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

SECTION 17.

Amendment No. 35 not moved.

Mr. Dempsey

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 15, subsection (2)(c), line 8, after "events" to insert "provided always that the local authority shall have the right to specify minimum measures which must be put in place to facilitate any post event cleanup, which the local authority must undertake".

I tabled this amendment as a precautionary measure. With the procedures in place in section 17, I am concerned a local authority do not appear to have the right to insist on measures to be taken in connection with events. Once an agreement is made in respect of bonds, etc., the cleanup is left to the local authority and a promoter can neglect other areas. I am anxious to ascertain whether a local authority, when an agreement is reached, can specify minimum standards at an event and ensure that the promoter does his best to avoid the creation of litter at that event, irrespective of any agreement that the local authority must clean it up afterwards. I am not sure whether this eventuality is fully addressed in the Bill. I believe there is a loophole of which people can avail and local authorities, at the end of such events, will be left with a greater job than necessary.

Mr. Howlin

There is a broad net of powers available under this section, subsection (2)(a) of which allows local authorities to specify the measures required to be taken before, during and after the event at or in the vicinity of the venue. The impact of Deputy Dempsey's amendment would be to modify this broad power to make specific recommendations and requirements for litter abatement in advance of an event, procedures to be carried out during an event and specific requirements to be carried out afterwards by the promoter concerned. That is as it should be.

Mr. Dempsey

Subsection 2(a) states that a local authority "shall" while subsection 2(b) and (c) state that it "may". Therefore, is it correct that a local authority can require a promoter to do certain things even if they obtain a bond or reach an agreement?

Mr. Howlin

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendment No. 38 is an alternative to amendment No. 37 and both may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dempsey

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 15, lines 9 to 18, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) A person on whom notice is served pursuant to subsection (1) shall be given 14 days from the date of receipt of the notice to make submissions in writing to the local authority in relation to measures specified in the notice, and the local authority, having considered any such submissions, may amend the specified measures, and shall inform the person of such amendment, confirmation or revocation by serving a final notice on the person within 14 days from the receipt of the said submissions.”.

Section 17 states that where a local authority considers measures are necessary to prevent or limit litter caused by the holding of a major event, it may serve a warning notice but before doing so, it must notify the person of the proposed measures and give them a reasonable opportunity to make a submission. The notice is then amended, confirmed or revoked and the person is informed. My amendment short circuits this to some extent. The local authority would be obliged to give a warning notice to the promoter or the organiser and give them an opportunity to make a submission within a specified time which the local authority would then consider. The local authority would amend, confirm or revoke its notice and the person would be informed accordingly.

The reason I tabled the amendment is to make it mandatory on a local authority to issue a notice when preventative measures are required. The amendment would require the local authority to serve the warning notice first and then allow the person to make a submission. That makes the procedure more forceful than that contained in the section. The Minister may say it would be better to enter into negotiations initially but if we serve the notice first, we put the onus on the promoter to explain why the measures should not apply.

We spoke about litter plans earlier and local authorities should have a standard litter prevention strategy for such major public events. An initial warning notice which would be based on this standard prevention strategy should be given to the promoter who would then respond rather than enter negotiations first. In addition, the amendments allow a specified time within which submissions must be made. The Minister said the words "a reasonable opportunity" are a little too vague. This amendment makes the procedure more forceful than it is at present and it cuts down on time wasted prior to an event.

Mr. Howlin

I see merit in the Deputy's proposal. Section 17(3) states: "Before serving notice on a person under subsection (1), the local authority shall advise the person of the nature and extent of the measures that the local authority proposes to specify under subsection (2)(b) and provide the person with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in writing to the local authority in relation to the proposed measures, and the local authority, having considered any such submissions, may amend the proposed measures or confirm or revoke the proposed measures, and shall inform the person of such amendment, confirmation or revocation as soon as possible thereafter." That strikes me as a reasonable way of doing this but again I see a difficulty with the words "reasonable opportunity", which need to be addressed. The Deputy's amendment states 14 days but I propose a specified period because for a major event such as a féile, which may take a year to plan, 14 days may not be sufficient while in others it may be too long. We should leave it up to the local authority to specify a time. The sequencing is reasonable in that the promoter gets a draft notice first so they can make an input at that point. I do not know whether one calls that negotiation. The organisers of a major event will have plans and dialogue would have to ensue. The sequencing is reasonable and will allow that to happen.

Mr. Dempsey

By serving the notice first, a person is required to do this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 15, subsection (3), lines 11 and 12, to delete subsection (2)(b) and provide the person with a reasonable opportunity" and substitute subsection (2)(a) and provide the person with an opportunity within a specified time".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Section 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 16, subsection (1), line 8, before "visible" to insert "in or is".

These are identical drafting amendments to make it clear that the provisions in both sections relate to a structure — for example, a door, gate, etc., that is in a public place as well as those in private places which are visible from public places. That is an omission in the original text.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sargent

Subsection (6) states: "A person who contravenes or is deemed to have contravened subsection (1) or (2) or who obstructs or impedes a local authority or its employees". Is that a standard provision? What is the intention behind this subsection?

Mr. Howlin

It is a provision which we included in a number of Bills recently and it creates a new offence of obstructing a local authority official carrying out his duties under this Bill.

Mr. Sargent

The word "obstruct" has many different connotations.

Mr. Howlin

It states: "obstructs or impedes a local authority or its employees or agents. . .". It is not an offence if somebody gets a High Court order to stop something. If a local authority official is trying to carry out his duty and somebody accosts him, it will be an offence under the Bill.

Chairman

Does this section cover graffiti?

Mr. Howlin

Yes.

Chairman

The explanatory memorandum states: "makes it an offence to exhibit articles or advertisements, or to deface property without prior" consent.

Mr. Howlin

There are forms of art which one could construe as defacement.

Question put and agreed to.