Environmental Protection: Motion.

Miss Quill

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to initiate as a matter of urgency effective measures to:

(1)eliminate litter pollution,

(2)tackle the deterioration in water quality, and

(3)expedite the objectives of the Waste Management Act.

As a member of a party which is part of this Coalition Government, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to congratulate the Government, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, whose presence here I welcome, on the strides they have made in dealing with environmental protection. However, sadly I am not in a position to do so. That is why my party has tabled this motion. I wish to address the problems of litter, water pollution and waste management.

Litter is the most malignant manifestation of our throwaway society. It is a blemish on our landscape, urban and rural, an impediment to economic growth and a huge drain on public resources. Local authorities are currently spending in excess of £30 million annually on litter control and the taxpayers and ratepayers who provide that money must be concluding that they are getting very poor value and a very poor return on their investment. That should not be the case.

While there is modern, workable legislation on the Statute Book, it is only being sporadically enforced. The Government's response to this has been, at best, very weak and hesitant. It is 18 months since it took office, yet there is little visible improvement. A national clean-up week is promised for April 1999. While this is a good gesture it will not achieve lasting results. Why have we had to wait so long?

If we want to find models of good practice we need only look to the tidy towns and villages, places such as Clonakilty and Kenmare, to see how they organise themselves and how they can achieve a total litter-free streetscape and environment. It should not take 20 months to put in place a clean-up campaign. Rooting out entrenched bad habits demands a much more comprehensive and sustained campaign. There must be a carrot and stick approach. A well planned programme of public education must be put in place, targeted at the public and at schools.

The Government recently allocated £350,000 for publicity campaigns to deal with the litter problem to be divided between 27 local authorities. That is a derisory amount and cannot be expected to achieve the intended results. Responsibility for enforcing the Waste Management Act – good legislation which I worked hard on when I was a Member of the other House – is rightly delegated to the local authorities. However, they have been given no additional funding to implement this legislation and they have been promised no professional expertise.

Most local authorities have litter plans in place, but their implementation falls far short of what is needed. The littered conditions of our streets is the verdict on their efforts. It is time to change tack. I call on the Minster of State to take the matter in hand and to ensure that the litter pollution legislation is rigorously and comprehensively enforced.

The Garda is charged with responsibility for enforcing the law and this entails supplementing the work of litter wardens. How many gardaí take that part of their duties seriously? Has the Minister tried to enlist their help in dealing with the frightful scourge of litter? Has he advised them of their requirement to enforce the legislation in this area? If it was enforced with the same vigour as the laws on parking or drink driving we would have a different story. I would not be here this evening. Is not one law on the Statute Book as important as another? A law that is not enforced falls into disrepute. I ask the Minister to take a strong lead on this matter.

The Minister must also initiate a well focused, sustained programme of public education. The Government and the local authorities, each in their own area, must give leadership. It takes strong, committed and passionate leadership to tackle this problem. I hope this will happen following this debate.

The Minster must also consult with the Minster for Finance with the purpose of ensuring that tax penalties are put in place to discourage the use of disposable packaging, much of which ends up as litter. The use of plastic bags must be especially discouraged. When in Opposition, the Minister promised to tackle this issue but nothing has happened in the interim. I ask the Minister of State to ensure the matter is addressed from here on.

The Government should implement a set of proper specifications for the reinstatement of works undertaken by or on behalf of all public sector utilities. It must also ensure that it is a requirement of all future planning permissions for commercial developments that they should include properly positioned, maintained and serviced litter bins.

In addition, it must be a requirement that those engaged in new road developments must provide for the disposal, collection and cleaning up of litter arising from their activities. This is very important. Millions of pounds are spent on road construction every year. When work is partially or fully completed a residue of cones, signs and rubbish is left behind. The contractor collects his money and leaves the mess for somebody else to clean up. That should not be allowed.

The Minister should also ensure that national specifications for advertising hoardings are drawn up so that all named persons or organisations who engage in the illegal posting of flyers could then be prosecuted because they would be identifiable and traceable. In addition, all local authorities who are charged with responsibility for litter prevention and control must be required to put their houses in order and must adopt a quality control standard subject to outside verification in respect of all their operations. That is a very coherent list of items which, if put in place – and they can be put in place, there is no mystique about any of this – would make a huge difference and would certainly help eliminate the litter problem.

A country that takes almost £2 billion annually from tourism and is dependent on tourism for its economic survival cannot afford to ignore the litter problem any longer. A country that depends on discriminating outsiders to eat its food grown in a clean environment cannot afford to ignore the litter problem any longer.

With the kind permission of the Cathaoirleach I will share the remainder of my time with Senator Dardis.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Quill has one minute left and then Senator Dardis will speak.

Mr. Dardis

A Chathaoirligh, I thank you for rescuing me.

Miss Quill

The success of the tidy towns stems from good local leadership and a sense of local patriotism. That can be instilled but will only happen if the leadership is there. The law on litter must be stringently enforced.

On water quality, I am very worried about the constant deterioration in the quality of our drinking water. Unless something is done very quickly to arrest and reverse that process, very soon there will be signs up in tourist hotels stating that the water in the tap is not fit for drinking. I hope that will not be allowed to happen through our negligence.

Mr. Dardis

I second the motion. It is reasonable to state that in respect of environmental pro tection and the environment generally, I do not believe there is an issue in the public domain in Ireland which creates more rhetoric, more reports and destruction of the rain forests, in terms of the amount of literature distributed and less concrete evidence on the ground of anything happening to improve the situation before us, than this subject.

In my lifetime there has been a continuing deterioration of our lakes, rivers and water quality, more litter on our streets, lanes and highways and greater problems in respect of ground water as a result of waste disposal. Yet we proclaim to be a green, environmentally correct isle that can be held up as a model to attract tourists and we claim to the world that our food is produced under the best conditions. I believe our food is of a very high quality and by international standards it is produced in a relatively unintensive way. We have a tremendous product in terms of the tourism package we promote. However, these are sensitive issues and if we continue along the road we are going, these two aspects of enormous economic benefit – they are not just of philosophical and aesthetic benefit – will be lost.

The large multinational companies, such as Intel and Hewlett Packard in Kildare are attracted to Ireland not only by the favourable tax regime. Part of the reason they came was that they found an attractive environment which fit in well with the image of the companies they were trying to promote.

I met one of the senior executives of Hewlett Packard while on holiday in the west. I did not know who he was and I met him by chance, and then he told me who he was. I asked him what he found distasteful about Ireland. He told me there were two things: one was litter and the other was smoking in public bars. We can probably do something about the litter but I suspect we will not be successful in eliminating smoking in public houses. Nevertheless this tells us something about what major international investors require. The surveys carried out by Bord Fáilte confirm that one of the enduring criticisms of visitors is the amount of litter on our highways and byways.

It is not only the responsibility of Government or local authorities to correct these matters. Obviously somebody must clean up, but every citizen who is properly committed to his country has a responsibility not to throw material out of car windows and to ensure children do not throw rubbish away. Similarly the black plastic surrounding bales of silage should not be thrown indiscriminately around the country. We all have individual responsibilities in this respect and sometimes that is lost sight of in this debate.

I wish to concentrate on the matter on which Senator Quill concluded, namely water quality. There is potential for catastrophe in this area. Several Ministers apart from the Minister with us this evening – whom I welcome – have had to endure my angling odyssey around the country. I will now subject him to my angling odyssey around the country.

It began in Lough Ennell outside Mullingar, I had to leave because of the amount of sewage from a deficient treatment plant. The lake turned green. The fish were not killed but there was no fishing. Then I went to Lough Sheelin where the pig farmers had almost destroyed the premier wild brown trout fishery in Europe. I left Lough Sheelin and went to Lough Conn where there was eutrophication from two sources, agriculture and sewage. The same is happening in Lough Mask, Lough Corrib and Killarney. These are not isolated incidents. Similar things have been happening progressively over recent years.

In the case of the River Liffey which flows within 200 yards of my house, Dublin Corporation abstracts 53 million gallons a day from the headwaters of the River Liffey in Ballymore Eustace. Dublin Corporation has permission to abstract 73 million gallons a day and in a recent document which came before the Mid-East Regional Authority, of which I am a member, it stated it was expanding the Ballymore Eustace facility. The mean flow in the River Liffey is 190 million gallons a day. It is now proposed to take half of the mean flow out of the river. People think it is scare-mongering to suggest that can have catastrophic environmental consequences. The evidence in our nearest neighbour is there to see. Rivers in England have gone dry and disappeared as a result of London's insatiable need for water.

We all accept that much development is taking place and the population needs water. However, it is not acceptable for all that water to be abstracted from the headwaters of the River Liffey and 40 per cent of it lost through the system. That is not acceptable or prudent environmental management and this is within the responsibility of the State.

There are alternative sources of water in the River Shannon and the River Barrow and in the aquifer under the Curragh plain. There are environmental consequences as well. When I suggested to the Kildare county engineer that water could be taken from the River Shannon he told me it was technically impossible. However, the report of Generale des Eaux carried out by engineers on the greater Dublin water supply states that it is possible to bring the water from the River Shannon to Dublin. With regard to the consequences in terms of acquiring land and the costs involved, the land is there and does not have to be acquired. It is the right of way along the canal which comes from the River Shannon to Dublin. The land is in public ownership already.

We need to focus on whether we are really committed to improving the environment or whether we only want to talk about it and publish more reports. Dublin has to dispose of its waste but what do they do? They see the motorway running, which is a very convenient avenue, and look for the nearest point to dump their rubbish. Then they arrive in Kill, a village which won international awards and is the tidiest town in Kildare. They are allowed to put rubbish into a landfill site beside the prettiest village in Kildare with a tributary of the River Liffey flowing almost in the facility. I do not understand how this is allowed to happen. This brings us to the European norm whereby the polluter pays; in this country the polluter does not pay. The polluter can put materials into the water, indiscriminately throw rubbish into landfill sites and not pay. Someone, somewhere, must eventually decide that we must pay. In the United States of America, where there is vastly more land and less people, they tend to do this, and it does cost. We must confront the issue sooner or later.

Mr. Coogan

When this motion was tabled by one of the Government parties, my immediate thought was that I would hear nothing but praise. I was pleased to hear Senator Quill speak. In the words of Julius Caesar, "She came to bury Caesar rather than to praise him". What she said is accurate. She referred to a number of issues which must be faced by everyone in Ireland. In the future we will not get away with what has been happening. She stated that £30 million is spent on trying to eliminate litter pollution. Yet there is no return. There is no additional funding for local authorities for the collection of litter. I recall a committee debate where it was stated that the Aran Islands are introducing a tax on visitors to pay for the disposal of waste on the islands. This is an indication that the Government is not giving enough money to local government to introduce a proper facility for waste management. We are now asking tourists to pay for this. I fear that tourists will be asked to pay for the disposal of the waste we produce. This country likes to be known as green and clean, but I am afraid we cannot claim that.

One of my pet hates is plastic bags. There was a commitment to get rid of plastic bags and to introduce legislation to ensure we would not use them. This would not be difficult to introduce. It would take only a proper frame of mind for people to decide not to use plastic bags. It is easy to buy bags that can be reused for shopping or recycled. Plastic bags are not properly disposed of and can be seen along the roads and in hedges. They are not considered a problem once they go from one's backyard into a neighbour's backyard. I would like the Government to introduce legislation in this area as soon as possible.

Senator Quill stated that if people park their car illegally, they will be immediately fined. There is money to be made from people parking illegally, but there is not as much money to be made from imposing a fine on people who throw litter on the street. I brought up this point at a local government meeting in Galway and was told by the city manager that 25 people will appear in court in Galway in this regard. I ask the media to highlight this fact so that people will become fearful of throwing litter around and ending up in court. We must educate people to be responsible for the cleanliness of their areas and for eliminating litter. In Galway we advertised for an environmental education officer. I am not sure how good he will be or if he will serve his full purpose, but it is a step forward.

In regard to overall municipal waste management, and comparing us to other European countries, the Minister previously had a target of 20 per cent for the recycling of municipal household and commercial waste by 1999. I believe that has been increased to 50 per cent. I doubt if that target will be reached, but it is worth aiming for. The Netherlands recycles 10 per cent of its waste, Ireland approximately 5 per cent and France 2 per cent. The main means of disposing of waste is by incineration. Politicians are afraid to face up to this concept because they are afraid environmentalists will come down on them like a ton of bricks. We must accept that waste management will have to be addressed in whatever management structures are introduced.

Senator Dardis referred to fisheries and water quality. During a previous debate in this House, I asked the Minister to respond to a point concerning a complaint made to the European Union against the Environmental Protection Agency in Ireland by the Environment Watch Ireland group. Will the Minister of State tell us the Government's response to this complaint? The complaint concerned irregularities in the drinking water monitoring regime in Ireland. It was based on a number of issues. Environment Watch Ireland claims that, with regard to the monitoring of drinking water quality in Ireland, it lodged a formal complaint with the Commission on the following grounds. Based on the Irish Environmental Protection Agency's reports, The Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland, published in 1993, 1994 and 1995, it is apparent that some local authorities in Ireland employ an unacceptably low monitoring frequency for most of the water supplies for which they are responsible. They give examples of Mayo, Leitrim and Cavan county councils who appear to monitor some group water supplies only every two years. This is not sufficient. It is its contention that this is an unacceptable and infrequent sampling method and it is in contradiction with the EU directives on member states' obligations to monitor drinking water on a more regular basis. The EPA report The Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland 1995, states:

As part of its normal surveillance programme for drinking water supplies Mayo County Council samples group schemes extensively every other year, so that the 1995 returns show a considerably smaller number of supplies examined as compared to 1994.

The World Health Organisation in its document, Drinking Water Supply Surveillance, discusses the sample numbers and frequencies which range from three months to two weeks. The WHO recommends that for a population of in excess of 50,000, sampling should be carried out every week and in the case of a population of 1,000 it should be carried out every three months. Local authorities who carry out sampling every two years do not meet the World Health Organisation's recommendations. On the number of samples taken, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency's reports The Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland, published in 1993, 1994 and 1995, indicate that some local authorities in Ireland are taking an unacceptably and statistically unreliable number of water samples during each monitoring cycle of the most public supplies and group water schemes. It contends that the number of samples being analysed at such a low frequency cannot provide even remotely reliable information on water quality given the wide range of fluctuations and the number of concentrations that occur. For example, given that e. coli contamination can range from 0 to 100 colonies per 100 ml within a 30 day period, if there is an examination just once a year, or every two years, it is evident that fluctuations could occur. It is meaningless to draw conclusions about water quality based on one sample taken every year.

According to the report, other bacteriological contaminants are not being examined. This is condemnation of the type and frequency of sampling which is being brought to the notice of the Commission. I asked for a response to this matter which I have not received to date. Perhaps the Minister of State will inform me of the changes being made in the frequency and type of testing that will be carried out in the future.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

This motion raises issues of great importance to the optimal management of our environment and I welcome the opportunity to outline a number of specific actions being taken by my Department to tackle these issues.

I would like to begin with the issue of litter. I fully admit that our litter pollution problem is a national scandal and is totally unacceptable. It is essentially a local and individual problem requiring responses from local authorities, businesses, community groups and individual citizens. I am determined to ensure that all possible realistic steps are taken to tackle this self-inflicted blight on our environment.

As you know the primary management and enforcement response to the litter problem must come from the local authorities. The 1997 Litter Pollution Act empowers local authorities to take strong action against those who generate litter and requires a new and more structured approach to litter management planning. The Act's provisions are extensive and cover a wide variety of visually polluting activities.

Many local authorities are beginning to use these extensive management and enforcement powers more vigorously. My Department has been tracking the levels of effectiveness of their activities using regular statistical returns which clearly show that local authorities have stepped up enforcement.

Statistics comparing the first six months of 1997 with the same period in 1998 confirm this. For example, the number of litter wardens in place increased by 125 per cent from 85 to 191 over the year. An equivalent pattern was seen in relation to the number of on-the-spot fines where the number of such fines levied increased by 224 per cent from 981 to 3,175. Prosecutions more than trebled to over 500 in the same period. Despite this clear evidence of substantial progress, I would be the first to admit that much remains to be done to eradicate litter.

I have taken every possible opportunity to call on local authorities to make full use of their powers to take effective anti-litter action under the various provisions of the 1997 Act. Local authorities can also deploy some of the additional resources now available from the local government fund to bolster such activities. I have certainly stressed that to local management.

Among of the range of anti-litter activities which we are currently either promoting or supporting, I would like to briefly comment on just two. The first is the imminent implementation of a national litter pollution monitoring system which has twin objectives, namely, to monitor and assess local authority performance in litter prevention and control and to correspondingly advise my Department of the need for supplementary action at national level. This system will continually monitor the extent of the litter problem and critically review the effectiveness of local anti-litter measures. In particular the system will help to identify particular litter blackspots and thus prompt local authorities to take the appropriate corrective responses.

The other project which I would like to highlight is the forthcoming National Spring Clean 1999 programme initiated by An Taisce. This exciting campaign involves a broad based approach involving national and local government, an NGO and major private sector companies as co-sponsors. It will encourage people in groups from all walks of life to become involved in cleaning up their local environment. This project will focus national attention on litter in a high profile, sustained and co-ordinated manner across all sectors of society. I believe that the campaign has substantial potential to drastically reduce the level of litter pollution in this country and it deserves widespread public support and practical involvement.

We have increased our funding for litter awareness activities to £526,000 this year and will be working with local authorities, business and the education sector to secure real action against litter across local communities. In particular, I am anxious to encourage greater involvement by the business community at local level as co-owners of the problem and genuine partners in finding a solution.

Social attitudes, public behaviour, our sense of civic pride, our welcome to tourists, the value we all place on a clean environment, all of these must come into play if we are to successfully eradicate litter. Public responsibility and enforcement and other measures by local authorities are the key to success.

Turning to water quality, I want to emphasise that the bulk of Irish surface water is of good quality and is suitable for the most sensitive uses. The most recently published EPA report covering the period 1991-4 shows that 71 per cent of river channel length and 77 per cent of lakes surveyed came within the unpolluted category. Serious pollution had been reduced from about 6 per cent of river channel length over 20 years ago to less than 1 per cent.

Slight or moderate pollution arising from eutrophication was recorded in 28 per cent of river channel length during the period in question. This represents the biggest challenge in terms of water quality management in Ireland. Eutrophication arises primarily from excessive phosphorous loadings. Agriculture was identified as the single biggest contributor to phosphorous pollution levels with sewage and industry also significant contributors.

A comprehensive national strategy to combat the eutrophication of rivers and lakes is being promoted by my Department. The primary objective of the strategy is to redress the deterioration in water quality caused by excessive inputs of phosphorus. The strategy sets out targets for the reduction in phosphorus levels in rivers and lakes. These targets were given statutory effect in July last year when I made regulations prescribing national water quality standards for phosphorus.

I am also addressing the question of the phosphorus contribution from detergents. In this regard, I hope very shortly to finalise a voluntary agreement with the Irish Detergents and Allied Products Association. This will be designed to secure quantified reductions in the use of phosphate based detergents within a specified timeframe.

A code of good agricultural practice to protect waters from pollution from agriculture is being promoted by my own Department and the Department of Agriculture and Food. Nutrient management planning is now a requirement under REPS. Some 40,000 farmers currently participate in the REP scheme and it is hoped to extend the scheme to an additional 10,000 farmers by the end of 1999. Teagasc has significantly revised its guidelines for the application of fertilisers.

These measures are already beginning to show results. In the last two years, it is estimated that there has been a 20 per cent reduction in the use of phosphorus chemical fertiliser, down from 62,000 tonnes per year to 50,000 tonnes.

My Department is engaged in a major investment programme to upgrade sewage infrastructural facilities throughout the country. Total investment under this programme is estimated at £1.3 billion up to 2005 and is substantially supported by EU Structural and Cohesion Funds. Last month the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, announced a record investment of £257 million in the 1999 water services programme – an increase of 50 per cent on expenditure in 1998.

I am confident that the range of measures we are pursuing will lead to the reversal of past trends within an acceptable timeframe.

The overall policy of the Government in relation to waste management is set out in An Action Programme for the Millennium and more recently Waste Management – Changing our Ways which was published in October last year. These policy documents are firmly grounded in an internationally recognised hierarchy of options – prevention, minimisation, reuse/recycling, energy recovery and environmentally sustainable disposal of waste which cannot be recovered.

Giving clear and practical expression to the requirement of this hierarchy is a challenge for modern waste management. Changing our Ways provides a national framework within which the local authorities, and indeed the waste industry can plan ahead with confidence and achieve the objectives of the Waste Management Act. Although local authorities are vital to the achievement of our waste policy objectives, the participation of Government, industry and society as a whole is also essential.

The key objectives identified in the policy statement are meaningful strategic planning on a regionalised basis; a dramatic reduction in reliance on landfill in favour of an integrated waste management approach which can deliver ambitious recycling and recovery targets; greater participation by the private sector in the provision of waste services; an equitable system of waste charges which promotes waste minimisation and recovery and the further development of producer responsibility initiatives and the mobilisation of public support and participation.

We are very conscious of the fact that waste services are the least developed of the environmental services traditionally delivered by local authorities, but we have a clear agenda for change and are pursuing it intensively. The completion of regional strategy studies and adoptions of waste management plans are well advanced and I expect that the planning process will be substantially completed by mid-1999; a system is in place for the licensing by the EPA of all significant waste disposal and recovery activities, including landfill sites; the infrastructure of "bring" facilities for recyclables, including well equipped civic amenity sites, is being steadily developed with support under the Operational Programme for Environmental Services 1994-99; we have also recognised that producer responsi bility initiatives allow industry to use its expertise to devise workable and least-cost arrangements for waste recovery on a sectoral level. REPAK has planned substantial expansion in 1999; we have invited the construction industry to develop proposals for a producer responsibility initiative aimed at meeting ambitious recovery targets for construction and demolition waste – discussions have begun in this regard with one of the main representative organisations; the motor industry has also been invited to develop proposals on end-of-life vehicles while we have also had initial discussions with industry on waste electronic and electrical equipment; much more remains to be done in relation to waste recycling. While low population density and peripheral local and market limitations will always place a certain constraint on the achievement of high levels of materials recycling, we will be placing a particular focus this year on the necessary approaches to achieving our recycling targets and my Department has set up a specially resourced unit to pursue implementation of public private partnership arrangements in respect of waste and other major infrastructure.

Across our agenda, whether in relation to litter, waste or protection and conservation of natural resources, public awareness and responsibility are critical to solving – and indeed preventing – environmental problems. We need to harness public concern in a positive, constructive and well informed way. I am developing a significant new and well resourced environmental awareness campaign this year, to promote more environmentally sustainable behaviour across society. I look forward to public support and participation in this regard. Litter, waste reduction and water protection will remain at the top of our agenda.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister and his statement. I also welcome this motion because its aim is to draw attention to a horrific problem.

I believe all legislation on the Statute Book should be enforced and fully implemented. I supported the passage through this House of what is now known as the Waste Management Act. I also remind Senators that legislation on its own cannot bring about change and that is suggested by the wording of this motion. To be fully effective legislation requires at least an acquiescence on the part of the general public, their positive support and in particular their enthusiasm. We have to work on their enthusiasm rather than holding the belief that by passing laws we can solve this problem. The Minister and other speakers have touched on this point.

Last year and earlier I passed through Singapore and I was enthused by what I saw there. I know people criticise the place for various reasons and that they are very willing to accept authority but this was not about authority. I will briefly describe what happened. I flew by jumbo jet to Singapore and we arrived at the airport at the same time as two other jumbo jets. I thought it would take an hour for us to get through immigration and collect our bags. When I arrived at immigration I was surprised to see how effective it was. All the immigration booths were open. We were welcomed, we were questioned and when that was over we were welcomed again. I was very impressed by the fact that as we arrived at the terminal our bags were already there. I was also very impressed at the way they handled customs. I particularly remember the tough looking Malaysian lady who said to me "Are you aware at customs that the death penalty exists for the importation of drugs? Do you have any?" I was impressed by the point they made by these questions.

What impressed me most was that, as I left the airport building, I was met by a man from my hotel who had been waiting for us and he held up the name of my group. Then he got his car and he asked what we thought of the airport. I said it was very good. He asked about immigration and I said it was perfect. He also asked if our bags reached the terminal before we got there and I said they had. Then he asked about the customs process. He then asked us if we noticed that when he met us he did not park at the kerbside because Singapore airport came second in the competition for the best airport in the world. He said that Singapore would win it that year and that they lost points the previous year at immigration, baggage arrival and customs and because people always double and triple parked and people were blocked and could not get away. The people of Singapore then decided that buses, taxis and citizens were not going to park at the kerbside. It seemed to me that this enthusiasm for solving the problem, for getting to the top and for winning was a national consensus. I am delighted to say that Singapore airport won the title of the best airport for that year. I was very impressed with their national commitment to solve a problem but we do not have that commitment. We must have a national commitment, regardless of the laws we enact. The Minister pointed out some of the steps that have been taken but we have a long way to go. It takes action to market this idea and to get young people involved. We must ensure every citizen is aware that they create litter, pollution problems and unrecycled waste and each individual can do something about it. How do we solve this problem? I am not sure that there is an easy solution to it but I do know that it will not be solved by enacting legislation and thinking we can move on to other business.

Senator Coogan mentioned plastic bags. This issue is very close to my heart because my company is continuously criticised about plastic bags. In my company we have discovered that different areas of Dublin and the country achieved much higher recycling results than mine. My company uses reusable bags. Senator Coogan is correct when he says that the solution is for people to re-use bags when they shop rather than looking for new bags each time. Unfortunately, a very large number of customers misunderstand the problem. I meet a group of customers almost every week and listen to what they have to say about their shopping experiences. Invariably, someone will ask why the supermarkets do not do something about plastic bags. The answer is we cannot do anything about them unless we have the public thinking that way. In some of my shops two-thirds of the customers use reusable bags and in other shops not even 5 per cent do so. We must find a way to solve this misunderstanding. I know from meeting people there will always be someone who says they are all right because they recycle their bags by using them as rubbish bags and then putting them in the tiphead. We must get the message across that it is our citizens who pollute and create the problem and we are the ones who can solve it.

The Waste Management Act is very worthy one because it states that the polluter pays. This Act also has draconian powers. We are careful to state that we have these draconian powers but we prefer that people solve this problem on a voluntary basis. I accept that those of us in business are polluters and, with regard to plastic bags, it is the supermarkets that provide them. We are the polluters and now we have to pay for it and find a solution. Part of the solution is a mindset change on the part of the Irish citizens who say that we do not rely on the law alone and that the law is like a big sword hanging over our heads because if we do not manage to solve this problem it can be enforced.

The Minister referred to REPAK, which faces great challenges. REPAK and others like it can solve this problem, but only if it gets the support of the nation. We must recognise that we as a nation need to change our attitude and the Minister should hold a strong sword over us and put great effort into explaining that we can solve the problem. If we take that attitude, we will solve it. It cannot be solved by law alone.

Mr. Walsh

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire agus cuirim fáilte freisin roimh an díospóireacht thábhachtach seo atá againn anocht.

We have a very important motion before us tonight. The environment is of concern to us all and the Minister has a great responsibility in this regard. I welcome the initiatives he has taken to improve the environment in which we live.

The motion tabled by Senator Quill encompasses a wide area of environmental issues. The elimination of litter pollution is something to which we, as a country, have aspired for many decades. It is only in the recent past that a committed effort to addressing the issue has been made. The initiative taken by the Minister last year to seek a strong commitment from county managers to tackle this issue at local authority level was long overdue. It has spurred action in some local authorities, but more needs to be done. Litter is a blight on our landscape.

Comparisons have been made during this debate between Ireland and other countries. If one travels throughout the European Union one is struck by the cleanliness of many of the cities and countries. Obviously there is a much higher public commitment to ensuring litter is controlled and not scattered everywhere, as tends to happen here.

I was interested to hear Senator Quinn's comments on Singapore. I visited Singapore towards the end of last year and was struck by its cleanliness and the pride of the people there. I spoke to a tourist guide who not only espoused great pride in their cleanliness and litter control, but in their enforcement of legislation. It is a small country like Ireland with a population of approximately three million people; it is a very cosmopolitan area. We could use it as a role model not just in this area, but in relation to issues of law and order, though one might not go as far as it in relation to some of the punishments. Singapore could act as a role model for us in many areas. It has succeeded and takes pride in the fact that it will maintain that standard. A significant comment made to me was that if it fails to keep the city as clean as it is, it will be just like any other location and will not be distinctive. Most people are attracted to the city because of the reputation that it has justifiably gained.

We need to adopt the attitude of mind to which Senator Quinn referred. It touches the national psyche that we want to be litter-free; we want our towns, cities and countryside to look their best and we want to take pride in that. That will come about through education. Many schools have done tremendous work in this regard. Many local authorities have become involved in environmental programmes within the primary school sector and we in Wexford have promoted the Keep Wexford Beautiful campaign, with prizes for the schools which perform best over the year. That will percolate throughout the public. Many adults have told me they are being corrected by their children for not disposing of litter properly. We are making strides, but much more needs to be done.

The tidy town's competition is one example of the effort being made nationally. A commitment is being made to improve our towns. The Department of the Environment and Local Government has taken over that scheme and competition which plays a vital role. I would not decry the need for enforcement in this area. I am not sure Senator Quinn was doing that. There is compliance with litter laws in areas with a good enforcement regime. We tend to treat enforcement, perhaps because of our history, as an optional extra. It should perhaps be the driving force, particularly for those who will not comply. It can be a major deterrent.

The gardaí pay very little heed to the implementation of this type of legislation. They need to do more. As an alternative, we could have a policing or rangers force within local government for the enforcement of traffic, speed controls etc. Monitoring of the litter problem is important. If local authorities were ranked on an annual basis it would spur them to perform to a much higher standard.

I had much more to say in relation to water quality and waste management but my time has expired.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to what may not be the most newsworthy debate, but it probably more topical and relevant than some of the issues we have discussed. I congratulate the Progressive Democrats, particularly Senators Quill, Dardis and Gibbons for tabling this motion which is very relevant.

We will be judged on our appearance. While great progress has been made in the tourism area with restoration projects and tourism attractions, if we fall down on a reasonably easy matter to control we will fail. To date we have not succeeded. Senator Walsh mentioned the tidy towns and tidy district competitions. Some areas make tremendous efforts to obtain and retain awards, but there are, unfortunately, other areas where we fall down.

The issue of enforcement has been mentioned. There is substantial room for improvement in the enforcement of legislation under the litter Acts. The Minister of State indicated there had been a large increase in the number of wardens. This seems to have come from a ridiculously low level of 85. Is that a national figure? I do not know how that figure is broken down by city and town.

The Minister of State is to be complimented on some of the measures he has introduced, but many local authorities are not taking this matter seriously. I recently walked along the seafront at Dun Laoghaire where litter has built up due to carelessness and disregard for the area. Those responsible are litter thugs who leave bottles, rubbish, cigarette packets and other litter along the seafront. Others decide they cannot wait for their refuse to be collected or do not have the initiative to bring their rubbish to a dump, but simply throw it over a wall.

We have to improve enforcement. People have been convicted on a number of occasions. The sentence handed down in a recent case seemed over the top when someone was ordered to carry out a certain amount of community service cleaning up an area. We have all seen people throwing cigarette butts and other rubbish out of car windows. Litter is not the most serious crime, but we must act if we are not to be seen as a dirty society.

I frequently visit a beach near Gorey in County Wexford. If people are intent on dumping litter, they will do so. However, there are practical measures which local authorities can take, such as providing a sufficient number of litter bins on beaches. They should organise competitions or local businesses could gain publicity by spon soring litter bins. If bins are in place they should be emptied regularly. There is nothing worse than seeing litter which has fallen over the side of a bin because it is full. People who are genuine in trying to deposit their rubbish in a litter bin often cannot do so because it is full.

Most Members are also members of local authorities. They know there is a certain amount of interest in this subject, but there is no local authority which cannot improve its performance in this area. Some can improve a lot. I would be interested to hear what is envisaged in the campaign being launched.

We have concentrated on litter in this debate. Water quality and waste management are also aspects of this issue. Most of the large store owners in Blackrock, including Senator Quinn, provide an area in their carparks for recycling bottles, cans and other items. There must be more encouragement for such initiatives. Senator Quinn and the owners of other large stores such as Tesco and Dunnes Stores, should consider sponsoring competitions to make people more aware of waste management, litter, recycling and other such matters. People could be asked questions and there could be a free draw or points awarded.

This is a welcome debate and we should return to this issue at a later stage. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State speaking about the spring campaign and the extra litter wardens. He might also consider a survey on how this problem is approached in local authority areas. We are all aware of some areas where there are particular problems, but these problems exist in all areas.

I compliment the Progressive Democrat Senators on tabling this motion. This issue is worth serious consideration if we are to make tourism even better in this country.

Ms Ormonde

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is a welcome motion and one which is close to my heart as I have discussed it on many occasions in my local authority. I am knowledgeable on what has and can be done to tackle this problem. I compliment the Minister of State on his efforts to deal with this issue and to enforce the laws on litter.

Litter is a national disaster. One only has to walk along a street in any town or village to see the amount of litter dropped by Joe Citizen with total disregard for the environment. The Minister of State has made huge strides in enforcing the anti-litter legislation, as has been shown by the substantial increase in the number of wardens. The number has increased from 85 to 191 – by 125 per cent. That is a great plus about which I did not know. I welcome this increase as it is a great opportunity to provide litter wardens in each local authority area.

The Minister of State also said that prosecutions have trebled to over 500 in the same period; this is worthwhile information. We are active and the Minister of State is monitoring the prob lem, even though he acknowledged that a great deal more needs to be done. I also welcome the two initiatives to be implemented this year, the national litter pollution monitoring system and co-operation with An Taisce to join with local groups for clean-ups. This is all worthwhile and we all agree progress is being made.

Senator Quinn used a phrase which reflects my thinking, that this is a "national commitment". These are two words which should be borne in mind. In my local authority, in the environs of local schools, wardens are out at 12.30 p.m. and by 1.30 p.m. the place is littered again. I do not know whether the Department of the Environment and Local Government can do anything about this. An education programme is necessary. How best can we get young people and their parents to co-operate with the local authorities, the Department and any initiatives coming on stream to eradicate this problem? One can pump all the money one likes into this problem and give grants to local authorities, but if there is no local motivation nothing will be achieved.

I will give another example. There are three takeaways in one part of my constituency. At 2 o'clock on Friday and Saturday mornings, the litter there is unbelievable. What can we do to eradicate litter at this stage? The gardaí have a huge role to play, although I do not know whether they can be used—

Miss Quill

They can.

Ms Ormonde

—or whether we can bring in another force within the local authorities to tackle this issue. Young people aged 17, 18 and 19 years who have been educated and told they cannot litter the streets go to nightclubs and afterwards litter the streets. If one were with visitors, it would make one ashamed to pass through certain villages.

There must be national commitment and motivation. The local authorities are doing a good job and I compliment my local authority which has introduced a new cleansing unit in its environment section to deal with this problem. It has subcontracted the job of cleaning and sweeping the roads to a private consortium. This is a big move and a programme has been initiated.

However, it is a long haul. One of the first items on the agenda of every residents' association meeting I attend is the eradication of litter. I tell them I or the local authority cannot do any more, that the litter warden is present at the meeting and that all necessary facilities are available. However, we cannot sweep the street, when the next day it is back to its original littered state. We need an awareness programme. Perhaps we need more personnel rather than financial resources to get the information to the schools.

Our schools have reneged on their responsibilities. They have never discussed waste management or educated children about recycling supermarket bags or depositing our refuse in ways, other than dumping it on the street for someone else to pick up. The responsibility is always passed to someone else. We are not taking responsibility for our behaviour when it comes to our environment. Responsibility and awareness could start at household level. In the home, parents and children can build up a concept of the environment. If one gets that right and the concept spreads to agricultural, commercial and construction areas, we can teach society it has a role to play in making our country look beautiful.

We may be benefiting from the Celtic tiger but we are failing miserably in pride in our country. That is why I hope the Department of the Environment and Local Government, in conjunction with local authorities, can do more marketing. I do not know whether it will work and I know the Minister of State has done his best. However, one can throw all the money one wants at this problem which the Minister of State has done – but it still will not work. I hope a marketing programme can be implemented, in co-operation with all the groups interested in the environment who will make it work.

Mr. Gibbons

This is an important subject. A great deal of lip service is paid to solving the problems we are discussing – litter, waste, the quality of our water, etc. We are providing funds to deal with these problems. However, the amount of litter which accumulates daily is frightening. What seems to be happening is that the amount of litter is growing at a faster rate than the economy. What is going wrong?

While our local authorities are doing a great deal of good work, I question whether they have a genuine commitment to solving the problem. As was mentioned by a number of other speakers, litter bins on a street or on the beach need to be emptied regularly. Practically in every street of every town, and at weekends in particular, the people go to the chipper late at night and their litter is strewn all over the streets. In most places, there is no collection of that litter until Monday. The bins are full and there is nowhere to put the litter, even if people are prepared to bin it.

There is an onus on all of us to take this matter seriously. I do not believe we are doing so. Very few towns can hold their heads high and say they are proud of the way they manage their litter. There is no doubt that some are doing good work. However, there is another problem and one does not have to go any further than outside the front door of this building to see it, and that is chewing gum. A great sum of money has been spent putting down footpaths in every town but a great number of them are ruined by chewing gum. There may be no litter, but there is chewing gum. This is an indication of our attitude to the environment. That is why I said we are paying lip service to the problem. We all talk about wanting a nice environment, yet we throw chewing gum on the ground.

I do not wish to dwell on the litter problem for too long as many speakers have discussed it. However, I wish to make some points about water quality and how the agricultural community can contribute towards ensuring that our water quality is maintained and improved. In the past 30 years, with the development of agriculture, there has been a huge increase in the use of fertilisers. While the farming community is very prudent in the use of nitrogenous fertilisers, its use of phosphates and potassium is less so. Phosphorus and phostphates are a huge problem for water quality. Farmers waste money every year putting these fertilisers on their land when they should, in the interest of prudent management of their farms, have a soil test carried out regularly to establish the quantity of these elements in the soil and whether it is necessary to apply them.

Another aspect of farming that is particularly important and which should receive more attention, particularly from the farming community, is that Ireland seeks to portray itself as a country which produces high quality foodstuffs which should command a premium on markets throughout Europe. The development of REPs is welcome as that, as well as extensification, is the future direction for agriculture. However, the current fodder crisis has demonstrated how appallingly we can behave on our farms when disposing of silage wrappers, bags and covers and fertiliser bags. They are strewn across the countryside. The law is in place, but the litter problem continues to exist. There is no commitment to cleaning up our act.

The Minister of State quoted interesting figures on fines – I welcome the appointment of more litter wardens – indicating that the number levied had increased from 981 to 3,175. I would love to think these figures were indicative of our problem, but they are not. Everybody knows how dirty the country is yet there were only 3,175 fines.

We try to promote this country as a tourist destination, but the first thing a tourist notices is hygiene. I acknowledge that the Minister of State has made great efforts to encourage local authorities to put litter wardens in place. However, more must be done because the problem is far greater than the figures indicate. That should also apply to rural areas. Anybody who has driven on our country roads will acknowledge that some farmyards are a disgrace. I am from a farming background and I am familiar with the filth and dirt one can encounter on farms.

Miss Quill

And on building sites.

Mr. Gibbons

Absolutely. I have little time left, but perhaps the Leas-Chathaoirleach will be as liberal with me as the Chair was when the Leas-Chathaoirleach made his contribution.

Reference must be made to waste management. Our first priority should be to prevent waste and reduce the amount being generated. Senator Quill referred to building sites. There are huge amounts of waste on building sites, yet a huge amount could be salvaged, particularly when demolition is involved. Salvage is big business and some operators make a good living from it. We are dumping the finest timber and fabulous brick and stonework into landfill sites.

This country has been afraid to tackle one thorny issue in the context of waste management – incineration. We must discuss this option and decide whether we should choose it. We must clean up our country. We continue to produce waste which nobody wants. Everybody wants the country to be tidy, yet people throw plastic bags full of litter out of their car windows on country roads. They do not want their cars littered, but they do not appear to mind littering the countryside.

The amount of litter being produced must be reduced and greater emphasis must be put on recycling. We must consider all possibilities for recycling and move away from the use of landfills. In any event, we will not be allowed to use landfills in the future so we must think seriously about incineration and how we will use it.

Mr. D. Kiely

I compliment Senator Quill and her colleagues on putting down this motion. It is, and will continue to be, a matter of great importance for all local authorities. It is an issue which must be tackled.

Last year, I and a number of local authority colleagues from Kerry went to Denmark to examine its waste management programme. We were highly impressed. A number of Senators referred to waste management and moving away from the use of landfills. That is the direction we must take. We cannot be afraid of incinerators or of making decisions which will get rid of the litter problem.

The problem is increasing at an enormous rate. Travelling in any part of this country, one is confronted with placards and signs proclaiming "No landfill wanted here" and "No dump here". There are community groups in every county dealing with this matter. Everybody wants to get rid of their litter, but nobody wants it in their backyard. However, we must face up to our commitments in this regard.

We have much to answer for and much to do. There are not enough litter bins on streets. People cannot dispose of their litter with ease. In other cities, there are litter bins at regular intervals in every street. That is the first issue we must tackle. In Kerry last year I provided money for six litter bins in my village from my councillor's allocation. I considered it the best way to use the money. Three of them were placed outside the schools, one of which has 700 pupils. A number of Members referred to litter wardens. It might be a good idea to ask litter wardens to go to the schools to talk to the students about disposing of litter, rather than having teachers give these talks.

In Denmark, waste management starts in the home and is taught to children from a young age. Each home has different bins in their yards for the different items of litter, such as glass and tin which can be recycled, items that can be used for compost and items that cannot be safely disposed of. The latter are generally disposed of in incinerators. Children are given this training from a young age.

In this country, the philosophy appears to be that one should throw one's litter from the car window. More serious penalties will have to be imposed to deal with offenders. Last year, Kerry County Council carried out an anti-litter campaign. In one week about five truck loads of refuse were removed from the sides of the road. That took place before the summer season in an effort to clean up the countryside before the arrival of the tourists. It is hard to believe so much refuse could be collected from roadsides. Chip cartons and other food containers were obviously thrown from the windows of cars. The litter wardens should be on patrol and ready to take details about the offenders and their vehicles.

I compliment the local authorities on their actions. Some years ago a constituent came to me to have something fixed up. He had dumped a bag of litter on the roadside in County Limerick, a litter warden went through it, found his name and address and he was duly prosecuted. The same is happening in other local authorities and it is high time it did.

We should examine the idea of linking the duties of traffic wardens with those of litter wardens. Their powers could be expanded by the local authorities. Traffic wardens who walk around towns all day could also act as litter wardens for a small increase in salary.

Miss Quill

That is a very good idea.

Mr. D. Kiely

The local authorities and litter wardens have a large role to play in this area. Traffic wardens could also play a role.

In relation to water quality, all the water in Denmark comes from deep wells. Their system is far more advanced than ours. All our drinking water is surface water, so we must be more vigilant than others about pollution from agricultural and industrial waste. I know of many industries, one or two of which I took on in my younger days in local authorities, which thought that because they were big companies they could instruct their employees to open up the waste water at night if there was a flood coming down the local river, letting the untreated water into the waterways. Thankfully, with more stringent rules for planning permission, many of those industries have had to install water treatment plants. These people have to be made conscious of their responsibilities because the number of fish kills over the years is a disgrace and we let many people away without challenging them.

There is much we can do. Under the recycling and incineration programme in Denmark, 7 per cent of the original waste material is all that remains to be put into landfill sites. This gives enormous longevity to the landfill sites. We should consider regional management structures instead of locally based plans. This is becoming very expensive and it will cost the local authorities a great deal to maintain landfill sites.

I welcome this debate and compliment the Minister and his Department on the work they are doing.

Ms O'Meara

In relation to the remarks made by Senator Kiely, in Nenagh the traffic wardens also act as litter wardens.

Miss Quill

Really?

Ms O'Meara

They have been doing that for the past six months and it has been a great success. Clearly, this is a possibility which could be examined by other local authorities.

I am happy to speak about this issue because it gives me the opportunity to raise a number of environmental concerns which are particular to my area. I am from the Nenagh and Silvermines area where environmental issues have come to the fore in the past few months. Senators will have heard me speak on the subject of Lough Derg in the past, an issue of great environmental concern to us in north Tipperary. Environmental issues are now on the doorsteps of the Silvermines community. This is because of past events and potential future events, all of which are relevant to this debate. The potential future events are of particular relevance due to the proposal by the Irish subsidiary of a global company – Waste Management Ireland – to locate a superdump on our doorstep.

I commend the Minister and his recent predecessors on passing legislation which has had a beneficial effect on how we handle environmental matters. A few weeks before Christmas, I was contacted by members of the community who live beside the Tailings Pond facility at Gortmore outside Nenagh. The Tailings Pond is an area of 150 acres, 20 metres high, of toxic sludge left over from the mining at Silvermines by Mobil Ireland until 1982. This Tailings Pond was constructed without planning permission and without a licence. On a number of maps and documents the facility does not exist. It contains highly toxic material and from 1982 to 1984 it represented a considerable risk to the local community when, having dried out, highly toxic dust from it blew into the houses in the area. It required legal action to ensure that facility was vegetated and made secure.

Some weeks before Christmas an attempt was made to sell it and the new would-be owner put a JCB and a number of animals on the tailings pond, which caused a good deal of concern. The local authority and the EPA acted very quickly, as did the environmental health officer and other agencies charged with responsibility under the Act to deal with this problem. I commend all the agencies concerned.

The EPA subsequently issued a report which contained a number of recommendations which are being acted on. I want to bring to the attention of the House one element of that report. Under a section of the Waste Management Act which came into operation only in July, the Tailings Pond facility was recognised for what it is for the first time under law – a waste management facility – and as a result the company which formerly owned it was shown not to have been able to sell it in the manner it did and, therefore, still has responsibility for ensuring the environment is maintained and the health and well-being of the surrounding community is secured.

Highly pollutant leachate, which has still not been dealt with, is currently emanating from the site into the local river and adjoining water supply. That is only one example of past attitudes to the treatment of hazardous materials and how communities were treated by large industry. That has changed.

Waste Management wishes to locate this superdump within three quarters of a mile of this site at what it has publicly referred to as the best site in Europe, a quarry, currently filled with water, located near a railway spur. It is, however, an entirely unsuitable site because it is wet, there is water streaming into it, and it is located on a limestone bed which geologists have told us makes it unsuitable as a dumping location.

It is notable, however, that in reaction to this issue, people in other counties rub their hands in glee. The Silvermines problem is their solution. I know, from having spoken to colleagues in my party from areas such as Limerick, that the location of a major landfill dump in what would be considered a remote area with railway access would be the solution to their problems. I issue a warning that the determination of the local community to resist this is very strong and I am working closely with them.

It is our intention in north Tipperary to encourage the development of tourism. The Shannon Development Organisation is developing a unique mining heritage site which is quite close to the proposed location, and obviously a dump would undermine the tourist potential there. It is our intention to maximise the tourism potential rather than benefiting from other people's waste. In that regard I agree with Senator Kiely that, while the question of waste management comes into sharp focus when someone proposes to put a dump in one's back yard, it is an issue for everyone, both individually and collectively. It is a disgrace that over 90 per cent of our waste is going into landfills when other European countries have reduced the amount of waste going into landfills to under 10 per cent.

The question has been asked before: why is this the case? There is no reason genuine action programmes could not be put in place to encourage composting at home and recycling of all bottles, cans and paper. Based on the experience of the recycling project run by Tipperary County Council in Nenagh, recycling makes little economic sense at the moment as it is hard to sell recycled paper on the open market, but that is hardly the point. There will have to be Europe wide policies in this regard, as we are faced with a crisis. There is no clear action programme for this.

I have read a lot of material from the Department of the Environment and Local Government on this issue recently, and it is vague and aspirational. Nobody could disagree with it. There are targets in it, but there is no way to show how those targets can be met. I would like real public education programmes to begin with and genuine incentives to recycle. Public education programmes on composting and genuine local community activities are the only way forward. We must set targets and meet them. There will have to be incentives built in and public education programmes in tandem.

Mr. Mooney

We are up to our ears in rubbish. No matter where we look, whether it is the letters page of the national newspapers or the local environment, there is rubbish, rubbish everywhere and not a place to put it. I would like to hear from the Minister of State whether there is any attempt being made to have a co-ordinated policy in the waste management area. We hear about initiatives from councils coming together but, as has been pointed out, one county's problem is another's solution. The NIMBY – not in my back yard – syndrome seems to be operating in local authorities and there is a definite need to knock heads together.

I cannot understand why we do not have an incinerator. Are we now so politically correct that we are afraid to move even one inch on this, despite all the evidence from environmentally conscious countries, such as those in Scandinavia? We do not seem to be prepared to take the initiative.

It is the old story of all politics being local; for example, Senator O'Meara mentioned the Silvermines. Leitrim and the west suffer from recurring bouts of illegal dumping. That has been pointed out by several speakers and, despite their best efforts, local authorities do not seem able to eliminate this problem. I suggest that local authority litter wardens are under-resourced. This is not a criticism, as the Minister of State and the Minister have taken initiatives in this regard which are beginning to bear fruit. However, we have only one litter warden in all of Leitrim for an area that goes from the Atlantic to the border of Cavan lengthwise, and whose predominantly rural topography includes hills, dales and lakes. People are dumping there at an enormous rate and the local authority cannot possibly address it.

In our towns youngsters come out of school at lunchtime to go to the nearest takeaway, and they not only ignore the pleas of the owners – who are doing their best to keep their premises tidy – but positively enjoy seeing people come out to pick up their rubbish. I have suggested to our litter warden, Ms Caroline Matthews, who is very active and to whom I wish to pay tribute, that she take action. There will come a time in the not too distant future when prosecutions will be levelled at some of these teenagers. When they go back to their parents with a prosecution for dispersal of litter in their hands it might help to concentrate minds.

What Senators have said is correct: there is need for a public education programme. We have an awful mindset regarding rubbish. How often have we seen people sitting in cars chewing sweets or eating chips and then nonchalantly tossing the paper out the window on to the streets of our towns and villages? I know that litter wardens in Dublin have prosecuted people for dumping cigarettes on O'Connell Bridge, and fair play to them. I wish the same attention was being paid to our rural areas.

Our litter warden drew my attention to one of the greatest problems with litter in rural Ireland and I have written to the Department about it. As a result of the increasing trend among local authorities to franchise the collection of refuse, a levy is now placed on all collections. Heretofore, when the local authority controlled and was responsible for the collection and disposal of domestic refuse, there was an exemption system in operation with which most councillors would be familiar. A councillor would approach the county manager on behalf of somebody and ask that they be exempted from paying on the basis of hardship or some other inability. That is no longer the case in Leitrim, where the franchise holder, Mr. Joe McLoughlin, is doing an outstanding job. However, a two tier system is in operation there for old age pensioners and those who are unable to pay. I suggested that the Department subsidise local authorities to exempt old age pensioners and/or medical card holders.

If one is living in a rural area all one's life, one is used to disposing of one's domestic rubbish at the bottom of the garden or "out the back". The prospect of having to pay for someone to take away one's rubbish is a culture shock, particularly for the elderly. In addition, there are many elderly people living in isolated areas who find it difficult to pay between £80 and £110 per year, that is, an average of £2 per week for someone on a pension or a reduced pension. Perhaps the Department will take this suggestion on board and consider providing a subsidy that could be operated through the local authorities. It would encourage those who are disposing of rubbish to avail of the refuse service. It would also reduce financial hardship for those who are dumping their rubbish illegally in lakes, rivers and anywhere else a black plastic bag will go.

The proliferation of plastic bags is another problem. When is a Government going to decide to abolish plastic bags? A wit in our area, Mr. Séamus O'Rourke from Carrigallen, tells a funny story about a farmer in a local shop who was given plastic bags by sales assistants at every turn – the meat counter, the vegetable counter, the checkout, etc. When he got home, he found the plastic bags were so knotted that he could not open them and, in the end, he threw not only the bags but everything he bought in the shop into the nearest river. I ask the Minister to consider some way of eliminating plastic bags.

Ms Leonard

I will address two aspects of waste management – the deterioration of our water quality and the need to expedite the objectives of the Waste Management Act – and I will be parochial in my remarks. Over 80 per cent of waterways in Cavan and Monaghan are polluted, the cause being over-intensive farming. Other Senators mentioned landfill difficulties, but the biggest problems we face – and potentially the greatest economic threat to the Border counties – are those related to our mushroom and poultry industries. The position is so bad that there is currently a blanket refusal of all applications for new units in both industries.

In 1994 a delegation of local councillors went to Scunthorpe in England, where an incinerator for farm waste was in the middle of a housing estate. Whatever treatment method was used, there was no pollution or fumes from the incinerator – one would not know what was done in the building, it was such a clean operation. At that time, a private company in my area applied to the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, as it was then, under the clean energy competition to develop such an incinerator in my county. Unfortunately the competition was won by a private company in Dublin, which to this day has not taken the matter further. We still have problems with farmyard waste, not to mention the waste from our cattle and pig industries – there is a high number of pig slaughtering units in our area, considering its size and we cannot even cope with the waste from our poultry and mushroom industries.

Anyone who wants to build a facility goes to Northern Ireland where he or she can get planning permission straightaway. For many years County Monaghan has been known for poultry and mushroom industries but there is now a block on such investment and on economic development in both Cavan and Monaghan. We have not been able to attract teleservices, etc; we are totally dependent on agri-business but the sector has taken a turn for the worse. We talk about strategies and a co-ordinated approach but unless action is taken at national level counties like Cavan and Monaghan have no future. In the past agricultural industries held the country together but unfortunately they will go to the wall in coming years.

I ask the Minister, perhaps in co-operation with the Minister for Public Enterprise, to consider an incinerator for agricultural waste in the Border counties. In Cavan and Monaghan alone there would be enough waste to maintain such a plant. It is an expensive operation but it is necessary and funding should be made available from some source.

Miss Quill

I thank all who spoke to the debate; each contribution was excellent in its own way. It must be evident to the Minister that there is deep concern among Senators that stronger and more effective action be taken immediately to address the three issues set out in the motion. It is equally evident that any action he proposes to take will have strong cross-party support, which must give him much encouragement.

As for the Minister's speech, I am marginally more encouraged than I was at the beginning of the debate. I took heart from his remark that he was developing a significant new and well resourced environmental awareness campaign this year; I ask him to fast-track that campaign. Every citizen must be required to take ownership of his or her litter and responsibility for its proper disposal but that will only happen through a campaign such as the one signalled by the Minister, and I welcome it. When that is in place, we must enforce the Litter Act because if people refuse to take responsibility they must pay the fine.

Some extremely good ideas were suggested this evening and I have no doubt the Minister took note of and will implement them all. The problem is so stubborn that it demands not a piecemeal approach but strong, bold action and I strongly recommend the Minister do two things in particular. First, he should tackle the problem of plastic bags. Tomorrow he should announce that in one year's time there will be a reduction of 40 per cent in the number of such bags in use, in two year's time there will be an 80 per cent reduction, and the position will be reviewed then. That is not impossible, it has been done in other countries. Plastic bags are a scourge in many ways but I do not have time to illustrate them all. Second, he should consider eliminating phosphate based detergents. When we talk about sources of water pollution we mention agricultural and industrial sources but we never mention the pollution from washing machines and sinks. The Minister must announce that in three years' time no phosphate based detergents will be in use in Ireland. An alternative is available; it is an expensive commodity but if the commercial sector was told phosphate based detergents would be banned in three years, it would respond and the alternative produce would be on the shelves. If those two bold approaches were taken, people would realise the Department was serious about this issue, recognised the problem and knew it had to take a strong and unpalatable measure.

In my introductory remarks I mentioned the need for proper specifications for the instatement of works carried out by public utilities and the residue of litter after new road developments; in his reply the Minister did not advert to these and other points I made. I will send him a copy of these points and ask him to consider them carefully. I did not make those points lightly, I put a lot of time and care into them and I ask him to respond to me at another time.

The Minister has the matter in his hands and I invite him to come back to this House a year from today—

Mr. D. Wallace

I would be glad to do so.

Mr. Costello

There will be another Minister of State in office by then.

Miss Quill

—to demonstrate the improvements that have been brought about in that period. We can only reasonably devote one year to having the objectives set out during this debate put in place. Someone stated that there must be a national commitment to do this. That commitment must come from the Minister of State, the local authorities and ordinary citizens. I thank the Minister of State and I wish him well. I thank everyone who participated in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. D. Kiely

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 3 Feb 1999

Environmental Protection: Motion.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Feb 1999