I welcome this Bill. Legislation such as this makes an enormous difference to the public. It is difficult for people to see the effect of much of the legislation passed. However, people will soon see the effect of a Bill such as this on the landscape.
One of the most important aspects of the Bill is that it places responsibility on the individual, the community, business and the organisers of large events to control litter. We all share the responsibility for the condition of our cities and countryside. Controlling litter is not just the responsibility of corporations and county councils.
There has been much talk of recycling waste. However, it is depressing that there has been so much talk and so little action. I hope that the pious intentions in the Bill become concrete proposals and that action is taken once the Bill is enacted. Apart from a small area in south County Dublin, there is virtually no kerbside recycling in this country. There are no facilities for the separation of household waste. We need to address this urgently.
The separation of household waste has reached a quite sophisticated stage in other countries. We have not made any effort in this direction on a community or municipal basis. Individuals can make an effort by returning bottles, cans and clothes to banks. However, everything depends on the individual bringing their waste to the bank. This requires transport. Local authorities need to become involved in the separation of household waste.
In Italy, waste is so carefully separated that there are special boxes into which people place leftover tablets. This removes dangerous tablets from circulation. Waste has been separated for a long time in America. We think that because we have a small population and a large country, we can continue to treat household waste as in the past.
The separation of waste does not only apply to households. We must ask businesses to take more responsibility for their handling of waste. Some of this waste is toxic and there must be penalties for those who do not abide by regulations.
I visited a country town where the method of disposing of used tyres was to throw them in the river. This was most unsatisfactory for the salmon industry. This crude method of handling waste from small industries has led to the pollution of rivers and lakes.
County councils were largely at fault for the pollution of rivers and lakes. However, the Environmental Protection Agency report has highlighted the problem of agricultural waste. I recently heard it said that agriculture is suspected of causing water pollution. It is no longer suspected of causing pollution; the Environmental Protection Agency report has shown it to be an important contributing factor.
Industry must also take some of the blame for pollution. Small factories incorrectly dispose of liquid and solid waste. Large factories tend to make more of an effort to handle waste properly. We cannot allow a situation where a small factory is opened to provide employment, only to find that it is destroying the tourism industry in the area by polluting rivers or emitting fumes.
We need to examine the amount of packaging used by the retail trade. This creates an enormous amount of waste. Has the time come for us to begin to enforce regulations? This occurs in Germany where packaging has reduced greatly in the past few years. Packages which end up in the household must be returned to the retailer and from there to the wholesaler and the manufacturer to be reused. There is an increase in the amount of packaging used in food and domestic products. The opposite should be the case and we need to see what can be done to reverse this trend.
We also need to look at our performance in Leinster House. We have increased the use of recycled paper but not by enough. If we do not give a lead no one else will. Amendments are now printed on both sides of the paper. While the Minister may need to have his speech typed on one side only, his words of wisdom would be just as good if they appeared on both sides. We have the facilities for photocopying on both sides of the paper. This would reduce by half our use of paper, producing significant savings.
Another bête noire of mine is the abundance of enormous brown paper envelopes we receive every day which cost about 30p and could be used again. A spontaneous effort has been made by some members of staff in the House to reuse envelopes. We ought to make this policy. It is important not just from the point of view of the huge amount of waste produced but also the cost of the envelopes which are not reused. When I suggested they be reused I was told it would be demeaning to public representatives if a reused envelope was sent to them. I doubt if there is anyone in either House who would object to an increase in efficiency. Perhaps the Minister could raise this matter.
We will have to consider disposing of the amount of waste produced in the best possible manner. If we separate waste in a better manner — and an enormous amount of household waste can be disposed of anaerobically — we will then only have to deal with more permanent waste. We must stop talking about landfills. We do not dispose of waste in landfills in this country. We dispose of waste on perfectly good land which needs no filling in whatsoever.
We create dumps along with the hazards of leechate going into the ground. I do not care what type of plastic binliners are put under these dumps — leechate will come through. The water table will also be disturbed and polluted. The Environmental Protection Agency study on water found the quality is deteriorating every year. We constantly talk about water charges. I wish we talked about water quality for a change instead of producing dumps. We should forget they are landfills — they are not. The valley in Wicklow does not need to be filled in, it is another dump which will result in vermin, odour and dust which will create a great public nuisance.
There is a certain enthusiasm about turning waste into energy and the other alternative which has been put forward is the proposed incinerator. I have been told not to call it an incinerator but rather an "energy producing efficient unit". This is good, but there are problems with incinerators also, although I am not sure that those with dumps are not worse. However, with incinerators there is the problem of air pollution and dioxins. Modern technology can deal with these in a slightly better manner, but they are extremely hazardous. An incinerator has the advantage of reducing the bulk of waste enormously. We could also produce the glass flint bricks also produced in Denmark and England which take up an infinitesimal amount of space compared to that taken up by putting unsorted rubbish in a dump.
It is good that there are fines, but they must be enforced. The polluter must pay. It was appalling to go to town following the St. Patrick's Day Parade and to see the canal, river, streets and even the front of the Rotunda Hospital full of rubbish. It was incredible. The corporation were out quickly and I saw someone trying to clean up. As a man was trying to sweep up, another man threw a carton of chips behind him. Until we do something about this attitude, we are in a difficult position.
A huge amount of rubbish was dumped outside the corporation dump during the refuse collection industrial dispute in south County Dublin last year. One television shot showed heaps of domestic rubbish, in the middle of which were four cow's heads and a used fridge freezer. Is it legal to dump cow's heads on the road? There must surely be some regulation to prevent this? Whatever about the fridge freezer, the cow's heads struck me as not the sort of rubbish to be collected by refuse collectors. Someone took advantage of the dispute to get rid of these heads. Perhaps it was the same person who dumped the freezer and brought a new one to put the rest of the cows in. This was an example of how little thought is put into disposing of waste from our homes and businesses, which we leave the corporation to deal with. We have to make more of an effort. I welcome the Bill.