer-orientated society. It is a side effect of the disposable system of packaging goods. This is causing great annoyance to our whole countryside. It is unfortunate that Bills have to be drafted to enfore cleanliness in our community. It is unfortunate that people should be forced under the shadow of a penalty to keep their community clean. Down through the years various efforts have been made by different organisations, local authorities in particular, to keep our communities clean. Our county council workers in rural Ireland deserve great credit for their contribution to keeping our streets tidy and clean. Local authorities have provided dumps, with their problems afterwards, and problems still to be faced in many areas. They provide litter bins and they have played their part with limited resources down through the years. Likewise, Bórd Fáilte and the regional tourist boards have been concentrating tremendous effort on focusing attention on the need to present a clean country to our visiting tourists. Local organisations, community councils, and tidy towns associations have played a tremendous part in this effort. Apart from drafting legislation to deal with this problem there should be a more intense publicity drive to promote the concept of cleanliness and tidiness. A more thorough campaign should be carried out through our schools to ensure that school surroundings and village surroundings are kept clean. It is only by inculcating in the minds of our youth that we can get the message across that it is important to keep our country clean.

Mrs. Hannon

I should like to congratulate you on your election as Cathaoirleach and to wish you every success. I would also like to welcome the Minister to the Seanad and to congratulate him on this excellent Bill. I welcome it because it is a positive approach to the very serious litter problem that now exists, and sets about giving powers to local authorities, litter wardens and the courts to remedy the situation. Most of our towns are a positive disgrace. I was walking through a country town recently and two little girls were playing a game "I spy with my little eye something beginning with L". It was not difficult to make out what they were talking about. The word was litter. It was to be seen everywhere. Our countryside is now infested with litter. A favourite pastime for some city motorists appears to be not just to take a nice drive in the country but also to get rid of unwanted litter. I am delighted to see that this offence is covered under the Bill.

A guild of the ICA in my area had a project to clean up their neighbourhood and they collected several tons of rubbish deposited in this fashion. There is a saying that you never get a second chance to make a first impression, and I dread to think what some of our tourists think about our country. They must think us very careless, slovenly and dirty, and I am sure this is the impression they are bringing back to their own countries about us. We must do something about it.

Abandoned and burned out cars are a common sight on many roads and the environment of many areas is destroyed by an unsightly collection of dismantled vehicles. It is dreadful to see businesses dealing in scrap and spare parts being carried out in residential areas causing as one would expect, great annoyance to their neighbours. Again many buildings have been defaced by unsightly slogans and notices. I am glad that all of these offences are included in this Bill, and the sooner it is put into operation the better. To make it a success it will need a positive approach by local authorities and all those concerned with its implementation. I was also glad to see in section 2(d) that the local authorities would be undertaking the provision of facilities and services, including publicity, advisory and educational services.

Education in this area is of prime importance. It is important that some sort of programme be devised for our schools so that our young people will realise that the indiscriminate dumping of litter that now exists will not be tolerated in the future. They should also be reminded that it is every citizen's duty to see that our country is clean and beautiful. Why not a school art competition for an anti-litter poster that will be used in a national campaign? This would get our young people involved and thinking about the subject. The few litter wardens that now exist should be supplemented. A large number of our young people are unemployed, and they are the people who should be trained as litter wardens. There may be money available through the 1 per cent youth unemployment levy and the local authorities should go after that because this could be an excellent job for them. Their job should not be just imposing fines on the spot. They should also be involved in this school programme and have talks where any large crowd congregate. Have any of you looked at a hall after a meeting and noticed the amount of litter on the floor? After a football match, race meeting, on our beaches and so on, the place is left in a mess. Announcements asking people to deposit litter in the litter bins provided should be made at public meetings. More litter bins must be provided and emptied very regularly. There is not much sense asking people to deposit their litter when bins are overflowing. I am very fortunate living near Trim and the people have a great pride in their town. They have won the Tidy Towns Competition on two occasions. They have been runners-up on several occasions and they have always been in the reckoning. That is because every citizen in that town is an unpaid litter warden. If you were so foolish as to drop a paper on that street you would get a nice tap on the back and be told to pick it up and put it in the box. They say it in such a nice way that you could not be offended. If more towns had this attitude, there would be no need for the Bill.

We are indeed a throwaway society. Bottles, jam jars and so on which used to be returnable in the past now have to be disposed of. There is a great need for re-cycling facilities, especially in rural areas. Hundreds of tons of articles suitable for re-cycling are dumped every year because no facilities exist.

In section 7 of the Bill it is stated that no prosecution will be initiated for electioneering posters and so on provided they are removed within seven days of polling taking place. Here is where we should lead by example. The by-election is now over for 14 days but in the by-election area there are still plenty of posters and they should be taken down immediately.

I thank the Minister for this Bill and I sincerely hope it will achieve the desired result.

Mr. T. Conway

I should like to be associated with the many Senators who congratulated the Minister on his appointment and welcomed him to the Seanad. I would also like to welcome the Bill. It is an uncontroversial Bill, which has the support of all sides of the House. Contrary to what other Senators have been saying about the state of the counttry as far as litter is concerned, it is my belief that there is a growing national pride in small towns to keep the countryside clean. That is in no small measure due to the efforts of Bord Fáilte for the promotion of the Tidy Towns Competition. I pay tribute to them for their efforts.

I welcome the Bill for the many provisions it has for dealing with the abuses in the form of abandoned vehicles on our roadsides and streets in our towns. We have a particular problem in the bogs where cars and old vehicles are dumped indiscriminately and left there for many years. I presume this Bill gives power to local authorities to move vehicles from our bogs and roadsides. I would also welcome the Bill for the manner in which it gives power to litter wardens to impose fines on the spot for leaving out bins with no lids and for having torn bags with refuse spilling all over the street. I am a member of the local authority, and on the Naas Urban District Council we have a bin staff which are claimed to be the best such staff in the county. They have a system whereby they dispose of any bin they feel is not adequate. They take it up and throw it on the refuse collection bin. At times this has caused annoyance to certain individuals but, on the whole, it has served to remind residents to keep their bins in a proper state of repair. It also gives power to the local councils to deal with graffiti and slogan writers and with the people who, in effect, cause the annoyance, because it is high time that this problem was dealt with and that the councils had power to remove this slogan writing from the walls of the towns.

Fines are important and the on-the-spot-fine is a good way of enforcing the law. When working in England I often had to walk over a mile to deposit an empty cigarette package for fear of incurring a fine, so the fine, if imposed, would act as a deterrent against future offences.

I would like to refer to Senator O'Toole's contribution in which he referred to the problem of the odour coming from uncovered trucks going through towns. They leave a dreadful odour and I agree they are the major cause of pollution in towns. The local health authorities should investigate this situation and find out what effect it is having on people's health, but I think it should be incorporated in the Bill that these lorry owners should be fined for having uncovered lorries.

The canal which runs through County Kildare is the property of CIE and is at most times choked with weeds and all sorts of articles. I think CIE should be prosecuted for allowing the canal to develop into such a state. The only way to deal with the massive problem affecting the beauty of the countryside to which Senator Murphy so poetically referred, is to legislate and educate. We have the legislation and I believe that the idea of the fines to which I have referred before may not be the way in which to deal with the litter problem. The only way is to get the backing of the people, and you can do that through education. Great example is being shown by tidy towns committees and by residents' associations and the wonderful job they have done in many areas.

I would urge that this important Bill be circulated to schools and, as far as possible, time should be brought on radio and television to promote the concept of tidiness. A tidy society is a caring society and, therefore, I welcome the Bill and accept its limitations. I would also like to be associated with Senator Murphy's remarks about the explanatory document, that it was very good and brought us through the Bill very simply.

Mr. Wright

As this is my maiden speech I would like to congratulate you Sir, and wish you well in your new post. I would like you to pass on the same sentiments to the Cathaoirleach. I would also like to welcome the Minister to the House and to congratulate him on this Bill. I am glad to hear that this is the first in a series of Bills dealing with environmental hygiene. If the Minister appointed a person with a third level qualification to the post of environmental hygienist to each significant local administration area, it would help in the problems ahead.

The growth in the fun foods and fast-foods industry and also the phenomenal increase in the number of outlets in which such products are sold has created an almost volcanic source of litter. It should be possible to have specific conditions relating to the control of litter in planning permissions for these enterprises which would help in that area as well.

Bord Fáilte should be congratulated for organising the Tidy Towns Competition. Like Senator Hannon, I believe that it creates a sense of awareness and pride when one does well in that area. It has made everybody aware, where organising committees are involved, of the problem of litter, and Trim and Malahide are better places because of the competition.

In view of the careless manner in which events are publicised by way of bill posting in public places, section 7 is most welcome. However, it is useful at times to promote community events of bill postering and local authorities by tastefully designing some display boards and also selecting the places where they should be placed, could allow some controlled advertising of community events. It might help Senator Conway's circus posters if this was done.

Sections 9 to 13 are of exceptional importance, as abandoned vehicles are both a visual affront and a physical danger. As in Dublin North, many people, especially the farming community, are having their fields destroyed by these abandoned cars and they could do with some help from the authorities. I am delighted that this Bill will give the local authorities the power to deal with this problem.

Like the rest of the speakers here I hope that the moneys will be available for all these provisions and if that is forthcoming I am sure this Bill will be very successful. This Bill has far reaching consequences all of which are beneficial to the public interest.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I compliment the Senator on his maiden speech and I hope it will be the first of many speeches by him.

Mr. Dowling

I welcome the Bill and I would like to welcome the Minister to the Seanad. I am sure he must be fed up listening to comments on litter. I would like to congratulate the Minister, as Senator Murphy did, on his fine explanatory memorandum which has gone a long way in clarifying the Bill. The provisions are praiseworthy and any attempt to improve the overall cleanliness of our countryside in whatever way possible is to be admired and welcomed.

In improving the law — and it has been mentioned by previous Senators — it is useful in so far as it can be fully and forcibly implemented. If a law is ignored it becomes useless.

The various areas of litter have been well dealt with right across the board, and I am not going to go into that, but there is one area that I would like to draw attention to and there is a special provision made for it in the Bill, an exemption for advertisements for public meetings and public elections. I ask the Minister to reconsider that aspect of it and make billposting at election time illegal. I do not think it achieves any worth-while purpose, and sometimes long after the election is over these posters are left there. They are distasteful, not only to the local persons who are sick looking at the same old faces and names, but also to the tourists who come into the country. The experience in other countries is that they do not go in for that type of election advertisement.

There should be some procedure monitored by the local authority whereby proper display boards would be made available in certain strategic locations. It is not necessary to have every telegraph pole and every wall sign posted for miles of the road in one area with one type of poster and a similar one in some other area. At the end of the day they are torn and I do not think they are of any value.

There is increasing difficulty in finding dumps in local authority areas. Local authorities have been less than responsible in the past in maintaining the dumps they have. For that reason there are innumerable objections from people living adjacent to dumps. Whilst it has been raised by members on numerous occasions, nonetheless they do not have the power to get involved and ensure that proper handling of dumps is maintained. For that reason there will be additional difficulties in finding suitable places for dumping, and that leads to the major rural problem of having no proper dumps. When people create their own dumps how do you enforce the law? You have to have witnesses to enforce the law. That has been the experience that we have had in my local autority. If somebody is not prepared to come forward and say that somebody was seen dumping in that area then it is very difficult to enforce the law or to bring about the type of situation that is provided for in this Bill. There are many difficulties there that need serious consideration. It is fine to introduce something on paper but we need the wherewithal to enforce it and that brings us back to the cost of implementing some of the provisions. It has been mentioned that local authorities already have serious financial constraints imposed on them and any additional moneys which will be necessary to implement this Bill will have to be provided separately, over and above what is already available within the ambit of the financial schemes.

Another important point is the transport of cattle and the various types of lorries and the way they are used. They leave a terrible discharge on many of our country roads and sometimes even passing through towns and cities. The effluent from them needs to be dealt with. Apart from the unhygienic aspect and the danger it creates to health and road users, there is also the awful possibility that it could spread disease. We have pursued that matter in our own areas and the gardaí have been useful to us. Unfortunately, fines are so small that people ignore them. I see that as an area that demands immediate attention.

The Tidy Towns competition has been in operation for a long number of years and has been very successful. The areas that have promoted that type of tidy town development have been successful in many cases. This is where the family, schools and all forms of educational programmes and advertisements have value. It would be unfair to say that the publicity given on television for the litterbugs has not been successful. It has been successful, and has created in the minds of young people an awareness of the problem of keeping their towns, schools and their own homes clean. This is an ongoing thing. Prevention of littering is more important than punishment as a result of depositing litter. I hope to see a programme which will make people aware of the need to put sufficient money into youth schemes, cleaning up certain areas and trying to prevent fining people and make them aware of what is necessary. I have been to America and have found the cities and countryside exceptionally clean. The same is true of Great Britain, and yet when you come back into your own country, as Senator Murphy said, you find graffiti and all sorts of ugly and distasteful slogans. Having said that, I hope the Bill will be successful. I congratulate the Minister on having gone into all the different aspects of it and I would also like to congratulate the people who drafted the Bill. I hope it will be a successful beginning to a cleaner Ireland.

Mr. Nolan

Since this is the first opportunity I have had, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation to the post of Leas-Chathaoirleach and to wish you a trouble-free four years in the post.

At the outset I would like to compliment the Minister on the introduction of this long overdue Bill. I cannot see why it has taken so long for such an important Bill to reach this stage. I hope the Bill will have the unanimous support of this House and that it will prove to be noncontroversial. For far too long local authorities have been hindered in their efforts in dealing with litter offenders and in particular their efforts in bringing individuals who abandon cars and such like to justice. This Bill will strengthen the hands of local authorities, as they have been hampered for too long. To travel the countryside and see the number of abandoned cars and likewise is nothing short of a national scandal. It is nothing for the image of Ireland and the Irish people abroad. We are going to suffer in the long run and it does nothing for the morale of our people. The sight of an accumulation of disused vehicles located on main roads which are being used by the people who own them for the purpose of selling spare parts is nothing short of a disgrace. I hope the Minister, through his Department, will send a directive to each local authority informing them of the powers which he has given them in this Bill and asking them to enforce them, so that this country can be cleaned up and made a little more accessible to foreigners. As a Senator has pointed out already, it is patently obvious when we come back from foreign parts that the first thing that strikes us when we leave the airport is the amount of litter. We have a lot to answer for.

Senator Murphy in his address stated that he is a recovered smoker. At this stage smoking has become socially unacceptable through advertising and the efforts of the health boards and other authorities.

If the proper effort was put into the implementation of this Bill, the problem of litter around the country could also become socially unacceptable. Anyone who is out early enough in the morning and drives through towns, particularly on a Sunday or a Monday morning before the local authority, urban district council, refuse collection trucks get around will be amazed how so much litter can accumulate, particularly in streets where there are fast food take-aways. I am delighted that the Minister has in the Bill a provision that such establishments will be held responsible for litter which accumulates outside their premises. I am also glad that he has empowered the local authorities to enact by-laws whereby they can force such establishments to ensure that their frontages will be kept clean. I wish the Minister every success in his office, and he has my full support for this Bill.

Mr. E. Ryan

It looks as if there are a number of other speakers who wish to contribute and the Minister would have to reply. I wonder if we might have the agreement of the House not to proceed today with the motion ordered?

Senators

Agreed.

Mr. Cregan

There are a few points that I should like to make. The Minister said the business community do not go far enough as regards keeping their areas clean and premises in a proper condition of cleanliness. Being a member of a local authority, I am very conscious of the fact that the planning departments of our local authorities are not being stringent enough as regards our new shopping complexes. These areas, being quite new as regards planning, are quite dirty with regard to litter. There is one thing which always seems to be missing in these complexes, and that is an incinerator. I fail to see why we cannot make a ruling that in a complex with about 30 shops there should be an incinerator. I know of no complex where that has been recommended by the planning departments. The blame lies with the local authorities and the planning departments of each authority.

One cannot blame the people with premises in these complexes for the fact that there are 50, 60, or maybe 100 bags of litter every second night being discharged from these complexes. I know of the existence of this situation in the Cork area and I am sure it must be the same in the Dublin area. I do not know of any such place where there are incinerators, though they are quite cheap. Incinerators can generate heat and in other countries, I understand, where dumps are not available in some cities or big towns large incinerators are in use as heat generators and a saving is made by burning what is not needed. Has the Minister been looking at this type of idea? Are the planners being told about it and if so why is it not being implemented? I imagine that the cost of eliminating the rubbish from these complexes would be higher than the cost of supplying incinerators..

The Minister, in his speech, said that cars dumped in fields can be moved if there is no objection from the owner of the land where the vehicle is dumped, but vehicles abandoned on public roads or car parks will continue to be dealt with under existing road traffic legislation. We are giving some rulings to the local authorities to implement and the other rulings stay with the road traffic legislation, in other words the police. If there is a car on the side of the road which is not mobile, how am I or anyone else within the local authority to say that it is or is not mobile if the law says that it must stay there? That car might not have wheels but at the same time it could be mobile. Would the Minister clarify those two points?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I welcome the Minister of State, whose concern about environmental matters is not recent: for some years past he has had an extensive and great interest in environmental matters. It is appropriate, therefore, that the measure before us today is something in which he has had a long and continuing interest.

As a student of history I cannot help thinking that we are historically, whether we like it or not, an untidy race. There are only a few towns that were deliberately planned and laid out by individual planters who came to our country. I think of one on my way home, Tyrrellspass, which was laid out by Lady Belvedere many years ago. There are roads and a green and houses in a ring and it is perfect, something resembling a painting in a child's book. Other such towns around the country which were laid out in that way have remained so. They are easy to maintain because they were laid out in a structured way. I do not wish to praise one and denigrate another.

Many of our forebears had to live in very poor circumstances. They lived in villages that started perhaps as just a couple of cottages and then grew and grew and straggled upwards and downwards with no plan.

Speaking in a general way on the environment, I think that many of the faults which we find in our towns and villages can be traced to our historical background. I am not taking the blame away from us as a people but I am saying that it is in some way due to that fact. Some of the unplanned towns, like Topsy in "Alice in Wonderland", just growed and growed and growed and suddenly were practically out of control.

Many speakers here today referred to the Tidy Towns Competition and the great work that local committees initiated and funded. This has been of great worth in many villages and towns in Ireland, but the worthwhile effects have been of a scattered and spasmodic nature. Where there was an energetic chairman, energetic committee and an energetic secretary those committees worked very well. But as is the way of all committees, sometimes they work and sometimes they do not, and in any event it was all too much of a scattered and voluntary nature. The voluntary nature must remain, because legislation of this kind will not be effective unless it is backed by very dedicated voluntary effort. I would like to pay tribute to those various groups who down the years have played their part and will continue to play their part in this very worthy effort.

The Minister quite rightly said that the obligation will be on the local authorities. On one hand I welcome the devolution of extra power to local authorities. As members of local authorities we sometimes bemoan the fact that there is an erosion of our powers and we find ourselves with less responsibilities when we want more. With latter-day legislation like the Water Pollution Act and various Acts passed in recent years, we have more powers accruing to us. The implementation of this Litter Bill will require, along with its mandatory instructions to local authorities, directions as to the funding and financing of the litter warden service. As the Minister said, he means the Bill to have teeth and that is a correct line to take. There is no point in saying that in the beginning we will relax and then we will work up to severity. If the people are to believe in this Bill we will have to see that the fines will be imposed and if offenders should be brought to court that the courts will treat them with severity. The people will then take it seriously.

There is a point in the Minister's speech about political slogans. Senator Dowling cited a European habit whereby political parties do not erect their visages at election times and if everybody did that nobody would want to do it. It is a very necessary and acceptable part of campaigns here that posters are erected with either the names or photographs of the candidates. I agree that they should be removed later. If we are to be seen to have veracity and validity in what we are doing by promoting this Bill, we will have to be very vigilant when the next election, which I hope will not be for a long time, comes up, and that we remove the posters which were erected.

Increased consumerism has brought great advantages. Everything is packaged in pretty packages, from household articles to cosmetics to food, and it has become a way of marketing that the more striking and presentable the package the more that article will sell. These packages have to be disposed of. As an ex-teacher and a parent, I think the children can have more influence on the parent than vice versa. Most teachers try to inculcate in their pupils habits of general discipline which has as one of its offshoots general neatness and tidiness of themselves and the environment. Children could be the great bearers of the message from the Dáil and the Seanad of this Litter Bill. When this Bill becomes law there should be a very comprehensive publicity campaign launched with it, and this should be aimed particularly at young people, not that they are the offenders but that they would carry the message back to the adults who are the offenders in many ways.

Those of us who live in scenic and tourist areas, and Athlone on the River Shannon is one of them, find ourselves daily offended by the graffiti and slogans, particularly those of an anti-other-country nature. I refer in particular to the slogan "Brits Out". I cannot see what good this will do. I certainly would not like to go to England and see a massive slogan as I alighted from my train or car saying "Irish Out" or something to that effect. Graffiti have a long and honourable tradition throughout the centuries, but I refer to graffiti of a humorous and poetical nature. I once read that in the old Roman baths there were graffiti, but of a humorous nature. The graffiti we see now are hateful and offensive. Apart from this they are affecting our pockets. One would not want to be very sensitive to take exception to some of the graffiti that adorn our tourist areas. I welcome this Bill. It is imaginative as well as structured. There are great areas for scope in it. I wish the Minister well in the implementation of it.

Mícheál Cranitch

Ar an gcéad dul síos, fáiltim roimh an Aire Stáit. Is fear fiúntach, cumasach é, fear go bhfuil anshuim aige in a chuid oibre. Chuir sé an Bille iontach seo os ár gcómhair anocht agus guím fad saol dó agus gach rath ar an iarracht íontach atá á dhéanamh aige chun deireadh a chur le fadhb an bhrúscair sa tír seo.

May I highly commend the Minister for the excellent speech he gave today. I only wish that a copy of that speech could be read, studied and digested in every household, school, church and headquarters of every sporting establishment. This will have to be done, because the magnitude of the task before the Minister and before each and everyone of us who detest litter of any form is something that the country has not faced for years. It is a colossal task and cannot be carried out unless we get the people behind it. The toleration of litter apart from its creation is one of our national sins. It is a failing that seems to be endemic in us. That has been there for a long time and especially nowadays with the advent of new materials. I refer in particular to plastic bags which are practically indestructable unless they are put into an incinerator.

I had to face a litter problem many years ago in the school in which I taught. I attacked it in two ways, and I think if the Minister follows the same lines we may get results. First, I got the schoolchildren and parents behind me. I got them all thinking that we had to get rid of this menace around the schoolyard. I had their goodwill and total co-operation. Second, I indicated how this would be done and laid out the penalties if it was not done. We made war immediately on paper of all kinds — paper is the most offensive in any school. We ostracised sweets, bars of chocolate, anything wrapped in paper — these were completely outlawed. The plastic bag problem was quite simple: children were instructed to fold their papers and their plastic bags neatly when they had their lunches eaten, put them back in their bags or satchels and take them home for tomorrow's lunch. If they did not abide by that instruction they had a choice of two things, and the senior children always saw that one or other of these things was done. It might seem draconian, but it was done. They had a choice of (a), swallowing the papers or plastic bags, or (b) putting them into the waste paper basket. They invariably put them in the waste paper basket.

Following on those lines, I suggest that the Minister will have to spearhead a campaign, involving the co-operation of every sporting organisation, of every school and of every factory. It can be done. Every political party through its organisation should get every cumann imbued with the idea of making this a healthier and a better and a cleaner place to live in. That would have a great impact as far as our tourist industry is concerned, because I know from travelling on the Continent, as I am sure other Senators do, the difference between the countryside on the Continent and here: it has to be seen to be believed. Parties in other countries will have their picnics, their sporting fixtures and so on, but they clean up after then. There would be no unnecessary stuff left around. Here it is the opposite.

The co-operation of the churches should be sought. We have the name of being a religious people and I suppose we are, but on the other hand if cleanliness is next to godliness then I am afraid we are far from being a godly people. These are suggestions I put to the Minister. A national campaign will have to be initiated. We must get the goodwill of the people behind it because if we do not we will not succeed no matter what the penalties are. I hope the penalties will be enforced.

We should provide dumps for ordinary litter and dumps for toxic waste, and I would like to hear the Minister's views on this when he is replying. There seems to be no definition of "litter" in the Bill. Maybe that has been done deliberately. We are left in no doubt as to what litter means. It was a very good idea not to define it absolutely because in the context of an earlier reference to the canine tribe it might be difficult to define litter as covering the things that Senator Murphy was referring to, because if you refer to the canine tribe you will also have to refer to the tribe: whatever about Mr. Murphy's dog, there will be Mrs. Murphy's cat and there will he Mr. Jones's donkey and there will be somebody else's horse. All these things will be categorised.

I would make a special appeal to all public representatives of every party to get together in this and use their undoubted influence to make a colossal effort to rid the country of this scourge of litter. It is a shameful thing to have to say about our beautiful country. We have this toleration of this scourge, and I can only ask the blessing of God on the Minister in his campaign which I hope will be 100 per cent successful.

Mr. McGlinchey

Senator O'Rourke's reference to political posters made me realise that we must be very civilised in Donegal. Our political opponents remove our posters before election day.

Mr. P. Reynolds

You did it in Dublin West for us, and then we removed you.

Mr. McGlinchey

I listened to the Minister's speech with interest. There is no doubt that its provisions are very good but I am somewhat pessimistic. It is an excellent Bill, if it works. Is this Bill really workable? I am dubious, because its success is dependent almost entirely on local authorities. I have been a member of two local authorities for more years than I care to admit, and I feel that the record of local authorities as far as filth, dirt, litter and squalor are concerned is far from good. One has only to drive along local authority housing schemes in many parts of the country to realise that what I am saying is true, yet this is the body that is expected to dictate to others as far as litter is concerned.

Let us take the domestic refuse collections. In many villages and many towns, open tractors are still in use and the covered wagon for refuse is more the exception. Vehicles of this kind do more to spread litter than anything else. Itinerants move from place to place leaving behind them a lot of dirt, and local authorities in many instances fail to do anything about it. But the greatest offenders in this regard are not itinerants. There are also travelling business people who sell mattresses and furniture, recognised as wealthy people, who move around the country leaving litter behind them in car parks, roads, villages and towns. I wonder how can they be dealt with under this legislation.

The Minister told us in his speech that the fine for littering up to now was £10. I would be very interested to know how many people have been brought to court on a littering offence in the last ten years. The success of the Bill would seem to depend a lot on litter wardens. I know the Minister has been asked this question before but I ask it again: who pays these litter wardens and what happens the on-the-spot fines that are collected? If the local authority can keep them, then obviously this would be a perk and an encouragement to local authorities to ensure than on-the-spot fines take place. But litter is not just dropped between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. from Monday to Firday. I wonder how many litter wardens would be required in any average-sized town? Obviously, to be successful, wardens will have to be on duty seven days a week, 14 hours a day, after dances, outside fast-food shops, restaurants and so on.

Reference was made to the provision in a section whereby the establishment is held responsible if litter is found outside it. But this will be very difficult to prove in any court of law. The onus will be on the prosecution to prove that at three o'clock on a Sunday morning the litter that was dropped came out of a particular establishment. That is why I am a little dubious, not about the Bill but about its operation. The Minister has gone as far as he can go to ensure that it is a success provided he produces the money to pay the litter wardens, because if the Minister does not produce the lolly, local authorities will not employ the wardens. Many people on the other side and many people who are members of local authorities know that what I am saying is correct.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 16 June 1982.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 9 Jun 1982