Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jun 1982

Vol. 98 No. 5

Litter Bill, 1981: Committee Stage.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

This section refers to vehicles left in such circumstances or for such a period that it is reasonable to assume that the vehicles have been abandoned. What is "a reasonable period"? The Minister should be more definite on what is meant by that phrase. That section states that a litter warden means a person employed by a local authority to perform the functions of a litter warden. Do I take it from that that the Minister is prepared to appoint and pay these litter wardens? If that is not the case the Bill, the whole motive behind it, is going to fall down.

With regard to litter wardens, I should like to ask the Minister if the local authority will employ the wardens or will the local authority be funded by the State for employing them? I should like to remind the Minister that local authorities at present are almost without funds. If we start at the base in 1977 of a unit of 100 and keep in mind that the successive Ministers allowed local authorities to raise the rates by 10, 11 and 12 per cent in three successive years that means that compound interest makes it 136 units that local authorities are now allowed to spend. Inflation during the same period was running at roughly 17 per cent so that local authorities now should be getting a figure of 160 units for the 100 in 1977 or with rates that would have been needed for local authorities to expend on roads, bitumen based materials, salaries and so on running at 25 per cent, that would leave a figure of 190. Local authorities do not have funds available to expend anywhere. I am advised by officials of Donegal County Council that if this continues for another three years local authorities will merely have moneys to pay the salaries of those already employed but will be unable to continue with the services they now provide.

I should like to remind the Minister that in the town of Carndonagh, which has the biggest comprehensive school in Ireland, Glenties, the recipient of the tidy towns award in two successive years, and Falcarragh, the capital of the Gaeltacht, the public toilets have been closed because Donegal County Council cannot afford to pay the attendants for their upkeep. I should like to ask the Minister if he proposes to pay litter wardens out of State funds because local authorities, and certainly Donegal County Council, cannot afford to pay them.

The second point I wish to raise is in regard to seashores. According to the section a public place means any street, road or seashore. It is my impression — I could be wrong — that the jurisdiction of any local authority ends at the high water mark. This was made clear during the hearing of a case regarding the burning of a boat in Donegal. A malicious damage claim could not be taken against Donegal County Council because the jurisdiction of the council ceased at the high water mark. If that is the case is it in order for a local authority to ask their employees to collect litter off the seashore? It would be my desire that this should be done but the Minister should clarify the position.

I should like to join with colleagues in referring to the existing dilemma which local authorities have found themselves in. I am chairman of a local authority which initiated an anti-litter campaign in its own right during the past four or five years. We have prize-giving ceremonies for schools and local organisations involved in an anti-litter campaign. I take it that section 2 of this Bill envisages——

We are on section 1.

I am referring to the rights of an authority to carry out what the Minister has in the Bill. Such authorities will need some financial assistance particularly those authorities who are unable to fund themselves except they determine a charge to the public for the service. The Minister should let us know if that is what he wants from the local authorities. Litter can be anything that is discarded in a public place over which a local authority has jurisdiction. I am referring to litter that is dumped deliberately at a dumping site, or dead animals or other sorts of litter which create health hazards and problems for tourists. Local authorities have had to discontinue many of their litter collecting services because of the restrictions on funding them. They are now precluded from extending the service, which would be in the interest of all of us, or even maintaining the existing service. We have had to cut this short so quickly that litter was left lying around and the council cannot afford to send anyone to collect it. The Minister should spell out exactly how he intends to implement the spirit of the scheme, with which we all agree.

I should like to ask the Minister what the position will be in regard to existing by-laws in relation to the Bill?

Dublin South-East): I am pleased that we have advanced to Committee Stage of this rather protracted debate. It is non-contentious legislation and the spirit of every Senator here is to see it implemented despite the very close scrutiny it has come under. Senators want to see it made law as quickly as possible. Some important points were made today but I must prefix my comments by saying — this has not been clearly understood in the framework of this legislation — that the local authorities are now vested with a power they did not have before. That is a crucial issue. Local authorities in the past were hamstrung in that they did not have the power to be able to have on-the-spot fines or to be able to penalise in a meaningful way the perpetrators of litter offences. This power overrides all the comments that have been made in regard to this section.

Senator Reynolds asked how long an abandoned vehicle could be allowed to remain in a particular place. The local authority will have to judge that case for themselves because it will vary depending, perhaps, upon the mechanical state of the vehicle, information that might be given from another source and so on. It is not an easy question to which I can give a very generalised answer. It is not possible to do that. The important point is that the local authority will have the power to remove an abandoned vehicle when that authority see fit to do so. That is the answer to that question.

Senator Ferris asked if the Minister would come clean on this issue, so to speak. I hope the whole nation will do so. I am not taking that comment out of context. There is no intention to impose any charges on the public for what I feel should be an automatic reflex on the part of a nation to keep its house in order and keep itself free from litter.

Senator Loughrey spoke about finance. That is very important. I have been meeting local authorities over the past few months — I will be meeting representatives from Letterkenny quite soon — and we discussed this whole question of finance. I can give the House an assurance that one of the attractions of this legislation is that it will not, in fact, cost a great deal to implement. If the Senator addresses himself to the practicality of an on-the-spot fine which can be changed and brought into line, if necessary, with inflation, a fine that will accrue to local authorities, he will realise that it will be a form of finance to local authorities that they did not have before. I would like to see that aspect being made clear to all local authorities.

Local authorities in some cases employ litter wardens already. Dublin Corporation have eight; Dublin County Council, five; Limerick, three; Cork, two; Galway, one and Bray, one. At all times they were impotent when it came to having the power to fine on-the-spot and to prosecute for abandoned vehicles. Now the fine has gone from £10 to a maximum of £800. That is a realistic start.

The necessity for additional staff, if any, will have to be considered individually by each local authority in the context of their needs. Local authorities already spend a considerable amount on street cleaning, waste collection and disposal and so on. The provisions of the Bill will strengthen their powers. Senator Reynolds referred to the question of seashore collection. I am sure it is agreed that the local authorities should be involved as they are at present. That aspect is covered and litter offences of that nature are covered. It is my intention to get strong co-operation from the public. As I mentioned before — I repeat it now for the benefit of some young children who are in the Visitors' Gallery now — that the more young people who tell their parents about the lessons they get in civics in relation to litter, the better. This legislation will work if it is given a strong chance.

On the definition of a litter warden, the Minister in his contribution said that the effect of this legislation is to remove the condition of local authorities being hamstrung by not being able to impose on-the-spot fines. A hamstring is a very serious injury and we should not use the word lightly. I should like to suggest, as other Senators suggested, that the inability to have on-the-spot fines for litter is a mere twinge in the arm compared with the hamstring injury that every local authority is suffering due to lack of finance. This power in the Bill for on-the-spot fines does not really deal with the comments that have been made by a number of Senators. The Minister has said that it will not cost a great deal and, therefore, I see no reason why, if there is to be this very inconsiderable cost in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers, that that should not come straight from central funds. It would be appropriate if this definition were changed to say something to the effect that litter wardens be employed by local authorities as agents of the Minister, that the Minister should be responsible, if the amount collected in fines is not sufficient to pay the expenses required, this would be made up by a special grant from central funds. This would be the contribution of the Minister and his Department. The local authorities will certainly have to make a real contribution in the organisation of this. We should define litter wardens in the Bill as being employed by the local authority as agents of the Minister.

(Dublin South-East): Contrary to what the Senator said, what would be happening then is that we would be directly interfering with the powers of a local authority. That would be a very serious error. I have had eight years experience on a local council and spent a lot of time dealing with the cleansing department and the limitations of the laws they were using to get the job done effectively. That is the spirit of the law now. If there was any attempt to change that we would be doing, in effect, a grave disservice to the effectiveness of this most important piece of legislation which was approved more than one year ago. It went through the Government and the previous administration. From that point of view the definition has been not the slightest bit contentious. It is disappointing to hear anyone disagreeing with that fundamental power that is being given to local authorities to do their job effectively.

The Minister sounds so plausible but it is such an effort to try to find any sense in what he is saying. We are saying that this is a charge on local authorities and one we feel should not be imposed on them because of what successive Governments have done in removing from local authorities their own taxing powers. That is the point we are bringing forward. We are not opposing the measure at all. We are saying that this is an extension of the powers of local authorities which is most welcome but the extension of that power will be partly financed by the fines which, under another section, will be remitted back to the local authority. But this will probably not be enough to meet the full cost and the suggestion is that in the partnership which should exist between local authorities and the Department of the Environment, part of the contribution of the Department should be the meeting of the additional cost that is required. That is not to say that we are seeking in any way to go against the spirit of the Bill, or that we feel that this is not an important problem. This was stated on Second Stage. It is a most important problem. It is high time something was done but it is high time it was done properly. That is what Committee Stage is for. The principle of this Bill is agreed. The Second Stage vote agreed the principle of this Bill. We are now on the detail to try to get as good a Bill as possible. The view is being expressed from this side of the House that the ideals of the Bill have a better chance of being carried out, that we have a better chance of having not only a good Litter Bill but one that will be effectively carried out by local authorities throughout the country, if we manage to keep this new venture outside this realm of the shortage of cash in local authorities which is crippling them at present.

The Senator is questioning the chargeability as to who might pay wardens. Through the Bill and, indeed, the provision of capital, or a major portion of it, will finally have to come — I do not know if Senator Dooge is a member of a local authority or not——

I was twice chairman of Dublin County Council and I am well experienced.

I have some experience of chargeability and who, at the end of the day, might pay. This is a very technical submission by Senator Dooge as regards who might pay the wardens. It does not matter to Senators or in the overall context who will pay at the end of the day. My own experience is that the Minister for the Environment will have to share a major responsibility for the implementation and financing of the Bill initially, as is happening at present. The next section deals with measures for the provision of dumps and so on, that will also have to come from the Minister for the Environment. The Senator is being very technical when he speaks of who will pay the wardens. If a local authority employ a warden, from the administrative and chargeability side it should be that authority that should pay the warden. The Senator is asking the Minister of State, to state that under this section, and its definition, the Minister for the Environment will pay the wardens employed by the local authorities. I totally disagree with that because the whole capital involvement will be a percentage in the final analysis and I can assure you the Minister for the Environment will be the most important person in this capital allocation. There is an ever-increasing bill coming in for litter disposal in every local authority. We are only half-way there. The Bill is really giving power. I do not think the question of who should pay at this time should be an issue. We should go ahead with the technicalities of the Bill but leave out the financing question until such time as we get the measures agreed on.

Senator O'Toole has now put his finger on what is the nub of the problem as far as we are concerned, because it is very relevant to us now as members of local authorities particularly that we know now who will be responsible. Ratepayers are becoming very few and far between; they are limited to either large farmers or business people and so we are faced with a restricted number of people paying rates. We are limited by a restriction from the Minister in the amount we are allowed to increase our rate. This has nothing to do with capital because the capital allocation comes direct from the Department of the Environment to us. If we decide to employ one extra person, it will have to be done out of revenue. I presume the Minister will have to give his permission to employ the person. I am thinking of small local or urban authorities and I could name them in my own electoral area and indeed in my own constituency. There are local authorities there that cannot afford to employ additional people, much as they would like to. Unless some commitment is given by the Minister, as Senator Dooge has advocated, so that some assistance would be available to implement the spirit of the Bill to ensure that the proper, classified warden as we have it here is appointed. This may not be possible. We hope that the on-the-spot fines will help to compensate but to take the initial step of employing somebody in the sanitary services department of the county council requires consideration at least because it will have to be a new post, an additional post.

There are four local authorities in my area. One of them is quite a big town, with 15,000 to 20,000 people, which might need four wardens. We could have 15 additional people in the sanitary services department of the local authorities in Tipperary. Where will they be paid from? The money we are allowed at the moment is decreasing. The Minister has put a limit to what we can do with rates, so where do we go? We can buy a new lorry; we can buy a new dump, we can buy many things because these are out of capital but in a revenue situation, how do we employ staff and get the assurance that they will not be caught in any embargo on staff? There are embargos on staff in many areas of the public sector — I mentioned some of them last week — in which in spite of having EEC money we are unable to increase staff numbers even for productive purposes. I would like to have clarification from the Minister on this point: how do councils live with the spirit of the Bill? If we have that assurance we would be quite happy.

(Dublin South-East): Unless that is not spelled out emphatically enough, there has been a substantial allocation to local authorities of £7 million this year, for environmental schemes. I have met many of the local authorities and I am confident that if a local authority — mark you, a local authority are not obliged to do so — desire to employ litter wardens they having had negotiations with them, this can be done. I would like to thank Senator Dooge for his kind remarks to me at the start when he said he could not make sense of what I was saying. I will spell it out again to him. The Department of the Environment do not have any directive over a local authority. A local authority do not have to and never did have to consult with the Department of the Environment if they want to employ litter wardens. The Bill is not putting such a halter around their necks to do this. All the Bill is doing is increasing penalties and making it easier for local authorities. The £7 million will certainly go a long way towards employing litter wardens to do a particular job. I am conscious that local authorities find themselves in tight financial bonds at the moment; no one is making any denial of that fact. I certainly have no intention of running away from that reality. But this Bill as it stands is going a very long way. It is actually giving local authorities the power to fine people substantially by increasing the fine from £10 to £800 for litter offences, an accumulation of abandoned vehicles and unsightly skips. It has very wide and far-reaching ramifications.

I should have liked to mention Senator Barnes' point as she is leaving the House now. I apologise that I did not get to the point she made about the by-laws. That comes under section 4 and I will be happy to deal with that when the time comes.

The Minister referred to the number of years' experience he has as a member of a local authority. I could multiply that by five; as far as experience is concerned, I have plenty of it. But I know that when a local authority meet now to discuss their estimates, the county manager says he has sewerage, water, refuse collection commitments and so on and whatever is left is available for spending, but what is left is very little. The situation is that last year the local authorities got an increase of 15 per cent on the previous year's money; the year before they got an increase of 12 per cent over the previous year's money and the year before, 10 per cent. At the same time, materials and wages had more than doubled the percentage increase that was obtained. There is no way a local authority can afford to pay litter wardens.

The Minister spoke about the powers that local authorities will get. The powers the local authorities have are nil and the power they will get is nil. We must be honest. He talks about a £5 on-the-spot fine. There is a £5 on-the-spot fine in this city for illegal car parking and let the Minister walk down the nearest street and see how many people are breaking that law. The £5 on-the-spot fine will have no effect in regard to clearing litter. The income from it will be nil. It would be interesting to know the figures for the income last year from the £5 on-the-spot fines here in this city, if the Minister's Department deals with it.

The Minister says he is giving local authorities power but he will not say that he will give them money. Without money they have no power because they cannot employ people to use the power. As Senator Reynolds said, local authorities at the moment do not have moneys to employ anybody. In fact, the reverse is the situation, because they are laying off people. I mentioned toilet attendants and I can tell him about road workers and maintenance men. Donegal County Council have laid off umpteen men simply because they could not afford to pay them. If the Minister says that the cost will be minimal, I am asking the Minister to give the local authorities the powers to employ and if, as the Minister suggests, the income from fines would be substantial then I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that the difference between the fines taken in by the wardens and the cost of employing the wardens will be recouped by his Department to the local authorities.

Secondly, I am not so sure if I heard the Minister suggesting that local authorities might use some of the money given by his Department to local authorities for environmental schemes. Was the Minister suggesting that they might use some of that money to employ litter wardens? If he was, I think it is ludicrous because most local authorities have already designated that money for one scheme or another and the engineers and the officials of the councils have already set about employing people or are setting in train the motions to employ people for those schemes.

Thirdly — this is a technicality but one which I would rather have cleared at this stage — the Minister has not answered me about the seashores. Do the local authorities have jurisdiction below the high water mark? If not, would any fines which litter wardens might impose for offences occurring below the high water mark in effect be proper and if not, would there be any sense in imposing those fines? It is important that the Minister would if necessary seek advice from his officials on this because I have doubts about it.

I would like to add to the comments that have been made. While we are in favour of the Bill in principle we feel that it will not be successful unless the money to implement it is provided. I would like to emphasise again the point raised about giving powers to local authorities. Local authorities do not appreciate extra powers particularly now because they are inundated with financial problems as it is. I was a bit disappointed to hear the Minister say that it was not mandatory on local authorities to appoint wardens. In my book the whole success of this Bill depends on the appointment of wardens. The only way that the matter can be resolved in the long run is by the appointment of such wardens. It is a pity this debate did not take place on section 2 because the appointment of wardens is only the tip of the iceberg as regards the overall expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities because there are many other measures and duties imposed on local authorities in section 2. As I said, it is a pity we are not discussing it now.

All I want to say is that this Bill will not be successful unless the Minister sees fit to insert a clause which will put the onus on the Government of the day to provide funds to implement its provisions. I spoke thus on another Stage. I was disappointed that the Minister did not refer to that point. This is the first time he has given his opinion with regard to the financial side of it. I am not happy with it and I certainly will have to consider whether I will support any aspect of this Bill at this stage.

I also speak as a member of a local authority for over 20 years and as far as I am concerned the fear we have as members of our local authority in Louth is that some of our workers will have to be laid off. We are talking today about the appointment of litter wardens while we were told not so long ago at our council meeting that there is a great danger that some of our road workers will be laid off. The whole thing does not make sense to me. We welcome this Bill and we welcome the appointment of these people but the big question at the moment in all our minds is: who is going to pay?

We have a situation at the moment when circulars are going to and fro in relation to services and what suggestions local authorities may have about charges for certain services. I have fears, and I hope I am wrong, that in the not too distant future further circulars will come to local authorities telling them to charge certain fees for services. For that reason I am very worried about this. Senator Loughrey has spoken about the question of making up the difference between the amount collected in fines and the total cost of the scheme. I would hope that nobody is fined. I want to say here and now that I hate the thought of anyone being fined for anything, least of all for litter. I hope that the appointment of these people will be a deterrent in itself, that the fact that they are appointed may help or may act as a deterrent. For that reason I hope that there is an improvement and at the same time that we get very little money in fines. I do not mind saying that here and now. I would say the same at my own local authority.

Having said that, I still feel that if these people are to be appointed, and if we are to continue with all the other existing services, when we come to our estimates meeting next year if we do not get a greater allocation of money — and it has not been forthcoming in the past — this scheme will not be operated because the other schemes in the eyes of the public are perhaps more important, water schemes and the many other things that we have in operation. This is an additional one. In the streets at the moment — and I refer to some of my own towns — we have traffic wardens for cars and if we have wardens on the streets for litter, then between all these wardens and the people on the dole God knows there will hardly be a place for the rest of us to walk. I am somewhat worried about this. In some cases we have these wardens imposing fines no matter where we park our cars at the moment because there is so little space to park them. We arrive back and find a notice on the car. In most of these towns we have no place to park a car; we just have to put up with the fines. When we talk about these fines for litter we have our other services to consider as I have said, including bin collections. We will have to drop either one or the other. That is the great fear I have. If the Minister could give us an assurance that he would have this included in his Estimate next year and allocate money to cover this scheme I would say that we would all be happy. Otherwise, as a member of a local authority for 20-odd years, I certainly am not happy with it.

I, too, as a member of a local authority, am extremely concerned about the financial implications in this Bill. I certainly welcome the powers. It is the first time, I would say, in years that the local authorities have got any additional power and I certainly welcome this and hope that in years to come that some of the powers we have lost over the years will be given back to us. Speaking of a county that is already £2 million in the red, County Wexford, we certainly at this stage could not undertake any additional financing. The success of this measure is going to necessitate a certain amount of initial capital expenditure and I suppose then the financial success after that in any county will depend on how litter-conscious they are. It would be an impossible thing at the moment. Also, there would be an extra burden on counties with extensive coastlines. I think our beaches need constant surveillance by litter wardens.

I would like to ask the Minister if, when he was allocating the money for the local environmental schemes this year, he explained to all the local authorities that they would be expected to use part of this finance to employ litter wardens later in the year? As in the case of my colleagues, money in our county has been allocated. The schemes are in motion and people have been employed, so I cannot see in our case any money being made available from the environmental scheme in 1982. Could I ask the Minister what was the percentage increase this year over last year on the moneys allocated for the environmental schemes and did it take sufficient cognisance of the extra burden that was going to be put on the local authorities by the employment of the litter wardens?

Since the local authorities will have the responsibility for implementing this section of the Bill, could I ask the Minister whether he has established contact with the officers of the various local authorities in order to establish the extent of the financial burden that will be placed upon them by this section?

(Dublin South-East): There are a few direct questions to which I should like to reply immediately before I speak more generally about various points that were raised. Senator Ferris raised the matter of prosecutions for below the high water line offences. As it stands at the moment, prosecution could not take place although clean-ups can be done, but the Department are examining the position to see if such power of prosecution could be extended below the high water line.

Senator Reynolds referred to the question of a £5 on-the-spot fine being either totally inadequate of making no difference to people if they were going to be fined on the spot. That is a very inaccurate statement. If the £5 on-the-spot fine for cars was abolished the situation would become intolerable. Take Dublin city alone. We had an example of it when the traffic wardens were not present on the streets and we can remember that cars were parked four and five deep in some streets. That is not an accurate statement to make. Regrettably, fines have to be introduced. If I thought that any other system would work I would be only too happy to go along with it. The £5 will be a starting fine and can be changed by regulation.

Appealing just to the national spirit to keep the country clean is not working and will not work as the nation increasingly becomes a throwaway society. I think the position will get worse and worse unless some firm action is taken. The cleansing superintendents have told me that in their experience the only way to cure this problem is to have an effective on-the-spot fine and increase the maximum penalty as much as possible. Initially, the fine was £500 and after debate in the Dáil we had it increased to the practical maximum of £800. We looked for £1,000 but £800 was the maximum that could be worked through the courts.

With regard to environmental schemes, I could not possibly — I am not sure whether the Senator intended it to be this way — give an assurance that the Department of the Environment would pay the bill for any differential between the fines collected and the cost of employing wardens, in other words, to write a blank cheque. That is being unrealistic — almost like making some form of wildcat promise. Rather than what the Senator suggests, I would encourage and communicate with all local authorities to make sure that they conduct effective environmental campaigns to try to get a new attitude established throughout the country.

Senator Bolger referred to her particular situation in Wexford. I would like to compliment Wexford for the very excellent results they had without money. Once the situation is established I am absolutely certain that people will develop a new attitude to litter. I am content to leave the situation where the local authorities would have this power and might set about operating this Litter Bill immediately. If there are any particular points I have omitted I will be happy to come back to them again. So many points were raised that it was difficult to cover them all.

All Senators who are members of local authorities are aware that local authorities are at present engaged in this form of work. They are engaged in trying to remove abandoned vehicles but the penalties are ludicrous. The penalties for indiscriminate dumping and despoliation of the countryside are ridiculous. The powers within this Bill are making it possible in a realistic manner to make littering an offence in the minds of the people so that they will become conscious that what they are doing is wrong.

I agree, and I think in my opening remarks I told the Minister that many local authorities had schemes of their own, and my county is no exception. I would like to think it is a premier county in that respect. This Bill confers certain rights and powers on the local authority. As a member of a local authority, I want to ensure that I am prepared to match the power that the Minister is giving us but to do that I need to know that funds will be available to do what he wants us to do, particularly in regard to the employment of staff, many of our staff are now unemployed or under threat of being redundant or on short-time working, as they were last year.

The Minister mentioned that he had made a special fund available this year. That was very welcome. It ensured that people could be maintained in the employment of local authorities specifically for environmental works where the results could be seen in the localities and where local people could be involved in community development associations, working on projects and with the assistance of the environmental work through the deployment of council staff we achieved a lot. But at the time of the allocation we were unaware that the Minister had any intention that some of this money would be directed towards the employment of litter wardens. Unless I am mistaken I got that inference from the Minister's remarks when he said that he had made £7 million available to local authorities. Surely a warden can be employed out of that money?

Could I get an assurance from the Minister now that in future when he is making allocations to local authorities for environmental works he will specifically request each authority, out of that fund, to comply with this Bill and employ a warden? The fines, we hope, will be very small because the employment of wardens will be a deterrent. We also have school children who are in schemes for tidy schools, tidy towns and villages and there is the fact that somebody in authority will be on the streets to ensure that there is no indiscriminate or accidental littering.

If the Minister writes that in to the allocation, I am confident that all local authorities will respond to the principle that it is now their responsibility to follow the spirit of this Bill through and employ a warden and that there will be funds available to recompense them for employing a warden. The power to employ litter wardens and to pay them should lie with the local authority. That is very important. But if the Minister gives a commitment that in future that allocation will be intended to cover this employment, I could accept this section. I agree that he could not give a blank cheque, that he would pick up all the tabs, because there would be no incentive whatsoever to employ them, even if it was necessary, if we thought someone else would take up the tabs. But if we have a specific scheme allocated to councils for environmental works and anti-litter and if portion of that is intended to fund the authority in the following through of all the charges being made on them in this scheme, I would accept this section.

First, I should like to apologise to the House and to the Minister for taking up so much time on this today but I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer on two points. The first is in regard to the environmental schemes. As a member of a local authority, so far as I am concerned environmental scheme money is meant to be spent on environmental schemes. As far as my local authority are concerned it was never intended that it would be spent in any other way and certainly not as payment of a salary to a litter warden. Secondly, I have no intention of suggesting that a blank cheque should be sent to a local authority to spend on environmental schemes. But the Minister should give us an assurance that where this is a shortfall between the revenue raised by way of fines for littering and the amount paid to litter wardens for the collection of such fines, the State rather than the local authority would make up the difference. If he does not give that assurance the local authorities would be unable to employ litter wardens and this Bill would in itself become rubbish.

I would like to follow up what Senator Ferris said in his last contribution to the discussion of this section. It is important, and I want to assure the Minister of this, that it should be on record that all of us in this House are in favour of the Bill. One hopes that there would be the utmost effort made to implement the Bill. Our difficulty is that in section 2 there is an imposition of a duty on the local authority. The use of the word "employed" by a local authority in the definition section is what has given rise to this problem and given rise to this debate which has lasted for almost one hour.

However, it would be inappropriate for us, with this difficulty, which we are unable to resolve with the Minister, on that account to vote against the whole of section 1, because section 1 is essential to the operation of the Bill. It might be possible that we could produce an amendment for Report Stage which would try to avoid the implications which are created by the word "employed". Thereby we would be able to reduce the difference between us, which now appears to be a difference about the whole of section 1, to a net point. When we make a decision on that net point, then we can all express our opinion in the usual way. Accordingly, I will do my best to frame an amendment that will be helpful to the debate and not be in danger of being ruled out of order by the Cathaoirleach. The net point could be determined on Report Stage rather than continue along with discussion on section 1 on Committee Stage.

(Dublin South-East): I have little further to add. On the one hand I got the impression that there is a fair degree of opposition to section 1 while it seems now that there is a fair degree of accord. I cannot give the guarantee that has been asked of me, that is, to provide local authorities with moneys to cover any differential that might occur. It will be for them to decide whether to employ litter wardens. To give such a commitment would be misleading.

So far as Senator Dooge is concerned, I would beg to differ with his request in that respect. I have given an immense amount of thought to this entire legislation and I am very confident as to its entirety. Having said that, equally I respect the opinions of Senators who would differ from that interpretation.

We are trying to assist the Minister on this section. In the Bill power is being given to the authorities to employ wardens while the Minister says he does not care whether they do so or not.

(Dublin South-East): They have that power already.

Surely if they are precluded from doing so because of the financial restrictions already on them, the situation is of the Minister's making. Because of this situation they may not be able to live up to the spirit of the Bill. We want them to live up to it.

(Dublin South-East): On a point of information, I did not say that at all. The local authorities can employ litter wardens, have been doing so, and can continue to do so. I am not giving them power to employ litter wardens at all.

The Minister mentioned a couple of authorities who employ litter wardens but these are big authorities and strike a much higher rate in the £ than do many smaller authorities. I am thinking of many local authorities within the country who because of the PLV's of their ratepayers are unable to perform the normal duties of a county council. If on the one hand we write in this power to employ a warden and impose fines but, if because of restrictions on them now they are unable to live up to the spirit of this, is it not the responsibility of the Minister and his Department to try to assist us? The Minister must benefit from the fact that we are all members of local authorities. We would like to see the Bill in operation. We would like to see it working on the ground. The Minister will be making allocations for these environmental works. All he has to do is prescribe a percentage of that allocation to match the spirit of the Bill and say, "Here is X number of thousands of pounds for environmental work; I would like you to use 5 per cent of this on the employment of litter wardens to carry out the functions of the Act of 1982".

This is not asking for a specific amount, it is asking the Minister to recognise the dilemma of local authorities and to ask them to live up to the spirit of the Bill. Otherwise all authorities will wash their hands of it. I have asked the Minister to come clean. Now local authorities will wash their hands of the whole thing and say it is a lovely scheme but that they cannot afford to employ litter wardens.

The recent Water Pollution Act was the most necessary legislation that was ever enacted because local authorities were powerless to do anything about the pollution of streams, rivers and so on. We had to employ additional staff to put that legislation into operation. We had to have people to monitor the situation. We had to have people competent to monitor and we also had to set up laboratories on a regional basis for the testing of samples. To say that any scheme will cost very little is not to appreciate the problems at local authority level. At administrative level they are flat out trying to live within the restrictions on rates. There is a decreasing number of ratepayers and there are restrictions from the Department about how much they can strike in the rate. We know the Department cannot ever give us all the money we would like because their funds are not unlimited. But here we have a specific vehicle that does not tie the Department down to taking up the slack. To do so could be dangerous because there could be big slack in some councils and no slack at all in others.

We have made our point and we would like to give the Minister the section but we would like to ensure that local authorities are indemnified from an additional responsibility that they cannot match. This is the problem.

(Dublin South-East): I take the point but to put this into perspective, this Bill is not hinging totally around the employment of litter wardens to go out and fine offenders on the spot. Local authorities are not obliged to employ litter wardens to do that. Local authorities may prosecute for litter offences regardless of whether they have litter wardens. That is a crucial point because if a local authority for one reason or another decide that they can manage fine without litter wardens and that they have schemes whereby they can encourage voluntary organisations to do this work, the voluntary organisations or residents' associations can easily report litter offences to the local authority who can send out someone from the cleansing department, prosecute and that is the litter offence gone without an on-the-spot fine.

However, if you take large areas like Limerick, Wexford, Dublin or Galway, where the litter problem has got out of hand, where there is indiscriminate littering, you have to have some way of catching people quickly on the spot. That is the intention of the provision for litter wardens and we want to make the exercise self-financing to the local authorities.

I would like to take up the Minister on the last point he made about the revenue from fines accruing to the local authorities. That is not specified in section 14. It provides that moneys accruing to a local authority under this Act shall be disposed of in accordance with regulations made by the Minister. We do not know what those regulations are. The Minister may very well demand that these funds be reimbursed to the Department, so I think he should clarify it a little more.

(Dublin South-East): I take the point, but it will be up to the Department to make that regulation. I give the assurance to the House now that it is the intention of the Department to make the regulation so that the finances would accrue to the local authorities concerned. If that was not the case there would be no incentive to the local authorities, not that that should be the crucial point, but I would hope that the local authority would have an incentive to operate the scheme to success.

The Minister on Second Stage, referring to the question of how the whole system would be financed, said it would be his intention that the moneys collected, although they would come under the regulation made by the Department of Finance, would go back to the local authorities to give them the incentive to make the legislation effective. I wish any Department luck in getting anything out of the Department of Finance.

Senator Byrne has made an important point in the statement he has just made. I welcome that statement. I agree with the Senator that to get money from the Department of Finance is like having to go to the Gestapo. Now is the opportune time for the Minister to do something about the sentiments he has expressed. I am and always have been antagonistic towards the Department of Justice and I make this point just for the sake of comparison. In most county councils areas throughout the country, the upkeep of the courts is the responsibility of the county councils. Yet for all the money that accrues either to the Department of Finance, or to the Department of Justice, through fines imposed in those courts, the county councils have no way at all of getting back their investment. Now is the time when we could alter the situation if the Minister could state in the Bill that the money coming from those fines should go to the county council concerned. I think now is the time we could do it; it might not be easy but we should write that in. I think everybody agrees with the spirit of it.

Now is the appropriate time to do it because county councils are going to starve later on if the Department of Finance come up like beggarmen, begging a few pounds from them. We have done it in all Governments. The county councils had no function. The Minister is nodding his head but if he could write the provision in, it would be very acceptable.

(Dublin South-East): The Senator will appreciate that actually to write what he proposes into the Bill is not possible. If it were possible, I would do it, but it would contravene standard practice in legislation. I examined that question. It came up in a previous debate. However, I can give the Senator the assurance that the necessary regulation is in draft form. It will happen, but it cannot actually be written in substance into the Bill now as it is before the House. It has to come under a separate regulation and that regulation is in draft form at the moment. It is drafted to provide the local authorities with the funds that will accrue from on-the-spot fines for litter offences.

Like Senator Killilea, Senator Reynolds and others, we all query in some way the financial situation. On Second Reading I queried section 14. I am glad that these fines will go into the coffers of local authorities. I would like to think that if a local authority have a good litter warden who is doing his job he will more than pay his way, that he will in fact at the end of the week give more money to the local authority than he takes from them by way of salary for himself. In the final analysis, while I can appreciate what the Minister says in relation to finance, I believe that the local authority members, who are very much the watchdogs of the finances of that authority, will see to it that every penny that is collected under this legislation will go to the local authority expenditure. I would be happy with that situation if that is the way it is to be implemented. I am pleased that it is being done this way and as a member of a local authority I will be endeavouring to ensure that whatever money is collected by way of fines will be put back into the local authority funds.

I will not deal with section 14 although I share the views expressed in that regard because I think it is inappropriate to try to overcome the problems of section 1 by reference to the other section. The Minister in his reply did not respond to the gesture I made about the possibility of insuring a council's debt in the allocation of this environmental grant in future. He would just advise them that that is the wish. Certainly it is the wish of this House. It is a requirement of the allocation of the grant that the spirit and the letter of this Bill would be put into operation by all local authorities, otherwise we are initiating legislation just for the sake of legislation and we could be leaving it on the scrap heap. This would be regrettable since we are dealing with a rather good and useful Bill. I ask the Minister to consider my suggestion between now and Report Stage. Otherwise I may have to put down an amendment and I do not want to create a division on this. I would like an assurance from the Minister that, in the allocation of funds for environmental works, he would expect local authorities to respond to this Bill and to employ litter wardens.

(Dublin South-East): I take the Senator's point but what he is asking me to do is to direct a local authority on how to spend their money.

The Minister often does that.

(Dublin South-East): Can the Senator give me an example?

We get thousands of pounds allocated by your Department to our county council and we are told we must spend the money on a certain road or water scheme.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair must be recognised and speakers should address their remarks to the Chair.

I will give the Minister the name of a scheme if he wishes.

(Dublin South-East): An over-all sum of £7 million was allocated. For individual local authorities that could be £150,000 or it could be £1.5 million and so on. To request me to direct a local authority to allocate a percentage of that for the employment of a full-time or part-time litter warden would not be helpful. It would be better, on an educational and communication basis, to encourage each local authority and not so much direct them on a percentage because this percentage might be either too little or too much. That is something that neither I not the authority would know until after a scheme had developed. It is in the initial stages at the moment. As the local authority comes to grips with their problems they will have to tease out how much money they should allocate for the employment of a litter warden. The Senator wants to ensure that it has effect and I respect that intention. It is my intention also but it is not the intention of this legislation to give a directive to a local authority.

On the point made by Senator Byrne and Senator Killilea that the local authorities get the revenue collected from on-the-spot fines, would there be any danger that the Department of the Environment, while allocating grants at the end of the year, would check each local authority to see how much they got by way of fines and reduce the amount of grants by that figure? I have some experience of the Department of the Environment and I know that this and other Departments are in a desperate way for money.

(Dublin South-East): That would not be consistent with my findings at the Department of the Environment. They are very conscious of having to come to grips with this problem. That would not be the case either from our own attitude or from the tourist's or anybody else's attitude.

We all are but money prevents us.

(Dublin South-East): Yes, but when moneys accrue to a local authority the real incentive will come about.

I regret that Senator Reynolds, with respect, would give local authorities such ideas.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

This section is really the nub of the Bill because it spells out the duties of local authorities. I would like a few clarifications on the section. There is reference to measures to facilitate and encourage the recycling of waste. To encourage the recycling of waste does not cost money but to facilitate the recycling of waste could mean providing the wherewithal to recycle. I would like to know what is in mind here.

Subsection (2) provides for the undertaking of work and the provision of facilities and services. These are areas which would cost money and I would like to know what the Minister has in mind particularly in regard to the provision of facilities.

(Dublin South-East): To take the point about encouraging the recycling of waste, we are expending valuable resources on a daily basis. One example is the common bin sack that is put out every week for collection. I would hope that local authorities could encourage householders to separate the waste into, say, four categories — glass, paper, ash for road resurfacing and animal fats and oils which can be used as foodstuffs. The local authority can encourage recycling. It is not common practice but certain categories of waste separation go a long way to create a war on wastage of valuable resources which are thrown into dumps. About 65 per cent of all dustbins contain paper and a large measure of other useful products which can be recycled.

The Senator mentioned that this would require money. I do not think so. If the local authority decide to provide a skip to collect glass or waste paper in an organised manner this could be a self-financing prospect. My Department are constantly aware of the need to conserve those resources, that are being dumped out on a daily basis. The question of recycling of waste is a very big area and a lot of scientific work has been programmed in this direction. Switzerland is years ahead in this area. I would hope that Irish people will show a better attitude to separating and recycling waste products where possible.

Regarding the second point about facilities that will be made available, this would be entirely at the discretion of the local authorities and would vary from one case to the next.

Section 2(3)(a) provides for measures for the collection and disposal of litter. At this time all local authorities are conscious of the fact that the authorities themselves are causing problems because the measures they are taking for the collection of litter are not ample. A perfect example of that is that soon after litter has been collected from various local authority areas the areas are in a worse state than they were. Why? Unfortunately, because of present-day functioning of trade unionism and management the people who are doing this type of work are always in a hurry because they are paid for doing the job in a particular time and if they do it faster, this is their business. I am not objecting to doing this type of work in this way, but we are all conscious that the area when they are finished is in a worse state.

I fail to understand how we can readily say, as is said throughout the Bill, that we should become more conscious of cleanliness with regard to litter while the vast majority of local authorities are more at fault than anybody else. Section 2(2)(a) should be noted by the relevant local authorities. It is very unfair to ask the general public to do a thing whilst the people who were expected to do this properly are in fact creating litter.

We say that the local authority must keep the place clean. I cannot understand how we can say this when we readily admit that the general trend of life in Ireland as regards litter and society generally is deteriorating because moneys are not available to local authorities to enable them to keep places in order. I will give an example. How can we expect anybody to say that we should clean footpaths or roads throughout our own area when the footpaths that we walk on elsewhere are not in order? Litter may be the very little bit of gravel loose on the ground. How can we readily say that things are in order when the vast majority of areas that we are living in, because of the lack of moneys from the relative Departments for the local authorities, are not in order?

The Minister speaks of example. We, from the top, should encourage the local authorities to show example, but how can they do it in present conditions? I am not saying that it is the Minister's fault, but we must admit that society generally has deteriorated and because of this litter is now a big problem. I would like an answer from the Minister.

(Dublin South-East): The two points the Senator makes are valid. Firstly, on the question of management of litter, it is regrettable that in Ireland the attitude is that the very essential service of waste collection has never really been regarded as an important task. To me the management and control of all matters pertaining to hygiene and health hazards are equally important. For example, a member of the cleansing department coming along to remove dustbins is performing as important a task in society as a medical doctor would be, but the attitude of the public suggests that they hold a different opinion on this. Here again, I must look to the continental examples where workers of the cleansing departments are dressed in proper uniforms, even wear gloves, and take pride in their work. The public there would not leave out a dustbin that was falling asunder or a litter basket that was leaking. Such behaviour would be an absolute insult to a member of the cleansing department who would have to lift it up and put it into a lorry. I agree with what the Senator says: in many cases the cleansing department here would leave a household in a state worse than that in which they found it because they have not this sense of pride in their work. I hope that as a result of the Litter Bill a new attitude will develop.

The other point the Senator made about footpaths and so on being in such a state is slightly outside the realms of this Bill but again it goes back to an Irish attitude. We are wasteful and unthinking as to where we drop litter. A nation with a very much lower standard of living than ours which I have mentioned previously in the Seanad is India which has no litter problem because the people there do not have the things to throw away. Here, we are unthinking and that is why we have to include the on-the-spot fine. It is regrettable but it is part of the Bill.

I welcome what the Minister has said and the fact that his response to this on Second Stage was positive. I would also like to press on a local level for a separation and recycling of waste. On that point much has to be done in regard to depots and whether it should be the responsibility of the local authorities or done centrally I do not know. I know of areas where collections were made and then they found themselves in the unenviable position of having mountains of paper and loads of glass and they did not know where to send them for recycling. I take the Minister's point about educational information, and a list of depots would make it worth while for the local authorities to engage themselves in that occupation.

On a central basis — I know these things do not happen overnight — is the Minister aware if his Department have done any research into or if there is any evidence or information available at all about the recycling processes that have been done on the Continent, particularly with regard to generating energy through the disposal of waste? Even the initiation of a public discussion and debate to allow all of us to come to terms with such an innovation would be tremendously helpful and it would certainly be in line with the Minister's own commitment to the change of attitude that we need here.

(Dublin South-East): Those are three points on which I will give the Senator an assurance.

On section 2(2)(c), measures to facilitate and encourage the recycling of waste, is the Minister seriously considering in Dublin, Cork or any big city or town the question of incineration? For example, an incineration unit in a new scheme of local authority or private sector housing could mean that that area could be heated by incineration. Such a scheme would have to be worked in such a way that the incinerator would look like, say a warehouse. In another country I have seen a local authority scheme of something in the region of 600 houses and around the corner from that an incineration unit was burning one-quarter of the city's rubbish and creating heating for the area. Are we consideraing that? Planners in all local authorities do not mention it or seem even to have heard about it.

(Dublin South-East): It is a very interesting concept. Heretofore the costs did not justify that, as I am sure the Senator is aware, but the situation is changing rapidly and as fossil fuels become less and less available quite obviously we will be forced to conduct a system of re-using waste material that has energy effect. A scheme is at present under consideration in Dublin to heat Ballymun flats by incineration. I am happy to assure the Senator that schemes in the future will certainly be considered on an incineration basis.

Section 2 (1) in its wording envisages co-operation between local authorities. I agree with Senator Cregan that recycling is an area in which co-operation could be effective, but toxic waste should be dealt with perhaps at a central location controlled by the Department. I sincerely hope that local authorities will not be expected to facilitate dumping of unwanted waste from some counties into other counties because we all have enough problems in our own areas. We have problems in industry about developing dumping sites or renewing applications to use alternative sites for litter. Quite a number of residents in those areas object to this kind of work. For instance, if Cork, with all due respect to my Seanad colleague from that county, had quite a number of problems, I would hate to think that South Tipperary would be saddled with them just because of a provision in this section for co-operation between local authorities on the effective collection and disposal of litter.

(Dublin South-East): I give the Senator an assurance under the parameters of this legislation that toxic waste would not be covered at all. It is under a separate regulation altogether. However, I take the point the Senator is making.

I want to raise a question about a route being sub-let to a contractor. If his truck breaks down, litter on the route for possibly 20 or 30 miles may not be collected and the route may not be serviced again until the following week. Because of the failure of the contractor and the county council to pick up waste on that route litter may be strewn on the road for miles by birds, dogs and various other animals. That type of negligence and aiding and abetting by the county council and the contractor, to say the least of it, is not a good example to give to the public at large, the people whom we are trying to educate with the implementation of this Bill. Who, in a case like that, will be responsible? The onus is on the local county council to implement the regulations and impose the fines and they themselves are aiding and abetting the sub-contractor who has failed in his duty to service the route on a given day.

This Bill must include a provision ensuring that somebody is responsible in such a case. If the contractor or sub-contractor does not collect that litter it will lie there perhaps until the following week. This can create very unsightly scenes throughout the country.

(Dublin South-East): That is covered in section 3. On the first point the Senator makes about the local authority or council aiding and abetting, I feel that under the constant and vigilant eye of concerned councillors a situation like that would not be tolerated for very long. If it is a genuine breakdown I do not think that you could institute proceedings or that they would be upheld in any court of law.

On section 2 (2) (b), has the Minister anything in mind to encourage the public to get behind him in this litter effort? If he has I hope he will tell the House what it is. On section 2 (2) (c), recently I read that somewhere, on the Continent perhaps, electricity was being generated from the recycling of some of the litter and group water schemes were being heated thereby. I am glad to hear from the Minister of the experiment at Ballymun. Will his Department make any grants towards this? If so, people in a number of places in the country might interest themselves in this. The St. Vincent de Paul Society are building a number of houses for elderly people in my town and if we can get any grant towards the recycling of this material we could have the houses heated from it.

(Dublin South-East): On the question of publicity schemes that would be inaugurated to encourage local authorities to get this message across, we have many ideas. At present the local authorities are engaged in many tidy areas contests and so on but it could be extended to a more aggressive campaign with visits to schools, audio-visual examples, prominent on-the-spot fine notices which I would like to see put up on our highways and which would be a constant reminder to people of the extent of the fines that will be imposed if necessary through the courts and also, an educational campaign to support the legislation.

The success of the legislation will depend greatly upon poignant examples being made in the courts in the early stages for persistent offenders. The Department can readily conduct a survey through the local authorities to see where the principal acts of despoliation take place and identify the perpetrators and then I hope that the justices will mete out the heaviest possible fines with maximum publicity against people who dump indiscriminately so that their businesses would be adversely affected as a result of their indiscriminate dumping and the public would rapidly become aware of people who are earning a living from this country and at the same time despoiling it. The Senator's point has very wide ramifications and is very valid. I give an assurance that I will do everything possible to ensure that the maximum publicity is given at the time the Bill becomes law.

I also commend that in trying to ensure the adoption of section 2 (2) (b) the Minister asks local authorities to elicit support from their local regional tourism organisations. I would like to put on the record of this House the co-operation of SETO, the South-Eastern Tourism Organisation, with our council in not alone facilitating us in adjudicating schemes which will make the public conscious of their duties in this regard but also in providing the most beautiful plaques as prizes for local bodies such as chambers of commerce, development associations, schools and so on. The plaques carry the crest of our own county. The South-Eastern Tourism Organisation and we put up a small prize fund. Thus we are linked together and involved with the people. That is the way to go about this kind of co-operation with the public, and I would like to instance our experience with SETO and Pat Nolan, who is the regional director, who has devoted much of his own time to this scheme. I commend that form of activity on behalf of local authorities and tourism organisations.

The points we are making at the moment are of the utmost importance. They form the key to unlock the door, our main weapon in this war against litter. We are dealing with the two-pronged attack to which reference was made on Second Stage. We must get the goodwill of the people and every agent who can mould public opinion must be enlisted. The Church, the promoters of games, tourism operators, schools, educational services and every agent who can be enlisted on our side must be enlisted. We must get the people to realise that now is the time we either win or lose this war. If we lose the war against litter now I am afraid that our tourist trade will suffer very grievously, apart from the danger healthwise to our people. I was delighted to hear the Minister advocating the imposition of the stiffest penalties possible and I am hoping and praying that the justices will see that these fines are imposed where appropriate. A stiff fine will have a deterrent effect, of that there is no doubt. If a person is fined only a nominal sum for depositing and creating litter he will repeat the offence, but if a stiff fine is imposed upon him, running into hundreds of pounds, thousands of pounds if necessary, then he will not do it a second time. For a person who will not listen to reason a very stiff penalty imposed mercilessly is the only real deterrent for such crimes as creating litter.

I would like to refer the Minister to two items in relation to section 2. The first is of significance to people who live in the Border area. The fact that the Border exists makes it very difficult to prevent litter on both sides of it. Sometimes one can see a buffer zone where the perpetrators and offenders do not live within the relevant jurisdiction, and this creates an enormous problem. Living very close to the Border as I do, I see old cars appearing very suddenly at night and it is very obvious that the people who abandon them do not live in the jurisdiction within which I live, and this works both ways. Is there any communication with the Northern Ireland authorities, Northern Ireland Office or local authorities, on this matter? This can be a tremendous burden to local authorities on both sides of the Border as a result of the unique situation that they are in. I am not aware of what relationship there may be or what provisions have been made between those authorities. In terms of the EEC extra quota allocations a substantial amount of money was made available recently in relation to Border areas. That money generally has been taken up by local authorities and it would be a shame that the spending of that money especially in relation to tourism — and we are talking about some of the most scenic areas in Ireland — would be rendered almost useless by the logistic implementing the legislation before us and the legislation that exists within the North of Ireland. This is a problem, and I would welcome some indication from the Minister that there is at least a recognition of it between the Government here and the Administration in the North of Ireland and an understanding as to how it can be dealt with. One can nip in and out of the two jurisdictions very quickly. Any Senators from the Cavan-Monaghan-Louth area would recognise that what I call this litter buffer zone can build up very quickly. It is causing enormous expense to local authorities on both sides of the Border, and it might well be looked at as a means of creating practical co-operation between local authorities and, indeed, between the central authorities which would have a tremendous beneficial effect especially in those areas of scenic beauty.

Section 2 (2) (d) relates to the undertaking of works and provision of facilities and services including publicity, advisory and educational services. It would seem a terrible shame that in a very excellent Bill — and as a member of a local authority for some years I recognise it as such and I congratulate the Minister on it — if the terms of this subsection stopped short at this buffer zone. It would be almost akin to someone shaving one half of his face and leaving the other half bearded. Whatever type of publicity and educational arrangements are used — and, like Senator Cranitch, I think they are very important — the provisions of the subsection should not stop short at this buffer zone, and their effect should be seen across the Border. It is a problem common to local authorities North and South of the Border, to central government in the South of Ireland and the Administration in the North of Ireland and, more important, to the people.

Those are the two points I want to make under that section, and I seek the advice of the Minister on them.

(Dublin South-East): I thank the Senator for his very constructive and important contribution, which covers a huge area of the country. Apart from the fact that the Minister met his counterpart in Belfast recently, it opens the way for co-operation for both areas. I assure the Senator that in the publicity campaign or in any action about to be taken we will consult to see that the Litter Bill has effect on both sides of the Border. I agree with him that there is an area where it is very difficult to effect the legislation to maximum purpose. We will take the strongest possible action on it, and perhaps on another section of the Bill which covers other aspects of litter we can talk a little more about it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Under this section, I can see problems for local authorities who have skips placed at strategic points to facilitate the public. Our experience in my local authority area of these pieces of equipment is that they are, unfortunately, an invitation to litter because of their design. They are usually designed in steel with the most extraordinary opening devices so that litter can be mechanically removed and deposited. It makes it almost impossible for housewives particularly to use them to any great effect. Rubbish has to be tipped over the top which is quite high. If a shutter door is provided it will rust because it is steel and never open. I have seen literally everything one could think of dumped at the side of skips, from dead animals to all sorts of obnoxious waste, just because a council tries to facilitate people who have litter other than normal household litter which would be picked up at the doorstep.

We, as a council, have had to take a conscious decision to close all the skips and remove them, otherwise we would not be making an effort to ensure that these designated areas in or adjacent to built-up areas did not become scenes for the activities of all sorts of vermin. The authorities must face up to changing the design of the skips which are specifically made to fit the machines which transport them and do not suit the person who dumps rubbish into them. Otherwise, there will be widescale breaking of this section. I recommend to local authorities that they look at the possibility of doing away with this facility as it has never served any purpose except to create an invitation for people to litter.

I wish to echo what Senator Ferris has said. The use of skips creates many other tipheads or rubbish dumps in county council areas. In the beginning, county councillors thought skips would solve a problem and we agreed to them. I also echo Senator Ferris' point that the design of the skips is such as to render them, one would think, inaccessible rather than accessible to people. You cannot get at them. In trying to do so you automatically disperse litter. I should like to bring to the Minister's attention the unattractiveness and non-utilisation of the skips for the purposes for which they were intended in the first place. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on this.

I endorse the sentiments expressed by both Senators Ferris and O'Rourke in connection with the type of skip used. I raised this when I spoke on the Litter Bill previously. They are completely unsuitable for domestic use. They may be suitable for industrial use, on building sites and so on. If they were in a pit situation they would be concealed. We must eliminate the unsightly look of a skip and, as Senator O'Rourke said, the creation of a tiphead at various points throughout the country. If there was some sort of an established pit where they could be hydraulically lifted when collection takes place, it would serve the purpose of the fill in the first instance and eliminate the unsightly scenes we have at present in places where they are located. They are definitely unsuitable in their present form for the collection of litter as people are unable to put any type of litter into them because of their size and because they are open at the top. Pits or something on the ground that could be hydraulically lifted would be more suitable.

Section 3 (2) states:

...that creates or tends to create litter in a public place or litter that is visible from a public place.

The biggest offenders in this area are the local authorities. The tipheads are left open overnight or indeed for weeks or months and create more litter than what is put into them. In Cork, with regard to the last tiphead that was created, it was agreed by management and the council that every night when tipheading was finished, it would be covered with topsoil. By doing that, we created a situation where it is a pleasure to walk into the tiphead. It is a very good idea and it is a very easy thing to do. Any topsoil that is collected and brought to the tiphead is now held until late in the evening. The loose rubbish, as we call it, is covered by topsoil. At the same time we are filling in the land.

Subsection (2) reads:

A person shall not load, transport, unload or otherwise handle or process any substance, material or thing, or carry on a trade, in a manner that creates or tends to create litter in a public place or litter that is visible from a public place.

Subsection (3) reads:

A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

We will stop people from working if we implement this section. It is too strong. Let us read it carefully and see exactly what it says. It means that any person anywhere, visible from a public place or on a public place, may not load, unload or carry on a trade and so on. Can a person load rubbish on the side of a road now? Are we saying he cannot? How do we get rid of rubbish if we cannot load it? Am I wrong in saying that this section states that?

(Dublin South-East): That is not the intention. As regards skips, I am in agreement with what speakers have said and I will take whatever steps I can through my Department to ensure that cognisance is taken of the points made. On the question of loading litter, there is no intention to prevent people from loading to remove litter.

A person shall not load, transport, unload or otherwise handle or process any substance, material or thing or carry on a trade in a manner that creates or tends to create litter in a public place or litter that is visible from a public place. In fairness, if a litter warden implements this section, it really means that anybody that is unloading, loading or trying to load to remove rubbish from a public place is in trouble. Is that correct?

(Dublin South-East): The point is, if the Senator reads a little further on, so as to create litter. If the Senator just stops and takes “load” he is taking it out of context. One would not be actually creating litter as a result of loading.

I am broad-minded enough to think the same way as the Minister. The facts are that the section states a person may not load. That could create a situation where a person can be told he cannot load rubbish. That would be the law. Let us be realistic about it.

Is the section joined where it states: "tends to create"? Senator Cregan is probably right. It is a little bit vague the way it is worded. Certainly the parliamentary draftsman did not excel when he came to this one. It says you shall not load. If you cannot load you cannot prove that you will not create litter. It is a little bit vague. I am sure the parliamentary draftsman probably intends us to read it together. So long as the litter warden reads it together we will be quite happy.

Some items which are transported create problems. I am glad the section prevents this. I have in mind items such as products of factories which process meat and bone meal from dead animals. A lot of damage is done by containers which are not properly covered or protected. The smell is so offensive. It is bad enough when they pass through areas but when they drop some of their material on the way it becomes almost intolerable, particularly when one discovers that the local authority is not due for another six days to pick it up. I am glad that somebody now has power to issue fines in such situations. Admittedly such people are carrying on a trade but they should be a little more careful about how they transport obnoxious material. We will have to accept the spirit of the section as it is. A person who is loading would need to be careful so that when he loads he will not create litter. If this is so, the warden will have the sense to implement the section properly.

The same section states:

a person shall not:

(b) (i) otherwise place or leave, anywhere, or

(ii) throw down, anywhere, any substance, material or thing, so as to create or tend to create litter in a public place...

People advertising dances, fairs, furniture auctions or whatever, place leaflets on cars outside church gates, supermarkets and so on. They leave them under the wipers on the windscreen. The people go away and there are 1,000 cars with 1,000 leaflets all over the church yard, main street or market square. In those circumstances is the young lad who is getting a few bob for putting on the leaflets or the firm to which the leaflet refers at fault? I have seen my own church yard after such an incident.

Section 3 (2) states:

A person shall not load, transport, unload or otherwise handle or process any substance, material or thing, or carry on a trade, in a manner that creates or tends to create litter in a public place or litter that is visible from a public place.

As the Minister knows, at local authority level we recently undertook to provide public trading areas for people who pay a fee and who come into that area to trade. I hope this means that those traders will have to leave their area in a respectable way after them. I see a tie-up between previous legislation and this legislation.

(Dublin South-East): I sympathise with the point the Senator makes about advertisements. We could not interfere with the right of a person to advertise in such a circumstance. It could not actually be interpreted within the meaning of this Bill as a littering offence.

When they are left——

(Dublin South-East): I will develop the point the Senator made. To carry it one stage further, it might seem a contradiction in terms but it is the factual position. If the person took that piece of paper, crumpled it up and threw it on the ground, that would be a littering offence. That must be recognised. As far as the second point about having to leave a premises or area free of litter, “yes” is the answer to that. That is the spirit of putting this into the legislation. We thought about that at the time. Very often, public places are left in disgraceful condition. That would be a littering offence.

Just to clarify a point, if the unknowing person on whose car the leaflet was left comes out, scrunches it up and throws it away, that is the person who causes the offence and not the person who left it on the car or the person to whom the event refers. The promoters, in other words, are the harbingers of the leaflet.

(Dublin South-East): Yes, and to carry it one stage further if one crumples up a car parking fine placed on one's car and throws it away, that is a littering offence.

Section 3 (1) (a) and (b) will cause problems in the rural areas. This states:

A person shall not —

(a) deposit anywhere, whether in a receptacle or not, any substance, material or thing for collection by or on behalf of a local authority, or ... so as to create or tend to create litter in a public place or litter that is visible from a public place.

The system in use, generally speaking, in rural areas is as follows. On a certain day within certain hours people in a particular locality leave their bags of refuse adjacent to the gate in front of the house by the side of the road. The collection van is supposed to come along at a certain hour. It often happens that the van will break down. It could be a number of hours late and, in the meantime, word goes around to the birds of the air, through the telephone wires probably, to come in their numbers. They come and they attack the bags of litter and the bags in which the refuse is safe. As a result of their concentrated attack, litter becomes visible. What is the position there? We create a big problem for the people involved and for the local authority.

(Dublin South-East): We can envisage situations where any of God's created animals can perform acts which the litter legislation cannot cope with. That is one example. I suggest, as mentioned earlier, that if there is a breakdown of a collection vehicle, a prosecution could not be pursued. Any local authority would provide a service to clean up in that type of situation rather than attempt to bring about a prosecution.

I am not too clear about the point made by Senator O'Rourke, which is a very valid one. If some young fellow gets a few shillings for putting some type of advertisement papers on a car that is not an offence. However, it is an offence if the owner of the car comes along and takes off the paper and throws it on the ground. The owner of the car is committing an offence. Maybe I am wrong, but that is the impression I am under at present. In another section of this Bill we have a situation where a farmer will be held responsible for hitch-hikers or for people who dump litter in his field after a picnic.

(Dublin South-East): I have answered the point. That is the situation as it prevails.

I was wondering about it.

(Dublin South-East): I cannot make provision to interfere with the right of people to advertise. That is not the intention of this legislation. If a person drops litter on the ground, whether an ice pop wrapper or an advertising sheet, that is a littering offence. Under the present law it would not be an offence to put an advertisement sheet there.

My interpretation of section 3 (2) is that if a person collects concrete blocks, overloads a lorry and if one of the blocks falls off, that is a littering offence. The same applies to gravel or refuse. The question here is the spillage of offals from slaughter houses. We often see open vehicles travelling along the road and there is spillage from them. Is there any provision in the Bill to make sure that this type of vehicle is covered? Such situations must be prevented.

(Dublin South-East): I take the Senator's point, but it would be up to the courts to decide whether it is a littering offence. If something falls off a truck and the proper precautions were not taken either by covering the vehicle or having proper sidings on it, that could be interpreted by the court as a deliberate situation that would create an offence and prosecution would ensue. In another situation where an accident takes place, for example, through a defect in the road or a siding springing off a lorry and litter or blocks fall off, a prosecution would not ensue. It would be up to the court to decide. The prosecution can be brought by the local authority in question but it would ultimately be up to the court to decide.

We will be in serious trouble unless it is tied up somewhere in the Bill. I have a case in mind in my county where there was spillage from an open truck carrying offals from a slaughter house. The owner of the lorry was prosecuted and the case was dismissed. I can see a continuous occurrence of this. The Bill will be weakened if something is not done about it. I am not being critical of the courts.

(Dublin South-East): I am happy about that aspect. It is covered under the Bill. The question of transporting in such a manner as to cause a littering offence was debated in this House at some length. The section states that a person shall not transport so as to create litter in a public place.

Does carrying on a trade include street traders? There are many such people in rural towns.

(Dublin South-East): They would be empowered to carry on under the Act dealing with casual trading.

They can be prosecuted?

(Dublin South-East): Yes.

Section 3 (2) is a little unfair. Is there some way it could be changed? It is a little bit strong. It says: "A person shall not load, transport, unload or otherwise handle." Further on it states: "or tends to create litter in a public place". If a person is knocking a building in the middle of Cook Street in Cork, which is very narrow, naturally he has to put rubbish in a public place.

(Dublin South-East): I appreciate that, but the Senator must take the entire phraseology together.

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but section 3 (2) states: "a person shall not load" and further on it states "or tends to create litter in a public place". It states a person is not allowed load but it also states "or tends to create litter in a public place or litter that is visible from a public place". Even if it is inside a hoarding and it is visible through a crack in the hoarding, a person can be prosecuted. Is that correct?

(Dublin South-East): I do not agree with that interpretation. It is a question of how it is interpreted. I am content that the phraseology is substantive.

"In a manner" is the operative word. If he loads in a manner that will create litter he is in trouble.

I agree with what Senator Ferris is saying.

(Dublin South-East): If that is read in substance it completely protects the situation the Senator referred to. If the Senator takes a comment out of context, he can put varying interpretations on it, but taking the entire phraseology it stands perfectly. By the same token the Senator could say “you may not walk down the road” and then change the rest of the sentence. It is to prevent people shovelling up papers or scrap onto a truck, driving away and leaving litter on the road. That is loading in a manner which would create litter. Senator Bolger referred to casual trading where they half-load or unload their litter. It is to cover that situation.

In line 40 of section 3 (5) (c) it states:

If the person using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence is not the registered owner or the hirer of the vehicle, the person using the vehicle at that time,

Does that mean that the person using the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle will be prosecuted or does it mean the person using the vehicle?

(Dublin South-East): Both could be liable. If the Senator reads it through he will see it states:

If the person using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence is not the registered owner or hirer of the vehicle, the person using the vehicle at that time,

shall be guilty. So also would the owner. That is a good point. It covers both.

Is the Minister satisfied that paragraph (a) does not stop a housewife putting out, in the best interest of the collection, a refuse bin on Monday or Tuesday? That housewife is not sure whether the lorry will arrive on time or not; they do not arrive at the press of a button every day and it may be 11 o'clock or 4 o'clock. If it is quite windy between those hours on the day she expects the collection to be at 11 o'clock, she could in theory be fined under this section because she has put out her refuse in a receptacle which became damaged through wind or otherwise. It is a strong section. We are seeking the co-operation of a housewife to have refuse deposited in such a way that it can be collected, but in the meantime, if something happens can she be held responsible? I am worried that it is too restrictive.

If there is another provision in the Bill that allows some liberalisation of the interpretation of that I am happy enough but this section is fairly restrictive in its wording. It is stopping people from facilitating a local authority in collecting refuse because refuse collectors are not allowed to enter private property. The refuse must be left on the footpath. A litter problem may be created between the time the housewife left out her refuse and the time it is collected. Unfortunately that happens. Is the Minister going to dictate the kind of receptacle people use in the meantime?

(Dublin South-East): It is only necessary to take reasonable care. This has to be strong. The legislation has to be highly restrictive. It cannot allow scope for abuse as has gone on for many years here. It is tightly phrased and I agree with that but later the Bill provides that if the housewife takes reasonable care not to create a litter offence it will not apply. There are people who despoil environments and ruin a whole road. There may be one or two perpetrators while the rest of the citizens are trying to keep the road in a tidy state. It is spearheaded by one or two perpetrators. The others are taking reasonable care, but the one who is not can be prosecuted.

The problem is whether it is in a receptacle or not. The question is, what kind of a receptacle? Sometimes people leave out refuse in paper bags which will not stand up to rain. If they are left out overnight, as they may have to be because collectors come early in the morning, paper bags or other fánach are likely to be scattered before collection. That is where the problem arises. "Receptacle" is too loose or too liberal a word to use. Something should be added to make that stronger.

(South-East): I agree with the Senator, but the kernel of the issue is that if the receptacle, meaning container, plastic bag or whatever, is left out in a manner as to create a litter offence then that person is liable to prosecution under the legislation.

I agree with the Minister. After representations from local people Mayo County Council zoned an area for collection of refuse but the same people abused it to such an extent that we had to abandon the location. I agree about the need for firmness in the legislation. There may be liberalisation in its implementation. However, I would not agree with liberalisation because if the legislation is not strong enough we will not get co-operation. I had a personal involvement in a case where the people who demanded the service abused it. We had to abandon the dump. That is a reason for this section. The containers those people arrived with were not suitable, they had no lids. Those people did not have any respect for the location which was adjacent to a public road. The case mentioned by Senator Ferris where a housewife leaves her refuse on the side of a road and it is not collected in time is where liberalisation should apply. That is an isolated case and it will not happen every day. Generally speaking, the section is a good one.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister that subsection (2) seems to crystallise the problem I was presenting to him earlier in relation to the accumulation of litter in an area where two local authorities are involved. The subsection states:

The occupier of any land ... that is not a public place shall keep the land free of litter that is visible from a public place.

There are practical examples of this in regard to litter in the form of old vehicles. I can assure the Minister that in Border areas there is a proliferation of old vehicles for various reasons, not altogether unconnected with the MCAs on cattle and pigs, on private lands. The problem is that the Border runs somewhere in the middle of that heap of old vehicles. The implementation of this legislation and, indeed, the implementation of the more limited legislation that exists in the North of Ireland, would not separately be able to cope with this problem. If prosecution was threatened by the relevant local authority in the South, one hour with a bulldozer would relieve the man of his problem in relation to the South. Similarly, if it were a unilateral threat of prosecution from the Northern local authority, his problem is relieved by a similar type of action. This crystallises a situation where there must be some type of agreement between the local authorities and the central authority if this problem is to be dealt with efficiently. If it is not, we are prone to the situation where people can very effectively and legally flout the law. Otherwise, it would be a nonsense if this legislation was not effective simply because of that imaginary line that exists underneath this enormous pile of unsightly rubble which is very close to a main thoroughfare between North and South. That must be regarded as a tremendous eyesore not only by the people living there but by tourists who use that road. I use that example to point out that this crystallises the type of problem that exists in Border areas. It crystallises the need for joint action between the Department of the Environment; the authorities in the North of Ireland and local authorities.

It would be a tremendous shame if by unilateral action and not by joint action within this area of land — as has been pointed out there is a tremendous area of land involved — that one's introduction from the North to the South was a heap of unused vehicles and, visa versa, going from the South to the North, while legislation existed but because of the unique situation that pertains neither legislation was effective. I suggest that neither legislation will be effective unless there is common agreement between both sets of authorities as to how they will deal with the problem and, more important, unless there is common will to proceed to deal with it.

(Dublin South-East): I should like to re-emphasise that the Senator's contribution is highly valuable to the debate. I want to acknowledge that in the most forceful manner I can because it gives common ground for an area in which joint co-operation, as the Senator suggests, can be shown in a forceful manner. Indeed, if it started at this level of co-operation, of keeping both sides in order, it could lead to other highly desirable areas of joint co-operation. I thank the Senator for his contribution.

Subsection (1) states:

The occupier of any land, not being a public road or a building or other structure, that is a public place shall keep the land free of litter.

That is the matter I was talking about earlier. People having a picnic along the road may dump what they have left, which at that stage is litter, across a field. That litter would remain there, and I should like to know if the occupier of the land is responsible. Will he be charged with having litter on the land?

(Dublin South-East): I take the point. Where a person is prepared to take his or her chance through the courts, and point out that they are not responsible for this littering offence, they would not be held liable. That is not the intention of the legislation. I note the wisdom of the Senator's suggestion, and I will go further and give him an assurance that the point will be made forcibly to local authorities and in the expectation that they will take cognizance of it. It is a valid point, and it would be a dreadful defect in the law if a local authority brought a prosecution arising out a simple picnic or the like.

I welcome the assurance from the Minister that he is going to make that point to the local authorities, because, as Senator Reynolds rightly pointed out, it could be that the occupier or owner of that land might not be aware that the litter was there. I do not welcome the Minister's suggestion about land owners taking their chance through the courts. It would be unfair if any owner of land has to go to court to prove that he was not responsible for the litter. The longer I listen to this debate the more I am convinced that the only people who will be able to act as litter wardens are Senators. If we are to interpret this Bill as all Members see it litter wardens will have to go on a course for months before they can apply the law.

(Dublin South-East): I take the point the Senator made, but any local authority would be loath to bring a prosecution couched in the circumstances of Senator Reynold's contribution. He made a valid point in regard to Senators being qualified to act as litter wardens. That would be great. That is marvellous, and I hope Senators will use every available opportunity to educate local authorities to do their job in the spirit intended in the legislation.

There is another point in regard to section 4. During the Dublin West by-election I noticed outside of flats bags of refuse left there day in and day out. Nothing was done during my short period there to remove it. Who will be responsible for this, the occupier of the flat or the landlord? Will somebody be caught under the Bill? I am referring to the Minister's own constituency also.

(Dublin South-East): Is the Senator referring to an absentee landlord or what?

No. The refuse was left outside occupied flats for days.

(Dublin South-East): Is the Senator asking if that would constitute a litter offence?

It was in bags and I believe it would constitute such an offence, but the Minister may not agree.

(Dublin South-East): It would cause a litter offence.

In bags. I say it would, maybe you might think it would be liable for prosecution.

I want to make it clear that I am not offering myself as a litter warden. A few minutes ago a point was made in regard to an individual picnicking and littering a man's land. There is a more serious instance where a group of travellers take over a lay-by on a primary, secondary or county road and litter an area, and if that litter spills over on to a farmer's lands it would be most unfair if the farmer in question was penalised. I suggest that a recommendation be made to local authorities to become strict with such travellers, who are by no means poor and who are spoiling our lay-bys which were put there for the benefit of tired drivers. Throughout the country our lay-bys are taken over by such wealthy people who have expensive caravans, big cars, vans and goods of all descriptions and after staying a fortnight or three weeks leave the place in a mess. They are the greatest litter bugs in our society at present. The Minister should impress on local authorities the need to deal harshly with such people.

(Dublin South-East): I agree with what the Senator has said. No one is above the law. Travelling people are no more above the law than anybody else. There is no way a local authority will deal less harshly with travelling people than they will with anyone else. It would be showing a false sense of sympathy towards people who in many cases can afford to pay heavy fines better than other people.

After the last few interventions it would be remiss of me to stay seated. When I was younger we were constantly lectured about the fact that travelling people were lazy, indolent and would not do anything for themselves. It appears that now that they have got around to doing something for themselves we are blaming them for being wealthy. The second matter is that if there are legitimate, deserving poor travelling people there is nothing shameful, in spite of what the Minister said, about the possibility of treating them fairly and decently. These myths and rumours that float around that travelling people are more wealthy and well-off are easily dispelled and I do not like them. I know this is not relevant to the Bill but it was allowed to be discussed. It is not true. Most of our travellers are poor and live in appalling conditions. Very few of them are the wealthy minority being discussed here. This could not be allowed to go unchallenged.

As the Member who raised the matter about travelling people I should like to state that I was not referring to the poor travelling people but we all know that there are wealthy travelling people.

(Dublin South East): I am sure Senator Ryan agrees with me that the travelling people to whom he refers should be given every possible encouragement to gain the maximum they can from life and live in a healthy and clean environment. Nobody is pointing the finger at anyone despite what means, financially or otherwise, they may have. It is wrong to think that the legislation discriminates against poor people.

Subsection (3) states:

A local authority may, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the occupier of any land in its area on which there is litter, if it appears to the local authority that, in the interests of amenity or of the environment of an area, it should be removed or other steps should be taken in relation to it —

Does that mean that a local authority could remove an old car or lorry? The word "litter" is not defined but an old vehicle could be described as litter. Does the subsection mean that a local authority could remove such a vehicle and charge the owner of the land where it was found?

(Dublin South-East): That comes under a different section. The position regarding abandoned vehicles is that the occupier of the land and the local authority may prosecute the offender. There will be no obligation on the occupier to remove the abandoned vehicle. The local authority can do this subject to agreement with the occupier.

It is my view that it comes under the subsection I have quoted.

(Dublin South-East): It could overlap. I have given the Senator the information to assist him.

I believe it comes under this section.

There is an area I am worried about, and that is where uncovered lorries go to tipheads from shops or factories. Refuse may fall from those lorries and gather in people's gateways and around hedges and trees. This often happens in the dark of evening or when there is nobody around to identify the offending vehicle. What happens in such cases? Does the owner of the land have to prove that he is not guilty? The Minister has said, more or less, that the person is guilty until proved innocent and in this instance it is the landowner. Does the same apply in this instance? It is very unfair and is a regular offence in most local authority areas. It is very irritating for the landowner.

(Dublin South-East): The person who is guilty of the offence, the perpetrator of the offence, in this case it is the lorry driver but I agree that it is very difficult to identify lorries at night. It is impossible to give an emphatic answer to that question without having all the facts. I have no doubt that a local authority would not issue proceedings in a case where a load fell from a lorry into some-one's front garden. That person could immediately report to the local authority what happened and I have no doubt, knowing local authorities as I do, that they would remove the litter.

It is more the odd newspaper or box. I do not mean a load of rubbish.

(Dublin South-East): It is part of our attitude about keeping our nation tidy. What is needed according to the Senator is that all of a sudden all the offences will stop. In effect, it will be a gradual process backed up by law in the initial and formative stages. With the co-operation of the public and local authorities a new attitude will emerge. It will be up to us all to ensure that this new attitude develops. The goodwill is there provided that the spirit can be engendered. I do not think it will happen overnight although I hope it will. I hope that lorries passing through towns are all properly loaded and strapped down. Litter wardens will have to take cognisance of the fact that people will need some time to adapt to new attitudes. I am hoping to engage in a campaign to create this awareness even before the legislation is passed.

Subsection (4)(a) states:

(a) any footpath or pavement adjoining the land, or forming part of, a public road and any road or gutter on or at the side of any such footpath or pavement and forming part of a public road,

Does that mean that a shopkeeper or private individual with a footpath or gutter outside his house is responsible for the maintenance of that area?

(Dublin South-East): This is a very good point. Under this section local authorities will be empowered to make by-laws to protect such people. Take the common offence, the fish and chip shop where bags are thrown outside, local authorities can make by-laws under this section to cope with that problem. There is an obligation at present to keep the front of premises clean. The circumstances the Senator is envisaging goes further, but it is provided for in the Bill.

The danger is that business people are the only ones who are making a contribution to local authorities at present, and that contribution is very substantial, but they will now have to keep in repair the gutters and footpaths outside their own premises.

I want to raise a worry that I have in relation to the implications of section 4, subsections (2) and (3) which deal with the duties of occupiers of land in relation to litter. I am concerned at the possible effect that this section could have on farming activities. It proposes to impose an obligation on the owners of land that is visible from a public place. I take as an example a farm which is visible, or at least most of it, from a public place. I have looked for a definition of litter and if I could have located it within the time span it might not have been necessary to raise the query. However, especially with regard to livestock farming where cattle are fed on hay this problem may arise. Anyone with any knowledge of agriculture will realise that hay saved in the past few weeks is going to be of very poor quality when it comes around to feeding it out next winter or spring and therefore it is not all going to be consumed by the animals. A residue will be left on the fields. What is the position if some litter warden decides that that residue is litter?

Another aspect of it is this. Are there implications here that in a more intensive type of agriculture which gives rise to the spreading of slurry on agricultural land this slurry would be regarded as litter. What are the implications for a land occupier whose land is visible from a public place?

(Dublin South-East): Actually those two points did come up and I am glad you raised them now during this discussion. No, this would not be termed as litter at all, so the farmer would be totally protected in that respect.

Could I say that I have read nothing that excludes them from the Bill?

(Dublin South-East): You could not be prosecuted for littering under either set of circumstances mentioned. I think that answers the question.

On the basis of the Minister's assurance, I accept that.

In relation to the Bill, be it a car or be it a tractor that would be visible from the road, I think it was said that the local authority would have power to remove that. I do not like that idea of the local authority having power to remove these vehicles, because many times farmers keep these old vehicles for spare parts and so on, and very often they have no place to put them. Apart from that, they are very inclined to hold on to them for spare parts. I dislike to think that if I had a vehicle that was not in need of housing and I decided to put it outside, the local authority would have the power to come to tell me to remove it.

(Dublin South-East): I take the point you are making, but in that case that would not be regarded as a littering offence. The abandoned car, driven over a cliff and left dangling there for two or three years — that is the sort of thing we are trying to get at in the Litter Bill, not a person earning a living and leaving something for spare parts.

I understood earlier that in reply to a question the Minister said that the local authority could come in in the event of the car being visible from the road. That would not necessarily mean that it was hanging on the side of the cliff; it could be in a man's land. They would have power to come in and remove that car if it was visible from the road.

(Dublin South-East): By agreement of the occupier: that is written into it.

Would they have the right to——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to reply.

(Dublin South-East): In reply again, it would be in agreement with the occupier of the land.

The question is, if the owner being a farmer did not want to remove it, that it was of some value to him, would he be forced to remove it?

(Dublin South-East): I take the point you are making. I suppose the answer would be yes in the case of an unsightly accumulation of vehicles or one of these car graveyards that can be seen around the country, this type of indiscriminate dumping or abandoning of vehicles, but not in the circumstances you raise.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

On section 7 (b) relating to where we are exempting presidential elections, local government elections, by-elections and every type of election we can think of, I think it is time in this House for some type of agreement to be made between the political parties——

About having no election?

I might not disagree with that either. There is this business of posters going on and the type of thing that Senator O'Rourke referred to on an earlier section, putting literature on cars outside churches and all over the place. I certainly do not think they should be exempt from this Bill, and one only has to go out and drive this evening through the Dublin West constituency where there was a by-election recently, or even go down through rural Ireland, and there are still posters up by all parties since the last general election. In my opinion, if the parties do not make an agreement we should not give them any encouragement in this Bill and I certainly do not think they should be exempt.

(Dublin South-East): There is a very strong provision in the Bill. As far as agreement is concerned that would be desirable but, of course, it is part of the democratic process to permit the candidate for election to allow his or her name to appear in public view. I think the major provision is that the political signs must be removed within seven days. That is a fairly strict provision and I think that will bring about a new attitude to electioneering and so on. I think that is as far as you can go within the meaning of the Planning Act.

I know by the way the Minister smiles there will be nothing done about it in seven days, seven months or in seven years no matter what or who is in the Department of the Environment. I certainly do not think it should be exempt. There are plenty of ways now for people to publicise themselves by way of radio, television, weekly and daily papers and so on. It is deplorable that this litter is allowed all over the county.

(Dublin South-East): I would appeal to the justices if prosecutions are brought and in the case of political parties also, to mete out the heavy fines immediately. That is where the example will come from and that is what I would appeal for.

Just briefly, on the same section I would not agree, as I agreed earlier about the promoters of events. Perhaps I am being bipartisan here, I certainly think that in an election situation such as is provided for under section 7 (5), (a), (b), (c) it is a natural part of any election and just a democratic process, as the Minister has said, that a person, man, woman or party, be allowed to publicise themselves. The electorate expect it and it is part of the process to which all parties subscribe. I think the Minister is right when he said — and I know that he is intent on this — that he will tolerate no personal representations or any other kind of representations in this matter and that the political parties should be the very first people to have test cases brought against them in this respect.

I almost missed the section, I must apologise to the Minister. Has anybody really thought about the source of all this fly-posting that everybody is so incensed about? I read a contribution from a Senator on the Second Stage and he made reference to Meat Loaf. Obviously he thought it was very funny and thought it was a food. I would not wish to identify that particular Senator in any way and I am not doing so. Most of the fly-posting and most of what people take exception to, or a large part of it, is done on the particularly objectionable and ugly hoardings that surround building sites or derelict buildings. I, no more than anybody else can be an arbiter of aesthetics, but it is highly questionable if an unadorned hoarding around the building site is any more attractive looking than the posters that are put on it. That is only a peripheral matter. The point I want to make, and I am going to make it more strongly possibly than people imagine in a second, is that I think this section as it stands represents nothing less than an attack on part of the culture of our young people.

It is a section produced by middle-aged thinking, middle-aged minds who fail to realise that most, 90 to 95 per cent of what turns up in this sort of fly-posting, is advertising and publicity for the sort of events, musical and others, which are attractive to our young people. By young people I would suggest people from my own age down, although I would be on the upper margin of those who would be interested in that sort of culture. I feel quite strongly about this. If people had thought about that section they would realise what they are doing; they are effectively saying that all the small rock concerts, all the small rock gigs, all the small folk gigs, all the folk clubs, all of those groups that cannot afford to pay for expensive hoardings, that cannot afford to pay for all of those things, will be liable to prosecution because they put up posters which are not on an authorised position.

I do not know if everybody else realises how serious this is, but what is going to happen is that when somebody like the aforementioned "Meat Loaf" turns up, who is an international rock star, nobody is going to chase him to ask him to pay his £50 or £100 fine or anything like it. But when the small punk rock band in Galway or Cork or Sligo are having a gig in the local pub and they put posters up and somebody takes exception to it—some, I repeat, middle-aged official in the local authority—they are going to be prosecuted by virtue of the fact that they have posters up. Anybody who realises the way this culture is propagated—I am disappointed and I think it is typical of our political system that both the Minister and Member of a Fianna Fáil Front Bench would find this amusing; it is not amusing——

(Dublin South-East): I was not.

You were smiling Minister.

(Dublin South-East): At an entirely different matter.

I apologise and I withdraw that remark. I was under the impression that people would be listening to me, I am sorry.

It is indicative of the way that our political system is distanced and detached from our young people that this sort of section could be put in its naked, unqualified fashion. What it effectively endeavours to do is to make it impossible to put up a poster about anything unless it is authorised. I listened to the Minister, because he obviously does not agree with me. I notice, for instance, that under subsection (6) with reference to public meetings, it makes an exception where a poster advertises a public meeting and is taken down within seven days. It makes no provision for anything else like a folk or rock festival or a rock concert. I am sorry for going on and on, but rock and folk music and the methods by which they are publicised are a large part of the culture of our young people and that is the way they are publicised. They are publicised as small events that go on all over the country and are one of the few forms of recreation that are available to young people in country areas outside of public houses. These events cannot afford to be publicised in any other way except by fly-posting. This section, as it stands, would make any advertising for those things so expensive as to be prohibitive. It would be a fundamental attack on the culture of our young people. It could have been drafted and written in a more sensitive fashion, in such a way as to prohibit some of the ugly, unnecessary posting on public buildings with which I do not agree. I do not accept that all fly-posting is objectionable; I believe a lot of it improves the appearance of many building sites and derelict sites. The objections that people have raised to some fly-posting are legitimate, but I believe the section is effectively and classically using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. It could have been re-drafted, and I have fundamental objection to it.

(Dublin South-East): I take the point that the Senator has made here. I am not sure if he was in the House at the time I made my Second Stage speech, which amplified exactly the points he is making. To reiterate, it is not the intention of this Bill at all to spearhead an attack on social or cultural events of this country, which I might say are not only confined to the youth of the country but are concerned with senior citizens as well.

I will just give you a number of types of advertising which will not be liable to prosecution. They include advertisements which are exempted development under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1977. The advertising of local events of a social, cultural or recreational nature or of a circus, carnival, show or the like would come into this category provided they fulfil the conditions of exempted development. In other words, Senator, no one will be above the law here. The indiscriminate rash of fly-posting that has gone on, just to take our capital city alone, is disgraceful. Any window face or building or hoarding has been the subject of fly-postering.

An example comes to mind, not too far away, where I took a lot of trouble with the local authority to have a particular building cleaned up. The city manager concerned said there was very little point in doing it because within 24 hours it would be defaced again. They cleaned up the building, painted it and sure enough, within two or three days the entire building was defaced with fly-postering. It is not intended in any way to inhibit young people from advertising their particular events.

I totally agree with the point made about hoardings. Part of the provisions in the budget was an attempt to penalise by way of taxation derelict sites where hoardings are left up by indiscriminate developers who show no concern for their surroundings and are only waiting to redevelop a particular site. They are guilty also. It is certainly not discriminating against young people at all. I give the Senator that emphatic assurance here today.

Senator Ryan mentioned whoever referred to "Meat Loaf"— I was the Senator who mentioned it. It is a pity he did not go into more detail about what I said. I did not speak of hoardings on derelict sites. I spoke about a very prominent city street, Dame Street, and a very prominent building which unfortunately is vacant, Helys of Dame Street, and I think he would agree that indiscriminate flyposting on that building is something that could not be condoned. I looked so carefully at it because I considered it to be an outrage. I looked to see what Meat Loaf was and that is why I referred to it. I agree with him that hoardings on derelict sites such as the one mentioned may encourage flyposting.

I may be mistaken, and if I am I will apologise, because I hold no claim to infallibility. Am I to understand that the type of things that I referred to would be exempted developments under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 or am I simply getting an assurance from the Minister that it is not his intention that promoters of such events should be prosecuted? If it is already enshrined in legislation I do not mind about the section because, obviously, the protection exists: if it is nothing more than the Minister's assurance, that does not hold up in the courts.

(Dublin South-East): The situation is that notices or fly posters cannot be pasted or pinned on to any structure without any concern for that structure. That will be an offence regardless of who commits it. But if a proper advertising structure is used and the advertiser complies with the regulations as set down that will be exempted development. One cannot simply paste a notice on a building, because that would contravene the planning regulations, and that is the type of offence that this legislation is directed against.

I am sorry, but I am becoming confused again. I thought the Minister made reference to circuses, local events and so on, and what I need to know, before I decide what I might want to do about this section, is whether some people publicising a small cultural event — I would call it a small cultural event although the cultural experts of the media would not call it a cultural event — and who do so by pasting up posters as has been traditionally done, most of them on hoardings around building sites can be prosecuted? That is what I want to know.

(Dublin South-East): If, say, the person gets the permission of the owner to put up a notice, that is all right. If he puts up a notice without concern for the owner that is an offence and is liable to prosecution. Perhaps the Senator is aware of the three conditions that must be complied with at present. There is nothing new here. The section of the Bill refers to indiscriminate fly-posting without the consent or co-operation of the owner of the property. The actual conditions obtaining state that no such advertisement shall exceed 1.2 sq. meters in area; no such advertisement shall be exhibited more than 2.5 metres above ground level or be glued or posted to any structure other than an advertisement structure, and no such advertisement shall be exhibited for more than seven days after the conclusion of the event or matter to which it relates. The Senator, I am sure, will agree that there are numerous posters lying around cities and towns that are still there months and sometimes years after events have taken place, because the perpetrators of what I would regard as serious offences are totally unconcerned about the despoliation of their environment. I certainly would not offer any sympathy whatsoever to them.

I must be very dim: I am now even more confused. What I tried to say was that as far as I am concerned it is part of the culture of our young people that the type of events I referred to are publicised, usually on the hoardings associated with building sites and so on. They are the property of the owner and most of the owners will not give their permission.

(Dublin South-East): Then it is an offence.

Yes. I understood that in the past it was the person caught putting up the poster who would be prosecuted. We have now got a convenient simplification, which is that the person or group named on the poster, the individuals who are participating in the event named, can be prosecuted. That, I understand, is the difference between this and previous legislation. If that is the case I take exception to it because I believe it is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut and will effectively make it impossible for anybody to publicise any small cultural event because they cannot afford to pay for advertising space on the advertising hoardings available. If we are going to do this, municipal advertising hoardings should be made available. I repeat that most of the flyposting is done to publicise small events either of a para-political nature or of what young people would call a cultural or social nature. This proposal, as it stands, because it will penalise the people taking part and therefore will obviously inhibit any of that publicity, will effectively make it almost impossible to publicise that type of activity.

(Dublin South-East): With respect, the Senator did say earlier that it is part of our cultural heritage which has been going on for many years and so on. How did it go on for many years? Local authorities will tell you that it is only within the last two or three years that this indiscriminate lack of concern for other people's property with regard to fly-posting and so on has developed. That is what the legislation is aimed against. It is not intended to discriminate against any cultural or social events taking place in any part of the country. It is simply that in recent times this has become a major problem. If one were to photograph streets in Dublin inside the last year or so one would see that it has become disgraceful as a result of people using windows or any spare hoarding space without consultation with the owners of these properties. The public relations officer of Dublin Corporation gave me information to this effect. Previously a person would go into a shop and seek permission to put a notice in a window. That is not now the case. The posters are being put up without the owners even being consulted. I believe that to be terribly wrong. It is certainly not giving good example to the young people to whom the Senator referred.

I would take it that what the Minister is saying is that whether it is Meat Loaf or a women's weekly tea party or whatever that is being advertised, it is on some person's property that the posters are being put and that therefore it is an offence. It is the fact that they are using property without the owner's permission to advertise events. I would heartily agree with the Minister on this point, and I would ask Senator Ryan if he would like to wake up in the morning and find his front door blazoned and festooned with posters for any such event. Perhaps he would, but I would not. The rights of people who own property should be respected.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would prefer if particular groups or companies were not named.

I agree with a great deal of what the Minister said in his last reply. There is one point in what Senator Brendan Ryan said that I would like to support. In this, as in many other areas, young people have been indulging in activities which we deplore, but this is because we have not provided an alternative. On the question of the provision of special hoardings, one sees this in many continental cities. There are some continental cities in which even the political parties must paste their posters on hoardings which are provided in very strategic spots. It is felt necessary that we should have a severe — I hesitate to use the word "draconian"— legislation such as we have in this section, we should think of the alternatives and the Minister should discuss with the local authorities the question of making available hoardings which could be used for this particular purpose.

I should like to endorse what Senator Dooge has said. I have been impressed by the arguments used by Senator Ryan that a lot of young people, perhaps those living in the less well-off parts of the country and particularly in the crowded parts of the cities, may not have the opportunities to advertise activities which they would like to share with their friends. Those of us who have been to universities had every opportunity to plaster the university with posters. There is a place for a hoarding in the community and I would like to support very much what Senator Dooge has said.

(Dublin South-East): I will certainly give the Senator an assurance that I will get in touch with local authorities to see if such provision can be made. I am not so sure that the Senator will be content with that but I can give an assurance that I will ask the local authorities to see if provision can be made for providing hoardings for advertisements of such kind. No particular example comes to mind where local authorities actually provide hoardings for commercial firms and commercial operations. I am not including in that what Senator Robb said about the students. I am not so sure that it would be reasonable to call on local authorities to provide hoardings of that kind but I will look into the matter.

Can the Minister explain why the only function which can have publicity is a public meeting and why did he not include "or event" in subsection (6) which reads:

A prosecution shall not be brought in a case in which an offence under this section is alleged to have been committed in relation to an advertisement if—

(b) the advertisement—

(i) advertises a public meeting,

I cannot see why it would not be "public meeting or event" which would cover the large range of functions I am talking about. Therefore at least the publicity that is being given could be given and then people could be prosecuted if within seven days after the event they did not take down what they put up.

(Dublin South-East): The reason for that is that it was in the 1963 Planning Act and that has just been carried forward. I would not agree that it would be wise to permit indiscriminate fly-posting on property without consultation with the owners. Even if a guarantee was given to take that down within seven days. I feel that would be an infringement of the rights of people who own property. That is why I would not be prepared to give that guarantee to cover all events. It is an unreasonable request to make.

I accept, with one exception, and the exception is the inclusion of the word "structure" in the first paragraph of section 7. Senator O'Rourke asked if I would like to wake up and find a poster on my window. Obviously that is not acceptable but that is not where most of the fly-posting is done. I suggest to the Minister and to all the eminent Members of this House that they tour the major cities of Europe and look at the hoardings in most of those major cities which advertise everything — music, films, art, political events and so on. We are going to try to create something that will be close to the sort of environment in that area that is only prevalent in eastern Europe where nothing will be advertised except what is acceptable.

There is no point in telling me about the offence to private property involved in putting up posters on a hoarding around an ugly building site or around a derelict site. The offence to the community probably greatly exceeds the offence in terms of the relative gravity of the posters stuck on the hoarding. There is no point in waiving the rights of private property every time we have a problem. The rights of private property are subject to the common good. I repeat what I said at the beginning: if those who drafted this legislation and if the Minister and the Members of these Houses were sensitive to the values, the attitudes and the culture of our young people this would not be the approach which could be used to deal with what is, admittedly, in some cases an offensive and a serious problem. It is far too wide-ranging, too widespread and it will be offensive. If it is used in the way I suspect it will be used, it will be used discriminately against unacceptable groups or musical events which do not have the stamp of social approval.

(Dublin South-East): With respect, I would not say that all young people would agree with the Senator's point of view. Rather than concur with that point of view I would say that young people are very conscious of the fact that our cities and towns have become shabby and run-down and that graffiti, fly-posting, illegal signs and offensive slogans have been put up without consent. I would show my confidence in that area rather than in people who more or less have gone beyond repair and who cannot take the message. With regard to the Continent, I think we could gain a lot if we went on the Continent to see how organised people there are in their attitude to putting up posters and so on. The situation has got out of hand in Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Before proceeding to the next section, might we consider adjourning for tea for the reason that there are three or four of our Front Bench Members, as well as the Leader of the House, attending a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

(Dublin South-East): As we have had a lot of postponement of this legislation I would prefer to continue. I do not mean that I am not prepared to facilitate Senators but I would be happier to continue.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Under subsection (1), it is an offence to put a poster on a pole. It does not matter what type of poster, except in relation to the exemption under the previous section in connection with elections. Let us suppose somebody puts up posters on 20 poles, does that person commit 20 offences or just one offence?

(Dublin South-East): That is a very astute point. It would be one offence in that case.

It is a very serious point. Suppose he puts the poster on a pole here in the city and then goes out to Meath or Westmeath and puts up another one, is that still one offence?

(Dublin South-East): I did not interpret it that way. If the posters are within one local authority area it would in my opinion be one offence but of course it would be up to the local authority to consider that. If one moved to another local authority area I would imagine it would be taken as a separate offence and that that second local authority could issue a prosecution as well.

That means that someone could start putting up posters at one end of Dublin city and continue doing so all the way to the other end and commit only one offence.

(Dublin South-East): Not necessarily. As I said, that would be up to the local authorities and ultimately for the court to decide if it was challenged. My interpretation would be that if the offence was committed in close proximity, if, say, three or four telegraph poles had some type of fly-postering put up on them the local authority would regard that as a single offence. Putting up posters on both sides of the city could be interpreted as two separate offences, I still think it is a very astute point.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

On subsection (1), the local authority may provide what is known as a scrapyard for putting old abandoned cars and trucks into. Everybody will admit that these abandoned vehicles are becoming an eyesore all over the place. I do not know of any local authority where there is such a scrapyard. This is what I was thinking of earlier under another section. If there is a necessity for local authorities to provide this facility it is something that should be exceptionally well advertised. I hope the Minister will do everything in his power to ensure that a scrapyard is provided in each local authority area.

(Dublin South-East): I will give that maximum consideration. The local authority will have to provide areas for abandoned cars.

On the same point there is a problem regarding cars left on the side of a public road. I mentioned this on the first discussion on the Bill but I did not get an answer to it. I read in the Bill that where abandoned cars are on private property, in other words belonging to a farm on the side of the road but in off the road, the person who owns the land is in fact responsible for them. He must ensure that the land is kept clear of them. At the same time, the Bill provides that the local authority are not responsible for scrap cars or any cars on the side of a public road. I understand that the Department of Justice are responsible in that situation. Would the Minister clarify that point as to whether a local authority have the right to take away a scrapped vehicle from the side of a public road?

(Dublin South-East): They would as provided for in section 11.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.

Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) reads:

if there is a registered owner of the vehicle and the person aforesaid is not its registered owner, the registered owner, shall be guilty of an offence.

How do we find the registered owner? Normally there is a number plate on the car and if there is no number plate we look at the engine. But in my part of the country the engine numbers are often removed from vehicles taken from other parts of the country. In such cases what means are there for finding the registered owner?

(Dublin South-East): That is a very difficult problem but I suppose local knowledge can be the best of all. I would respectfully put the point that in very many cases the people concerned are known to local residents. An example that comes to mind is that in County Louth where there are a lot of vehicles abandoned and from which the number plates have been removed for a long time and the local people know exactly who have abandoned cars. Again it is a question of co-operation between the public and the local authorities. I appreciate that there is a problem in regard to identification in some cases but when the perpetrator cannot be located the car can just be removed so it will not matter at that stage.

To go a step further, suppose a person took a notion to abandon the car and put it into a field and left it there. Is the owner of the field then responsible for the abandoned car?

(Dublin South-East): He is not.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill".

Subsection (6) reads:

This section does not apply in relation to a vehicle (other than a skip) abandoned on a public road within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, or at a car park provided under section 101 of that Act.

This is saying that a vehicle that is on the side of the road cannot be moved because of the Traffic Act, 1961.

(Dublin South-East): This is just enforcing existing legislation. It is making it a watertight operation empowering a local authority to remove such a vehicle under all circumstances.

In Cork we were never allowed to move a car from a public place because we had not the authority to do so. Is the Minister saying that since 1961 every local authority here had the right to remove any vehicle which in their opinion should not be on the side of the road?

(Dublin South-East): I did not say that. I said that the purpose of this section is to enable the local authorities to remove and store abandoned vehicles other than those abandoned on public roads or in carparks.

That is what I am talking about. I am talking about the broken-down car or the scrapped car that is on the side of the road. Can the local authority remove it? Why, if they have the authority, are they not doing so?

(Dublin South-East): The conditions will continue to be dealt with under the relevant section of the 1961 Act. I would respectfully suggest to the Senator that the reason the local authorities have not been acting in these matters is that the penalties have not been severe enough to warrant the appropriate action being taken. I recall an exercise we conducted in Dublin Corporation and to which Senator Belton contributed. That showed that the cost of removing an abandoned car ten times outweighed the fine involved. It became a nonsense event, but now the penalty will be so severe that it will be a worthwhile exercise.

I have much respect for the Minister because he has put a lot of work into this Bill but I still make the point that because of the Road Traffic Act of 1961 a local authority have not got the right to move an abandoned vehicle from the side of a public road.

(Dublin South-East): They have the right to do that.

Is it the position that the Department of Justice, and not the local authority, have the power in this regard?

(Dublin South-East): The local authority have the right.

The local authority do not have the authority. The Department of Justice must first say that the vehicle is a scrap vehicle and they must also say that the person who owns the vehicle cannot be found and that until such time as it is proved that the vehicle is scrapped, the local authority cannot do anything about it. The reason for so many cars being left abandoned on the side of public roads is that we cannot define whether or not they are scrap.

(Dublin South-East): I beg to differ from the Senator, and I have had experience in this area. In relation to the removal and storage of abandoned vehicles the road traffic regulation provides that a vehicle which has been abandoned on a public road or in a car park may be removed by or on the authority of a road authority. A severe problem arose in Dublin where the cleansing department could not remove an abandoned car if it had its number plates on — that was a restrictive clause — but they could remove the abandoned car if it did not have number plates.

I am not denying that cars can be moved by local authorities but I have seen cases where a car could not be moved without an affirmation from the local gardaí that the car was scrap, that there was no owner for it and that the reason for its being abandoned was not known.

(Dublin South-East): Perhaps the Senator is speaking about a case where the abandoned vehicle in the eyes of the law would be legally parked. Under the present legislation the car can be removed by the local authority in all circumstances. What has prevailed up to now might be one set of circumstances but what the present legislation holds will cover the fears the Senator has. I am content in my mind now that any abandoned vehicle can be removed by the local authority.

I appreciate what the Minister is trying to do. I also believe that an abandoned vehicle can be removed, but how do we define an abandoned vehicle? We cannot do so. What happens if it is parked legally in a public place and if the owner comes along two days after it is moved and claims it? The Minister should write in a definition of "abandoned".

(Dublin South-East): I gave a lot of thought to that, and I am pleased that the Senator has requested such definition. The word “abandoned” was not defined in the Road Traffic Acts, but the Road Traffic Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1971 defined it as including a vehicle which appears to have been abandoned. It would be impossible to be absolutely definitive about when a vehicle which has been left on the side of a road or in a field has been abandoned. In practice it is usually reasonably clear, but in view of the fact that the maximum fine for abandoning a vehicle is £800 — this I believe is where the initiative will come from — proof could prove contentious in the absence of the definition as given. The definition allows for taking into account the place in which the vehicle is left or the condition of the vehicle. For example, wheels removed, windows smashed or engine dismantled together with the length of time the vehicle is left in a place are indications of whether it might be abandoned. The concept of reasonableness is invoked. That covers the definition of “abandoned”. It is of critical importance, but the local authority under this legislation will have the power to remove such a vehicle. This is the kernel of the issue and it is the framework of this section. I am confident that the powers the local authorities will have will make it possible to remove the abandoned vehicle.

I agree with Senator Cregan that it is very difficult to decide when a vehicle is an abandoned vehicle. I am sure the Minister as a member of Dublin local authority will have experience of the countless complaints we have had from residents in areas with regard to the removal of abandoned cars. There have been difficulties in regard to defining whan a car is abandoned. The Minister said it was so if the wheels have been removed. Wheels have been removed from cars in the car park at Dublin Airport and they were not abandoned cars. A car may be defined as abandoned if the number plates have disappeared, but in Dublin a car may not be 24 hours or 12 hours in the street before the number plates are removed. The Keep Dublin Tidy Committee had a suggestion, which the Minister might consider, that power could be given to local authorities to declare these wrecks and parts of wrecks as litter for immediate removal without storage and not to regard them as parts of vehicles. If they came within the definition of litter and if you gave local authorities power to do that, then the local authorities could deal with it much more effectively.

(Dublin South-East): It is an excellent suggestion.

I feel, as I am sure the Minister does, even though he is not ready to admit it, that this is the one part of the Bill that will fail. It is a pity when an excellent Bill comes before us which is needed badly throughout the country, to see this section fail. The Minister feels that something is wrong with this section. There are problems within the Department of Justice because of this. For instance the Minister said "wheels or other things." Supposing one wheel is left on a vehicle that is otherwise completely scrapped, can we define that it is not a vehicle? Why are we calling it a vehicle? We should not be calling a thing like this a vehicle. Senator Belton is right, it is litter. If the litter wardens — I hope they can be employed because the argument at the moment is about paying them, and I cannot see Cork Corporation doing it — of the area were conscious of the fact that litter was on the side of the road — I emphasise litter — for more than a certain time it must be removed, but a time limit would have to exist. For instance if an abandoned vehicle is on the side of the road for a period of four months, it should be removed. Those four months could be November, December, January and February, yet the owner could fix the car in March because he wants it for April. It could be on the side of the road as a scrap vehicle, constituting litter. This is one area which is going to destroy the Bill. We cannot say enough on it.

(Dublin South-East): I take the Senator's point. Senator Belton put his finger on the question, which was the defining of an abandoned vehicle, wreck, hulk, call it what you like, as litter. That is a very important point. It is up to the local authorities to classify that abandoned item as litter or otherwise. They have that power now.

A Senator

The Minister must have power.

(Dublin South-East): He has it under the Act.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Could the Minister say what the section means?

(Dublin South-East): It provides for the disposal of moneys accruing to a local authority under the Bill in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister.

Where would you expect that money to come from? Would it be from fines?

(Dublin South-East): The on-the-spot fines.

(Dublin South-East): Yes. It is the intention to plough back the moneys accruing from on-the-spot fines to the local authorities.

I do not think the Minister will have much ploughing. He will have no money.

I understood earlier today that, for instance, the Department of Justice would get the money from on-the-spot fines. Does it go to the Department of Finance and would the Minister for the Environment have a say in it?

(Dublin South-East): I am not sure if the Senator was here earlier when this was debated. The regulation pertaining to this section was in draft form. It is the committed intention that the moneys would go straight back to the local authorities. That is the assurance I gave the House earlier today and I reiterate it now. I am not sure what the Senator means regarding the regulation and whether it comes from the Department of Finance. The Minister for the Environment will have sanction over that.

I appreciate that. The moneys collected through the courts do not go back to the Minister for the Environment. They go to the Minister for Finance. Is that correct?

(Dublin South-East): The Department of Justice.

Are we saying that the Minister for Justice is prepared to sanction that any moneys collected by any local authority throughout the country under the Litter Act will come back to the Minister for the Environment to be distributed throughout the local authorities?

(Dublin South-East): I do not think that would be the interpretation, because all the fines would be included and they can vary up to £800. I am speaking about on-the-spot fines.

Only on-the-spot fines?

(Dublin South-East): Yes.

Will they be given back to the local authorities?

(Dublin South-East): That is what I stated earlier and I reiterate now. I am not giving a blanket assurance to the House — suppose for argument's sake, that £1,800 in fines were issued through the courts — that the moneys would immediately come back to the local authorities. I would not like that interpretation to be taken.

If that is the situation, within local authorities certain actions may not be taken except in the on-the-spot fines area. That must be watched. I do not wish to attack the Minister personally, but he is very conscious of the fact that every local authority are looking for money in every way and are under instructions from the Minister for the Environment to collect money in any way. It is now coming about that every manager of a local authority will work in any way or do anything to get moneys in so that his authority will be in good order. A manager may tell his authority's litter operators that his local authority will get a certain amount of money per year, if they can create a situation where on-the-spot fines will be given back to the authority but if they will get nothing from other litter fines he might do nothing about it because it is not worth while for the local authority to do anything. We must give every incentive possible to local authorities throughout the land to keep their area clean. Even if the money is from a fine of £1,000 imposed in court on a person who dumpted a lorry on the side of a road it is only right that the local authority should get that money back. They are the people implementing the Litter Bill. I agree that £1,800 is a fairly high amount but at least it is going back to the people who created a situation in which the man was fined £1,800. It is very unfair to give £5 fines to the local authority but not to give them the big fines. That is not being realistic.

(Dublin South-East): I take the point, but let us be reasonable. It is the height of folly to feel that democratic institutions operate in the manner which the Senator suggests. I do not think for one moment that a local authority would not continue to commit itself to the preservation of the environment for the reason the Senator states. It cannot be argued that because moneys will come back for on-the-spot fines or for any other reasons that would be the total committed incentive to a public body to conduct their work. It would be lamentable if we had reached the stage where you would have to do what is tantamount to cushioning or protecting a public body to do their work. The spirit of this Bill, as I said before, is public co-operation with the local authority. The on-the-spot fines will be given back to the local authorities. That is the assurance that I have given the House. I feel that that is going a very long way to creating the best environment within the local authorities to make the Act workable.

Is it the intention of the Minister to provide extra moneys to local authorities over and above their normal allocation for the payment of litter wardens?

(Dublin South-East): It does not really come under this section. We had a very lengthy debate on that earlier today which went on for close on an hour or so on the earlier sections. The environmental money provided in the budget was one aspect. It certainly is not the intention of the Minister to provide extra moneys for the purpose to which the Senator referred.

The financial implication of employing litter wardens has been fully debated in section 1. Therefore we cannot have a repetition of that debate.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

On section 15 the on-the-spot fine is £5. Seemingly for any type of an offence for an abandoned car and abandoned lorry the on-the-spot fine is a fiver. Do I take it that, no matter what the offence, the on-the-spot fine is £5 and in court afterwards if the person refuses to pay the on-the-spot fine the judge has power to fine that person £800? I do not want to be unkind to judges, but when the on-the-spot fine for this is a fiver and in the courts the maximum fine is £800 it is not terribly hard to know what the judge will do. As I said at the outset, the amount of money that will be collected from on-the-spot fines of £5 will be very limited.

Senator McGlinchey raised the point to discover if the local authorities will get any financial assistance. The answer is no but in a very short time when we conclude this we will give Senator McGlinchey an opportunity of supporting, if he wishes to do so, an amendment that the Central Fund can pay the litter warden. If the Bill is to be a success, certainly it must provide for litter wardens. No local authority will appoint any litter wardens because they have not got the money for that purpose. The Minister said that it is the height of folly to say this, but it is the height of folly for the Minister to think that the local authorities have the money. They have not, and nobody knows it better than the Minister himself. The whole thing is going to fall down. I am beginning to think that trying to get this Bill through the House is an act. We all agree with the Bill, there is no objection to the Bill but we cannot see it working.

(Dublin South-East): I am not sure what question was put to me, but as I interpret it, the answer is that the on-the-spot fine of £5 will pertain to section 3 of the Bill.

Only to section 3?

(Dublin South-East): Yes.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill".

I feel that the greatest offenders will be the local authority themselves, and in that event who would prosecute the local authority?

(Dublin South-East): I do not agree at all that the local authority are the culprit there. That would be turning the entire legislation upside down. The legislation is aimed at the local authority implementing the entire law.

For example yesterday I was driving behind an open truck full of domestic refuse which was being collected on behalf of the local authority. It was being scattered all over the road.

(Dublin South-East): In such a case I take it that the Senator has reported this case. I am sure he has made a strong report to the local authority concerned. That is the practical action to take in that case and the Senator has power to make a very strong protest. I am quite sure that the city or county manager concerned will take immediate action when he learns of the Senator's complaint.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share