I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
The main purpose of the Bill is to improve the law relating to littering and, in particular, to strengthen the hand of local authorities in dealing with litter offences by means which include a fine-on-the-spot system and stiffer penalties. The Bill also introduces new provisions relating to abandoned vehicles and unsightly accumulations of disused vehicles and other disused articles.
I am sure it will be agreed that these are areas in which we badly need to improve standards in the interest of the environment and the enjoyment of outdoor life.
The Environment Council, in a report on Litter and the Environment which has been published, described the situation as a national scandal, affecting tourist and development prospects and giving us a bad name abroad. To change the position, as it must be changed, calls for a radical turnabout in public attitudes. It would be consoling to think that litter conditions are the work of a few, or even of a minority. The conditions which confront us all can only come about from widespread carelessness and indifference. Many blame the young, but even casual observation will show that many adults are blameworthy. The Environment Council in its report has recommended that a strengthening of the law should be considered. This seems to me to be an obvious and immediate need and the Bill is designed to meet it.
I hope that this Bill will be non-controversial and that the general principles will get general support from all sides in the House. It is a fairly radical approach to a particularly objectionable problem that reflects badly on us all, and on the country. The Bill contains no magic formula but what I am proposing should go a long way to improve the litter position and ensure a cleaner and more enjoyable environment for everyone. When we come to Committee Stage I will be glad to give full consideration to any positive and worthwhile proposals or amendments which will improve the effectiveness of the Bill and I will make every effort to meet Deputies wishes on this matter. However, if Deputies are considering putting down amendments I would ask them to bear in mind the limited scope and purpose of the Bill. The limited scope is intentional. Work in reviewing the statutory provisions relating to other environmental and nuisance-type matters is under way in my Department and I envisage further legislation in due course. It would not be appropriate to include in this Litter Bill provisions to deal with problems in those other areas.
There has been a noticeable worsening in recent years in regard to littering and there is no reason to suppose that this trend will alter unless firm action is taken to bring about change. Conditions are especially bad in the urban areas — the bigger the area the worse the conditions generally. But littering is not merely an urban problem. In the countryside too, and everywhere people congregate for entertainment or recreation, litter mars the scene. Scenic areas, picnic places and beaches are scattered with consumer debris—paper, plastic, tins, glass and all the rest. Another serious aspect of the problem is the extent of roadside dumping of rubbish in suburban areas, on the outskirts of towns and even in the countryside.
In these matters we seem to have neither sense nor sensibility. We should be able to do better, and we must, in the future. Nobody gains from littering. The entire community suffers when the habitat is degraded. It is bad for the morale of people that they should be constantly confronted by litter and dirt as they go about their daily business. Neither are such conditions an attractive setting for enterprise and economic advancement. It is not surprising that litter and related conditions are among the most common causes of complaint by tourists and visitors.
Abandoned cars which disfigure the landscape in many areas are an environmental eyesore as well as a resource loss since scrap-metal can be recycled. A related problem is that of unsightly accumulations of disused vehicles or other disused articles — household, agricultural or industrial — in prominent locations along important roads or in scenic areas. I am sure that all Deputies can readily call such situations to mind — sites on which disused cars or other vehicles, abandoned vehicles, old cookers, washing machines and the like; ancient tractors, cranes and other agricultural or industrial plant are kept, under conditions in which they constitute a serious blot on the landscape, or a prominent eyesore. They may be intended for disposal as scrap or for use as spares. It is recognised that these are legitimate and important purposes. But it is reasonable to expect that some account will be taken of the environmental impacts and some effort made to minimise the adverse implications for the local community as well as for tourists and visitors. With a little thought and a small amount of effort the worse effects of many of these sites could easily be avoided. The Bill contains provisions enabling local authorities to deal with these conditions.
I believe that the litter problem must be tackled at the local level mainly and that the local authorities should be the principal agencies for dealing with it and for encouraging the necessary community interest and support. In line with this approach there will be a duty on all local authorities under the Bill to take measures for the prevention, reduction and the removal of litter. Apart from collection and disposal work, the local authorities will be empowered to encourage and assist public participation and to undertake publicity and educational measures of an advisory nature. These are very positive and very important powers, but it would be quite wrong to regard litter as simply a matter with which local authorities have to deal. This problem will not be overcome by legislation alone or by local authority action alone. The problem will be overcome when ordinary people decide that they prefer clean conditions to littered conditions in public places and are prepared to put the required effort into bringing about the necessary changes. The influence of parents, of schools and of community organisations of all kinds in supporting and complementing the efforts of the statutory bodies, and indeed in pursuing their own initiatives, will be of decisive importance. With this in mind I have recently asked local authorities to promote campaigns of environmental care and improvement, seeking maximum co-operation and involvement from local community interests. I will also be presenting a new environmental award for the area making the best response to the proposed campaigns.
Under the Bill local authorities will be empowered to facilitate waste recycling. Recycling from waste is a complex and uncertain business. It is not directly a local authority function and local authorities cannot be expected to commit public funds to costly recovery schemes of doubtful viability. There are, however, areas in which they may be in a position to assist recycling by the private sector in the course of their waste collection and disposal activities. A number of local authorities are co-operating—for example, in the operation of deposits at which waste oil may be deposited for recycling. There may be scope, depending on the local circumstances, for assisting in arrangements for the recovery of waste paper, glass or other materials. All local authorities have been asked to designate locations for the disposal of worn-out vehicles and other scrap metal with a view to its collection for recycling. Under the Bill there will be an obligation on all local authorities to arrange for the provision of such places, whether alone or in co-operation with one another.
The littering offence as defined in the Bill is a re-enactment in extended form of the provision in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. The main additions — and they are important ones — are that littering caused in the course of carrying on a trade or in loading, transporting, unloading or otherwise handling or processing any substance, material or thing is now specifically included. There can be a lot of trouble in pinning down a responsible party where litter is caused by disposal of refuse from a vehicle. The Bill provides that, where a vehicle is involved, the registered owner or other person having use of it at the time will be guilty of an offence apart from the guilt of anyone else.
At present the maximum fine applicable on conviction for a littering offence is £10. The provision has not proved a deterrent. This is partly because of the impact of inflation on the fine but partly also because of the lenient view which the courts have tended to take of litter offences, as reflected by the imposition in many cases of a nominal penalty. The frustrating experience of some local authorities under the existing law is reflected in a resolution adopted last year by Dublin Corporation calling for an increase in the penalty to £1,000. This may be too high, but certainly the time has come for a more serious view to be taken all round of littering and this should be reflected in the penalty provision and, hopefully, in its application.
It takes very little effort or cost for the individual to avoid littering; to put litter in a bin, or to take it home, or to a dump. But once litter is dropped, or rubbish discarded, the cost of collection and disposal—the cost to the public who must pay for it through taxes — is substantial. The polluter pays principle requires that the person polluting pays the cost of remedying the pollution. This has to be borne in mind when it comes to considering the appropriate level of penalty for litter offences. The new limit which I am proposing is £500. This is maximum penalty. A litter offence may range from dropping a wrapper in the street to dumping a lorry load of rubbish in an amenity area. It will be a matter for the courts to fit the penalty to the offence in a particular case.
I will stress at this point that we are dealing with littering as distinct from legal disposal of litter-type material. Provision is made in the Bill to allow for the deposit of materials in suitable receptacles for disposal, as well as deposits in connection with recycling, provided reasonable care is taken to prevent the creation of litter.
Waste disposal is a separate matter and is now governed by regulations under the European communities Act. Infringement of the regulations in disposing of waste is an offence with liability to a maximum fine on conviction of £600.
As I have already mentioned, local authorities will have a duty to take measures to prevent, reduce and remove litter. It is just as important that occupiers should keep free of litter any land to which the public have access, or land where the litter would be seen from public areas. The Bill provides for this.
Much litter can occur in the immediate vicinity of business premises. I think it is reasonable to expect that persons engaged in businesses should keep the footpath and immediate environs of their premises free of litter—as indeed is done in shopping centres and by many individual shopkeepers. This is a problem that may be greater in some areas than others and is one where local knowledge and conditions should be considered. Under the Bill local authorities will have power to make by-laws requiring occupiers, or specified classes of occupiers, or those in specified areas, to keep the immediate environs, as defined in the Bill, free from litter. I would hope, indeed, that the business community would go further especially in the case of shops and premises which are a direct source of street litter by providing suitable accommodation for the litter which they generate and by posting signs to encourage people to use the accommodation. My Department have already written to various trade organisations seeking the co-operation of their members in this matter.
The prosecution of litter offences through the courts is costly and time consuming for local authorities. To ease the difficulties and to facilitate more speedy and more effective enforcement, the Bill makes provision for a fine-on-the-spot system. Under this system an offender may be given a notice by a litter warden employed by the local authority and would have 21 days in which to pay a fine in the local authority office. The fine initially will be £5 but this may be adjusted by regulation. If the fine is paid there will be no prosecution .
It will be a separate offence for a person to obstruct a litter warden or to refuse to give a proper name and address when asked for it. Such a person will also be liable to arrest without warrant by a member of the Garda Síochána. These are necessary provisions to ensure the co-operation of suspected offenders with litter wardens. I would stress that no one will be obliged actually to pay a fine. If a person who receives a fine-on-the-spot notice would prefer to take his chance in court he may exercise an option in that direction simply by failing to pay the fine wthin the prescribed period. However, I think that most offenders having caused an offence and being caught in the act will prefer to pay the find rather than go to court.
Littering, as I have said, is primarily a local problem and it is right that there should be a degree of local discretion and some room for experimentation as to the most appropriate and effective enforcement procedures to adopt in the local circumstances. It will, therefore, be left to each local authority to decide whether to apply the fine-on-the-spot system in their area, or whether to deal with offenders by way of court prosecution alone.
There may be reservations, which I can understand, about an extension in the policing role of local authorities. There are practical difficulties as well in applying a fine-on-the-spot system to littering which do not arise, for example, with car parking offences. I have taken full account of these considerations. I believe the stage has been reached when most people want effective action to be taken to deal with this problem. I believe that the proposed system can make an important contribution in that direction, that it is a fair and reasonable system and that it will have the support of the general public.
I turn now to abandoned vehicles. I have mentioned that local authorities will be obliged to provide place where vehicles and other metal scrap may be abandoned. There will be no excuse in future for abandoning those in unauthorised places. The Bill makes it an offence to abandon a vehicle on land without the occupier's consent. Provision is made for the removal of abandoned vehicles from land if the occupier consents or does not object and for their disposal in accordance with specified procedures. These provisions do not apply to vehicles abandoned on public roads or car parks which can be dealt with under existing road traffic legislation.
The Bill makes provision also for dealing with disused vehicles or other disused articles if it is in the interests of amenity or of the environment of an area. This could arise, for example, because of their unsightly condition or arrangement and their prominence. Very often the necessary improvement in these situations can be brought about by relocating or rearranging the vehicles or articles or by providing suitable screening or fencing. Local authorities will be enabled to deal with such conditions by arrangement with the occupier or the person keeping the vehicles or articles and on terms to be agreed. Alternatively, the local authority may serve notice requiring specified steps to be taken including, if necessary, the removal of the vehicles and other articles. There is provision for a right of appeal against such a notice to the District Court. The local authority will have power to enforce a notice which is in operation and may recover costs and expenses. It will be an offence not to act on a notice from a local authority or to obstruct the local authority if they are enforcing a notice. Procedures are laid down for the recovery by the owner of the vehicles or articles removed and, if they are not reclaimed, for their disposal by the local authority.
The use of land for the keeping of disused vehicles and the like is, of course, subject to planning permission and it is the job of the planning authority, if permission is being given, to see that any necessary conditions are imposed and are enforced. It would be inappropriate that such a decision should be capable in effect of being set aside by action under this Bill. Provision is made to avoid this kind of conflict arising. In these cases a planning permission if it exists and is being observed will prevail.
The powers which the Bill will confer on local authorities regarding abandoned vehicles or disused vehicles and other articles will greatly improve their capacity for securing the removal of eyesores and improving the quality of the environment in urban and rural areas. In all cases where offences occur under the Bill, other than the fine-on-the-spot system, there will be a maximum fine of £500. I believe that this figure is fully warranted considering the extent of the problem that now exists.
I have explained the context in which I am putting forward this Bill and the main provisions. I am well aware that there are other ways in which our environmental legislation needs to be improved and modernised. I have already mentioned that work in reviewing these needs and in preparing proposals for further legislation is being stepped up in my Department. I believe that this Bill, confined as it is to litter and certain related problems, is not alone well worthwhile in its own right but is urgently needed to deal with the problems which are immediate and should be tackled without further delay. The Bill is in the nature of a first instalment of new environment legislation and I have confidence in commending it to the House in that spirit.
