We come to amendment No. 1. I observe that amendments Nos. 2 and 6 are related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6 together if that is satisfactory. Agreed.
Litter Pollution Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, line 5, to delete "from a public place".
The reason I have tabled this amendment is that the definition of "litter" is too restrictive. Litter is litter and the concept is clearly understood. We should not seek to define litter in terms of the location from which it is visible. It could lead to long and expensive legal battles if litter, as identified by a litter warden, was contested and became the subject of a conviction and a fine on the basis that it was visible from a public place. For those reasons I ask the Minister to accept my amendment.
The three amendments are interesting. As explained by Deputy Quill, I understand how there could be a problem about whether something is visible from a public place.
The implication is that a public or private place is equally defaced by litter. Under the Constitution it is important to recognise there are rights in respect of private and public property in relation to litter. I do not understand why we should discriminate between private and public property. Given the merits of the case the courts will decide. The legislation should not be restrictive.
I do not see how these amendments would work. Their effect would be to impose an obligation on a person not to deposit litter anywhere either in a public or private place. This includes private places visible or not from public places. The amendments are not necessary to add weight to the obligation imposed under the section. I see no merit in local authorities being charged with responsibility under this Bill for private places which cannot be seen from public places and to take enforcement action for offences committed on private property which is not visible from a public place. There is no role for local authorities in this matter. I want local authorities to concentrate on public places and to deal with litter on private property only to the extent that it is visible from a public place.
I am opposed to accepting these amendments as they make for what would be unenforceable law. I hope the Deputy will accept what I have said. If the Bill imposes a duty on local authorities to prevent and control litter, this duty must be capable of being discharged in an effective manner. I regret I cannot accept these amendments but I hope I will be in a position to accept some of the other amendments tabled. If a person is seen dumping rubbish in a place which might not be visible from a public place, that person can be prosecuted in the normal way if it is reported to the local authority. I think that is a more effective and efficient way to deal with this.
I am reluctant to withdraw my amendment. However, in light of the Minister's statement that a local authority can take action if litter is seen to be dumped in a private place or one which is not visible, I will do so.
How can a local authority take action if private property is being littered? I know one case where there is deliberate littering for vindictive reasons. I am anxious because that avenue does not appear to be open to the victim.
On Deputy Sargent's point, if someone is seen littering and it is reported to a local authority the matter can be followed up. I know of instances where that has happened. We must ensure the Bill is operable and can be enforced. I believe my approach is the most reasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, are related and I suggest we discuss them together, if that is satisfactory.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, lines 25 and 26, to delete "all reasonable".
This amendment is necessary to make the wording of subsection (1) consistent with the wording of subsection (2), where the words "all reasonable" were deleted by agreement on Committee Stage.
I thank the Minister for this amendment which responds to an amendment I tabled which the Minister, Deputy Howlin, took on board on Committee Stage. I felt the words "all reasonable" were far too vague and left too many loopholes. I am glad the Minister has now brought forward this amendment and I support it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(4) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a good defence for the person to show that any litter created as a result of the failure to take measures to prevent the occurrence was removed and properly disposed of as soon as practicable after being created.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
There is a mistake in the printing of my amendment No. 7 — instead of "letter receptacles" it should read "litter receptacles". I move that the wording be changed.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, line 11, after "land" where it firstly occurs "to provide such litter receptacles to".
This amendment applies to property which is divided into multiple flats or apartments. I seek to put the responsibility on the tenant as well as the landlord to comply with the requirements of the Bill and not to litter the area. The insertion of this provision would make it the responsibility of the owner to provide the facilities I mentioned to keep the publicly visible lands or property free of litter, and it would be the responsibility of the occupier of the house to make sure these facilities are properly utilised. It is a measure to provide joint responsibility and it arises from experience in my area. Landlords or their managers tend to visit their property once a week but unless we put an obligation on the tenants who reside there on a daily basis to keep their property litter free, the objectives of this Bill will not be met. In my city a good deal of littering takes place in areas of high-density flat development. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment.
The Bill puts an obligation on both the occupier and the owner. I cannot accept this amendment because I understand it to mean that the owner of a house let in flats would be required to provide litter receptacles inside the curtilage of the house property. Presumably such receptacles would be for use by the tenants of the flats in the house, because the general public has no right of access to the gardens of houses let in flats for the purposes of disposing of litter. This being so, I cannot see the sense of the amendment and do not think it appropriate to include such provision here. It would also have the effect of diluting the obligation on the landlord to ensure the area surrounding the house is kept free of litter. Simply providing litter bins will not fulfil this obligation.
In keeping with the overall thrust and spirit of the Bill I tabled another amendment which would require local authorities to provide a sufficiency of litter bins strategically placed, because if the Bill is to be successful that will have to happen. It will be inconsistent if the Minister is prepared to accept that amendment, which applies to local authorities, but not this amendment, which applies to landlords and the shared obligation between landlord and tenant.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 is related to amendment No. 9 and if we so agree we can discuss them together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 43, after "litter" to insert "including the provision and maintenance, in public places and adjacent to public roads, of litter receptacles of such type and quantity as the local authority considers necessary to prevent the creation of litter".
This amendment is put forward in response to the points raised by Deputy Quill during Committee Stage. In effect, it achieves the same purpose as is intended in her amendment No. 9. Local authorities will be under a legal obligation to provide and maintain litter receptacles to prevent the creation of litter. I ask the Deputy to agree to my amendment, which has been drafted in response to the concern she raised, and to withdraw the amendment in her name. As with a previous amendment, there is a difficulty with the words "shall be required"— as the question again arises, by whom? My amendment places a duty on local authorities to provide a sufficiency of litter bins. It does not matter whether it is expressed as a separate subsection but it is being inserted into subsection (2)(c) on the advice of the draftsman.
I thank the Minister for amendment No. 8 which is a direct response to an amendment I tabled on Committee Stage. It meets the intention of my amendment No. 9, which I tabled as an insurance policy in case amendment No. 8 failed.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No.9 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30 and 37 are related to amendment No. 10. I suggest we discuss these amendments together by agreement. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 9, line 6, to delete "management" and substitute "eradication".
It was unavoidable to repeat this amendment given the frequency of use of the word "management" in the Bill. The case for changing the word "management" to eradication" is twofold. First, I use the word so that the intention of the Bill is clearly understood. Litter is unacceptable and need not be a feature of society. The cost of eradicating litter in Ireland is equal to the cost of providing a 50 metre swimming pool, which many people were keen to pursue and promote when Michelle Smith returned triumphant from Atlanta. However, the money was not available.
Second, we should set ourselves an attainable objective. It might sound idealistic but we should not be satisfied with a halfway house. Talk of a litter management plan is very much accepting that litter is a problem that will always be with us and that we will merely tinker with it. For that reason I urge that serious consideration be given to saying we want to eradicate litter and express that as often as we talk about a plan for such eradication. If we fall short, then we have to manage what is left, but ultimately it should be our objective to eradicate the problem, not simply to manage it.
While I appreciate the Deputy's reasons for putting forward these amendments to insert the word "eradication" instead of "management", we should stick with the word "management". We are at one as regards the purpose of this Bill and its importance. I reflected on the point raised by the Deputy on Committee Stage when he felt it was important to let it be known by the language we used that we are not satisfied with litter blighting our environment. I agree we should not be satisfied but it is inevitable that litter will always have to be managed and controlled, much as I wish to see it eradicated.
Litter will always be created and there will be a need for street cleansing services. Places kept free of litter simply do not happen. They are free of litter because they are cleaned regularly and this has a knock on effect in that a place which is kept clean is less likely to be littered. Deputies may have been struck by the cleanliness of public places they have visited but they will find they are cleaned regularly. This is part of a management programme which, apart from cleansing and control of litter, includes the vital aspect of prevention.
Eradication does not embrace prevention in its remit and litter prevention is a vital component of tackling the problem. I prefer the title "management" for the reasons I have outlined and it is also linked closely in some respects with the provisions of the Waste Management Act, 1996. I hope the Deputy does not wish to retitle this Act.
I already did.
I give the Deputy full marks for consistency but I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
The debate on the Waste Management Act took place the summer before last and I raised this point with many other Deputies. However, it needs to be stressed. I acknowledge the Minister of State's point on the prevention of litter and I would be happy if "prevention" could be included also but I do not expect her to agree to that. Current practices need to be tightened up. Traders in urban areas who put out their bins at a much earlier time than required by the cleansing department, for instance, inadvertently create litter. There is a need to be more courageous about what is done to eradicate litter.
As I said on Second Stage, this problem is more than a visual blight and an economic deterrent to tourism, etc. It also causes the deaths of animals and birds. In particular, marine animals are frequently found during post-mortems to have ingested items of litter covered under this Bill. The message needs to be clearer to the public that this is not just a cosmetic exercise. I hope this can be brought to bear in the enforcement of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 13, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 15 is related to amendment No. 14. I suggest we discuss these amendments together by agreement. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, line 19, after "plan" to insert "and shall in the meantime present an annual progress report to the local authority for discussion and remedial action where appropriate".
On Committee Stage, the Minister was well disposed to my views and those of other Deputies in regard to publishing an annual progress report on waste management plans prepared by a local authority. This would require extra work as it would not simply be sufficient to publish a plan and then revisit it three years later. If we are serious about improving the way in which we deal with litter, want to learn from mistakes, and celebrate achievements, an annual progress review of these plans would mean we would be more likely to seriously tackle the problem of litter. I welcome the fact that the Minister has given due consideration to the sentiments expressed in my amendment.
Amendment No. 15 has been tabled as an alternative to Deputy Sargent's amendment No. 14 and is a response to the points made by Deputies on Committee Stage during the debate on Deputy Quill's amendment. It was agreed on Committee Stage that a formal review of litter management plans every 12 months was inappropriate and that a provision should be included in the Bill under which local authorities would be required to prepare annual reports for their councils on their litter prevention and control activities during the previous year.
I hope Deputies will agree that my amendment No. 15, which inserts two new subsections in section 10, addresses the need for annual reports to be submitted to the elected members. Subsection (4) of the amendment sets out the information which must be contained in the report. This will give the elected members an opportunity to assess the council's programmes and any shortcomings. I ask Deputy Sargent to support my amendment on the basis that it addresses the issues raised.
I support the Minister's amendment and welcome its inclusion of the various aspects to be covered by the review. I look forward to the enforcement of its provisions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
"(3) A local authority shall, not later than the thirty-first day of March, 1998, and that date in each year thereafter, prepare a report for consideration by the council or corporation, as the case may be, on the operation of this Act in the functional area of the local authority indicating the measures taken by the local authority in the previous calendar year in relation to the prevention and control of litter.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3), a report under that subsection shall assess—
(a) all litter prevention and control programmes undertaken,
(b) the extent of enforcement action taken under this Act,
(c) the extent to which measures were taken to promote public awareness, including educational and information measures, and
(d) the co-operation and assistance given by persons other than the local authority for the purposes of preventing and controlling litter.".
I thank the Minister for tabling this amendment which arises from my Committee Stage amendment. It takes into account the concerns expressed by me and will improve the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
We now come to amendment No. 17. Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 are related. Is it agreed that we discuss amendments No. 17, 18 and 21 together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"(iv) the facilities at which waste may be deposited by members of the public for recovery or disposal within the meaning of the Waste Management Act, 1966,".
This amendment meets the points made by Deputy Sargent on Committee Stage. He referred to a possible overlap between the Bill and the Waste Management Act. Any measures enforced to promote reuse and recycling should be cross-referenced in a litter management plan even though they may be covered in waste management plans as both of these activities are complementary to litter prevention and control. My amendment requires local authorities to include in their litter management plans details of all waste facilities at which waste may be disposed of and where all waste recycling facilities are located in their functional areas.
I have used the word "recovery" instead of "recycling" used by Deputy Sargent in his amendment as it is the term used in the Waste Management Act and includes recycling as well as reuse. It also covers a much broader canvas. I intend to bring the necessity to include details of recovery facilities in waste management plans to the attention of local authorities in the guidelines to be issued by my Department.
I thank the Minister for taking on board the sentiments expressed by me but I am not sure the amendment covers all the aspects proposed in my amendment. I accept her explanation for the use of the term "recovery". However, dog faeces, which is an increasing problem, could not be regarded as litter in the same way as an empty crisps bag. I said there should be specific reference to this issue in the Bill. Some local authorities have dealt with this problem on their own initiative but other authorities prefer to ignore it. Some authorities state the problem has increased because of the reduction in rainfall which gets rid of the faeces. However, these authorities are deluding themselves if they regard rainfall as an aspect of litter management, whatever about litter eradication. Has the Minister taken this problem into account? It is of concern from a human health point of view. Will local authorities be required in the guidelines to make this a specific aspect of their litter management plans?
Deputies may see an overlap between the Waste Management Act and this Bill but in many cases the problem of waste is not properly dealt with at local level. In some cases the issue is regarded as the responsibility of another local authority while in other cases the Department of the Environment makes a momentous announcement from time to time. For example, the proposed installation of an incinerator in Fingal was like a bolt out of the blue to the local authority.
And to the American company.
The Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, seems to disagree with the company.
Many local authorities regard this Bill as the only measure to which they can develop a response as the wider problem of waste is either being ignored or dealt with by another local authority. There is room for much improvement in this area. This legislation will give local authorities an opportunity to give serious consideration to the installation of recycling, recovery and reuse facilities in an effort to reduce waste. For this reason, waste management plans are very important.
I assure the Deputy this matter will be covered in the guidelines to be issued by the Department. The Department will seek to raise public awareness of the problem of dog faeces and the law relating to it after the enactment of the Bill. I am opposed to amendment No. 18 because it is inappropriate to deal with such a matter so prescriptively in primary legislation. As far as I am aware, few local authorities provide receptacles for the deposit of dog faeces, and I am unsure what is envisaged to be included by way of guidelines for something that is not provided generally. These matters should be dealt with in an outline way in a litter management plan and followed up by local authorities providing their own guidelines and information for the public on how dog faeces can be removed and disposed of in a suitably sanitary manner. That would be the best approach. I assure the Deputy this matter will be dealt with, but including it in the Bill is not the appropriate way. I am conscious of the problems the Deputy raised.
At a public meeting in Skerries last week, one of the many areas in my constituency which is greatly concerned, on health and other grounds, about the problem of dog faeces, several suggestions were made to deal with the problem. They included the erection of signs reminding dog owners of their responsibilities; obliging dog food companies to provide "pooper scoopers" or similar facilities; properly informing school children about the dangers of dog faeces and instructing dog wardens to carry out surprise inspections of certain areas from time to time. Many other suggestions were put forward. The Minister of State said the problem will be dealt with, but I would prefer to hear her say the guidelines exist in draft form. Local authorities will not do anything about this problem until the legislation is published. They are being excused inaction because the legislation has not yet been enacted.
The litter management plans will be adopted by the members who will be in a position to ensure that problems affecting their areas are dealt with. We will deal with many of the issues raised by the Deputy. This is a real problem which we recognise as being part of the whole issue of litter.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 10, line 9, after "area" to insert "and the provisions of any waste management plan made under the Waste Management Act, 1996".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 24, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 25 is in the name of the Minister of State. I observe that amendment No. 26 is consequential, and No. 27 is related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss Nos. 25, 26 and 27 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 10, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"(3) A local authority, in its absolute discretion, may permit any person who has made submissions referred to in subsection (2)(c) to make oral presentation on the submissions to, or to discuss specific proposals with, the local authority.”.
This amendment was drafted to meet the points raised by Deputy Dempsey on Committee Stage that people putting forward useful suggestions should be involved as much as possible in the preparation of litter management plans. This amendment will achieve the objective of Deputy Dempsey's amendment. It will give a local authority an option of inviting some of those groups who have made written submissions to make oral presentations of their ideas, or to discuss their proposals further with the local authority. I would like to see these consultations taking place at the formative stage of litter management plans so that the views of local interests feed into the preparatory process as early as possible. I expect local authorities will be anxious to engage in discussions with business and voluntary groups on the state of cleanliness and how it can be improved. This is happening to a much greater extent now. I am aware, for example, that Meath County Council decided last year to hold a public consultation meeting with all the tidy towns groups in the county to exchange views on how matters might be improved in terms of the council's programmes being better tailored to meet local requirements. This type of consultation may be robust at times from a council perspective, but it is healthy and useful. It forms partnerships which combine to make progress, with everyone pulling together rather than against each other. We need more of this type of consultation. Amendment No. 26 is a consequential drafting amendment to No. 25. I propose, therefore, that the amendments in my name be accepted and ask that amendment No. 27 in the name of Deputy Dempsey be withdrawn.
I have no problem withdrawing our amendment because this matter is adequately covered by the amendment of the Minister of State. I welcome that she has taken on board the points made by my colleague, Deputy Dempsey.
There is a suggestion that a local authority might disregard that which Deputy Dempsey wanted to achieve, namely, that these groups would be brought before the council as they wish. It must be stressed to local authorities that tidy towns groups, for example, should be contacted when litter management plans are being drawn up. At that stage the members' attention is focused on the work in hand which is undertaken in co-operation with the many voluntary groups in the community helping to implement this legislation. I am disappointed the Minister of State's amendment is not a little stronger in regard to these groups, but I hope the local authorities will accept its spirit.
The amendment was drafted essentially in accordance with the wishes of Deputy Dempsey, who made a valid point. Obviously, local authorities will have discretion in relation to this matter but local groups will be consulted in the preparation of litter management plans.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 10, line 37, after "(2) (c)” to insert “and any discussions referred to in subsection (3)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 27 to 30, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 12, line 22, to delete "toward" and substitute "towards".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 is in the name of Deputy Dempsey. I call on Deputy Ryan to formally move the amendment.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 14, to delete lines 46 and 47 and in page 15, to delete lines 1 to 8 and substitute the following:
"(3) A person on whom a 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 the 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."
This section has been greatly changed since the Bill was first published. Will the Minister of State explain the reason the time period has been left open ended? It would be more appropriate to provide for a specific time limit.
I appreciate the Deputy's point. This section was amended on Committee Stage to allow local authorities to specify the time period within which a promoter can make representations to a local authority on the terms of a notice the local authority proposes to serve on the promoter for a major event. Different events have different requirements. It may be appropriate to allow for a longer consultation period in the case of major events that would be known about well in advance. For example, the holding of a sale or a major concert would be known about well in advance and there would be much detailed planning to be undertaken by the promoters. Fourteen days for the submission of a response to a local authority might well be too short a period. Equally, a period of 14 days for consultation might be too long in another instance if the event were mounted on a shorter timescale. It is better to allow the local authority to specify the time period for submissions when they inform the promoter or organiser of the special measures they seek. It allows for more flexibility and for the fact that some of these events are very varied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 18, line 15, to delete "pole, or" and substitute "pole or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 19, lines 15 and 16, after "Communities" to insert "or any material which relates to any political issue, local or national".
Some political groupings put up the most appalling posters and throw literature around, and they do not seem to be included in the Bill. We want to ensure that any material which relates to any political issue, local or national, is included.
Section 21 allows local authorities to make by-laws prohibiting or regulating the distribution of advertising material, but within those by-laws election literature is exempted. I put down an amendment on Committee Stage to the effect that all political material should be exempted. I argued for my amendment and withdrew it on Committee Stage on the understanding that the Minister would take the spirit of what I said on board and introduce his own amendment. I regret that has not happened and I want to put my dissatisfaction on record.
In my amendment I recommended that all political material should be exempted in the same manner as material relating to elections. While I realise that litter prevention is of paramount importance, I also believe that the right to freedom of expression is of fundamental importance in any democracy. What I asked for was that the by-law which exempts election literature should apply equally to all literature dealing with legitimate political activity.
This amendment brings us back to the argument on Committee Stage which seemed to be gaining acceptance by the Minister in that it was not fair to exempt established political parties in the course of a general election from the terms of a by-law that a local authority might make and at the same time allow the local authority to be quite restrictive about aspirant political activity or political activity that was not of a party-political nature but which was motivated by the best of intentions and was to be carried out responsibly.
Has the Minister given full consideration to the cut-off point proposed in the Bill? Reflecting on various legal actions which have taken place on the constitutionality of having one set of rules for established political parties and another set for political activity which is not in the mainstream brings up questions of constitutionality and fairness for all citizens. Has full consideration been given to that point? I presume it is not the Minister's intention to provide the subject for a lengthy court action based on the constitutionality of a by-law which would unfairly restrict access to freedom of speech by one group or another.
I assure the Deputy that there is no question of preventing free speech or of allowing certain political parties to distribute leaflets and preventing others from doing so. The by-law provision shall not apply to the distribution of advertising material for specific political purposes at the various elections and referenda outlined in the Bill. That will apply to anybody who wants to stand in an election or say anything in relation to a referendum. There is no question of any constitutional factor.
We have to be clear about setting boundaries in relation to this issue of flyers, because they are a great nuisance. The matter was considered very seriously after the discussion on Committee Stage, but I cannot accept this amendment because it is too vague and too open. It would provide an easy way out of complying with the requirements of a by-law made by a local authority. Any issue, local or national, nearly always has a political dimension, and to describe something as being of a political nature is far too wide. Politics covers everything. We could end up having by-laws without any impact. Flyers are a nuisance. Putting advertising material on car windscreens creates an enormous problem of litter, as does the distribution of advertising material in the streets. I have decided not to ban outright distribution in the streets but to make a provision that will allow a local authority to make a by-law to prohibit or regulate the distribution of advertising material to the public.
A by-law cannot do anything to regulate or prohibit the delivery of advertising material to one's home or office or any place that has an address. Nor can a by-law prohibit the distribution of materials relating to an election or referendum, and that political activity is not interfered with. If a local authority chooses to make a by-law under this provision, it does so where it deems it is necessary for the purpose of preventing the creation of litter. The making of a by-law is a function of politicians. I suggest that this is a reasonable approach.
A by-law might be made not to prohibit the distribution of material in the street, but it might regulate the distribution by laying down certain conditions for those distributing advertising material. The capacity to make a by-law is to deal with litter and we have to accept that a council will not lightly move to make a by-law to prohibit or regulate the distribution of advertising material unless it is faced with a problem relating to the creation of litter. There is flexibility. A local authority can determine to bring in a by-law that is suitable for local conditions. I assure the Deputy that democracy is safe.
It is unfortunate that the Minister, Deputy Howlin, dealt with the matter in Committee and the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, is dealing with it on Report Stage because there is a clear divergence of views between them. I withdrew my amendment in good faith and that was not honoured. My amendment made a distinction between flyposting dealing with matters of a commercial nature and flyposting dealing with democratic political dialogue. I hope the Minister is capable of recognising and admitting that all political dialogue is not confined to the duration of an election campaign, that there is good and legitimate political dialogue on the streets that can be carried on at any given time.
In the primary law, electoral matters are exempt from the requirements of by-laws. I proposed that all political material dealing with legitimate political discussion, dialogue and exercise would be given the same exemption as is given to material dealing with elections. This will be a very poor Bill if the request which I and Deputy Dempsey made on Committee Stage is not met. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, promised that between Committee and Report Stages he would consider this matter fully and take on board the concerns expressed by us about a clear distinction between material of a commercial nature and that of a political nature.
I could not help but smile when the Minister said that democracy is safe. Under this legislation it seems the status quo is safe, but that is a subject for another debate. The Minister said that local authority members will make the decision, and that in itself tells a story. The people who are successful politicians will make the decision, and it is natural that the decision reached will be in the interests of self-preservation. We have a responsibility to differentiate between commercial and political activity, difficult as that may be, and I am disappointed we have not met that challenge.
There was no breach of good faith. This matter was considered fully, as the Minister stated he would undertake to do. The formula of words was assessed and it was felt this was the best approach. We must recognise that local authorities have a role to play in this regard. By-laws that are so open and broad as defined by Deputy Quill would have no impact and would do what the Deputy said I am doing, maintain the status quo with people allowed to distribute leaflets as they wish. The Bill will ensure that local authorities can put controls on the distribution of leaflets in the street.
I take issue with Deputy Sargent about elected members of local authorities. They are elected by the public to represent them, and the idea that they are "successful", as if that was a pejorative word, is unacceptable. It is extraordinary that we are arguing that a Minister should determine what local councillors should decide in terms of enacting by-laws in their own streets. That would not be a good approach.
I appreciate Deputy Quill's concern about this matter, but it has been considered very carefully and the approach adopted protects the public good in terms of the right to have information relating to general, local elections and so on. We must, however, set down the boundaries. "Legitimate political purposes" could mean anything. Who would define "legitimate political purposes"? We must ensure that a local authority which wishes to bring in a by-law will be enabled to do so under this Bill. The local authority must protect the public good in terms of public political activity while at the same time dealing with this problem. People can always distribute material through letter boxes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 20, line 37, after "£1,500" to insert "and such community service to eradicate litter as may be decided at the discretion of the Court."
This amendment was the source of an interesting debate on Committee Stage. It proposes that in addition to imposing a penalty of £1,500, a court would have discretion to impose a community service order. In the case of a very wealthy person the amount of money involved may not be a huge burden and the court should have the option to make a community service order. It transpired from the Minister's reply that the amendment goes beyond the bounds of the Department of the Environment. Legal advice from the Department of Justice dictates that under current laws a community service order may be handed down only as an alternative to a custodial sentence.
If a person was sent to jail for littering there would be an outcry from various people who have commented on prison overcrowding. It would be much better for society if, for instance, a person found throwing a shopping trolley into a river was required to clean up the river. Under the law as it stands, however, that would have to be an alternative to a jail sentence, and that is not acceptable to Members of this House.
The Minister and the committee in general agreed that the Department of Justice should be asked to amend legislation so that this anomaly could be addressed. A letter was written to the Minister for Justice on 27 February, following Committee Stage, seeking such a change in legislation and I understand no reply has been received. Will the Minister say whether the Department of Justice has been in contact with the Department of the Environment, whether the amendment will be made and when we can expect such a welcome change in legislation to provide for community service as a sanction under this legislation?
This is a good amendment in principle. I did not realise that a community service order could be handed down only as an alternative to a jail sentence. I presume the Minister will say that she cannot accept the amendment because the Department of Justice has not made the necessary changes, but that Department should consider the matter. If that change were made, there would probably be a blanket change throughout existing legislation to provide that a community service order could be imposed as an alternative to a fine.
I support the amendment, but I understand why it is not possible to take it on board in the context of this Bill. The principle of the amendment ought to be taken on board by the Government. I can think of no offence more appropriate to community service orders than breaches of litter legislation or environmental legislation generally. Under this legislation one can relate the penalty to the crime. If people throw litter on the street or persist in allowing litter to accumulate outside their premises, they should pay their debt to society by doing community service. This is ideal legislation in which to apply the principle of a community service order. While I understand the Minister of State's dilemma, this excellent idea should be taken on board.
I cannot accept the amendment, but some valuable points on this matter have been made on Committee and Report Stages. If we accepted the amendment the Bill would have to be amended to include imprisonment as a sanction or the legislation on community service would have to be radically amended and the principle on which it is based fundamentally altered. However, I accept it is worth exploring this avenue, but it is not appropriate to do so under this legislation. I do not believe anybody wants imprisonment included as a sanction for littering.
We would love it if all other things were equal.
I do not believe it is a solution. We have asked the Minister for Justice to explore this matter. As Deputy Ryan stated, this could apply in other cases, but it has particular relevance when dealing with a social problem such as litter.
Has the Department even acknowledged receipt of this letter which was written two weeks ago? It was circulated to all members of the Select Committee of Finance and General Affairs. There is virtual unanimity on this issue. Community service could be beneficial when prison space is at a premium. Is the Government giving the matter the urgent priority it deserves? It is strange that we did not receive news from the Department before Report Stage. I thought it would at least want to be seen to be examining the proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 23, line 24, after "issue" to insert "in Irish and in English".
Feictear dom go bhfuil sé an tábhachtach go mbeidh an cúspóir atá taobh thíar iarrachtaí anseo a chur chun cinn, mar rud a bhaineann le féinmhuinín mar phobal chomh maith le glanadh na timpeallachta, agus gur ceart dúinn a bheith ag smaoineamh ar an reachtaíocht seo as Béarla agus as Gaeilge. In san chuid seo den bhille atá os ár gcomhair, agus leis an leasú seo, tá seans ag an Áire an t-eolas a chur a fáil do na comhairlí condae as Gaeilge agus as Béarla agus a rá leo gur ceart a bheith ag cur na hargóintí seo os comhair an phobail as Gaeilge agus as Béarla.
Is samplaí maithe de sin na boscaí bruscair iad féin atá ar na sráideanna. Is minic a fheicimse, i mBaile Átha Cliath go háirithe, in sna áiteanna is galánta atá ann chun tuarasóirí a tharraingt isteach, agus chun iad a mhealladh, nach mbíonn ach an focal Béarla "Litter" ar na boscaí bruscair go minic. In áiteanna eile níl aon fhadhb agus tá an Ghaeilge ann agus tá an Bhéarla ann. Má bhainfidh muid feidhm as an Ghaeilge chomh maith leis an Bhéarla, ní amháin gur féidir linn, sa todh- chaí, a bheith chomh glan le tíortha, atá ag déanamh i bfhad nios mó oibre ar son na timpeallachta, mar a luaigh an t-Áire, ach gur féidir linn a rá gur rud Éireannach é glanadh na timpeallachta agus glanadh fadhb an bhruscair go háirithe. Sin an chúis go bhfuil ag rá gur mhaith liom go mbeadh na focail Gaeilge agus Béarla in sna treoirlíonta atá le héisiúnt ag an Áire ó am go chéile do na comhairlí condae. Go raibh maith agat.
The Deputy raised this matter on Committee Stage. My Department is fully committed to the implementation of Government policy on the provision of bilingual services. The amendment would impose a legal obligation on the Minister to draft all guidelines and criteria issued to local authorities in both languages. This goes way beyond well established practice on the manner in which guidelines and circulars are issued to local authorities by my Department. I do not see the need for such an absolute requirement. I ask the Deputy, therefore, to withdraw his amendment.
However, I would be happy to include the use of Irish terms, such as "bruscar", in guidelines issued to local authorities. I am anxious to enforce the Bill to get across the message on litter. It is one thing introducing a Bill, but it is another to ensure its provisions are enforced. While I accept the Deputy's points and agree this is an opportunity to promote the Irish language, we must do so in a practical manner.
This suggestion was made to me by constituents who remarked on the increasing number of attractive litter bins and receptacles which I presume were imported with the word "litter" on them. As the Minister alluded to a bilingual policy, I would be prepared to accept a commitment to recognise a cultural aspect in litter legislation Nobody wants to delay the enforcement of the legislation, but this opportunity should not be missed.
Dublin Corporation use Irish manufactured bins with Irish wording, but they are very expensive.
English is cheaper.
It can import them, but not the old-fashioned ones with Irish writing.
The Deputy can blame his party's founder for that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 23, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
30.—The purposes for which regulations under sections 28 and 29 of the Waste Management Act, 1996, may be made shall include the purposes of preventing, minimising or controlling litter under this Act.
This amendment seeks to insert a new section in the Bill to create a clear cross-linkage with sections 28 and 29 of the Waste Management Act, 1996, in relation to the powers under the Act which allow the Minister for the Environment to make regulations relating to the imposition of charges on plastic bags or the establishment of a deposit and refund scheme. This approach is proposed as an alternative to Deputy Dempsey's amendment which is not necessary. This matter has been looked at closely by my Department since the matter was discussed on Committee Stage.
I would like the plague of plastic bags, which is the cause of much litter, eliminated. Both Deputy Quill and Deputy Dempsey felt that provisions to deal with plastic bags and deposit and refund schemes should be built into this Bill, notwithstanding the fact that the Waste Management Act, 1996, already contains more than adequate powers for the Minister for the Environment to introduce a host of measures to reduce production and to promote the recovery of waste. Specifically, section 29 of the Waste Management Act, 1996, enables the Minister for the Environment to make regulations in relation to or for the purpose of recovery of waste. Such regulation may include provisions for the imposition of producer responsibility obligations on producers of products.
Section 29 (4)(b) specifically enables the Minister for the Environment to make regulations requiring a producer, distributor or retailer to operate a deposit and refund scheme. Section 29(4) enables the Minister to make regulations requiring that any used product, packaging or other waste, including waste which is subject to a deposit and refund scheme, shall be recovered and recycled in a specified manner. Section 29(4)(j) allows the Minister to make regulations requiring the owner or manager of a supermarket, service station or other sales outlet to impose a charge on customers for any bag or container packaging.
Each of these powers to make regulations addresses the specific measures proposed by Deputy Dempsey's amendment. These powers are already enacted. Worthy as the principle of the amendment is, we do not need it. I am also advised that Deputy Dempsey's amendment gives rise to technical legal problems on the basis that if one enactment provides the Minister with powers to make regulations for certain matters, it is inappropriate to include similar powers in another Bill to do the same thing.
My amendment proposes to clarify that the powers to make regulations under sections 28 and 29 of the Waste Management Act, 1996, shall include the purposes of preventing, minimising or controlling litter under this Bill. This will allow any regulations to be introduced under those provisions in the Waste Management Act, 1996, either to prevent or limit waste or to prevent and control litter.
Amendment No. 39 was tabled because it is easier to prevent litter than to clean it up. Economic measures are recognised as the most effective way forward. If the Minister can assure us that the purpose of her amendment is the same as Deputy Dempsey's amendment, particularly in relation to the plague of plastic bags, I will withdraw it.
If one asks for a newspaper in many new convenience stores, it will be put in a plastic bag. The Department should consider asking shopowners to display a sign stating that their shops are environmentally friendly. I saw a sign in a small newsagents recently which read: "I do not give plastic bags unless I am asked for them". This man is saving money but he is also environmentally friendly. Perhaps this would stop many new convenience stores, such as Spar and Centra, putting everything in plastic bags. I ask the Minister to consider introducing environmentally friendly standards in retail units which would also save them money.
It is frustrating to hear about the Minister's powers given that they have not been enforced. The Waste Management Act, 1996, gives copious powers to the Minister to introduce regulations.
Deputy Dempsey's amendment refers to "the introduction of a `refund on return' deposit on glass bottles and jars, cans and other containers". We discussed these issues during the debate on the Waste Management Act, 1996, but nothing has yet been done. I presume this is a frustrated attempt to enforce the regulations. There is a litter problem because of the huge increase in disposable packaging and the lack of financial incentives for people to recycle it. Young people used to be enthusiastic about collecting bottles and jars. Cans are now collected by schools to raise funds.
I urge the Minister to enforce the regulations under the Waste Management Act, 1996. Many large shops argue that they are in competition with each other. If one corner shop, for example, gives a plastic bag to a customer who is satisfied with the service, another shop will also decide to give out plastic bags. The Minister will say this can be dealt with by regulations, but why is that not happening? I hope we do not have to depend on the voluntary code which, as Senator Quinn knows, has not worked. This amendment would not be required if the regulations were enforced.
It is inconceivable that a Litter Bill should not contain any reference to plastic bags, which are a major part of the litter problem. I am grateful that there is now a clear linkage between the Waste Management Act, 1996, and this Bill.
It is imperative that the regulations relating to the control, limitation and minimisation of plastic bags and other waste under the Waste Management Act, 1996, are enforced at the same time as this Bill becomes law. If that does not happen, this legislation will not meet its overall objectives.
We know from past experience that if incentives are put in place there will be a good response. Where primary schools introduce schemes to recycle cans and there is some incentives at the end of term, pupils respond well. We must use a variety of approaches by way of incentives and penalties. My amendment with regard to plastic bags reflected my belief that there should be a charge. They are all matters which can and I hope will be addressed in the context of regulations under the Waste Management Act, 1996.
That is my last word on the Litter Pollution Bill. I hope the two Acts, which are complementary and reinforce their common aim, will be enforced.
I am glad we were able to deal with this particular issue. It is important that there is a linkage between the two Bills. The Waste Management Act was enacted in 1996 and we are tackling waste issues. The Minister published the draft waste management packaging regulations three weeks ago. These regulations impose obligations on all business which supply packaging or packaged goods to take measures to deal with packaging waste. If the voluntary, industry-led schemes do not work, the Minister has made it clear that he will proceed further on the matter but it is important that we first see the progress made by these schemes. Progress has been made, both in relation to the enactment of the Act and the regulations following from it.
On the question of litter, the amendment proposed by Deputy Dempsey has been accommodated in this mechanism which ties it in with the Waste Management Act, 1996. Everybody appreciates that it allows for a streamlined approach whereas duplication could cause problems.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 25, line 25, to delete "and includes" and substitute "or".
This is a minor technical drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank Deputies for the interest shown in this Bill. Many Deputies contributed to the debate on Second Stage and it was clear from their contributions that they were anxious to deal with the problem of litter. The Bill will facilitate this and local authorities will have greater strength and a statutory framework with which to take action against litter.
In particular I thank Deputies Dempsey, Quill and Sargent who took a close interest in both Committee and Report Stages and I acknowledge the strength of their feelings about litter. Amendments suggested by them have been made to the Bill and these have strengthened its provisions.
I look forward to the Bill being considered by the Seanad in the near future. Hopefully, it will be enacted as quickly as possible. We will be encouraging local authorities to use the powers given to them by the Oireachtas to take firmer action in preventing and controlling litter.
I thank the Minister of State for her involvement in the Bill, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, for his contribution on Committee Stage and all the officials who helped with the copious amount of paperwork. The success of the Bill will depend on the enforcement which follows and for that reason due consideration ought to be given to the effectiveness of the current number of litter wardens and the ability of all the other law enforcement agencies to deal with the terms of the Bill.
I also thank the Minister. We have put in place good legislation but I would stress that enforcement is the key. Unless the Bill is rigorously and consistently enforced, much of our good work will be in vain. I hope local authorities will be given the resources for this and that they will make stringent enforcement of the Bill a priority of their management plans.
I, too, thank the Minister of State and her colleague, Minister Howlin, for introducing this important Bill. It is a stronger piece of legislation now than it was at the start. Litter is a problem which needs to be tackled and people want to see it tackled. People must take decisions on how they address personal litter as the lack of personal responsibility on this issue is one of the greatest problems. I welcome the Bill which is a major step forward toward cleaning up this problem.
Question put and agreed to.