Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1997

SECTION 10.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 9, subsection (2), line 18, to delete "3 years" and substitute "12 months".

As the Bill is drafted, there is a requirement on local authorities to review their litter plans every three years. I want them to review them every year and give a progress report. The matter of tacking the litter problem and eradicating litter is so urgent that I do not want local authorities to propose to address themselves to it in year one, discuss it and put a plan in place in year two and with three months to go in the third year start to implement it. We should display a greater urgency than we have in terms of local authority management plans because of the extent and seriousness of the litter problem and its adverse effect on the environment and the economy in terms of the future development of our tourism trade and outside investment. That is why I want an annual review. I hope local authorities will outline progress and improvement within their areas.

Mr. Sargent

I understand Deputy Quill's line. I have been active in the Tidy Town's organisation. An update and a response to the previous year's judgment has to be provided annually. As a result there is an annual cycle of activities which can be changed and improved. Local authorities operating with a development plan find it difficult to report every five years. Can Deputy Quill's amendment be accommodated taking account of the practicalities? There is no doubt it is important to reflect on progress every year in the same way as do Tidy Town's organisations. I hope the local authority and the voluntary sector will respond with an annual progress report on its litter plan so that it would also tie in with the Tidy Town's competition.

Mr. Dempsey

I support Deputy Sargent's notion of a progress report on the Litter Bill.

Mr. Penrose

I agree. The local authority should be obliged to produce an annual report and review on its implementation of this Bill. The county development plan requires a report every five years but the time limit is always extended. The local authority should be obligated to devote a meeting exclusively to this instead of it just being an item on the agenda. It is another way of ensuring that work is done. The report will also include the number of prosecutions and investigations resulting from the Bill.

Mr. Howlin

I agree with the consensus opposite. However, I do not agree with the notion of reviewing the full plan every year. Although this would not be as comprehensive as a development plan, there is a need for consultation with voluntary bodies, industry, etc. Even if that is done it will take time so there would be an almost permanent review. I prefer implementation and I support the principle of a report on the implementation of this Bill. I will come back to this on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 10 agreed to.

Acting Chairman

We have to conclude. We could resume at 2 p.m. this afternoon or next Thursday, 27 February at 9.30 a.m. Which is preferable?

Mr. Dempsey

I propose next Thursday at 9.30 a.m.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Select Committee adjourned at 11.45 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 February 1997.