Litter Pollution (Amendment) Bill 2017: Second Stage

Senator Catherine Ardagh

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Many people have asked me what exactly this Bill provides for. Substantively, it increases fines in accordance with inflation to correspond with the seriousness of the offences involved. It further provides for a civil claim to be taken against an individual who causes damage to a person or property where section 22 of the original Litter Pollution Act 1997 is contravened. Section 22 relates to cleaning up after a dog. At first glance, the fines may seem high, but section 58 of the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 increased them dramatically. On-the-spot fines outlined in and permitted by the Act will continue and are mostly contained in by-laws of local authorities. This Bill updates the Litter Pollution Act 1997, as amended by the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, to increase the penalties for littering to a fine on conviction on indictment not exceeding €150,000 or on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000. Obviously, these are large fines but they are very much at the discretion of the judge. They are maximum fines not mandatory minimums.

Fianna Fáil is introducing the Bill in recognition of the fact that current measures to control and prevent illicit dumping and littering do not go far enough. Each year, Dublin City Council picks up almost 16,000 tonnes of litter from our streets and public spaces. Whether it is illegally dumped household waste, chewing gum, cigarette butts, dog fouling or other litter, this comes at a serious cost to local authorities nationally and is a waste of taxpayers' money. Littering and illegal dumping have devastating impacts on our built and natural environments. In urban areas, dumping and littering is a serious eyesore and damages Ireland as a green nation. For example, litter has been a serious issue in Temple Bar, which is one of our most popular tourist attractions. Dog fouling is evident every few feet on many housing estates in south and north County Dublin. Serious health and safety hazards are created by litter, especially dog fouling. For example, children often pick up infections from dog fouling on the streets. We all know of the disease toxocariasis which can blind a child. For people with mobility issues, dog fouling represents an additional challenge with many people unable to avoid it. This specifically affects those in wheelchairs, mothers with prams, people using walking frames and others with mobility issues. Many scenic areas have become hot spots for people dumping large sacks of household waste. Many people go to the bother of actually bagging their dog litter but then consider it appropriate to fly tip it under a neighbour's tree or into a park. It is not appropriate. This is a serious impediment to the beauty of our country and in particular of neighbourhoods in urban areas.

As matters stand, fines under the Litter Pollution Act are too low and fail to reflect the severity of offences. We must send the strong signal that littering in any form is unacceptable and that we will not accept as a society the spoiling and mistreatment of our shared spaces. The Bill makes changes in respect of all forms of littering and dumping covered by the Litter Pollution Act which allows for on-the-spot fines of €150, a maximum fine of €3,000 on summary conviction and a maximum fine on conviction on indictment of €130,000. The fines for continuing offences are €600 per day for summary offences and €10,000 per day for indictable offences.

Ultimately, the Bill changes the fine limits for indictable and summary offences. It provides in section 2, without prejudice, for the bringing of a civil action against a person who has committed an offence under section 22 of the 1997 Act by any person or owner of property who has suffered damage as a result. If a child is injured as a result of dog fouling, a civil action would lie. The remedy is already there in the tort of negligence, but the Bill puts this on a statutory footing. It shows people that we are watching and taking litter and dog fouling a little more seriously.

Every year, local authorities spend significant sums to remove waste and litter from our streets, roads and public spaces. In 2015, South Dublin County Council spent €1.3 million to dispose of waste illegally dumped on our roads and public spaces. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council said it spent €1.7 million to remove 2.3 tonnes of rubbish. In 2014, the cost was approximately €700,000. The problem is not isolated to Dublin. Almost 800 cases of littering were investigated by Kerry County Council in 2015 while Wexford County Council spends approximately €2.7 million to deal with littering every year. This is a clear waste of taxpayers' money.

It is our duty as citizens to respect our neighbours and friends and ensure we do not litter, which is easily avoidable. I take the case study of Dublin City Council. In 2016, dog fouling bins were removed across the city in an effort to deter the placing in them of domestic waste. This was around the time domestic waste charges were introduced. In their place, a scheme to distribute free dog bags was rolled out accompanied by a media campaign. The dog bags can be disposed of in any public litter bin. A suite of 3,000 anti-dog littering signs were purchased in 2014 and erected across the city. A further 3,000 signs were purchased in 2015 and are now in place. The signs are visually appealing and are bilingual.

In 2014, Dublin City Council litter wardens dealt with approximately 10,265 litter-related complaints, including issues like fly-tipping, dog fouling, shop-front issues and general littering. CCTV was installed at ten illegal dumping blackspots across the city and it has acted as a deterrent to fly-tipping at these locations. In 2014, there were 18 litter wardens in Dublin city but we now only have 16. There were 2,295 fines issued, 698 fines paid and 542 prosecutions for failure to pay on-the-spot fines, of which only 44 were successful. It seems from the statistics that no one was prosecuted either summarily or on indictment.

Dog fouling was the single biggest issue raised by Dubliners in the public consultation on the litter management plan with one third of all submissions citing it as an issue in the city.

By working with dog owners and educating them on the correct way to dispose of their litter, as well as making them aware of the penalties for not cleaning up after their dogs, Dublin City Council and the dog owners of Dublin can help eliminate the scourge of dog fouling from the city streets.

An interdepartmental group has been established to develop a policy for responsible dog ownership which is clear, coherent and acknowledges the important value of dogs to the quality of life of their owners. The policy also reflects the needs of others in the community, particularly the elderly and children, to have public spaces which are safe and clean in which they can rest, relax and play. The plan is to fully envisage and work with dog interest groups and dog workers across the city. By making picking up dog litter visible in this way, we can affect the behaviour of many and make dog fouling socially unacceptable.

Along with the general policy issues relating to litter and dog fouling, some practical steps have been taken by local authorities around the country, including the provision litter bins in parks; the use of technology - for example, Dublin City Council has examined the role of possible audio devices in parks giving out an audio message reminding people to dispose of their dog litter in a sensible manner; education and awareness campaigns through schools; and responsible dog ownership in terms of the Green Dog Walkers initiative, which is a community led programme that aims to encourage responsible dog ownership in a positive and friendly way through building up relationships with other dog workers. They remind fellow dog owners to pick up after their dogs and carry extra dog litter bags.

In terms of Dublin City Council, there are only 16 litter wardens throughout the city. It would be right for the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment to request local authorities to increase the number of litter wardens they have and perhaps allocate them funding to employ more to ensure the implementation of fines for litter offences can be progressed.

Along with all these practical steps that councils across the country are taking to combat dog fouling and illegal dumping, legislation is needed which will be seen as a deterrent and which will work hand in hand with the practical measures introduced around the country. We need to let those who litter and do not clean up after their dogs know that we are watching them and that we will do all in our power to ensure they respect our streets, footpaths, parks, our friends who are less mobile and our children. We need to respect each other and our communities and that translates to people cleaning up after themselves and their dogs.

Senator John O'Mahony

I compliment the Senators involved in bringing forward this Bill. Litter is a major issue not only in cities but also in rural areas which is where I would be more aware of it. Dumping in beauty spots and in drains is widespread and is an increasing phenomenon. One can see empty wine bottles and other items dumped on the grass verges of our public roads and I do not know if they are thrown out of cars. It is farcical sometimes to see local authority signs warning that people will be fined €3,000 and beside those signs to see black bags of litter increasing by the day. The message that seems to be coming back to us is that people know that they will not be prosecuted. Dog fouling is a major issue as well.

The difficulty we face is to examine how this problem should be dealt with. The necessary legislation is in place as is provision for the imposition of fines and I would not argue about increasing them. The failure to implement the legislation is the problem. If the issue is that not enough people in the local authorities are being designated to deal with the issue, that should be addressed.

The operation of closed circuit television cameras in urban areas is a great deterrent. Obviously, they cannot operate to the same extent in open rural areas. The problem is the lack of implementation of the legislation rather than the size of the fines. In 2014, only €79,000 was paid on litter fines nationwide and, in 2015, that figure increased to €144,000 but the amount is minuscule.

The issue needs to be highlighted, which is being done here today, and it needs to be acted on. There has been a great increase in our tourist numbers, but there is no worse a message we can send to tourists than the sight of litter scattered across our beautiful countryside and in our cities.

I commend the Bill. The solution to the problem is the implementation of the legislation but that is certainly not happening at present.

Senator Rose Conway-Walsh

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. I welcome the introduction of this Bill. Sinn Féin will support its passage through Second Stage.

The issue of proper waste management is one that has impacted on many communities. Sinn Féin is against the privatisation of council and domestic refuse services. We increasingly find the impact of privatisation, particularly in rural areas but also in urban areas, is that people cannot afford the prices being charged for the disposal of waste. Increasingly more households are not using bin collections because they have to make choices between whether they pay household bills or whether they eat or cover the cost of the many other demands that are made on households. That is hugely contributing to the increase in illegal dumping. Local authorities do not have the resources to police such behaviour, particularly in rural areas. This Bill will be meaningless unless the local authorities are given the resources to have extra inspectors to implement the legislation and impose fines. That is what will encourage waste management and stop illegal dumping. The increased cost and uncertainty brought about the bungled pay-by-weight scheme added to the burden of household expenditure and saw an increase in illegal dumping. While we disagree with privatisation, illegal dumping is reprehensible and is an attack on the whole community. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister what is the position regarding the pay-by-weight scheme. There was to be a deferment period of six months. During this period many refuse companies have used the time to revert to a previous status quo and flout the new regulations. We agree with increasing fines, as provided for in this Bill, to help alleviate the scourge of illegal dumping across the country but, as other Senators have said, it needs to be enforced. There are many instances of increased penalties for various offences yet very few prosecutions follow due to a lack of resources.

I welcome the fact many local authorities now have a hotline for members of the public to report illegal dumping. We should not forget that illegal dumping poses serious health risks to the communities blighted by it. We also need greater Garda involvement in tackling the problem of litter pollution, including enforcement. A key factor is to place greater obligations on the companies that produce the waste in the first place. If these companies need help to either source new materials or assistance during a changeover to new types of packaging, this could perhaps be addressed as part of the Finance Bill. There needs to be an obligation on producers for the whole life-cycle of the packaging. We need to reduce packaging and encourage companies to recycle more of the waste they produce while at the same time discouraging illegal dumping.

I welcome this Bill. It will go some way to addressing the issue of illegal dumping, which must be supported.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Naughten, to the House.

I commend Senator Ardagh on the Bill. It is a simple Bill in its practicality and we all broadly support the thrust of it. The debate is necessary. All of us, as public representatives and citizens, must aspire to have our cities, towns, places of residence and communities litter-free so they are places we can be proud of. I come back to the polluter-pays principle. Those who litter should be made to pay. I listened to Senator Conway-Walsh referring to people making choices about the payment and the pay-per-weight. There is a responsibility on the individual citizen whether it is, as Senator Ardagh referred to, in terms of dog fouling, chewing gum, tossing stuff out of a car window, fly-tipping or the illegal dumping of rubbish. There is a personal choice irrespective of income. We need to take responsibility individually and collectively as a State through the city and county councils and the Departments. We cannot say it is about making a choice to pay bills and not to pay for waste. It is too simplistic in its approach. There is a responsibility on individuals to ensure their space and communities are littler-free and that we take pride in our communities. I was at a Pride in our Community event in Cork recently, which is a competition being run by Cork County Council, and which is in its 13th year. Communities are involved in enhancing public space. In my area, people in Douglas Tidy Towns work hard each year to try to improve their locality. They are volunteers going out across the community, picking up litter, planting shrubbery and improving their area. In my area of Bishopstown, I commend the local business association which is beginning to put together a group dedicated to improving public space.

We have an issue with dog fouling. There needs to be a concerted campaign on the issue. It goes back to my comment earlier that people must take responsibility. I am not a dog owner but I know there are many dog owners who do, as Senator Ardagh said, pick up after their dog and resist the temptation to fly-tip. We need to look at the matter. I am conscious that in my city of Cork, the city council spent almost €33,000 on a campaign to create awareness by putting up posters about a €150 fine and providing receptacles and bags. It is also about ensuring we have people prosecuted. There was only one fine issued by the city council over a number of years. It is not just about prosecuting or increasing the fine, which Senator Ardagh is proposing in her Bill. It is also about working with organisations such as Irish Business Against Litter which runs a very successful, high-octane campaign. Some of its results make for unsavoury reading and others can bask in the glory of seeing their areas improve and being litter-free zones.

We talk about the public realm a lot. I will refer to the issue of the city of Cork which I am from. The revitalisation and improvement of the streetscape by two groups, Mad about Cork and Reimagine Cork, should be warmly complimented and used as a pilot across the country. They are volunteers coming out onto the streets of our city in Cork with creativity, imagination and energy to create an uplift in the city for spaces that are dark, damp, derelict, dirty or unclean. It is about regeneration and rejuvenation of the city through street art and murals or by painting over old ESB junction boxes. It is about making the city look attractive. If one walks through certain parts of the city, one sees window boxes and colourful displays and one gets a lift and feels warmth. There is a sense of pride in one's city. These are people working collectively to improve our city. It has been going on for two years and it is an important issue. It is one we need to recognise in the House. I invite the Minister to Cork to meet with these people who are volunteers but who are doing a huge amount of work.

We have another issue with gum. There has been a local authority gum litter task force. Irish Business Against Litter described gum as a pernicious source of litter. We have spent an enormous amount of money in Cork City Council on removing gum from our streets. It leaves a lasting impression. If one walks along many of our city streets or through towns, one will see its legacy on the footpaths. People might think I am being negative but there is a responsibility on the individual in the disposal of waste and to be more careful, particularly with chewing gum.

I am glad the Government is working with Senator Ardagh to ensure the Bill will be added to the suite of measures under the 1997 Act, which is important. We need to look collectively at the approach in terms of policy and awareness campaigns and to become more in tune with society and engage with society and people. We had the Tidy Towns competition which is a very important element in our improvement of our areas. I referred to the very significant level of volunteerism in many of our Tidy Towns groups which work at the most extraordinary times of the day and night and they deserve credit. We need to look at the blight of litter in our communities and in particular illegal dumping in rural Ireland. We are an island that needs tourists and the tourism sector. We all have a role to play in making sure we have a better, cleaner society and country.

Senator Colette Kelleher

I welcome the Minister. I am delighted to support the Bill and I thank and commend Senator Ardagh and her colleagues for bringing it forward. More needs to be done to prevent litter in our streets, parks and public spaces. A big reason I support the Bill is because of litter in the form of dog foul. I am particularly concerned about dog foul and the harmful effects it can have on our children. When my children were little, we lived in the middle of London where the park was everything. I remember taking my children to play in a beautiful park by the River Lee. I never seem to be very far away from a River Lee. The park was beautiful but a lot of dogs used the park and there was very little enforcement of good rules with regard to penalties for fouling. When children were playing in the park they were at serious risk. A Millward Brown study from 2013 showed that 40% of dog owners in Dublin admitted to not cleaning up after their pets and one in ten have never or rarely removed dog foul from the city streets. This has a potential serious consequence that should carry a serious fine, as is proposed by the Bill.

There is a particular worry about toxocariasis which is a serious illness caused by a parasite that lives in dogs' digestive systems. These parasites lay eggs which are released via the infected faeces. The eggs can remain active for a long time. If the eggs are ingested by a human they can hatch into larvae causing toxocariasis. Unsurprisingly it is most common in children aged one to four. Toddlers like to play in the grass; they put things in their mouths and on occasion refuse to wash their hands. There are three types of toxocariasis. Covert toxocariasis is the most common and mildest form. Symptoms include abdominal pain, a cough and a headache.

The most serious is the one referred to by Senator Catherine Ardagh, ocular toxocariasis, which occurs when toxocara larvae migrate to the eye. Symptoms and signs include vision loss, eye inflammation and damage to the retina which can be long-lasting.

Visceral toxocariasis occurs when the larvae migrate to various body organs such as the liver or central nervous system. Symptoms include fever, fatigue, coughing, wheezing and abdominal pain.

Litter and dog foul, in particular, can give rise to serious health issues, especially for children. The best way to prevent these problems is to ensure dog owners clean up after their dogs straightaway. To that end, we must make sure there are adequate penalties and deterrents in place. We also need bins. I was reminded by some people from Cork that there were no dog litter bins in Tank Field, for example. We also need poop scoops and doggy bags to be more readily available in newsagents and elsewhere. I agree with Senator John O'Mahony that all of the penalties in the world will not act as a deterrent if we do not enforce the laws in place.

Dog fouling is a significant health issue, especially for children playing. We must remember that play is not just an optional extra but essential for childrens' growth and development. Children are increasingly living in urban rather than rural environments and if we want them to be able to play safely without these unnecessary health risks, we need to deal with the issue of litter, dog litter in particular. The Bill will go some way towards encouraging dog owners to clean up after their pets, which is why I will be supporting it. I hope other Members will support it, too.

Senator Kieran O'Donnell

I welcome the Minister. I see considerable merit in the general thrust of the Litter Pollution (Amendment) Bill 2017 and wish to make a number of observations on it. This is an issue that has been coming up a lot. Anyone who has canvassed in recent years will have noticed the increase in the number of dogs generally. More and more people have pets nowadays. The increase in the past five years, in particular, has been significant and has given rise to the problem of people not picking up litter after their dogs foul outdoors. The solution is a combination of education and enforcement. It does not matter what fines we introduce - if they are not enforceable, they will have no consequences. The existing law needs to be enforced. The lack of enforcement is unfair on those who are abiding by the law and bring plastic bags with them to pick up the litter. In some areas it is a major problem, with dog excrement on footpaths and so forth.

It would be interesting to look at the number of dog licences issued this year in comparison to previous years. What needs to be done in that regard? Most dogs are kept indoors and when taken for a walk, they are invariably on a leash. In that sense, there is no reason owners cannot clean up after their dogs foul outdoors. In Limerick we have a problem with illegal dumping, which is an absolute blight on the landscape. We recently had the Total Limerick Cleanup, TLC, a concept that originated with J. P. McManus, Paul O'Connell, Helen O'Donnell and others and which has been hugely beneficial. However, I visited an area last week that had been cleaned on TLC day and it was as bad as ever. Those who dump illegally believe they will not be caught. In that context, there are inconsistencies between the various local authorities. Some are great at dealing with this issue, while others are very poor. Why is that the case? This is a nationwide problem. People will speak about a lack of resources, but if that was the only problem, there would be a consistency in the way problems were addressed. The inconsistencies come down to management, as well as funding. We must benchmark the local authorities in a range of areas, litter being one.

We need to turn this issue on its head. We should introduce something that is anti-litter, while at the same time introducing something positive such as encouraging those living in villages to plant flowers. We must reward people when they try to keep their areas looking well, but at the same time, if they do not do so, we must impose severe penalties. People believe they will not be caught if they dump illegally. At the same time, there are no rewards for them to do something that their neighbours are not doing. We need to look at this issue in the context of rural rejuvenation. We must encourage people in order that it will become a positive and people living in a town or city will not litter because their neighbours will tell them that it is not on. We should be rewarding the person who is abiding by the law and not allowing the person who is not law-abiding to think he or she can get away with it.

There has been a huge escalation in the number of dogs being kept as pets. It is amazing. In practically every house to which one calls there is a dog. I am a dog owner and have been for many years. Dogs are man's best friend and hugely important, particularly for older people. They provide company, security and can improve peoples' health. However, we must make sure there are proper dog litter controls in place. The issue of illegal dumping is clearly one of enforcement. It is also an issue of resources in terms of local authorities ensuring housing estates, footpaths and so forth are swept. Often local representatives will contact the local authority to ask, as a favour, that an area be swept, but that sweeping should be done as a matter of course. We also need to consider rewarding people who are proactive. The TLC campaign was a phenomenal success and should be replicated nationwide. I encourage Members to visit Limerick to see what is happening there. I support the general thrust of what has been proposed.

Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment (Deputy Denis Naughten)

I have sympathy for Senator Rose Conway-Walsh. She has difficulty in standing up, while I have difficulty in sitting down. Between the two of us, we would make up one normal person.

I thank Senators for drafting the Bill, in particular Senator Catherine Ardagh. I really appreciate the fact that she has taken this initiative. While I have some concerns about the detail, I welcome the principle of the Bill.

I assure the House that I am fully behind any reasonable measures that will combat littering and illegal dumping in our communities. Last year more than €95 million was spent nationally on litter prevention and control. I have stated repeatedly that I consider littering and illegal dumping economic and environmental treason. It is a scourge. I am also particularly exercised about the issue of dog fouling. The nuisance and potential public health risks associated with dog fouling is something I specifically want to address, but before I do I want to set out my role and that of the Department in respect of litter. The Department provides the legislative framework to enable local authorities to tackle litter. The Litter Pollution Acts 1997 to 2009 provide that statutory framework. It is a matter for each local authority to decide on the most appropriate public awareness, enforcement and clean-up actions in regard to litter in their respective areas, taking into account local circumstances and priorities. It must be appreciated that the challenges presented in tackling litter in primarily urbanised local authority areas may differ from those in more rural locations. I recognise that legislative measures alone will not suffice. In order to tackle the issue effectively, a wide-ranging approach is needed. This approach will involve all elements of Irish society, incorporating enforcement by local authorities, public awareness and education aimed at achieving behavioural change and attitudes toward littering and dog fouling.

The anti-litter and anti-graffiti awareness grant scheme, ALAGS, is just one element of the targeted direct response to deal with litter which my Department supports. This year, I am increasing the funding provided to local authorities under the grant scheme by 28%. It allows local authorities apply for funding for projects aimed at raising awareness of litter, including dog fouling, and graffiti issues in their functional areas.

Local authorities are asked to focus their activities under the scheme on young people, in particular schools and community groups, with an emphasis on encouraging long-term behavioural change. Grants can cover a broad range of measures to raise public awareness and stimulate anti-litter and anti-graffiti activity at local level.

I have also increased and extended funding for the protection of the uplands and rural environments, PURE, project for a further three years following its significant success at tackling litter and illegal dumping in the foothills of south county Dublin and Wicklow. For this project I have allocated a further €345,000 over the three-year period from 2018-20. I also oversee the funding allocation for several other anti-litter initiatives currently in operation in Ireland including the national spring clean; the green schools programme; Irish Business Against Litter, IBAL, litter league; and negotiated agreements with the banking and chewing gum industries. A particular bugbear of mine is the issue of dog-fouling. Unlike Senator Conway-Walsh, I can do a lot of walking at the moment. I was out walking and came across an older neighbour, who told me somebody had let a dog foul right outside the gate. The person has poor mobility and this was the way the entrance to her home was left. I do not think it is acceptable for any older person to have to deal with that, because they are not physically able to clean up dog foul outside their homes.

Although it is an offence under section 22 of the Litter Pollution Act not to clean up after one's dog that has fouled, the reality is that many dog owners are reneging on their civic duty to clean up after their dogs. Dog faeces contain bacteria and roundworm parasites which can be harmful to young children, in particular. Although statistically dog waste represented just 1.22 % of overall litter in 2016, it is perhaps the most intrusive type of litter and a constant source of nuisance for the public on our streets, in our parks and on our beaches. I have had small children and pushed buggies around the streets on numerous occasions. No one should have to come home after a walk and not be able to bring a buggy into a house because it needs to be power hosed as a result of the scale of dog faeces on it. It is not right that people ignore the law in such a way as they do now.

Thankfully, my children are now older but they are still quite small and when I bring them for a walk I have to point out dog faeces and watch the street rather than what is going on around us so that the children do not walk into it. Obesity is a major issue and we should be actively encouraging everyone to go out and walk. We encourage children to go out and walk, but they end up walking into dog excrement. It is off-putting and is not right.

People need to take a far more responsible approach to this issue. If they own dogs, they have a responsibility to clean up after them and need to live up to that responsibility. As we have seen in many other areas of society, such as the smoking ban, there has to be a zero-tolerance approach to this practice.

Many initiatives have been tried to deal with dog fouling, including obvious ones such as signage, more dog waste bins and bags and advertising campaigns in cinemas and on social media. A new approach has been adopted by some local authorities using talking lamp-post technology, particularly in Dublin, in areas such as Baldoyle and Fingal, and in Mullingar, my town, Athlone, Lahinch, Kilkee and Limerick. Dog fouling was the single biggest issue raised by Dubliners in public submissions to Dublin City Council. The technology uses pre-recorded messages to remind dog walkers to obey the law.

The green dog walkers scheme is another new initiative being adopted by local authorities, including my home county of Roscommon. It aims to increase awareness of dog fouling by signing up members to take a pledge to always clean up after their dogs. These members are provided with green dog walker armbands and waste bags. By wearing the green armbands, they are indicating that they are responsible dog owners who are participating in and supporting the scheme. However, ultimately the responsibility for tackling dog fouling rests with the dog owner. If a dog fouls inside a person's house, he or she would not contemplate for a second not cleaning it up, yet many owners simply do not apply the same logic when they are walking their dogs in public, for some unfathomable reason. With dogs come pleasure and companionship, but also responsibility. Areas in our towns and communities across the country should not, under any circumstances, become no-go areas as a result of dog fouling. As regards the scourge of illegal dumping, I recently launched the 2017 anti-dumping initiative to work in partnership with local authorities and community organisations to identify high risk or problem areas using smart technology, such as drones, to develop appropriate enforcement responses and to carry out clean-up operations.

Applications for funding were invited by the relevant waste enforcement regional lead authority, WERLA, and the scheme has been a major success with 111 applications to date. An initial allocation of €650,000 was made available, but given the very positive response and the quality of the applications submitted, I will make further funds available to support a second phase of this initiative this year. I will make an announcement in this regard shortly.

Before addressing the Bill specifically, I would like to draw attention to the www.fixyourstreet.ie website. It is a service launched in 2011 whereby non-emergency issues can be reported to a local council. It is a website where littering, illegal dumping and dog fouling can also be reported. I would urge people to spread the word about this website and download the EPA app, See It? Say It!, to report litter and illegal dumping by taking a picture. The GPS co-ordinates are automatically included and it is sent to the EPA. I welcome the opportunity presented by the Bill to highlight and publicly debate the litter issue. Although the Bill is clearly well intentioned, in the short time my officials and the Office of Attorney General have had to consider it we have already identified some legal, policy and operational concerns in resect of the Bill as presented. These concerns essentially fall into two categories, namely the primary focus of the Bill on court imposed fines, which I believe is misdirected, and some significant concerns as regards the legality of the Bill as currently worded.

Although I am not proposing at this stage to oppose the Bill outright, it is very clear, having taken legal advice, that it will require considerable amendment before I will be in position to support it, if that is possible at all. I need more time to reflect on it to satisfy myself whether it can be amended adequately to address these concerns in a robust, legally sound manner. It might be helpful for me to set out some of the concerns so as to inform our debate and further consideration of the matter.

The Bill focuses on the litter fines imposed by courts. Statistics compiled by my Department indicate that the level of fines imposed by the courts for litter-related offences is very low. In 2015 fines and costs for litter offences amounting to only €79,000 were imposed by the courts nationally. Although this figure almost doubled to €144,000 last year, it is still a very low level considering that 31 local authorities are involved. Therefore, I do not believe the Bill is targeting the right issue. These figures are also evidence that when these matters come before the courts, the levels of fines awarded on summary conviction are far below the current allowable threshold of €4,000. Again, it points to the fact that amending the maximum court fines, as proposed, is unlikely to effect any major improvement in enforcement or to have any great impact on litter levels nationally. The Bill, as worded, will not increase the current on-the-spot fine of €150 for littering offences, which is the principal tool used by local authorities to tackle litter offenders. For example, in 2015 local authorities collected €655,000 in on-the-spot fines, compared to just €144,000 imposed by the courts in fines in the same year.

Notwithstanding my personal annoyance at dog fouling, the amendment to section 24(3) proposed in the Bill to allow a person to initiate civil proceedings against a person convicted of a dog-fouling offence is superfluous. My advice is that there are already well defined courses of action in common law, including by way of negligence or nuisance and possibly trespass, and the approach proposed is not recommended. However, I do accept the principle of what is being outlined by Senator Catherine Ardagh. I am quite willing to facilitate engagement by her or anyone else in this House with my departmental officials to determine whether we can come up with constructive suggestions, particularly on the issue of dog fouling. I am very open to suggestions or approaches people have to make on this matter.

The Bill proposes to increase in monetary terms court imposed fines under the Litter Pollution Acts 1997 to 2009. Under the Fines Act 2010, it is envisaged that in the future changes to such summary fines should reference one of the five "classes" contained in the Act. In this regard, the Bill is legally flawed.

As I said, it is welcome that the Bill has been published. As Members will know, particularly those who have been here a little longer, my approach from the Opposition benches in this and the Lower House was always to engage constructively with Ministers. I encourage Senator Catherine Ardagh to engage with my officials and go through the legislation with them. We will highlight the issues we have with it. If we can come up with sensible suggestions that would strengthen the legislation in this area, I will be quite willing to work with her on Committee Stage in that regard. I urge her to take up this offer and talk to the team in the Department. I do not believe the legislation, as constructed, will do what she wants to do, but I am quite willing to sit down with her and come up with other suggestions in this field and come forward on Committee Stage with a constructive and agreed approach. I accept the principle of what she is trying to do, that is, combat the scourge of litter and illegal dumping. Let us work together and come forward with a proposal that will work legally, strengthen the law in this area in practical terms and also address the scourge of dog fouling across the country. As we did in the case of the smoking ban and the plastic bag tax, let us come up with something innovative. If any Member of the House has a suggestion we could incorporate into the law, let us look at it. I am prepared to look at suggestions with an open and constructive mind. As Minister, I am totally committed to tackling Ireland's litter issues in a meaningful way that will result in better outcomes for the environment and the public, particularly children.

I thank the sponsoring Senators for the Bill and kindly request their patience as we reflect further on the proposals contained in it which appear, as I said, to be flawed. I look forward to further engagement with them as we seek to identify some common ground in addressing Ireland's litter challenge.

Senator Catherine Ardagh

I thank the Minister for coming to the House to address this legislation. I also thank him for taking the time to do so. I am glad that we are ad idem on the nuisance that is dog fouling in the city and the scourge many people face daily on opening their door. Many dog walkers tend to have the same habits. Many people we have met wake up every morning to a little gift at the gate. It does not just happen on one morning; it might happen every second morning. It is not fair and not right.

This is essentially a respect Bill. Obviously, funding is the issue. If we had many more litter wardens monitoring each dog walker, we would be in a better position. However, we do not, unfortunately, have that luxury, as we know.

There are a few issues on which I would like to take the Minister to task in regard to the conclusions to which he has come. The first is on-the-spot fines. I agree that they have been a great success for local authorities across the country. I did not touch on the issue because I believe they are working very well. The Bill will actually complement the ability of local authorities to impose on-the-spot fines. It does not in any way undermine the message of enforcement.

The Minister has said we already have the law of negligence to deal with dog fouling and offences that stem from it. Both he and his adviser will know that many approaches to matters involving negligence are placed on a statutory footing just to cement them and show a willingness on the part of the Government. It is not something new; it is commonly done. Therefore, I disagree with the Minister in that regard.

I looked at the Fines Act. It does not limit the right of the Oireachtas to increase mandatory fines as it sees fit. I might discuss that issue with the Minister again. Ultimately, we know that the section on summary convictions and indictable offences has not been used. I refer to the section in which I am seeking to change the limits. Ultimately, enforcement is the key.

I am really introducing the Bill to highlight the scourge of dog fouling in the city. Something really needs to be done about it. My preference would be to have more resources. If we had some campaign to achieve respect for individuals, society and communities, it would be beneficial. The issue needs to be kept in the ether.

On bringing a civil action, the relevant Part of the Bill is actually new. Placing something on a statutory footing attaches to it a little more seriousness. It will go some way towards acting as a deterrent if it is advertised and people know about it.

I understand the Minister is to allow the Bill to proceed to the next Stage. I am glad that he is offering his services and inviting me to discuss with him how we can improve it, ensure it will work, have a meaningful outcome and help people who are affected by the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 May 2017