I should like to point out to Members of the House that a printing error occurs on page 14 where on lines 35 and 36 the last word in each line should read: "him" and "date", respectively.
Return to Writ: Dublin West. - Litter Bill, 1981: Report and Final Stages.
We are now dealing with the Bill as amended in Committee?
That is right.
, Dublin South-East): I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, in the definition of "vehicle", between lines 26 and 27 to insert the following:
"(c) a skip designed or used for carriage on a vehicle,".
On Committee Stage attention was drawn to the problem of abandoned skips. They are often a traffic hazard and usually a source of litter as a result of materials deposited in them being scattered by the winds or storms. This amendment is designed to meet that situation. The amendment, together with the related amendment No. 2, will have the effect of enabling the local authority to deal with such skips under section 11 by widening the definition of "vehicle" to include them.
I should like to respond to the Minister's acceptance of the point made on Committee Stage and to welcome his generosity in accepting this amendment. It tidies up a point drawn to his attention which, perhaps, was not so evident when the section was drafted originally. It is a constructive amendment and I thank the Minister.
Paragraph (c) on line 27 goes and is substituted by this paragraph (c). Is that right? The existing paragraph (c) refers to a load on a vehicle.
(Dublin South-East): A load on a vehicle.
"(c) a skip designed or used for carriage on a vehicle," becomes the new paragraph (c), and does "(c) a load on a vehicle," stand as paragraph (d)?
Yes.
The point I am trying to make is that "a load on a vehicle" is still there.
It goes in as paragraph (d).
What happens to paragraph (c) in the Bill?
It becomes paragraph (d).
Amendment agreed to.
(Dublin South-East): I move amendment No. 2.
In page 12, line 36, after "vehicle" to insert "(other than a skip)".
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 1.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are being taken together for discussion.
(Dublin South-East): I move amendment No. 3:
In page 12, lines 40 and 41, to delete "disused vehicles or other disused articles" and to substitute "vehicles or other articles (being disused articles)".
Section 12 of the Bill gives powers to local authorities in the interests of amenity or of the environment of an area to take action with regard to any disused vehicles or disused articles kept on any land in their area for the purpose of being dismantled, reconditioned, repaired, stored, or sold. This section is aimed principally at unsightly collections resulting from scrap dealings, dismantling of vehicles for spares, or accumulations of vehicles — a point made on Committee Stage — on the sides of roads or in laneways in connection with repair maintenance operations and work of that kind.
Considerable emphasis was placed on Committee Stage on the need for fully effective powers being made available to deal with this problem. There is a possibility that a reference to the word "disused" with regard to vehicles might be seen as providing some defence if action were taken by local authorities. The person could argue that the vehicles were not disused in the context of the definition in section 12 (10). The local authority might not be able to take action in such a case. It is proposed, therefore, to remove the reference to "disused" in relation to vehicles. This will mean the local authorities will be in a position to take action in relation to any vehicles, provided such action is justified in the interests of amenity or of the environment of an area and subject, of course, to the right of appeal to the District Court against a notice.
This seems to be an acceptance of the spirit of the discussion on the last occasion. Take an individual who is engaged in business in his own private house and who has two or three cars which are semi-dismantled and he says he is repairing one at the expense of the others. Will the section now deal with that situation? I know it can be dealt with by the Department of Trade, Commerce and Tourism and it can probably be dealt with under the planning laws. That is a long drawn-out process. It would be far better if the local authorities had power under this Bill to say people were littering the area by repairing or dismantling vehicles in their front gardens, or on the road outside their houses. We could come at them more quickly and more efficiently in this manner.
(Dublin South-East): This is a very important point. If such a case could be deemed unsightly it would be covered in that respect. Abandoned cars or any litter, if deemed unsightly would be covered in the Bill.
So long as it is visible from the road?
(Dublin South-East): Yes.
Deputy Barry referred to the spirit of the Committee Stage debate and I think the spirit of that debate was to improve the visible amenity of areas. I do not think it should be done however, at the cost of personal liberty and without regard to economic difficulties that some people have in relation to either trying to fix cars or perhaps operate a small business. Could the Minister say how he would see the section being used? I support the principle and the spirit of it but if, for example, this is one person's form of business and he has no other, would it be a defence for him to erect some kind of visual screen or how would such a person who is normally in this form of trade—and it is a trade that will continue, given the price of car parts—be affected? Would it be a defence, conceding that there is something unsightly, to erect a screen? How would the Minister see the provision being operated. I can imagine an individual making representations to a local councillor saying: "This is my only trade. How can I respond to the legislation?"
(Dublin South-East): It would be up to the local authority to decide in such a case. If the local authority agree that a screen would protect the visual amenity, so be it. If the local authority decided that this was a litter offence within the meaning of this legislation, a prosecution would ensue. There are very many cases, as the Deputy realises, in the constituency we both represent of abandoned cars left in laneways and residential roads and the intention of the Bill is to try to pinpoint the perpetrators of offences of that kind. The local authority would be the arbitrator in such cases.
I have some sympathy, not a great deal, with Deputy Quinn's remarks. While it might be a person's only livelihood—I am thinking particularly of corporation housing estates—to carry on a business like that which is noisy, frequently carried on at night into the early hours of the morning, destroying the visual and auditory—if that is the word—environment of one's neighbours, it is not good enough. Such people should be in a separate registered business premises or, if operating in some side way from their own houses it should not be done so that the street or path is littered with bits and spare parts and there is banging and hammering and blow lamps going until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. That must be stopped.
Amendment agreed to.
(Dublin South-East): I move Amendment No. 4:
In page 14, to delete lines 24 to 27, and substitute the following:
"(10) In this section `disused', in relation to an article, means being in such condition because of neglect, damage, deterioration, lack of repair or other cause, as to be unsuitable for use for the purpose for which the article was designed.".
Amendment agreed to.
We were talking on section 3 about the depositing of litter by a driver or owner of a vehicle and the point was made in that Committee Stage discussion that in the case of a privately-owned vehicle the driver and owner of the vehicle were both liable whereas in the case of a publicly owned vehicle—the example given was CIE—the driver could be liable but more than likely the company itself or the general manager of CIE would not be liable. The Minister promised to have a look at this before Report Stage. I felt that there was a little contradiction here and that it was unfair to the people in the private sector. I presume the Minister has looked at it and decided that for some reason it cannot be done.
(Dublin South-East): That would be misrepresentation of the legislation. A public service vehicle whether private or public is treated in the same manner in this legislation. To take the case of CIE vis á vis a private bus — I think this is the point Deputy Quinn made — in both cases being public service vehicles they would be excluded from prosecution but the person committing the offence would be liable for prosecution in each case. I think what Deputy Quinn was getting at was that the private bus company would be liable. That is not the case. There is no discrimination whatever.
I thought we had covered that——
I thank Deputies for their co-operation. I would prefer to deal with this in another way. There is no amendment down on this matter and strictly speaking we should deal only with what is here. On the next Stage the matter may be raised. I will call Amendment No. 5.
(Dublin South-East): I move amendment No. 5:
In page 16, line 2, to delete "£500" and to substitute "£800".
This is a very important amendment. Again there was considerable support at Committee Stage for endeavouring to have a higher maximum fine. The amendment raises the level of maximum fine from £500 to £800, a very substantial increase. I am informed that this is regarded as an acceptable limit in the case of an offence liable to prosecution in the District Court. I should like to express my appreciation to the Members of the House who contributed on that point, because I feel it will have a much more positive impact if there is a fine of that kind. We agree that if we could have it higher we would be happier but I have put a good deal of research into the matter and I am told that £800 is the maximum that can be accepted.
Is there any alternative provision if somebody pleads he cannot pay this fine? First, is there any appeal and secondly is there any fund? Actually, it will not be much use if everybody pleads they cannot pay and we end up not convicting anybody.
(Dublin South-East): That is a very good point. It would depend on the decision of the court as to how they would fix the fine and how the case would be pleaded from there. It is purely a matter for the courts to decide what action should be taken if a person cannot pay up. It arises in many other aspects of legislation, where a person, for instance, cannot pay a parking fine or a speeding fine.
Has the Minister thought of having an alternative punishment for somebody who is convicted of a litter offence and should be fined a maximum of £800 but turns out to be somebody with no visible means of support and it is therefore unreasonable to expect that he would ever pay? The Act will be useless if it is not seen to do what it is meant to do.
(Dublin South-East): That is a very constructive point, if perpetrators of offences of that kind could be made clear up roads or areas they have littered. Unfortunately, as the Deputy probably knows, we cannot enforce a penalty of that kind. The ramifications would be immense. Rather than thinking of the legislation being useless — I know the Deputy does not really mean to speak in that spirit at all — if maximum fines are meted out at the start — and there are many people who can afford to pay who are perpetrators of litter offences — if examples are made in the early stages, coupled with the on-the-spot fines which can be changed by regulation, we shall get off to a good beginning. It will be up to all Deputies and councillors to encourage through the local authorities the right spirit for this legislation.
Would the district justice be empowered through general legislation already on the Statute Book or implicit in this, if as Deputy Owen has said somebody is not in a position to meet the payment of a fine, to direct that the defendant should pay £800 as the maximum fine or give eight weeks of his time to the local sanitary authority, to repay in kind if not in cash.
(Dublin South-East): There is no provision in the legislation for that. I thought about it and felt it would be desirable but there are very much wider implications for enforced labour as a result of a person not being able to pay a fine. As it is not in the legislation, however, we cannot deal with it here.
Amendment agreed.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.
Dublin South-East): I move: “That the Bill do now pass”.
I wish to remind Deputies that on this stage every Deputy is entitled to make one contribution.
(Dublin South-East): I wish to thank all the Deputies for their co-operation in discussions on this Bill and for their very valuable contributions which I have endeavoured to include as amendments. I consider this to be most important legislation which will have a major impact in leading to a cleaner and more healthy environment. If we can manage to reduce the amount of litter, we will be going a long way towards improving the appearance of the country. The Bill provides for a good statutory framework for effective control by local authorities and the taking of remedial action. I will be urging local authorities to make the widest possible use of the provisions of the Bill and to give them as much publicity as possible. In the end, however, the problem will only be solved when public attitudes change. Public opinion must be mobilised against the litter offender and I appeal to the general public for their support in ensuring the success of the Bill.
I also hope, as I am sure the House does, that when prosecutions are brought under the provisions of the Bill, the courts will take into account the views of this House and the seriousness of the problem. The House has given a clear expression of this view by providing for the maximum fines that can be levied in the District Court. In due course I will be considering further promotional measures on a national and local level to see what help can be given to ensure that the legislation is effective.
I am glad to see this legislation on the Statute Books but it needs a very positive push by the Minister and local authorities to see that it is made effective. As I said on Committee Stage, the carrot could be as effective as the stick in this matter and, while litter wardens are important, the guidance they could give might have a far more beneficial, long-term effect than instantly slapping an on-the-spot fine on litter offenders. Litter wardens should be outside schools when children are coming out. They should also educate some proprietors of take-away food premises as a large amount of litter emanates from these establishments. Many proprietors make a point of keeping their premises clean but some do not. Managers should tell their customers that they should not deposit papers or empty cans on the road outside their premises.
Another area where litter can accumulate in huge quantities is at matches. In the next three or four months many matches will be played all over the country and the organisers of these sporting events should be asked to co-operate with the local authorities by making frequent announcements over loudspeakers and by ensuring that there are enough bins to cater for the cans, bottles and bags. They could also co-operate by not allowing full bins to stand outside stadiums overnight where they can be kicked around by vandals.
Many of the wardens will feel that their duty is to collect revenue for the State but that is not what they are there for. This is a penalty for those who do not obey the law but the first job of the warden is to bring the law to the attention of the offender and only fine him the second or third time that the offence is committed. That may not appear to be very practical because the same people might not be passing the same warden every day but, if the wardens are outside schools, matches and take away premises, they will know their "customers" and they will keep an eye out for those who are not inclined to deposit their litter carefully.
The Minister should also urge local authorities to empty bins more frequently in city streets. Many are overflowing with cigarette butts and sweet papers. If a person wants to deposit his litter and sees an overflowing bin he will shrug his shoulders and not bother. If the local authorities take this legislation seriously and if they try to implement the various sections of this Bill the end result will be a much better environment for all and that must benefit, not only those who live there, but also be of commercial benefit because our country will become a much more attractive place for tourists to visit.
Last July I asked the Department to get in touch with country managers and ask them to see that grafitti in their areas was removed. If that has not been done I ask the Minister to get on to them again because it is humiliating — I use that word advisedly — for any citizen to see offensive remarks about a neighbouring country painted on walls. There has been an outbreak of grafitti in Dublin West recently regarding a prisoner in the Curragh. If anybody has a complaint in that regard the law is there to assist them. It does not have to be brought to the attention of the public by painting it on walls, railway stations or bridges. There is a method of making complaints without defacing the environment in which we all have to live. I congratulate the Minister for bringing in this legislation and I hope it will be as successful as we would like it to be.
I have a few positive comments to make, complementary to those made by Deputy Barry and the Minister, on the general intent of the Bill. I share the Minister's concern, which dates back to 1974 when he was first elected to Dublin Corporation. I am concerned about the central point in section 3 which might be open to some misinterpretation. I am unhappy about the distinction made and I urge the Minister, between now and when the Bill reaches the Seanad, to look at this question. There is a distinction between the driver of a PSV, a bus, a refuse truck and so on, and the driver of a private haulage truck. One category of truck owner will be exempt but another will not. Is a public service truck to be defined as any vehicle on the road in the use of the public service?
(Dublin South-East): A vehicle carrying passengers — that is the distinction.
I do not want to be niggling, but I cannot see why this distinction is being provided for and I advise the Minister to look at it before the Bill reaches the Seanad. Because of the way the courts have been making crazy decisions of late, some judge may deem this distinction to be unjust vis-á-vis one category of registered owner and another. I am simply saying, because of the constructive way in which the debate has taken place, that the Minister should look at this again so that we will not be seen to be giving some soldier hostage to fortune in relation to this.
I am unhappy with it because I think it is bad law, although I concede that I may not be reading the section correctly. I am more than happy with the overall effects of the Bill and I hope the Minister will put it through the Seanad as soon as possible and take the steps he has indicated. I hope he will inform the House precisely the steps he will be taking so that we can inform concerned bodies and associations.
I am sorry I was not available to take a greater part in this debate, because the Bill is close to my heart. The by-election interfered. Like other Deputies, I welcome the Bill; but, of course, the Bill will only be good if it is acted on. Unfortunately, the general perception of the public of how local authorities perform very often comes down to criticism that roadsides are littered: in other words, local authorities can be spending millions of pounds on sewerage and water schemes but if you ask somebody what he thinks of his local authority he will say they are awful because the roadsides are littered with rubbish because the local authorities are not doing their job. It is a bad thing for the image of local authorities and I hope this Bill will go some way to give more power to them.
Of course, the Bill will function properly only if the Minister and the Department are prepared to give the local authorities the necessary finance in order to implement the sections of the Bill — for instance, the sections which empower local authorities to impose penalties and to provide places for abandoned vehicles and metal scraps. The Bill cannot work if local authorities when preparing their estimates find they are short of money. It is the implementation of this Bill that will get the knock. If a safety measure has to be put into estimates this is the sort of thing that will have to go. If the Minister wants the Bill to work he must be prepared to give a sympathetic ear to the local authorities in the matter of funds.
The Minister must give to local authorities the finance to help them to employ extra litter wardens. Dublin North at the moment is riddled with litter because of its proximity to the city and the number of rural roads in it. There are only two litter wardens covering the whole area and it is impossible for them to keep a check on litter dumping. The local authority will not be able to catch anybody on whom to impose these marvellous fines if they do not employ more men and women as litter wardens. The Minister should emphasise to the Department that the Bill will work only if financial provision is made down the line. However, I welcome the Bill and I look forward to seeing the first fines being imposed very soon so that the Act will be seen to have teeth.
Dublin South-East): Deputy Quinn spoke of discrimination in regard to section 3. I assure him, and I have put a lot of work into it, that there will not be discrimination between public and private carriers. This would not apply to vans which are dumping up on the hills, or something like that. The section refers to carriers of passengers for hire.
Question put and agreed to.