Dublin South-East): 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 and indiscriminate flyposting, graffiti and slogan-writing by means which include a fine-on-the-spot system for litter offences and stiffer penalties all round. The Bill also introduces new provisions relating to abandoned vehicles and unsightly accumulations of vehicles and 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. Unlike many other environmental issues a solution to the problem of litter, graffiti, flyposting and the like does not call for the application of special skills or for a lot of expenditure. The remedy lies in our own hands. When people decide that they prefer clean surroundings to littered and untidy conditions and are prepared to make the small effort required to achieve this the problem will be solved.
The present position, in addition to reducing the enjoyment of outdoor facilities and amenities, has economic implications affecting, as it does, both tourist and development prospects, and it does nothing for our reputation abroad.
To change the position, as it must be changed, calls for a radical change 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 Bill contains no magic formula, but what I am proposing should go a long way to ensure a cleaner and more enjoyable environment for everyone. The Bill is limited in scope to litter and some related problems, including abandoned vehicles. The limited scope is intentional. Work in reviewing the statutory provisions relating to other environmental matters is under way and I envisage further legislation in due course. That will be another day's work.
There has been a noticeable worsening in recent years in regard to littering, indiscriminate postering and graffiti — writing on public and private property. The writing of objectionable slogans is offensive to the vast majority of people and to visitors. There is no reason to suppose that existing trends 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 these are not merely urban problems. In the countryside 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. Slogans and graffiti are found on walls and roads even in remote areas. 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. I should point out that the main impact of this legislation will be to obligate local authorities to play a very active role in clearing up this problem without delay.
In these matters we seem to have neither sense not sensibility. We should be able to do better and we must. 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 eye-sore as well as a resource loss, since scrap-metal can be recycled. A related problem is that of unsightly accumulations of vehicles and disused articles — household, agricultural or industrial — in prominent locations along important roads or in scenic areas. I am sure that all Senators can readily call such situations to mind — sites on which there are old cars or other vehicles, abandoned vehicles, old cookers, washing machines and the like; ancient tractors, cranes and other agricultural or industrial plant are kept in conditions in which they constitute a serious blot on the landscape or are a prominent eyesore. They may be intended for disposal as scrap, or for use as spares, and 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 worst effects of many of these sites could easily be avoided.
There is particular concern with the unsightly conditions that are associated with the increased trading in vehicle scrap and spare parts in and around the large urban centres. The condition of some sites, and their extent is a disgrace, but local authorities lacked adequate powers to take effective action in all cases. Again, it is commonplace to see vehicle repair and maintenance operations being conducted on or adjoining public roads and streets and leading to seriously objectionable conditions.
The Bill contains provisions enabling local authorities to deal with conditions in all the cases to which I have referred.
I believe that the problem of litter and untidyness must be tackled at local level mainly and that local authorities should be the principal agencies for dealing with them 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 in section 2. 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. 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. I would like also to say, that the example that children can even give their parents is of vital importance because after all children are being taught civics in schools and it is the impact of such programmes in schools that children can teach their parents a lot in this respect as well. With this in mind local authorities have again been asked this year to promote campaigns of environmental care and improvement, seeking maximum co-operation and involvement from local community groups and business interests. There will be special emphasis in the campaigns on measures to control litter and on environmental clean-up operations, together with parallel measures for bringing about positive environmental improvements.
The littering offence as defined in section 3 is a re-inforcement and extension of the provision in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.
In future, littering caused in the course of carrying on a trade or in loading, transporting, unloading or otherwise handling or processing will be clearly an offence. Illegal dumping of refuse from a vehicle can be a major source of litter, and there are problems in identifying the culprits. 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. It will be an offence to leave out a receptacle such as a bin for collection in such a way that litter is likely to result.
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 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.
The new limit under the Bill will be £800. This is a maximum penalty. I am hoping that in the early stages of the implementation of this legislation justices will mete out heavy penalties to perpetrators of littering offences. Example must be shown to get this legislation away to the start that we would all like to see our environment. 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, but I hope that substantial penalties will be imposed in all cases involving serious offences under the Bill.
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 in section 4.
Much litter can occur in the immediate vicinity of business premises. It is reasonable to expect that persons engaged in business 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, specified classes of occupiers, or those in specified areas, to keep the immediate environs as defined in the Bill, free of litter. I hope, 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. The Department has 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 in sections 5 and 6 for a fine-on-the-spot system. Under this system an offender may be given a notice by a litter warden employed by a local authority and would have 21 days in which to pay a fine to 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 to actually pay a fine. If a person who receives a fine-on-the-spot notice would prefer to take his chances in court, he may exercise an option in that direction simply by failing to pay the fine within the prescribed period.
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 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 to deal with offenders by way of court prosecution alone.
There are practical difficulties of course 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 the difficulties. I believe the stage has been reached when most people want effective action to be taken to deal with this problem. The proposed system can make an important contribution in that direction, that it is a fair and reasonable system, and most importantly, that it will have the support of the general public.
The existing provisions in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 have not proved adequate to deal with the problem of fly-posting, graffiti, slogan writing and the like. Those provisions are directed only against the person who puts up posters or writes graffiti, slogans or whatever and, as this can be done at night, offenders are difficult to apprehend. In addition, no penalty is incurred by those responsible for the advertisements or those who benefit from them.
Under the Bill, the person on whose behalf an advertisement is exhibited or, in the case of an advertisement for a meeting or other event, the person promoting or arranging the meeting or event, will be liable for prosecution as well as the person who actually does the damage. The range of offences is being extended to cover the exhibition of articles such as banners or flags put up without permission. These provisions are in sections 7 and 8. There is an exemption for advertisements for public meetings and public elections provided the advertisements are subsequently removed. Likewise, advertisements that are exempted development will not be liable to prosecution under this provision.
Local authorities will be able to take action directly to remove offending material, or to have it removed. The local authority may deal with the matter by arrangement with the occupier and on agreed terms. Alternatively it can serve a notice requiring remedial action to be taken, and if this is not done the local authority itself may remedy the position and recover any expenditure reasonably incurred. It will be an offence not to act on a notice or to obstruct the local authority if it is enforcing a notice. An occupier will have a right of appeal to the courts where a notice is served, and certain other defences are provided for.
The effective use of these provisions by the local authorities will, I believe, go a long way in eliminating unsightly fly-posting which is now so widespread, and will facilitate the removal of graffiti and slogans in future. It has always been the problem with local authorities that they felt they had not got sufficient power behind them to act in identifying perpetrators of these awful offences. But this is all now enshrined in this new legislation.
I turn now to abandoned vehicles. Local authorities will be obliged under section 9 to provide places where vehicles and other metal scrap may be abandoned. There will be no excuse in future for abandoning those in unauthorised places. It will be an offence under section 10 to abandon a vehicle on land without the occupier's consent. Provision is made in sections 11 and 13 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. Vehicles abandoned on public roads or car-parks will continue to be dealt with under existing road traffic legislation. There is provision in section 13, however, to enable local authorities or road authorities to dispose of an abandoned vehicle, which is removed, without having to store it or go through procedures of publishing a notice etc, provided, in effect, they are satisfied that the vehicle is gone beyond repair. This will enable local authorities to avoid having to store useless hulks as they do at present.
The Bill makes provision in section 12 for dealing with vehicles or 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 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 it is 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. In order to avoid a clash of controls this provision, in effect, will not apply where land is being used in accordance with the terms of a planning permission.
The powers which the Bill will confer on local authorities regarding vehicles and other articles will greatly improve their capacity for securing the removal of eye-sores and improving the quality of the environment in urban and rural areas. For all offences under the Bill, except for the fine-on-the-spot for littering, the maximum fine of £800 will apply. 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 recognise that there are other ways in which our environmental legislation needs to be improved and modernised and that work to deal with those is being advanced.
I believe that this Bill, confined as it is to litter and certain related problems, is well worth while in its own right and 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 recommending it to the House in that spirit.