Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1997

SECTION 4.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 29, after "public place" to insert "and to dispose, in a lawful manner and within 24 hours, of litter so created".

This subsection as drafted imposes a duty on the owner of a vehicle used to transport goods or materials to take reasonable measures to prevent the creation of litter from that vehicle. That is good but the Bill does not go far enough. It does not impose a duty to clean up litter created during transport. This amendment imposes a duty to clean up any such litter within 24 hours. It is a very reasonable amendment borne of years of experience of seeing bad practice. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment.

The effect of this amendment is not what the Deputy is seeking. It would be regressive by virtue of giving the person committing such an offence 24 hours to clean it up. If a litter warden detected someone driving a vehicle from which litter was being created, the warden would not be able to impose an on-the-spot fine if this amendment was enacted. They would have to see if the driver cleaned up the mess within the 24 hour period. In practical terms it is much better if somebody causing litter from a skip or a vehicle can be subject to an immediate penalty. For these reasons I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

The Minister's defence has not convinced me. I would like a strong emphasis on litter prevention. This Bill imposes no duty to clean up litter and that is a pity.

After 24 hours the normal litter that blows off a lorry or skip may not be in the same location or even the same county. We should not let people off lightly through declaring their intention to clean up within 24 hours. Based on the precautionary principle of environmental legislation, section 9 contains new powers requiring people to clean up litter. In the case of a skip or a lorry, the amendment weakens the on-the-spot action I suggest should be appropriately taken by a litter warden or an authorised officer.

The Minister assumes the warden will be on the spot when it happens.

It is safer to assume that than——

Does the Minister propose to appoint one warden per lorry?

——to assume flotsam and jetsam blown off a lorry is amenable to clean up by somebody. A travelling vehicle, which drops litter, should be stopped and the person in charge of it should be prosecuted and there should be a penalty to ensure it does not recur rather than giving the person an opt out to say they will be back tomorrow to clean it up.

The Minister should aim to do both. This is a very serious amendment.

What Deputy Quill referred to happens frequently and even with the best will in the world, litter wardens are too thin on the ground to create an impression apart from making an example of somebody, and I do not know how successful that is. Waste contractors deal with particular companies and it is possible, with a fair amount of investigative work, to trace them and make an allegation which may stand up in court. As the Minister said, litter blows from one county to another but it can be traced to the company that produced it to the contractor he hired to dispose of it. There is room for the improvement Deputy Quill seeks. Another point that should be considered is that littering caused by vehicles does not always come from the vehicles. I have known cases where the vehicle crashed into litter bins creating litter and destroying bins which were not replaced. That is a scenario which we should also take into account.

Is the Minister prepared to accept the principle behind this amendment and to incorporate it in the legislation on Report Stage? It is the committee's desire that nothing should impede a warden from imposing an on-the-spot fine but in addition to that, local authorities, traffic wardens or the Garda Síochána should be given the power to insist the person engage in a clean up or pay for it. I accept what the Minister said but the principle behind the amendment is good and should be accepted.

I will reflect further on it to see if we can meet the requirements I outlined and take on board the clean up requirement proposed by Deputy Quill.

I reserve the right to table this amendment again on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, subsection (2), line 32, to delete "take all reasonable measures" and substitute "be required to take reasonable measures".

This imposes a requirement to take all reasonable measures. I am concerned that this is too loosely drafted. All reasonable measures could be a milch cow for lawyers and they could spent days in the highest court in the land seeking a definitive definition for "all reasonable measures". I am concerned that clever operators will find ways and means around this. We must place a more clearly defined requirement on people. My amendment seeks to delete the words "take all reasonable measures" and substitute "be required to take measures".

I have reflected on the meaning of those words. I understand what Deputy Quill said. The words I proposed may need to be looked at again but the Deputy's words worsen the situation because she proposes that we insert "be required to take measures."

That is very definite.

By whom will one be required to take measures?

Presumably by——

One cannot presume in legislation, one must decide by whom.

To be required in law to take measures. Is that not what this Bill is about?

One must state what must be done. If one says a person shall be required, one us implying that somebody will have to require it.

I am concerned about the word "reasonable".

Let us amalgamate our views and agree to delete the words "all reasonable".

Does the Minister accept the substance of my amendment?

Yes. I propose we delete the words "all reasonable".

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 7, as amended, reads: "In page 6, subsection (2), line 32, to delete "all reasonable". Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 12 is related to amendment No. 6 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, subsection (2), line 9, after "is" to insert "or is liable to become".

The reason I tabled these amendments is that sections of the Bill are loosely drafted and I am trying to tidy it up. I am concerned about words which may be open to debate and legal challenge. Amendment No. 9 seeks to insert "or is liable to become" after "is". We are talking about litter visible from a public place. As well as prohibiting litter visible from a public place, it is necessary to prohibit litter which is liable to become visible from a public place for the reason mentioned this morning. A person should not be allowed to store litter in such a way that it will spread to public places or places where it is visible. In the first instance it might have been stored in a place where it was not visible but it might be blown to a place where it could be seen. The Bill only imposes a duty to clean up litter once it has spread; my amendment would put in place a precaution which would prevent the spread of litter. It is in the nature of litter that it is blown away. This amendment would tighten the law significantly and improve the position.

We are talking about the accuracy of words and I think the amendment loosens the law. Any place "is liable to become" littered if there is litter. The Deputy spoke about the storage of litter but litter stored is waste, which is covered in some detail in the Waste Management Act — we can determine how it is stored, managed and presented and the Act has comprehensive powers to deal with it. I do not see the advantage of including this amendment in the Bill because it does not advance the position. Does the Deputy accept my view?

I accept the Minister's point and withdraw the amendment as I had not foreseen that. I am uneasy about the matter but I accept it is dealt with under the Waste Management Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related so we will take them together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, subsection (3), line 11, after "hereditaments)" to insert "and the occupier of any such unit".

This concerns multiple dwellings, houses let in flats, etc. By inserting the phrase "and the occupier of any such unit" I intend to put an obligation on the occupier of a flat within a building as opposed to the owner of the building, normally known in law as the landlord. Unless we put equal responsibility on both we will not be able to deal with areas of intensive flat development, which are litter blackspots.

The obligation will be on the owner as well as the occupier because my amendment No. 11 puts a specific obligation on the landlord to provide litter receptacles. If the landlord is required to make proper provision by way of adequate receptacles, it is reasonable to require the occupants of the house, normally called tenants, to use those receptacles in a responsible manner. If the Minister takes on board these two amendments the Bill will achieve the desired results in the case of multiple dwellings.

Amendment No. 10 is not necessary. Subsection (2) imposes a duty on the occupier of any land, which includes the occupiers of multiple flats in a single dwelling. Subsection (3) puts an additional obligation on occupiers of flats to keep gardens around the house free of litter. What the Deputy intends is already implicit in the Bill.

As to amendment No. 11, I understand the confusion arising from the overlap of the Waste Management Act and this Bill. Receptacles for litter within the curtilages of private developments come under the heading of waste, not litter, and the body of law on the collection, presentation and storage of waste is covered in the Waste Management Act. I want a separate corpus of law on litter and I do not want to confuse the strong legal position we debated for a year and a half on waste management and presentation. That is covered clearly in the Waste Management Act. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendments.

I can see the Minister is correct in law but my fear is that neither law will deal with the matter in practice. I will withhold my amendments until Report Stage. The Waste Management Act is now law and I cannot see a consequent improvement in waste presentation which leads to litter in areas of intensive flat development. I have first hand knowledge — anyone who lives in a 19th century terraced house lives close to areas with flat development. The Act has not led to a significant tidying up of these areas and I had hoped we might achieve it under this Bill. I accept the Minister's point as regards the law but I fear that no substantial improvement will occur.

Many flats and apartments have management companies who have a responsibility to keep areas clean but this section does not refer to them. Will they be covered under the Bill if the obligation is passed on to them? Is it not necessary to mention them?

I am advised it is not necessary because they are already covered as either owners or occupiers. I do not agree with Deputy Quill that we should disparage the Waste Management Act just yet. It is extremely important legislation and no one expected it to have instant effect. Every local authority is now required to have a waste management strategy and some are only defining it now. That will involve, for example, determining how waste is to be presented for collection — some will require the segregation of compostibles or other recyclable materials. We will find a dramatic change in the coming months and years as those waste management plans take effect. We have comprehensively dealt with that issue and we should not confuse it with litter or include weak provisions in this Bill to require owners and occupiers of flats to have receptacles for litter, because that would confuse the position as regards the stern and strenuous obligations which local authorities can impose upon them under the Waste Management Act. For those reasons I advocate not adulterating the current strong laws by inserting provisions in this Bill.

I will withdraw my amendments. My frustration is not with the law — we have great laws but poor enforcement and implementation. I hope that will not be the outcome of this Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 34 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, subsection (4), to delete lines 19 to 28, and substitute the following:

"(a) any footway adjoining the land and forming, or forming part of, a public road, and

(b) any area of land forming part of a public road between any such footway and the roadway.".

The duty of occupiers laid down in subsection (4) was taken from the 1982 Act but the terminology used does not accord to the more recent provisions relating to roads and footpaths in the Roads Act, 1993. Amendment No. 13 will replace subsection (4) paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) with a more straightforward requirement for an occupier of land adjoining a public road in a built up area to keep a footpath or any grass verge between a footway and a roadway free of litter. The terms "footway" and "roadway" are defined in the Roads Act. In layman's terms, the footway is what we ordinarily understand to be a footpath. A footway is legally defined as the footpath and the side of the road. The roadway is the carriageway on which vehicles travel. The obligation that we seek to impose is that the occupiers of the dwelling will be responsible for keeping the footpath outside their own homes free of litter. Amendment No. 14 inserts a new subsection to make it explicit that a person complying with the requirements of keeping the footway free of litter shall not create litter on the roadway or other place. In other words, if they move the litter away from their immediate area of responsibility that will also constitute an offence.

Amendment No. 34 carries the same construction as amendment No. 13 into section 16(10) in order that the terminology will be consistent throughout.

This amendment relates to a built-up area's speed limit and other aspects of the Bill relate to areas other than 60-70 m.p.h. zones. Can the Minister explain the logic being used here given there are many houses, in my own constituency and others, that have well manicured grass verges in 60 m.p.h. areas? Are they being exempted from this provision? Similarly, the Minister talks about changes in the future. There may be changes if we are to adopt an American trend, as often happens, where companies undertake, for an amount of sponsorship, to keep places free of litter and to generally maintain them. Would such companies be covered in the same way as an occupier or is it the person sponsoring them who is covered? Where would the liability rest in such a case?

I agree with this provision and think it is very valuable. It will encourage all of us to be good citizens. However, I would like to warn the Minister that it could generate serious arguments between neighbours. I am not talking here about somebody deliberately moving litter from their own area into their neighbour's, I am talking about somebody who may live next door to a fish and chip shop. Litter might be discarded by people nightly. One good resident looking after his own particular area and doing what the Minister wants may have litter from an adjoining area coming into his. What will happen in this case? Knowing human nature as I do, such scenarios will inevitably lead to rows between neighbours. There is no doubt about that. Has the Minister considered this possibility and has he any reaction to it? Is there a danger this will occur? I am certain that it will happen very quickly and there will be colossal problems possibly leading to court action.

I can also see the difficulty Deputy Nealon is talking about. I have a general question on the definitions and so on. We are imposing a legal obligation on people within a special speed limit area to keep the area outside of their premises clean and tidy. Will people begin to take actions because a person within the speed limit area is obliged to obey section 4 and somebody outside of it is not? Are we treating citizens differently and are we in danger of causing a problem? While I agree from a civic point of view and have no difficulty with the principle and the concept that citizens should keep the areas in front of their premises tidy, I am concerned that we are giving local authorities an excuse for not doing the kind of clean-up work they are currently obliged to do. Will local authorities say they have no money to do this and that in any event private citizens are obliged to do it? That is just a niggling fear I have.

I accept what Deputy Nealon has said and I have listened carefully to Deputy Dempsey's comments. However, this system operates in almost every civilised country. When one is on holidays in Cyprus or wherever, one sees people sweeping outside their own front doors. They do not analyse where the litter originated. People do this without any huge legal battles resulting. They also do it in towns and villages in Ireland particularly in areas which enter Tidy Towns competitions. These are civic minded people who sweep outside their front doors with the resultant effect that the entire street is clean. It does not matter whether the litter originated in "house A" or "house B". This happens in practice and it works well. I can see where legal difficulties might arise but I hope we have not all become so vexatious that we would be anxious to go to court over something like this. I agree with the Minister's amendments.

On Deputy Quill's comments, the problem I envisage is that once the provision is put in law, it becomes a legal obligation and Irish nature being what it is, people do not like being told what to do. The civic spirited people will pose no difficulty but once the provision becomes legally binding someone will see an opportunity to take legal action.

I always thought people were legally bound to sweep outside their homes. Perhaps I am thinking of a local authority by-law. I would be concerned about this provision. Somebody in a domestic residence would normally sweep the footpath outside his house and would leave the litter in the gully. That is what one would expect to happen. The local authorities would then clean the gully.

Blocking drains is disgraceful.

A local authority's definition of street cleaning is to regularly send a suction truck to suck up whatever is in the drain or beside the kerb.

Blocked the drains is one of the main causes of flooding.

I accept the Minister's point but one cannot expect the householder not to sweep to the edge.

They need only sweep it up and put it in the bin.

The Minister might as well tell the local authorities to withdraw all of their trucks; the service they pretend to give in residential areas is a once weekly one where they come up and suck up what is in the gullies. They do not sweep kerbs or roads. If the householder has to take away what he sweeps over the edge of his footpath, the local authority have no role.

Perhaps it was a corporation by-law in Dublin but a good citizen would always sweep to the edge of the footpath. However, they would expect the corporation to then dispose of what they had swept.

Would the householder be expected to remove snow or slush from the footpath under this legislation?

I thank the Deputies for their comments. I am very much in agreement with Deputy Quill's point. We have to encourage people to be responsible. This is not a matter for local authorities; it is up to communities and individual citizens to deal with the issue of litter. Saying it is someone else's job will not help to overcome the problem. We have had that attitude for decades. We should ask each householder to be responsible for the few feet of footpath in front of his home. That is a reasonable requirement and, as Deputies have said, the vast majority of people already take that responsibility. There are those who do not, however, and there has to be some sanction.

In my constituency I am aware of a tidy town's effort in one village, for example, where an individual simply decided not to co-operate. He took great pride in the fact that he was written up in the tidy towns committee's report, and put up a sign outside his premises saying "Tidy Towns Spoiler". If that attitude is allowed to prevail it will destroy the civic spirit we discussed. It should not be allowed and a legal responsibility should be involved.

The amendments I have proposed slightly change the Bill as published in that I have removed gullies from the requirement, as Deputy Ahern mentioned, because of the danger. I did not want people to have the responsibility of sweeping the gully outside their homes because that is part of the roadway and would pose a danger to them. That has, therefore, been removed but I would not encourage people to sweep their rubbish into the gully. However effective Dublin Corporation might be at cleaning it up it would be an undesirable practice to encourage. It would cause further flooding problems in the event of heavy rain. We have all seen the effects of blocked drains during torrential rain, such as occurred yesterday.

I ask the Committee to support my view. It should be enshrined in law that people will be responsible for removing — i.e. sweeping up, binning, and presenting for collection — the litter that blows in front of their homes. It is obviously a co-operative effort between householders and the local authority from whom I am not taking away any responsibilities.

Deputy Nealon's point concerning chip shops or fast food restaurants is specifically dealt with in a different section. They will be responsible for cleaning up a 100-metre area in the vicinity of their premises. It will also be possible for a local authority to assign any other clean-up measures to such a premises that the authority deems appropriate. That is the way to deal with that issue. I do not think there will be feuds between neighbours on this issue any more so than on other issues. If people are as vexatious as envisaged, they will find something to fight about anyway whether it is the garden wall or something else. We should not reject the idea of civic responsibility, which is so important for everybody, just because in one or two cases it might allow particularly narkey or difficult people to annoy their neighbours. I ask Deputies to support the amendments.

The Minister keeps using the phrase "a few yards of footpath in front of their own homes", but what about the house with a 100-yard garden? Is the resident of such a premises responsible for the entire 100-yard area? That could be a serious obligation.

That is the reason I confined it to urban areas.

I am talking about an urban area. I came in this morning from Ranelagh where I passed a house that has a 100-yard long garden.

If one has 100 yards of prime land in Ranelagh one can sweep the footpath in front of it.

There are built up areas in the suburbs where there are properties that are not very valuable which happen to have 50-yard or 100-yard long gardens. That Bill would impose a serious obligation and much of the littering is done by passers by, not by the residents. Is the person responsible for the entire area?

Acting Chairman

Just as farmers are responsible for their land.

Yes. The question I did not answer related to the built up areas. We have undertaken a national survey of urban areas. For planning purposes the speed limit area is the legal definition for exemptions for different planning permissions. Normally, the speed limit area is beyond the urban area. That is the definition we have in the Bill and I think it is the right one. In urban and rural areas local authorities will be responsible for maintaining verges.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 7, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) No person shall, in carrying out the obligation under subsection (4), deposit any substance or object so as to create litter on a roadway or in any other place.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 7, before section 7 but in Part II to insert the following new section:

"7.—No shop shall provide a plastic container for the transport of goods free of charge to any person.".

This deals with plastic bags which are one of the single greatest components of litter. I would like the matter to be taken seriously.

A single sentence might solve the issue, and if not we can debate it. We are overlapping on the Waste Management Act. I totally support what the Deputy wants to do, but I intend doing it under the Waste Management Act. As Minister for the Environment, I have the authority to ban plastic bags under that Act. This week I introduced the Packaging Waste Directive which requires every generator of packaging waste to provide a facility to take back the waste, including plastic bags and cardboard. In that way a customer can return the wrapping to the vendor after purchase, or return the packaging subsequently having unwrapped the goods at home. All that is comprehensively dealt with in the Waste Management Act.

I would like to hear this debated by the whole Committee because plastic bags are so central to litter, more so than other forms of waste.

We had a long debate on it under the Waste Management Act. We have clear powers and a clear strategy. It has been dealt with.

I would be happier if it were dealt with under both pieces of legislation.

That just causes confusion.

Deputy Quill is expressing a frustration which all of us feel about the length of time between enactment of the Waste Management Act and the introduction of regulations which the Minister spoke about. Is there any indication that might provide us with some comfort by telling us when the regulations to deal with what Deputy Quill is proposing will actually come into effect?

Waste regulations have already been published and have been submitted to the European Union for their overview. We are in the public consultation period and it is my intention to have them in effect by May. We have to allow for a three month interim period.

Would that take in Deputy Quill's amendments?

It would deal comprehensively with packaging waste. Under the Waste Management Act I can specifically ban plastic bags if I want to, but I have not yet decided to do so. I want to see how the regulations I have introduced will work first. These require everybody to take packaging waste back. I have had discussions with IBEC. Repak the new company established by IBEC is very proactive in this area and has supported the strong regulations I have now published. We are in the consultation period.

The Minister knows that in Germany where there is a great culture of recycling packaging, in the end the practice backfired because many shops did not have space to accommodate all the material returned.

Under the Waste Management Act every company that generates more than 25 tonnes of waste will now have to erect a sign indicating that people can leave packaging waste there or that they will take it back. They will be required either to recycle it or to store it for up to four weeks, and give it away free to be recycled if they will not recycle it themselves.

The law will be honoured more in breach than in observance. The Minister should tackle it in this way as well.

No. This will be done and is being done.

Acting Chairman

I am bound by the order made by the Committee itself to suspend the sitting.

Sitting suspended at 10.30 a.m. and resumed at 11 a.m.

I share the Deputy's view. want to get rid of the plague of plastic bags that festoon fencing, bushes and shrubbery in urban and rural areas. We had a long and detailed debate on this subject previously, and there are clear powers to deal with it under the Waste Management Act, which became law only a few months ago.

Volumes of regulations have been drawn up and are in the course of preparation. Some have been published. The regulations will deal comprehensively with all types of waste, particularly plastic and packaging wastes. The packaging waste regulations were published this week, after a long detailed discussion with the plastics industry, IBEC and Repak, a company set up to reduce the total volume of packaging waste by 120,000 tonnes per year. Packaging waste currently accounts for about 25 per cent of total municipal waste or about 400,000 tonnes.

I want to secure a comprehensive strategy to deal with plastic and packaging waste, to remove them from the waste stream and, as far as possible, to have them recycled. There is an agreement with the packaging industry. There is a take back system in operation for plastic wraps which are equally damaging to the environment. Silage wraps are particularly damaging to the rural environment. There are laws to deal with everything from supermarket plastic bags to fertiliser bags and they are now being put in place. There is a mechanism for collection and a legal obligation on the generators of all packaging waste to take back such waste.

The regulations have been submitted to the European Commission, as we are obliged to do when dealing with an issue that impacts on the free market. We debated this issue at length when considering the Waste Management Act. We have a first rate law which is being implemented. Inserting weaker provisions in this legislation will not assist the case. Instead, it will undermine the united front of spokesperson on the environment in dealing with this issue. Will the Deputy accept my comments in good faith?

It is unthinkable that we should seek to frame laws on litter and not seek to address the problem of plastic bags. They are a central component of all litter. Plastic bags are a scourge in both rural and urban areas. Paper disintegrates with time, plastic does not. Not only is plastic an overwhelming blemish on the landscape but if it gets into watercourses it can and has done irreversible damage. Why are we discussing a litter Bill if something as important as plastic bags is dealt with definitively in the Waste Management Act? Is this Bill only for appearances?

That is unfair.

This is the second time I have attempted to raise a substantial issue and been told it is dealt with in the Waste Management Act. It might be dealt with technically under that Act but the problem is not being tackled on the ground.

The Minister says there is little point in dealing with a matter under a separate Bill because it might weaken the current position. However, if it is the Minister's intention, following enactment of this legislation, to put in place adequate resources such as litter wardens and people to police this legislation, we might have a fair chance of dealing with litter, perhaps even in a more cost effective way than under the Waste Management Bill. My fear is that this matter will not be dealt with under either legislative measure.

It is reasonable to seek that shops should be required to put a charge or sanction on the issue of plastic bags. That will act as a preventive measure. If people had to pay for plastic bags they would take fewer and civic minded people would be tempted to bring their own shopping bags, as our mothers and grandmothers did. The single measure I propose would inevitably help to reduce the number of plastic bags in circulation. It is a worthy amendment and I intend to press it to a vote.

The Minister should not draw me on the repackaging scheme, its voluntary nature and the action taken in the past six to eight months. I have not seen much evidence of it. I am informed that people in IBEC are not happy with the scheme because some of the companies do not appear to realise the seriousness with which the Minister and members of this committee regard repackaging.

There is no conflict in this amendment. I accept the Minister has put regulations in place and I hope he or some of his officials will come before the committee to discuss them. If there is a consultation process we should be included in it. There is no conflict between Deputy Quill's proposal and the Minister's beliefs. What is provided for is not a banning of plastics and does not interfere with the repackaging scheme. The Deputy, in an effort to discourage and prevent litter, is attempting to ensure that no one gives a shopper a plastic container free of charge. If one goes into a supermarket, bags are thrown at you. The shops have stacks of them and packers put only two or three items in each bag. I would guess that every person who does a week's shopping in a supermarket brings home ten to 15 of these plastic bags. Some three quarters probably end up in ditches, land fill sites, etc. Notwithstanding what the Minister says about waste management, we are dealing here with litter at source. If plastic bags were not given out as freely because people had to pay 10p for them, it would be a good service. I do not see any conflict and, therefore, support Deputy Quill's amendment. Plastic bags are not being banned. This Bill should be enacted more quickly than the Waste Management Act because it is more straightforward and less complicated and, when it is, it will be effective in reducing the number of plastic bags if this amendment is included.

I support the objective of eliminating the scourge of plastic bags. We have talked at length about a mechanism to do it and one has been agreed in the Waste Management Act. I am now in direct discussions with industry to put it into effect.

I do not think the effect of this amendment has been thought out. For example, I launched an environmental scheme for one of the major supermarkets whereby the supermarket in question gave a large plastic box for goods to its customers to be used repeatedly thus eliminating the need for plastic bags. That would be unlawful under the terms of this amendment.

That is the exception, not the rule. For every one plastic box that supermarket gives out, there are millions of plastic bags.

The supermarket in question is developing this scheme to be used in all its outlets. It is also developing a checkout system which allows items to be scanned in this container to eliminate plastic bags. I support that. The import of this amendment must be considered. In deference to the strong views of the Deputies opposite and because we have the same objectives, I will reflect on it again to see if a form of words can be found for Report Stage which will go some way to achieving Deputy Quill's objective. In return, I ask her to withdraw her amendment to allow me reflect on it further on that basis.

In deference to what the Minister has said, I withdraw it. I feel very strongly about this and I intend to submit the amendment again in its present form and without modification on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
Barr
Roinn