Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jun 1982

Vol. 98 No. 5

Litter Bill, 1981: Report and Final Stages.

Since it is agreed to take Report Stage, an amendment in the name of Senator Dooge will be circulated.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, lines 1 and 2, to delete the words "employed by a local authority and authorised by it" and substitute the words "authorised by a local authority".

During Committee Stage of this Bill we had an extremely long debate on section 1. A great deal of the discussion was taken up with the concern of Members about the onus laid on the local authorities in section 2 which imposes on them a duty to prevent litter, and the power of local authorities to appoint litter wardens which everyone agrees would be an effective means of carrying out this duty but an unfortunate additional burden on the local authorities who are hard pressed for finance. We had a long discussion on this at the end of which those of us who raised the matter on this side of the House were of the same opinion as we had been and the Minister was of the same opinion as he had been at the beginning of the debate. It would have been inappropriate that the opinion held on this side of the House, the dissatisfaction with the question of the litter wardens being entirely employed and paid by local authorities, should be decided on the question of whether section 1 — the definition section — should stand part of the Bill. We did not wish to vote against the definition section because to do so could be interpreted as removing a vital organ from the Bill and, therefore, voting in such a way as to render the Bill inoperative. It was a matter of some difficulty to draft an amendment which would express the key point.

I have prepared an amendment to section 1 to delete the words "employed by a local authority and authorised by it" and substitute the words "authorised by a local authority". This still allows local authorities to authorise litter wardens to act in the way in which the appropriate sections of the Bill allow them to act but it does not indicate that these must be employed persons so that there is inevitably in it a contract of payment by the local authority. I do not think there is any need to develop it at length but some Senators on this side of the House would like to express their extreme disquiet in regard to the aspect which I mentioned by voting for this amendment.

I second the amendment.

Dublin South-East): The suggested amendment excludes the reference to being employed by a local authority and I feel this would be very undesirable. It would allow for the appointment of voluntary litter wardens. An example might be the case of residents' associations who might put forward persons to become litter wardens. This is totally unacceptable to local authorities who are the authorities best suited to train and, in the spirit of this legislation, educate litter wardens to perform their functions in the best possible manner. Allowing for the possibility that voluntary litter wardens could be employed would be very undesirable. The amendment, apart from being of doubtful value, is misdirected. It is very serious that persons employed by the local authorities be skilled persons who are tactful, able to deal with a new situation that they have become familiar with through local authorities, and familiar with particular areas throughout the country. Opening this to the possibility of voluntary litter wardens is very unacceptable. I am disappointed with the spirit of the amendment in the context of earlier discussions today.

One reason we decided that this amendment was necessary was the reservations we had about the ability of the local authorities to match the challenge of the Bill, which we wanted them to do. Having listened to the Minister's contributions, we felt that in the event of a local authority not being in a position to employ wardens the Minister was not going to direct them to do so. He saw local communities playing an active part and in reporting areas of littering to the local authority who would then have the power under this Bill to take action. This amendment tries to make that possible in the event of a local authority, through its financial restrictions, being unable to meet the challenge of employing a warden. If the Minister had assured us that he would assist us in some way whether by appointing the warden or giving the local authorities the power to do so in the knowledge that they would have the funds to pay them, then we would be happy. I suggested to the Minister earlier today that he ask authorities, with the help of environmental grants, to employ wardens. We all feel that they are a necessary part of the Bill. If the Minister had made it incumbent on local authorities to employ wardens with the aid of the special fund he is making available, we would have been satisfied.

As mentioned by the Minister the amount of money might vary from county to county or authority to authority, but the principle will be there. I know that the local authorities — many Members of this House are members of local authorities — will match up to the challenge he is giving them. I hate to think of local authorities, because of their varying degrees of PLVs throughout the country, being unable to meet it. It would be a tragedy if some counties becomes litter counties because of the inability of the authorities to match the challenge of this Bill. Some more progressive counties will make the effort somewhere, and they might have to allow some other important service to stand back and let this be a preference. Because this Bill is restrictive, and it probably has to be because of the menace of litter, it will be a pity if it goes for nought because the local authorities cannot meet the challenge. The only reason we put this amendment down was to get authorities off the hook and let them use the voluntary services of other agencies. They could use their statutory power to fine, but people acting as wardens could detect the offences for them. It is a question of community spirit. We do not want witch-hunts and spies all over the place reporting to the authority about litter.

I, too, question the ability of the local authorities to employ sufficient litter wardens but I also question the ability of the State to do it effectively. Any average town of 5,000 people would require about 20 litter wardens because litter, as was said on Second Stage, is not just dropped from Monday to Friday between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. They would need to operate three shifts. I am totally opposed to this amendment. Irish history has taught us to detest the very mention of the word "informer", and that is what we would be creating if this amendment was accepted.

(Dublin South-East): In answer to the points Senator McGlinchey made, the purpose of the local authorities implementing this legislation is that they have the machinery at their disposal. They are familiar with the problems and that is why I feel, and I am sure Senators and other public representatives do also — that they are the best people to do the job. This amendment would allow for voluntary litter wardens. This would not be in the best interests of the legislation, if Senators give serious consideration to this now and think about their experiences. I have discussed it with county managers and so on at great length. If they seriously felt this legislation could work by allowing voluntary litter wardens to operate it, they would have second thoughts about the amendment. I have absolute confidence in the local authorities now that they have been given the power they were craving for with realistic fines, they should be given the chance now to implement the legislation.

Acting Chairman

This is Report Stage and Senators may speak only once on the amendment.

I, too, am somewhat concerned regarding the ability of certain local authorities to employ and pay litter wardens. I was hoping that the Minister would accept the amendment in the spirit with which it was put down.

With regard to this Bill, the real problem lies in trying to get evidence to convict people. That has always been the experience in my local authority, and it has not changed. Litter wardens will have to be paid and somebody has to pay them. There must be co-operation. I accept the spirit of the Bill. I hope local authorities will make every conceivable effort to implement this Bill but, nonetheless, the amendment could be useful.

I agree entirely with the Minister. No one can operate this better than the local authorities. There will only be one reason why the local authorities will not be able to operate it, and that is because they have no money. It is that simple. On Second Stage, I pointed out the cost of refuse collection in County Leitrim. It was £120,000 last year. It will cost far more this year. The situation is that the money is not there to pay litter wardens. It will not work without litter wardens, because everybody knows that county council officials will not be able to get roadmen to do it because they will say it is not their job. No-one in the county councils will do it so litter wardens will have to be appointed. The local authorities have not the wherewithal to pay litter wardens.

I do not agree that county councils cannot afford to pay litter wardens, because they pay traffic wardens and there is no special allowance for that. There is no reason why traffic wardens could not also act as litter wardens. We pay beachguards and various extra staff and get no special allowance. It would be ludicrous if we gave special allowances to one group of people because then every group of people would look for it. We would make the employment system, as bad as it is, even more complicated.

One Senator said that if people acted as voluntary litter wardens there would be a witch hunt. That is exactly what would happen and it would create very bad feeling with friends and neighbours. We are trying to build up a community spirit, and if we employ someone with a chip on his shoulder — it is only someone with a chip on his shoulder who would agree to do that kind of work voluntarily — we would have someone breaking up a community. I can see it as a very dangerous precedent.

One problem which worries me is that many people in our seaside areas and in lay-bys, under the cover of darkness, dump bags of rubbish. No litter wardens will be able to deal with that. This is the most serious type of litter problem we have. I wonder how we could come to grips with it? If one opens those bags one may see envelopes and different types of documentation, but one cannot prosecute on that because there is no guarantee that the person whose name is on the literature is the person who dumped it. This is the most serious aspect of our litter problem. I do not know if we have tried to come to grips with that very serious situation. It is a problem on our lay-bys and on seashores.

(Dublin South-East): I should like to point out that it is nothing new to local authorities to employ litter wardens. Litter wardens at present are employed by local authorities.

By some local authorities.

I am sure the Minister is fully aware of the ridiculous position in Dublin. He mentioned that litter wardens are employed. In Dublin we have four at present. Is he aware that Dublin Corporation are threatened with a strike simply because they cannot pay existing staff? With regard to traffic wardens, the Minister is aware that we are inhibited in the number we can employ because of lack of finance. How does he expect councils to have the finance to pay extra staff? In Dublin, because of the size of the city, because littering is more prevalent in urban areas and because of the size of the seashore, it will be difficult in the summer to keep it under control.

The Minister has indicated that this Bill gives the machinery for dealing with this problem and of course this is common ground. What we are concerned for is the fuel for the machinery in the form of the payment that arises.

In his first intervention, the Minister said that the effect of the amendment would mean that all wardens would be voluntary wardens. I suggest that that is not necessarily so. The amendment gives a flexibility. If we use the word "employment" it means that every litter warden must be on a contract of service with the local authority so that there is no possibility of the local authority adopting a flexible scheme which could build up and keep pace with the income of the fine. In our amendment we have given a degree of flexibility that is not in the original wording. Accordingly, I see no reason to withdraw the amendment.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 23.

  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Conway, Seán.
  • Cranitch, Mícheál.
  • de Brún, Séamus.
  • Fallon, Seán.
  • Farrell, William.
  • Fitzgerald, Tom.
  • Hannon, Camilla.
  • Herbert, Tony.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lanigan, Mick.
  • Larkin, James.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • Mallon, Séamus.
  • Mara, Patrick J.
  • Mullooly, Brian.
  • Nolan, Matthew J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin J.
  • Ross, Shane P.N.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wright, Thomas A.

Níl

  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bolger, Deirdre.
  • Byrne, Toddie.
  • Conway, Timmy.
  • Cregan, Denis (Dino).
  • Daly, Jack.
  • Dooge, James C.I.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Harte, John.
  • Hourigan, Richard V.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Lennon, Joseph.
  • Loughrey, Joachim A.
  • McAuliffe, Tim.
  • McDonald, Charlie.
  • Mannion, John M.
  • O'Connell, Maurice.
  • O'Mahony, Flor.
  • Reynolds, Pat Joe.
  • Taylor, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Cranitch; Níl, Senators Belton and Harte.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

(Dublin South-East): I should like to express my appreciation to all Senators for their most valuable contributions to this debate. The spirit of the House was at all times very reasonable and I will give maximum effect to ensuring that all Senators' contributions will be dealt with in full by my Department.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.

Top
Share