Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 1997

Vol. 150 No. 15

Litter Pollution Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Dr. Henry

I welcome this Bill. Legislation such as this makes an enormous difference to the public. It is difficult for people to see the effect of much of the legislation passed. However, people will soon see the effect of a Bill such as this on the landscape.

One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it places responsibility on the individual, the community, business and the organisers of large events to control litter. We all share the responsibility for the condition of our cities and countryside. Controlling litter is not just the responsibility of corporations and county councils.

There has been much talk of recycling waste. However, it is depressing that there has been so much talk and so little action. I hope that the pious intentions in the Bill become concrete proposals and that action is taken once the Bill is enacted. Apart from a small area in south County Dublin, there is virtually no kerbside recycling in this country. There are no facilities for the separation of household waste. We need to address this urgently.

The separation of household waste has reached a quite sophisticated stage in other countries. We have not made any effort in this direction on a community or municipal basis. Individuals can make an effort by returning bottles, cans and clothes to banks. However, everything depends on the individual bringing their waste to the bank. This requires transport. Local authorities need to become involved in the separation of household waste.

In Italy, waste is so carefully separated that there are special boxes into which people place leftover tablets. This removes dangerous tablets from circulation. Waste has been separated for a long time in America. We think that because we have a small population and a large country, we can continue to treat household waste as in the past.

The separation of waste does not only apply to households. We must ask businesses to take more responsibility for their handling of waste. Some of this waste is toxic and there must be penalties for those who do not abide by regulations.

I visited a country town where the method of disposing of used tyres was to throw them in the river. This was most unsatisfactory for the salmon industry. This crude method of handling waste from small industries has led to the pollution of rivers and lakes.

County councils were largely at fault for the pollution of rivers and lakes. However, the Environmental Protection Agency report has highlighted the problem of agricultural waste. I recently heard it said that agriculture is suspected of causing water pollution. It is no longer suspected of causing pollution; the Environmental Protection Agency report has shown it to be an important contributing factor.

Industry must also take some of the blame for pollution. Small factories incorrectly dispose of liquid and solid waste. Large factories tend to make more of an effort to handle waste properly. We cannot allow a situation where a small factory is opened to provide employment, only to find that it is destroying the tourism industry in the area by polluting rivers or emitting fumes.

We need to examine the amount of packaging used by the retail trade. This creates an enormous amount of waste. Has the time come for us to begin to enforce regulations? This occurs in Germany where packaging has reduced greatly in the past few years. Packages which end up in the household must be returned to the retailer and from there to the wholesaler and the manufacturer to be reused. There is an increase in the amount of packaging used in food and domestic products. The opposite should be the case and we need to see what can be done to reverse this trend.

We also need to look at our performance in Leinster House. We have increased the use of recycled paper but not by enough. If we do not give a lead no one else will. Amendments are now printed on both sides of the paper. While the Minister may need to have his speech typed on one side only, his words of wisdom would be just as good if they appeared on both sides. We have the facilities for photocopying on both sides of the paper. This would reduce by half our use of paper, producing significant savings.

Another bête noire of mine is the abundance of enormous brown paper envelopes we receive every day which cost about 30p and could be used again. A spontaneous effort has been made by some members of staff in the House to reuse envelopes. We ought to make this policy. It is important not just from the point of view of the huge amount of waste produced but also the cost of the envelopes which are not reused. When I suggested they be reused I was told it would be demeaning to public representatives if a reused envelope was sent to them. I doubt if there is anyone in either House who would object to an increase in efficiency. Perhaps the Minister could raise this matter.

We will have to consider disposing of the amount of waste produced in the best possible manner. If we separate waste in a better manner — and an enormous amount of household waste can be disposed of anaerobically — we will then only have to deal with more permanent waste. We must stop talking about landfills. We do not dispose of waste in landfills in this country. We dispose of waste on perfectly good land which needs no filling in whatsoever.

We create dumps along with the hazards of leechate going into the ground. I do not care what type of plastic binliners are put under these dumps — leechate will come through. The water table will also be disturbed and polluted. The Environmental Protection Agency study on water found the quality is deteriorating every year. We constantly talk about water charges. I wish we talked about water quality for a change instead of producing dumps. We should forget they are landfills — they are not. The valley in Wicklow does not need to be filled in, it is another dump which will result in vermin, odour and dust which will create a great public nuisance.

There is a certain enthusiasm about turning waste into energy and the other alternative which has been put forward is the proposed incinerator. I have been told not to call it an incinerator but rather an "energy producing efficient unit". This is good, but there are problems with incinerators also, although I am not sure that those with dumps are not worse. However, with incinerators there is the problem of air pollution and dioxins. Modern technology can deal with these in a slightly better manner, but they are extremely hazardous. An incinerator has the advantage of reducing the bulk of waste enormously. We could also produce the glass flint bricks also produced in Denmark and England which take up an infinitesimal amount of space compared to that taken up by putting unsorted rubbish in a dump.

It is good that there are fines, but they must be enforced. The polluter must pay. It was appalling to go to town following the St. Patrick's Day Parade and to see the canal, river, streets and even the front of the Rotunda Hospital full of rubbish. It was incredible. The corporation were out quickly and I saw someone trying to clean up. As a man was trying to sweep up, another man threw a carton of chips behind him. Until we do something about this attitude, we are in a difficult position.

A huge amount of rubbish was dumped outside the corporation dump during the refuse collection industrial dispute in south County Dublin last year. One television shot showed heaps of domestic rubbish, in the middle of which were four cow's heads and a used fridge freezer. Is it legal to dump cow's heads on the road? There must surely be some regulation to prevent this? Whatever about the fridge freezer, the cow's heads struck me as not the sort of rubbish to be collected by refuse collectors. Someone took advantage of the dispute to get rid of these heads. Perhaps it was the same person who dumped the freezer and brought a new one to put the rest of the cows in. This was an example of how little thought is put into disposing of waste from our homes and businesses, which we leave the corporation to deal with. We have to make more of an effort. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. O'Toole

I welcome this Bill and compliment the Minister for introducing it. The Bill is important and takes steps not taken before. It goes a step beyond the idea of "Don't litter". It requires certain operations, citizens and outlets to be proactive. The impact of littering on the image of a country is not widely understood. This image is crucial when people arrive in our cities and, more importantly than ever, in our towns and villages. Cities are beginning to deal with the issue of litter, but unfortunately there are villages and towns who have not seen the importance of making a proper impact on tourists.

Our anti-litter policy will be successful not when we stop people from dropping litter on the ground but when we get them to pick it up. There are more people who will stop their children and tell them to pick up bags they have thrown on the ground. This is what is required. As a teacher, I know that we find it more difficult in terms of authority to make children more conscious of litter.

There has been discussion recently about zero tolerance and most of the proposals have been daft. Like all proposals, the first premise was a good one: that if people understand and are responsible about the small thing they will also understand the big things. A child who will not throw litter on the ground or will not leave litter on the beach will hardly break windows or become a delinquent. There is a connection between this and respect for one's place. Good citizenship begins with respect for one's place, which begins with keeping it tidy and clean. Littering is important in the concept of citizenship and how we see our place and value it.

There is a need to continue litter policy further. There is much discussion at the moment about green politics and whether we are green enough. Much energy has been expended and wasted talking about ridiculous matters which are not that important. Paper is a replaceable source of energy. We can cut, plant and replace trees. It is a continuous resource; it is no different from cutting grass or wheat. It is cut one year and grown again the next year. That is different from carbon energy which takes millions of years to replace.

However, there are other issues, such as plastic bags. All wrappings should be biodegradable. The Government which gets rid of plastic wrapping — in other words, ensures we remove non biodegradable material from our environment — will have taken a huge step forward. People remember that Dublin is now some free, which was an important move forward.

When I moved to a country area in north Dublin a local person was involved in vegetables supply. He was running a small business which he had developed and did not realise that plastic covering is non biodegradable. For a couple of years he ploughed any unsold vegetables returned by supermarkets into the ground in one of his back fields with the wrapping intact. He did not realise what he was doing. Fifteen years later, they are still trying to clear that field of plastic bags. I am not raising that to criticise the man — he did not realise the plastic would not rot. We need to, first, educate people about that and, second, ensure that all wrappings are biodegradable. We are a consumerist society. We will not stop people consuming but we need to control and direct their methods of consumption. We can do that in various ways, one of which is to deal with wrappings.

Reference has been made to litter management plans for local authorities. In other countries it is the norm for streets and beaches to be cleaned during the early morning and at weekends. There is not enough of that in this country. This Bill might make clear to local authorities their responsibility in this regard. As part of the litter management plan outlined in the Bill, they should be required to look after their beaches and streets.

I also welcome the responsibility which this Bill places on the owners of vehicles, particularly trucks, skips and mobile outlets. This is new, will come as a shock to some people and will require public education. Money should be spent on advertising to make people aware they are required to do this.

Section 16(9) lists every conceivable kind of premises which can be required by a local authority to be responsible for the land around them or the footpath in front of them, as appropriate. That is very important. I spoke to the owners of a shop on a main street, which also contained a couple of take-away outlets, in a busy provincial town in the mid-west two months ago. He brushed the street outside his shop every morning, as did the shop owner next door. However, the next three shops did not do that.

We must either say that the local authority has to do it or that everybody is in charge of their own piece of the footpath. I prefer the second option. Too many of the actions of our local authorities have been to disable people. People should be responsible for their area, should be required to look after it and should take pride in so doing. There should be no space for people who are not prepared to contribute to keeping their environment clean and acceptable.

The Bill will be welcomed at all levels. Local authorities are entitled to say the Government should be aware of the short supply of resources for local authorities which have to implement the Bill. This must be tied in with the funding of local authorities, which is being discussed in another place at the moment. It is important legislation. We are trying to sell a clean, green island where people can feel healthy and can come for cleaner air, sweeter water and fresher seas. This Bill is a good step in that direction and the Department and the Minister are to be complimented. The draftsmen have done an excellent job and I recommend the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Allen)

I thank the Senators who have contributed to this debate. I am glad Senators have expressed strong views on the problem of litter. I agree we must tackle the problem aggressively. Firm and vigorous action is required. This is not an easy challenge but we are determined to take it on. It is well established that the public feels more strongly about litter than any other environmental problem and is now demanding that something be done about it.

The Government has responded positively to these concerns through the action against litter initiative, one of the principal objectives of which is to improve local authority performance in the prevention and control of litter, as well as taking better enforcement action against offenders. The Bill facilitates this and contains provisions that meet the concerns raised by Senators. It puts in place a wide-ranging legislative framework for action against litter. It spells out clearly what occupiers of properly must do to keep their properties free of litter. It sets out the powers and duties of local authorities for preventing and controlling litter.

A number of issues were raised by Senators, to which I would like to respond. Some Senators, including Senator Daly, referred to the issue of enforcement. The need to improve powers and performance in relation to litter enforcement is one of the driving forces of this Bill. Under section 25(5) the courts will be required to order that fines for litter offences must be paid to the local authorities.

Furthermore, a local authority will also be entitled to ask the court to award the local authority the cost of investigating, detecting and prosecuting offences. This is set down in section 25(4), which provides that, except where there are special and substantial reasons for not doing so, the court must order a convicted person to pay the local authority's costs.

Apart from a local authority benefiting financially from the proceeds of fines and costs, which up to now accrued to the Exchequer, this approach follows the polluter pays principle, which is one of the basic principles underpinning environmental legislation. I assure Senator Daly that local authorities will have the benefit of the proceeds of fines and costs to put towards litter control programmes.

Senator Daly asked when section 10 would come into operation so that litter management plans could be prepared and implemented. I assure the Senator there will be no delay in bringing all of the sections of the Bill into force very quickly after it is passed. In fact, already 40 authorities have completed litter abatement plans, which they are now implementing.

Senators Daly and Norris raised queries in relation to public roads. I assure Senator Daly that depositing litter from a car on a motorway is covered by the Bill in the same way as other roads are. Senator Norries asked why section 6 limits the responsibility of occupiers to those within speed limit areas. This is intended to define a special responsibility for those in urban areas. Section 7 places a general responsibility on local authorities in relation to public roads.

Senator Daly asked for clarification on whether the financial provisional of £400,000 in the Vote of the Department of the Environment would be allocated to local authorities to promote this initiative. I should explain that the purpose of this provisions is to meet the cost of promoting public awareness and education on a national basis by the Department of the Environment. It is not intended to make special grants available to local authorities from this modest provision. Promoting public awareness of the issue can be more effectively done on a national basis by the Department on a cost effective basis.

Senator Finneran referred to the involvement of the gardaí in issuing on-the-spot fines. It is not suggested that the gardaí take over this function. which will still be the primary responsibility of litter wardens. However, it is worthwhile for gardaí to have this power because many are deployed on our streets and the treat of a garda being capable of issuing a fine should serve to deter people from littering.

Senator Finneran also referred to the success of a tidy schools competition run by Roscommon County Council, of which I am glad to hear. Other local authorities are also involved in promoting schools competitions. It is something I would encourage for all local authorities.

Senators Daly and Norris referred to the creation of litter as a result of domestic and commercial refuse being put out too soon for collection and being badly presented. Local authorities have a power under the Waste Management Act, 1996, to adopt by-laws to regulate the presentation of waste for collection. Under these it is possible for a local authority to insist that refuse is not put out for collection until the morning of the collection. If the presentation of waste and refuse is causing a litter problem, I would encourage local authorities to make by-laws to regulate matters.

Senator Cashin referred to the recovery and recycling of farm plastics. The use of stretch wrap for silage bales has brought about major improvements for farmers, especially with regard to production and the convenience of handling of silage. Unfortunately, however, there is a downside. We have become too familiar with the sight of the used wrapping from these bales littering the countryside. Recently details were given by the Minister for the Environment of a new scheme which will implement arrangements whereby waste plastics will be collected free of charge from farmers which will then be sent for recycling. The new scheme will be governed by statutory regulations which have been published in draft form. It is expected that they will come into effect shortly.

Senator Doyle, Senator Lanigan and other Senators raised the issue of plastic bags. New policy measures are already under way to deal with packaging waste. Regulations imposing obligations on businesses to deal with such waste will be published shortly. A voluntary industry led scheme, REPAK, was launched last year to deal with the co-ordination and financing of recovering and recycling packaging waste. The new regulations will give strong support to the efforts of REPAK.

It would be premature at the stage to impose charges on plastic shopping bags until the effectiveness of these other actions can be assessed. The introduction of such measures could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in a voluntary industry-led scheme. The Waste Management Act, 1996, already provides the Minister for the Environment with the power to introduce measures such as charging for plastic shopping bags but it is considered premature to consider this option at this stage. We should first see how we get on with the industry-led voluntary initiatives in tackling these problems.

Some Senators referred to the damaging effects of litter on our tourism industry. Among the strengths which characterise Irish tourism is our clean physical environment. Overseas visitors come to Ireland to see the place, mix with the people and enjoy the pace of life. Bord Fáilte's surveys confirm these findings but they also confirm that many overseas visitors are taken aback by the widespread presence of litter. They fail to understand how we can allow the outstanding beauty of our countryside to be degraded by indiscriminate dumping and litter.

The quality of the Irish tourism product has improved enormously over the years in terms of accommodation and food. However, one of the most frequest complaints now made by visitors relates to litter. If people take the time and trouble to write about litter we must assume that they are also telling friends about it.

We must remind ourselves that in 1996 the number of overseas visitors to Ireland grew to 4.6 million. Revenue from tourism generates nearly £1.5 billion and provides employment for over 100,000 people. The action against litter initiative recognises the importance of tourism as one of the key industries in Ireland. This perception is being increasingly understood by local authorities because tourism is now relevant to every part of the country, with each part vying with each other to attract visitors.

Again I thank all who contributed to the debate and I look forward to the Bill being passed by the Seanad. It represents a major step forward in updating and modernising our legislation on litter. It is an important part of a coherent strategy underpinning the action against litter initiative which is concerned with improving local authority performance, including more effective enforcement against offenders, reforming litter legislation, promoting public awareness and developing partnerships to combat litter.

The Government is committed to tackling the widespread and persistent problem of litter. Local authorities recognise the need to redouble efforts and under this Bill they will be equipped with stronger and more effective statutory powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take Committee Stage today.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.50 p.m.