Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Thursday, 27 Feb 1997

SECTION 11.

Mr. Sargent

I move amendment No. 27a:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 21, to delete "management" and substitute "eradication".

This is an attempt to inform people, as in the Waste Bill, by the language we use that we are not satisfied with litter. If I can use the analogy of the TB eradication scheme, we should use the term litter eradication plan rather than litter management plan. The idea of eradicating litter sounds more appropriate than simply managing the places in which it is to be found. That is the idea behind my amendment. I am quite happy to withdraw this amendment and let the Minister reflect on the matter before Report Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Howlin)

Because it is consequential throughout the Bill, including sections with which we have dealt, we cannot have a litter management plan being referred to in some sections and a litter eradication plan in others. If it is appropriate, it will be reflected throughout the Bill. I invite the Deputy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Mr. Sargent

I appreciate what the Minister has said. That was the spirit in which I submitted it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sargent

I move amendment No. 27b:

In page 9, subsection (1)(c), line 29, after "taken by" to insert "each section of".

I tabled this amendment to draw attention to the fact that local authorities, due to the structures under which they operate, are responsible to different degrees in each section for what we are trying to achieve with this Bill. Section 11(1)(c), as amended, would state:

specify the measures or arrangements that are to be undertaken by each section of the local authority in order to attain the objectives of the [litter management or litter eradication] plan, and.

The purpose is to draw attention to the responsibilities of each section. For instance, the roads section will look after the road sweepers and the environment section will look after other aspects of litter, open spaces, etc.

I want the local authority to be very specific about responsibility rather than just provide for a general aspirational plan because the public will find it difficult to relate to each section.

As things stand, it is difficult enough for the public to understand the local authority system. If a person telephones the county council and wants to talk about the sweepers, he or she is switched to the roads department. If a person wants to discuss litter, he or she is switched to another department. If a person wants to discuss litter bins, the department to which he or she is referred depends on where the litter bins are situated. This needs to be clarified as much for the sake of the public as for the local authority.

Mr. Howlin

I acknowledge the points made. The whole idea of a management plan is to pull all that together. One should not provide in primary legislation that every section of a local authority should draw up its own individual components and outline their role in that regard. That is a matter for the local authority.

The management plan envisaged under the Bill will be a matter for the elected members and I do not want to impose on them. They will draw up and draw together the strands of the plan. It will of course be a corporate plan when it is finalised so it is not appropriate to put that degree of management imposition on a local authority in primary legislation. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Sargent

The Bill imposes duties on local authorities so what is appropriate is relative. I will withdraw the amendment but I hope the matter will be considered on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sargent

I move amendment No. 27c:

In page 9, subsection (1)(d), between lines 41 and 42 to insert the following:

"(iv) an inventory and guidelines for usage by the public of re-use and recycling facilities in and adjacent to the local authority functional areas.".

The amendment relates to submissions I received. In drawing up the plan, local authorities must specify various measures and objectives. However, there must be a shift in practice to tackle litter. This relates to waste in general and the Minister may refer to this point because these types of revisions are taken into account in the Waste Management Act. If we are to move from a litter ridden society to a society which considers litter taboo, there is a need to promote ways in which people can deal with litter.

I understand there will be overlaps with the Waste Management Act in many areas. However, until the regulations are in place for returnable containers and there is a more widespread network of recycling facilities, there will be a sense of helplessness among people who have litter but do not know what to do with it. They will be told to take it home and put it in the bin but perhaps there could be something more positive than just disposal. This would ensure people feel they are helping the economy and the environment by bringing the litter to returnable, re-usable or recycling centres. The idea behind the amendment is to create an inventory of such facilities in relation to litter control. It is a positive way to deal with litter rather than just disposal.

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy made many good points. As he correctly envisaged, those areas are covered in the Waste Management Act. However, he is correct that the provisions should be recited as objectives of this legislation. I will accept the principle of the amendment if the Deputy will allow me to refine the wording on Report Stage.

Mr. Sargent

I will withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 11 agreed to.