Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill: Second Stage

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 11:15 am on 30 June 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP 11:15, 30 June 2010

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill [NIA 31/09] be agreed.

I say with some confidence that this is a Bill that is to be welcomed by all Members, despite the fact that quite a few of them are leaving the Chamber. The Bill signals the start of work on a clean neighbourhoods legislative programme that is designed to improve the quality of local environments right across Northern Ireland. That includes those in our local neighbourhoods, villages, towns and cities and those in rural and coastal areas. The Bill will have an impact on all of Northern Ireland and its people and on all those who visit Northern Ireland. I will focus on why we need the Bill, what it will do, and how, through it, we can make a real difference to the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland.

First, why do we need the Bill? Its main purpose is to contribute to everyone’s quality of life by encouraging clean and tidy neighbourhoods and by helping to engender a sense of pride among residents. People feel safer in such neighbourhoods and feel more at ease in their local surroundings. When looked at in isolation, many of the issues that the Bill seeks to address may seem trivial to some, but individually and collectively, they are real problems for those who must endure their impact.

The Bill deals with a wide range of low-level environmental crime, such as littering, dog fouling, graffiti and fly-posting. It also deals with the nuisance that is caused by noise, poorly directed artificial lighting, abandoned vehicles and irresponsible parking, abandoned shopping trolleys, and even unwanted behaviour in back alleys. It aims to address directly many day-to-day problems that, left untouched, are the forerunner to a downward spiral that degrades local neighbourhoods, leads to increased levels of antisocial behaviour and serves to cause local residents only misery. None of us wants to live in an area that is blighted by low-level environmental crime. We want to live in areas that are clean and safe. The number one priority for many people is to have streets that are clean and free from antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime. Good-quality, clean and tidy local environments attract more investment and have a positive impact on our health, well-being, confidence and civic pride.

The Bill will help to bring about positive benefits for tourism by reducing antisocial behaviour and by making all of us think more about the environment in which we live. It should also help to reduce the massive street-cleaning costs that district councils face. For those reasons, I believe that the Bill is a very important piece of legislation. For example, it will show that the Assembly intends, through the introduction of stronger legislation and higher fines, to get tough with those who continue to litter and deface our streets and public spaces.

As I said, the Bill signals the start of work on the agenda for our clean neighbourhoods legislative programme. In consulting on the draft Bill earlier this year, stakeholders called for the Bill to do more. Full details of the comments that were received during that consultation exercise, as well as my Department’s responses, are set out in the consultation summary document, which is available on the Department’s website.

Although I am sympathetic to calls for the Bill to do more, it should be viewed as an important starting point. It is based on well-established legislation, namely, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which is in force in other parts of the United Kingdom. The powers that it provides to local authorities are proving to be a key tool in their efforts to further improve the quality of their local environment. The proposed Bill will give broadly similar powers to district councils in Northern Ireland, which have been calling for them since the 2005 Act came into force in England and Wales. The Bill will be supported by extensive subordinate legislation and a clean neighbourhoods guidance programme. Furthermore, the implementation of the measures in the Bill by district councils will have to be monitored to assess their effectiveness and to allow consideration of the need for any significant additional measures to be introduced in the future.

Despite the excellent efforts of district councils in tackling low-level environmental crime and the ongoing campaigns designed to encourage society to change its ways, Northern Ireland district councils still needlessly spend millions of pounds on cleaning up their local neighbourhoods. Last year, a staggering £34 million was spent on street cleansing in Northern Ireland. That amounts to almost £100,000 every day. That is not only a burden on ratepayers, but a sheer waste of a significant sum of money that could be used to much better effect on other important council services. Therefore, most people should accept that the Bill, which is designed to improve the appearance and cleanliness of public spaces and local neighbourhoods, is necessary.

The scale of the litter problem beggars belief. Some Members may be aware of the efforts made by the ‘Belfast Telegraphand Tidy Northern Ireland through the Big Spring Clean campaign. Earlier this year, I joined the campaign on a visit, with a group of dedicated conservation volunteers, to help to clear up litter in outer Belfast. What should have been a beautiful and scenic open space to be enjoyed by the local community, young and old alike, was ruined by unacceptable levels of litter, including plastic bags, paper bags, broken glass, empty bottles, used nappies and crisp packets, all of which were clearly visible. In a short space of time, we collected more than 30 black bin bags full of litter.

We all know the sorts of issues that I am targeting; we see the problems all too easily and all too often. Chewing gum, cigarette ends and confectionary litter are significant problems that blight the appearance of footpaths in towns and cities. Illegal fly-posting and graffiti are eyesores that seem to appear on every piece of street furniture and even on the walls of private property. Irresponsible dog ownership gives rise to dog fouling, which, at best, is unpleasant and, at worst, represents a health hazard.

As I said, those issues also cost the councils money. In the UK, it is estimated that it costs £150 million a year to clean up chewing gum. Belfast City Council estimated that, in 2008-09, it spent approximately £500,000 on the removal of chewing gum, graffiti and fly-posters. However, the Bill deals with more than litter, graffiti and dog-fouling. Other, equally important issues, such as noise nuisance and the problems that are caused by poorly directed domestic artificial lighting, affect the quality of people’s lives in local neighbourhoods.

I have established why the Bill is important, and I shall now outline what it will do. The Bill will give district councils the power to deal with issues much more effectively. As interested Members will appreciate, it is a sizeable and complex Bill, which will, in many instances, make detailed amendments to existing legislation, such as the Litter (Northern Ireland) Order 1994.

I will outline the key provisions. Litter continues to be a major concern for many people in Northern Ireland, as it reduces their quality of life by degrading public spaces and local neighbourhoods. The Bill will strengthen the existing law to enable district councils to deal more effectively with a range of litter problems. It will give councils strong new powers, such as litter clearing notices, which will require businesses and individuals to clear litter from their land. It will strengthen the councils’ existing powers to require local businesses, through the issue of street litter control notices, to help to clear up the litter that they generate. It will strengthen the provisions to deal with people who fail to provide their name and address. It will amend the offence of dropping litter in a lake, pond or watercourse, and it will enable councils to restrict the distribution of flyers, handouts and pamphlets, which can end up as litter.

Fly-posting and graffiti are visual signs of neglect and degradation in a local environment, particularly in our inner cities and towns. The Bill will strengthen the existing law to enable district councils to deal more effectively with fly-posting and graffiti. It will give councils the ability to issue fixed penalty notices to graffiti and fly-posting offenders, and it will enable councils to serve defacement removal notices in respect of graffiti and fly-posting. It will also make it an offence to sell spray paints to children, and it will strengthen the legislation to make it harder for beneficiaries of fly-posting to evade prosecution.

Irresponsible dog ownership continues to be a problem in Northern Ireland. The Bill will introduce new arrangements for controlling dogs by replacing the local by-laws system with a more streamlined and straightforward system that is easier for district councils to operate. The new simplified system of dog control orders will enable councils to deal with fouling by dogs, to ban dogs from designated areas, to require dogs to be kept on a lead and to restrict the number of dogs that can be walked by one person.

Excessive noise is still regarded as a major problem by members of the public. In 2008-09, there were over 11,000 complaints about noise, over 80% of which related to domestic noise. Noise from music, television and parties, and animal noise, such as barking dogs, remain the major reasons for complaints in the domestic category. Although there was a small reduction in the overall number of domestic noise complaints compared with 2007-08, there was a 26% increase in the number of complaints about house alarms. The Bill will give district councils new powers to deal with audible intruder alarms and the noise nuisance that is caused by false alarms when a keyholder is away. The 2008-09 period also saw a 30% increase in the level of complaints in respect of noise from entertainment premises over those that were received in 2007-08. The Bill will amend the Noise Act 1996 in relation to noise from private premises by extending its provisions to noise from licensed premises. That change is designed to deal with licensed premises that ignore warnings to reduce excessive noise.

The existing statutory noise law is over 130 years old. Despite having been amended from time to time, the definition of what can be considered a statutory nuisance and the enforcement powers that are available to district councils have not kept pace with developments in statutory nuisance legislation that applies outside Northern Ireland. The Bill will introduce provisions that apply in England and Wales as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. One outcome will be that district councils will, for the first time, be able to take action to deal with complaints concerning problems caused by poorly directed artificial lighting, which is sometimes referred to as light pollution.

Fixed penalty notices or on-the-spot fines are a simple and visible way of dealing with environmental offences. If used properly, they provide an effective deterrent and avoid the cost of court action. At present, fixed penalty notices can be issued for littering and dog fouling offences and some noise violation offences. The Bill will make greater use of fixed penalty notices as an alternative to prosecution and will give district councils the flexibility, subject to upper and lower limits, to set their own fixed penalty rates. The provisions in the Bill will extend the use of fixed penalty notices for offences relating to nuisance vehicles, litter controls, other dog controls, additional noise controls, and graffiti and fly-posting. The Bill also makes a provision that will enable district councils to use the money received from the fixed penalty notices that they issue in connection with their functions to improve local environmental quality.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair)

It is interesting to note that after the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 was introduced in England, the number of fixed penalty notices that were issued for litter offences increased significantly from 7,565 in 2003-04 to 43,624 in 2006-07, which is a five-fold increase. That not only acted as a deterrent but the value of the fixed penalties that were issued could have returned over £2 million of funding to further support councils’ efforts to improve their neighbourhoods.

Back alleys or entries can attract a range of antisocial and environmental problems that reduce the quality of life in our local neighbourhoods. They can be magnets for litter, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles and graffiti offenders. They can also attract other problems, such as domestic burglary and drug dealing, and can make the lives of local residents a misery. The Bill contains provisions to make more effective the existing procedure for the closing of nuisance back alleys.

The Bill contains amendments to the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 to give effect to gating order provisions. That will give district councils new powers to make, with the approval of the Department for Regional Development, gating orders to deal with problem alleyways. The Minister for Regional Development has policy responsibility for that legislation and has agreed those provisions in the Bill.

District councils will also be given new powers to deal with nuisance parking for businesses that sell or repair cars on a road. Such vehicles can be a nuisance: they can reduce parking opportunities and cause pollution — for example, where oil is spilled or leaked. Two new offences will be created: offering for sale two or more vehicles or repairing a vehicle on the road as part of a business. Abandoned cars can degrade streets, are linked to criminal activity and can become targets for antisocial behaviour and arson. The Bill will give district councils the power to remove abandoned cars from the streets immediately.

I am sure that we have all come across abandoned shopping trolleys, which are an all-too-visible problem that affects the quality of our streets and public spaces. They can also be a hazard. When they are dumped in watercourses, they can form an obstruction and create particular problems for drainage, which may cause flooding or harm to wildlife. The Bill will give district councils the power to recover the costs of dealing with abandoned shopping trolleys from their owners.

The Bill increases the maximum fine from £30,000 to £50,000 on summary conviction that may be provided for in regulations made under pollution prevention and control provisions in the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. That will enable maximum fines on summary conviction in the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 — that could concern, for example, contravention of the requirement for a permit to operate an installation or mobile plant, failure to comply with or contravene a condition of a permit and failure to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice or a suspension notice — to be brought into line with the equivalent maximum fines for illegal waste activity set out in the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. To ensure consistency in that area of regulation, the increase to £50,000 also brings the level of fine into line with that applying in England and Wales.

We have established why we need the Bill and what it will do, so we must ask ourselves how it can make a difference. As I said at the start of my speech, the Bill is sizeable and complex, and its purpose is, quite simply, to make Northern Ireland a better place in which to live. For many people, the Bill will help to ensure that the day-to-day local and environmental problems that they face will be dealt with more effectively than previously, thereby bringing about real improvements in their quality of life. However, legislation is not the only answer. If the Bill is to make a difference, it must form a platform for leadership. We need leadership from people and communities, local politicians, businesses and government in all their forms. I already mentioned the good work carried out by the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ and Tidy Northern Ireland.

I will conclude with a comment that was reported in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ made by a primary-school pupil who took part in the big spring clean event. He spoke about the litter and graffiti around the streets and how it was not a nice place in which to live. However, he added that, after the children had completed their clean-up, he felt happy. In my view, that says it all and encapsulates what the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill is all about. The Bill can and will help to tackle the wide range of local and environmental problems that spoil the appearance of our neighbourhoods and, in doing so, will improve the quality of life for all the people in Northern Ireland. However, it will need the support of the people of Northern Ireland and of the Assembly to do that. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Photo of Cathal Boylan Cathal Boylan Sinn Féin 11:30, 30 June 2010

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mar Chathaoirleach an Choiste Comhshaoil, cuirim fáilte roimh an Bhille um comharsanachtaí glana agus an comhshaol.

I welcome the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, which is comprehensive, with 76 clauses and four schedules. It has been introduced to reflect the growing calls from elected representatives, district councils, environmental groups and individuals for the introduction of similar legislation to that in England and Wales. The main objective of the Bill is to improve the local environment by giving district councils additional powers to deal with litter, nuisance alleys, graffiti and fly-posting, abandoned and nuisance vehicles, dogs, noise and statutory nuisance. Such issues are important to people in their everyday life and, as such, are brought to the attention of elected representatives almost daily. I am glad that the Minister decided to introduce the legislation, although the Committee noted its disappointment that the Department had taken so long to do so and insisted that a lack of resources was not an acceptable reason for the delay. Although most of the issues that the legislation covers are of a relatively minor nature when considered in isolation, the cumulative cost of addressing them through current provisions is significant.

Departmental officials briefed the Committee on the policy proposals on 11 February 2010. Members generally welcomed the proposals, as they will address the cumulative impact of many smaller issues and significantly improve many citizens’ quality of life. However, some concerns were raised. Members noted that there might be difficulties in enforcing the new powers at council level, especially if enforcers are on their own at night, without backup. Verbal and physical abuse could become more prevalent, especially once fixed penalties are introduced. Enforcement is crucial for any legislation to be effective, and, although I am well aware of the huge financial constraints on all public bodies at the moment, adequate resources must be given to councils to ensure effective enforcement.

The Committee welcomes the need to increase powers to address problems with stray dogs but feels that councils should be encouraged to persuade animal welfare groups to intervene, where possible, so that the new powers do not lead to an increase in the number of dogs that are destroyed. There is also a feeling that the Department needs to work closely with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) on measures to reduce problems with stray dogs.

Everyone is well aware of the scourge of advertising leaflets, which are either foisted on people as they walk through towns or stuck under their windscreen wiper. Members welcome the proposals in the Bill to allow local authorities to put in place controls that limit where advertising leaflets can be distributed. We particularly welcome the inclusion of car parks as one such location. Anybody who looks around a car park when returning to his or her vehicle will see many discarded advertising leaflets. The Bill should go some way to stopping the practice.

The Committee was told that the Department considers the Bill to be cost-neutral and that the revenue from fixed penalty notices will return to local authorities. In the current economic climate, that is welcome. Members were also pleased to learn that the Bill is designed to give councils powers that they can adopt as necessary. That should provide the necessary flexibility to put in place measures that are tailored to local areas, including, where necessary, powers to address problems that are unique to rural areas. As an elected representative who serves a rural constituency, I welcome that development.

I will now make some remarks as a private Member. I welcome the provisions on dogs offences in the Bill. However, DARD also has a role to play. Stray dogs still affect many council areas. That is totally unacceptable, and I hope that regulations will go some way to addressing the problem.

Many tourists complain about the amount of litter that is dropped, especially in rural areas. I hope that fixed penalties will address the problem. Does the Minister intend to consider giving some resources to local residents’ groups so that they might help tackle the problem in their area?

I welcome the proposed introduction of gating orders. A major issue arises with them, however. Although the measure is welcome, it will certainly restrict people’s movement. In my area, some alley-gating has been done. However, alley-gating leads to antisocial behaviour and dumping, which the Minister mentioned. If the legislation is to work, conclusive consultation must take place among residents, local groups and utility providers to get it right.

Abandoned cars are another problem. Will the Minister look into the nuisance that cars and lorries parked on the footpath cause? I know that that falls under DRD’s remit, but there may be an opportunity for the Minister to consider the issue.

As soon as the House commends the Bill to the Committee, we will call for written submissions from interested organisations and individuals. Committee members will be extremely interested to hear their views. I look forward to having a good ongoing working relationship with departmental officials to ensure that the Committee is able to scrutinise the legislation properly. Thar ceann an Choiste, tacaím le prionsabail an Bhille. On behalf of the Committee, I support the Bill’s principles.

Photo of Alastair Ross Alastair Ross DUP

I am glad to speak to the Bill, which has been brought forward by a DUP Minister. There is an awful lot in the Bill for us to get our teeth into in Committee.

Many local communities in Northern Ireland are plagued by litter, noise, fly-tipping, dog fouling, abandoned vehicles and all the issues that the Minister and the Chairperson of the Committee mentioned. Indeed, at the end of the Chairperson’s speech, he said that tourists noticed that there is a lot of litter here. We have discussed that issue in Committee and in the Assembly, during the debate on the Ulster Unionist Party motion on Tidy Northern Ireland Day. Much discussion took place on the cultural and attitudinal changes that need to take place among individuals here. It is hard not to think about personal responsibility when discussing the issue.

I do not think that any Members will not have dealt with such issues in their constituency. I have dealt with a number of issues and been frustrated by the lack of powers that councils have and the lack of action that they can take. Therefore, the Bill, which gives local councils the powers that they need, is welcome. I support the Bill in principle, which is what we are asked to do at Second Stage. In our initial discussions, the Committee gave a general welcome to the Bill and looked forward to considering it in more detail.

The outcome that we all want for communities and local areas is healthier and cleaner communities and, ultimately, happier neighbourhoods. The littering, dog fouling and fly-tipping that we have discussed impacts on the quality of life of many residents. It impacts on the quality of life of neighbours throughout the country and of people who live in misery because of dumping by a few. The actions of a few really are impacting on the many.

The Minister talked about the huge costs of street cleaning and of getting shopping trolleys out of rivers and lakes. We want to ensure that ratepayers get value for money, because the costs that councils currently pay to clean up litter and abandoned cars and trolleys is passed on to the ratepayer. Ultimately, it is innocent people who pay for councils to clean up, and that must be addressed. As a general rule, I support the polluter pays principle, whether that applies to individuals or businesses. People have to take personal responsibility, and they have to take on the costs for clearing up the mess that they have made. That is an important principle.

The Minister talked about the increased use of fixed penalty notices. A number of weeks ago, the Committee for Justice discussed a move towards having more fixed penalty notices, and that is a beneficial direction to take. It saves many minor offences from clogging up the courts. As long as enforcement is carried out properly and people pay their fines, fixed penalty notices are the way to go. My one warning is that, because the councils are able to keep much of the revenue from the fines that they give out, some overzealous council officials might use that as a way of generating income for councils. When looking at the Bill’s detail, we will need to ensure that strict upper and lower limits are placed on the fines and that it contains details on how councils can collect the fines.

The Chairman talked about advertising being placed under window wipers in many car parks across the Province and the mess that that creates. That absolutely needs to be addressed, but, at the same time, we need to ensure that businesses are able to advertise and use leaflets, albeit with restrictions. The use of leaflets at car parks could be a restriction that is put in place. We need to ensure that we are not overzealous in looking to restrict that practice.

The same could be said about shopping trolleys. In many cases, people take shopping trolleys off supermarket premises, wheel them up the road and abandon them. During my time at university, it was common practice for many students to wheel shopping trolleys into the halls of residence or leave them outside the door. It is important that —

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP

That is students for you.

Photo of Alastair Ross Alastair Ross DUP

Absolutely. Now that I am not a student, I can speak from the moral high ground. It is important that the supermarkets do not have to pay unnecessarily for the irresponsible actions of individuals and that those who carry out such actions pay for them.

The Minister spoke about dog fouling and nuisance dogs. I welcome the fact that we will make restrictions by ensuring that dogs are kept on a lead in certain areas, for example. We need to examine in more detail the practicalities of restricting how many dogs can be walked at one time. We need to look at how easy it would be to enforce that sort of regulation and, indeed, at whether that would be a practical step. There are also issues to do with noise, with many people and their neighbours living in misery because of car alarms, house alarms, loud parties and so on. Again, it is difficult for councils to stamp down on such matters. Any measures that can be included in the Bill to help councils to deal with those issues are to be welcomed.

The Chairperson mentioned gating orders, which have been very successful. In many built-up areas, including some in my constituency, alleyways are a magnet to young people and those who want to engage in antisocial behaviour or to drink, create graffiti, fly-tip and dump and so forth. Successful steps have been taken elsewhere in the country to address that. Alleyways are also used as an easy getaway in incidents of low-level crime. Therefore, it would be useful to make it easier for councils to have gating orders.

The Bill contains a lot of positive aspects and an awful lot of measures. There is a lot of work for the Committee to do, and I look forward to that. I support the principles of the Bill.

Photo of David McClarty David McClarty UUP 11:45, 30 June 2010

I hope that the Member feels better for having got his student misdemeanours off his chest.

Photo of Danny Kinahan Danny Kinahan UUP

Perhaps I should also declare an interest, given that I enjoyed races in trolleys when I was at university.

I am incredibly keen on the Bill. It covers all the issues about which those of us who have been councillors and Members are constantly harried by the public. A hell of a lot — I am not allowed to say that — a lot of support needs to be given to a great deal of what is in the Bill. The Bill has been long awaited, and I think that Members will find that all councils are very nearly ecstatic that they will, at last, have controls and powers to deal with many of the matters that we are discussing today.

Earlier in the week, I said that there are sometimes too many rules. However, we need a great deal of regulation in this area. We also need action. As has been touched on, that action comes from our leadership in government, community groups and from every member of the public. We need to deal with matters quickly and within a time limit. Indeed, that theme will run through some of what I say today. One thing that we are really asking for is courage. We are asking people to be really bothered to tackle what is in the Bill. Councils need to be brave enough to get out there to deal with matters quickly. We need to get tough, and everyone, including the public, needs to help.

Part 1 of the Bill deals with gating orders. I fully support the measures on that. I look forward to councils being able to close the areas in which youths gather, litter is thrown on the ground, substances are used and noise occurs. People and their neighbours are cursed by what goes on around and about them. On the news yesterday, we saw that a car park has been closed in Comber to give some peace to those who live near it. However, I must make the point that gating orders will not resolve the problems with youths. We need more police on the ground and more action. We also need parents to know where their children are, and they need to get involved. All those points are tied in together, but I welcome the Bill’s measures on gating orders.

Part 2 deals with vehicles. I also very much welcome the provisions on that matter. When I first started knocking on doors in areas that I had not been in before, I was horrified by some of the vehicles, including caravans, that were sitting in people’s driveways. Those vehicles were often sitting halfway out of driveways, with plants crawling up the sides, and there were rats and whatever else. Councils had no ability to deal with such situations, but I hope that the Bill will now allow us to do so. I welcome the fact that people will not be able to sell loads of vehicles outside their house and that councils will be able to serve fixed penalty notices.

The Committee needs to discuss whether a fixed penalty of £100 is enough and whether there should be a broad spectrum that we can work within. We probably need to think about linking the issue to the scrappage scheme in England, which is a good way of getting rid of vehicles. That would lead to more room for parking, neighbours getting on better with one another and, at the same time, the whole neighbourhood being cleaned up. I have a concern, though: we must ensure that people do not remove antique or classic cars without knowing what they are doing. Such vehicles have a high value.

Litter is dealt with in Part 3 of the Bill. It is the scourge of Northern Ireland. This country is the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom and one of the worst for litter. We need to tackle that problem, and I praise the Minister and the Department for many of the measures in the Bill. Councils will now be able to serve fixed penalty notices and litter-clearing notices. At times, I think that a litter-clearing notice should be served on the whole of south Antrim to allow us to deal with the issue in one go. It is good that we will able to impose a charge for all the work that has to be done to deal with litter.

Plastic bags are another concern, and I look forward to seeing a private Member’s Bill on plastic bags. Perhaps if we ensured that every plastic bag carried a company name, we would know which company to go to with the bags that we clear up.

Most Members can think of many areas in their constituency that have litter problems. I find the litter problem in South Antrim, one of the gateways to Northern Ireland, appallingly embarrassing. On the drive in from the International Airport, people often see rubbish all the way down the main road. That is just one example, and I am sure that Members have many others. I want strong time limits to apply to how long councils have to take action and how long people who have been served notices have to respond and get things done. By setting tight time limits, we will ensure that things get done.

I welcome the control on the distribution of free literature, and I look forward to seeing it come into effect. At any big event nowadays, there is always someone advertising something. I am also aware that politicians are sometimes slightly to blame when it comes to putting up election posters. We must get better at removing our posters and notices at the end of the specified time period.

Along with all those penalties and all that work comes the need for councils to take action, and with that comes cost. The councils must take comfort in the fact that they can get some of that money back and will save money in the long term. The Committee needs to think hard about how it can help councils to deal with issues such as chewing gum and litter on the road. I go back to a point that I have often raised in the Chamber, which is that councils need to know who owns every bit of land so that they can tackle littering. Often, councils cannot trace the owners of land in which rubbish is dumped. I look forward to seeing the Bill give the council the power to go straight onto such land to remove rubbish. If the owner cannot be found, a time limit should be set, and the council should be able to go in and remove the rubbish after that period. As I said earlier, councils need to be brave.

The most frustrating thing about graffiti is the length of time that it takes to deal with it. Councils should be able to deal with racist or personal graffiti the day after it appears. It should be possible to use this legislation to turn the situation around so that graffiti can be dealt with quickly and the cost of removing it recovered. Too often in my patch, if people go to the Northern Ireland Office to complain about graffiti, they are told that it is not the Northern Ireland Office that they should contact; yet, when they go to the council, they are told that it is not the council that they should contact. We have to find a way to deal with the issue, and the Bill opens the door to a means of tackling it head-on.

I am not sure where the issue of advertising at roundabouts would sit in the Bill. Is it litter or graffiti? We need to think about that in Committee. There is a massive amount of illegal advertising. Again, if people drive around roundabouts in Northern Ireland, they will see illegal advertisements and vehicles parked on the roadside advertising people’s wares. We need to regulate that much more, and the Bill offers an opening to do so.

I very much welcome not only the measures to control noise from car alarms, music and the neighbour who throws parties too often but the fact that councils will be able to issue fines and that licensed premises may face increased fines of up to £500. Although the Bill focuses on noise at night, we must think also of shift workers who come home during the day. Excess noise does not occur only at night; it occurs during the day, simply as a result of people being bad neighbours. We need to learn how to be good neighbours to one another.

Part 7 of the Bill covers nuisance. If we use the nuisance provisions carefully, they will help us to deal with matters at Nutts Corner. Clause 60(1)(i) specifies noise that is:

“prejudicial to health or a nuisance;”

and Clause 60(1)(j) specifies:

“noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment”.

However, it goes on to say “in a street”.I would like to open up that provision to include rural as well as urban environments. The Committee will have to consider how to deal with that. Maybe it should suggest an amendment to add that there should be no noise from vehicles until planning permission has been granted.

As a dog lover, I very much welcome more control over dogs and the fact that councils will be able to issue fixed penalty notices. Again, I ask councils to be brave. They must tackle matters relating to dogs, whether those concern fouling or noise. In one case, my council debated for about half an hour whether it should spend £800 to take someone to court to get £75. I praise the Bill in that it allows councils to issue fixed penalty fines, but councils need to be brave and to tackle the issue.

I very much welcome the proposed increase to the fine for major pollution from £30,000 to £50,000. I am pleased that the Minister mentioned at the beginning of the debate that the legislation will be reviewed as time goes on and that maybe we should raise the top level of fines for those who really pollute not only the land but rivers.

I welcome almost everything in the Bill. I raise a few other matters that should be discussed, such as gardens. When one is canvassing, one sees some gardens that are almost health hazards. There may not be caravans or abandoned cars in them, but there must be a way in which we can deal with them. The High Hedges Bill touches on the issue, but it is also a matter for this Bill.

We need every member of the public to get involved. As I have said already, I congratulate the Minister and his Department, and I look forward to supporting the Bill in Committee.

Photo of Patsy McGlone Patsy McGlone Social Democratic and Labour Party

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Bill that the Minister has introduced. Having moved to the Environment Committee only recently, I wish to thank its members for their deliberations and, especially, the Committee Clerk for her support in bringing me up to speed with the Bill.

The Bill gives the potential to clean up areas and to make safer, cleaner and — we hope — less noisy environments. I am sure that Members who have dealt with dog noise, statutory nuisances, graffiti and fly-posting or, on occasion, antisocial behaviour will know how extremely frustrating that can be, importantly, for the residents concerned but not least for the officials who have to deal with the councils’ environmental health services and, potentially, operational services and the police or some other agency, as they try to pick up all the pieces and determine where the responsibility actually lies. In that regard the Bill is welcome.

Clause 1 deals with gating orders, and that rings a loud bell with me, as I dealt with one such issue that adversely affected local residents. Some children’s organisations have raised concerns about the potential adverse impact on children’s movements, and that is an issue.

However, the test of reasonableness will always be drawn in when a council takes reasonable action to address nuisance that is being suffered late into the night and early morning. Such nuisance is often, although not exclusively, caused by younger people as they engage in certain activities, which involve more than the shopping trolleys that were mentioned earlier. The more heavy-duty goings-on include drug and alcohol abuse, underage drinking, general bad manners and causing nuisance to people. Therefore, I welcome that proposal.

A little concern emanated from local government about the liability for the total cost of the proposal and whether the money will come from fines. The Department said that the intention is for those proposals to be cost neutral. However, their outworkings would depend on a council’s area. When it comes to whether the outworkings will be cost neutral in areas of high-intensity antisocial behaviour, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

The new offence of parking more than one vehicle for sale on a road is clearly aimed at people who try to make a living from selling vehicles. Planning implications probably apply to those who run a business from home, but that is an aside. I am intrigued by the potential ability of councils to issue fixed penalty notices for vehicles that have been abandoned in public places and to remove and destroy them immediately when deemed necessary. I have been involved in a number of such cases, and I am sure that other Members share my experience.

The big question is to whom the fixed penalty should be issued. Often, when a council tries to identify the owner of a vehicle, which is probably a runaround, its ownership cannot be determined. After a while, the paper trail seems to go dead, even when the matter is pursued with the police. I am not sure whether that is an issue for DVA, which is within the Department’s remit, the police, or both. As I know from personal experience, when the person to whom the fixed penalty should be issued cannot without great difficulty be identified, a great deal of bother and expense could be incurred in disposing of a vehicle.

I welcome the fact that the Bill makes it an offence to throw away litter. Again, the power to charge owners of abandoned shopping trolleys for their removal, storage and disposal begs the question of ownership. I have not seen many trolleys, which had been disposed of, that were labelled with the name of the company to which they belonged. Usually, the larger multinational stores, whose names are printed on their trolleys, employ people on site to look after them and to ensure that they do not travel too far. Therefore, I am intrigued by that proposal. At present, any discussion of its outworkings is probably more academic than practical.

The Bill will introduce powers to enable councils to serve defacement removal notices on owners of properties that have been defaced by graffiti or fly-posters and to recover the cost from people who are responsible for those properties that have been cleaned. A major and persistent issue is that fly-posting and defacement are often carried out without the approval of the building’s owner. Often, quite the opposite is true.

At one level, people should be held liable for what happens on their property. However, Mr Kinahan referred to racist and other types of graffiti, much of which is motivated by spite. It would be extremely perverse if, as a consequence of the legislation, people could be held liable for the removal of graffiti that was designed to be deliberately antagonistic towards them. They could even be penalised for not removing it. That is one aspect that immediately springs to mind as I read through the Bill.

I welcome the part of the Bill that deals with the control of dogs. We had a nasty incident concerning the control of dogs outside Cookstown a fortnight ago. Anything that could lead to additional control over dogs is to be welcomed.

I certainly welcome the part of the legislation that deals with noise. The noise associated with alarms going off is a big issue. Mr Kinahan rightly said that a vehicle alarm is one of the worst things to go off during the day or night. The noise sends those in residential areas bananas. The owner of the vehicle might not be about or the vehicle might be a runabout that has been dumped. If it is a dumped runabout, it is hoped that the alarm would have been neutralised by that stage, but that is another matter. It is important that more work is done on the practical outworkings of how to deal with vehicle alarms going off. There are alarm notification areas and keyholders can provide councils with contact details for their properties, but dealing with vehicles can be a wee bit more problematic. I am not sure what sort of thought has gone into that. Such noise can prove to be one of the most difficult issues in an estate or an area of high density.

In conclusion, I would like some expansion and more detail on those points, and I am sure that the Minister, true to form, will provide that in his response. I welcome the Bill as a good piece of work to take forward and to try to address those problems in our society. It will make our environment a healthier, cleaner and more welcoming place. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance 12:00, 30 June 2010

I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council. This may well be an occasion on which it is an advantage for someone to have a mandate in a council and the Assembly, because he or she will have viewed the issue at both ends and will understand the points of view of regional government and local government.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Does the Member accept that the dual mandate is not what is important in that regard, but individuals having gained experience as public representatives at local government level at some stage?

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I am grateful for that intervention, but I am cautious of incurring the wrath of the Deputy Speaker by moving too far off the topic. To respond briefly, benefit can be gained from separate experience or from an overlap; it can work both ways.

I join other Members in welcoming the legislation. Rather than going through the Bill clause by clause, given that we are talking about its general principles, I will make broader comments about how it sits and works. There is a reflection and understanding in the philosophy behind the Bill that the issues do not sit in neat silos for particular Departments at a central level or for local government in isolation. There is also a sense that when we are dealing with quality of life issues at a local level, we are not talking simply about policing matters and the responsibility of the police and the criminal justice system. We are talking about something broader, which involves tackling antisocial behaviour and anti-neighbourhood behaviour in which, regrettably, some people may wish to engage.

There is an understanding that councils are, perhaps, the most effective bodies and level at which those powers can be best exercised. Rather than taking a top-down approach, we are talking about a bottom-up approach and about people making the decisions and enforcing the law with a clear understanding of their local areas. That said, there has to be partnership and collaboration between councils and other bodies. Although I pay tribute to the sheer volume of legislation that is coming forward, from the Department of the Environment in particular, I stress again that this issue will sit well in a community planning framework, when it eventually comes forward as part of RPA or whatever we end up doing. However, I do not want to go off on that particular tangent.

I want to make a point about the resource implications. I take it from the Minister that it is expected that the income from penalties may cover the costs that will be incurred by councils. That may be the case, and if it is, we will welcome it. However, it is important to recognise the fact that that assumption is entirely speculative and that it may not work that way in practice. Broadly speaking, there is a danger in being sucked into a notion that we expect any new policy initiative to cut its cloth and raise revenue through enforcement or other methods. That would be welcome, but we need to be realistic in our expectations.

Earlier, Mr Ross made a point about fixed penalty notices that were being considered by the Department of Justice. My understanding is that the primary objective of those fixed penalties is to speed up disposals and free up bureaucracy. The income generation from that is welcome, but, in the criminal justice system as a whole, the notion that the cost of the system would ever be entirely covered through fines and recovery costs is a bit far-fetched, to put it mildly. It is important that we recognise the fact that, sometimes, there can be wider public policy objectives as a result of doing the right thing, which will have to be borne from general expenditure. We should take our decision based on that expectation. Ultimately, that is how it should be, and whatever can be raised from fines should be seen as a bonus to the system. The costs borne in delivering many of the desired outcomes can, at times, be considerable. The income may not be that much, and, as Mr McGlone suggested, it may vary from area to area.

I make that point because an underlying tension could arise between central government and local government over the issue. Local government will welcome the additional powers because there is a desire among council officers and councillors to respond better to their constituents’ problems. However, there is a sense that they are going to be lumped with the additional costs of doing that. That points to a wider level of suspicion between central government and local government, which, perhaps, we should not have. If there are additional costs, it does not matter whether, ultimately, those costs are to be borne by taxpayers through the tax system or by ratepayers through rates. One way or another, an increased level of household income will go to government. The expectation is that, in return, people will get a better level of service.

That kind of tension is not particular to Northern Ireland. It exists across these islands, and it is almost as if there is buck-passing or finger-pointing between central and local government about who is more efficient in delivering services. In the current climate of budgetary cuts, the danger of that tension emerging is quite strong. We see that already in the wider debate, with expectations from the coalition Government that local government will control costs, and there is talk of capping rates and freezing council tax in the UK. Indeed, locally, the Minister of the Environment has spoken about the potential for councils capping rates. Some councils point out that they manage their resources efficiently; some are more efficient than central Government would be, and I would like to think that my council, North Down Borough Council, would be one of those. There is a danger that more responsibilities will be passed on to councils. If the councils end up with the increased costs and, consequently, the rates go up, all of a sudden central government will point the finger at the councils for inappropriate management of resources rather than the cost of central government increasing.

I make a plea to the Minister to focus on this as a collaborative exercise between central and local government, and avoid the temptation for it to end up as a further area where confrontation between the two sectors can emerge. Ultimately, we are all acting as public servants in the public interest.

I will comment briefly on the issue of alley-gating and the alley-gaters. Obviously, what we are doing is tackling the symptoms of problems, but we need to be conscious that that is all we are doing when antisocial behaviour occurs. Sometimes there is no choice for government but to intervene with measures that simply try to manage situations that have emerged. I would make a similar point in relation to ASBOs, for example. They are only one option as part of a wider menu of options for dealing with problems. Ultimately there has to be a focus on dealing with the causes of problems emerging in particular areas that lead to suggestions of alley gates being erected as a way of containing the problem. We need to look beyond what can happen through the Department of the Environment to other aspects of government in relation to how we can better deal with the causes of antisocial behaviour in the first place.

I also want to make a point about something that is not in the legislation — my colleague Mr McCarthy is particularly keen that we stress this point. When we are talking about clean neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland, we cannot avoid the issue of the use or misuse of flags and we cannot avoid talking about bonfires. I fully appreciate that those types of issues have traditionally been viewed as good relations issues or cultural issues. Perhaps we will see them discussed in more detail through the forthcoming cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) strategy.

It is also worth stressing that there are also environmental issues; we cannot run away from that fact. In relation to bonfires, why do we consider the dumping of wood — and potentially other, more dangerous and sometimes lethal substances — at a particular time of the year as a cultural phenomenon, but, at another time of the year, as littering? That is something to be considered through the legislation. Similarly, we are happy for the Bill to deal with fly-posting and the antisocial aspects of the misuse of posters, but people also take a view about how flags impact on their neighbourhoods and how that affects their quality of life.

I fully appreciate that I am delving into extremely complex issues, particularly in a divided society such as Northern Ireland. We will have to have some agreed way forward on how we manage the different cultural demands that we have as a society. I fully respect people’s right to celebrate their culture. I think that we also need to have some agreed understanding of what is meant by shared space in this society. Again, I make the point that shared space need not mean neutral, sanitised space. There can be circumstances in which people wish to put up flags or bunting to celebrate their culture; the issue is how we manage, respect and acknowledge the fact that space is shared and is for all the community.

There will be different dynamics in different communities. There may well be quite strong, overt support for flags and bonfires in some areas, but there are other areas where residents have objections to what is happening. We need to acknowledge and manage those particular tensions. Indeed, there can be circumstances where people do not feel secure in expressing their real opinion about what is happening in their areas.

Photo of Paul Givan Paul Givan DUP 12:15, 30 June 2010

Does the Member not realise that, although he claims to want to deal with it, raising that issue at this time of year, when it does not even relate to the Bill, actually heightens tensions? Members on this side of the House proactively engage with local communities to try to manage the issue in a positive manner, but his efforts today to politicise the issue only makes the matter worse.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I hesitate to say that I am grateful to the Member for making that intervention, because I am certainly not making an attempt to politicise the matter today. If anything, I am trying to make my comments in very measured tones.

I work with groups in my area on those difficult issues, and I have been doing so in quite some depth over the past number of months. The timing of the Bill is the timing of the Bill, and certain points have to be made about it. We are not discussing only the principles of Bill but its wider context and the areas that could be considered to be part of the Bill.

I wish to reiterate, particularly for Mr Givan’s benefit, that I am acknowledging that those issues cannot be looked at solely from an environmental point of view and through a Bill such as this one and that wider good relations and cultural dimensions must be taken into consideration, even though we have traditionally viewed those issues through other prisms. When discussing the Bill, it is important that we do not run away from acknowledging that there are environmental considerations and that the Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development, through Roads Service, and the Department for Social Development, through the Housing Executive, are fully aware of them.

Clearly, there are sensitivities around the issue. However, we, as a society, do ourselves no favours by simply running away from discussing difficult issues. Yet, we stand to gain from being capable of discussing them in a mature manner. That is what I am attempting to do today. It is worth MLAs’ recognising that constituents will wish to raise their concerns about the issue with them over the coming summer months. I certainly hope that this summer is a peaceful and constructive one. We, as an Assembly, must grapple with the wider policy issues. I had better leave my comments there. I look forward to seeing how the Bill proceeds through its various stages.

Photo of Paul Givan Paul Givan DUP

I welcome the Bill, which is wide-ranging. It would be wrong to lose sight of the extent to which it will help to provide clean neighbourhoods. Some people may think that the Bill is about only litter, but it actually covers a wide range of issues and will go a long way towards ensuring that councils have the tools and powers that they need to improve the quality of the environment.

A lot of us get annoyed when we see people dropping rubbish in a park, local village, street or on the beach. When I take my daughter, who will be three in August, out for a walk, and she sees a piece of rubbish, she points to it and says, “Daddy, daddy. Rubbish.” She usually follows that up by saying, “Naughty boy”, because she seems to think that only naughty boys drop rubbish. If she, at her age, can recognise that rubbish should not be dropped on the ground — she usually wants to pick up the rubbish and put it in the bin — why can young people and adults not recognise that they should not drop litter and that it costs the taxpayer a huge amount of money and councils a huge amount of effort to it clean up?

I challenged some young people about why they drop rubbish, and they made the idiotic comment that it keeps somebody in a job, which is absolute nonsense. Such individuals would continue to be in a job but councils could use them in a much better fashion. Therefore, the issue of litter is an important one.

I welcome the provision on fixed penalties. People who cannot be taught that dropping rubbish is wrong should be punished and should be given an appropriate fine to discourage them from doing so again. The Bill will increase the powers that councils have, but it is up to them to then use those powers effectively. Stephen Farry talked about there being tension because central government is passing the buck. I am sorry that the Member thinks that central government is in the best position to try to deliver that function, because it is not, the councils are. Therefore, there is no buck-passing exercise.

The Member talks about not wanting to create tension. However, by his comments, rather than recognising the good work that the Minister has been doing, he is creating suspicion.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I am not sure whether the Member is a member of local government, but I think that he is. Therefore, he should be aware, from his discussions with councillors, that the powers are welcome. However, at the same time, there is nervousness in local government about the cost implications and the potential for powers to be introduced without resources being made available. The point that I was making was that, ultimately, the function should be delivered through local government. Whether it is all paid for through rates or through taxation does not matter that much, because the money would still be coming out of the same households. Issues arise over the management of the tension that may emerge, so it is important that, if local government costs go up as a result, central government does not point the finger and accuse local government of increasing rates and being inefficient, particularly at a time when cuts are putting cost pressures on government across the board.

Photo of Paul Givan Paul Givan DUP

The end result must be a cleaner environment, and councils are best placed to deliver that. It is for councils to manage how they carry out their functions, and the Bill indicates that those will be cost-neutral. I do not know how North Down Borough Council manages its finances, but Lisburn City Council, of which I am a member, manages its finances very well, which is why its rates are the second lowest of any council in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am quite sure that our council will be able to take on this function and deliver an efficient and effective service to the ratepayers of Lisburn.

I particularly welcome the proposal to introduce gating orders. In my constituency, there are alleyways in which a huge amount of antisocial behaviour, which causes concern for businesses and nearby homeowners, takes place. Clause 1 will enable councils to deal with antisocial behaviour effectively. It will help not only the local community but the police, who, when contacted by the local community about antisocial behaviour, come out but are unable to catch people because the alleyways are used as escape routes. Therefore, gating orders will also help the police to catch the people involved.

I also welcome the controls that are being suggested to limit the distribution of free literature. I particularly welcome the exemptions for charities and religious organisations. Some Church organisations raised the issue, and I am pleased that there will be exemptions for those organisations to distribute their literature.

The Bill is wide-ranging in its measures and is one that the Minister, when he came into post, was determined to put through the House. His officials have done an excellent job in producing the Bill, and, once the powers are in place and begin to be implemented by local councils, people will see tangible benefits. I support the Bill.

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP

I declare an interest as a member of Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council. Perhaps I should also say that it was the only council that did not increase its rates last year. If Members want to know how that is done, they can come up to Dungannon, and we will show them. However, that is not really relevant to today’s debate.

It is not often that the House sits on a Wednesday. However, if it is sitting for no other reason than to take the Bill to its next stage, it will have been worthwhile and time well spent. However, we are debating a matter of such magnitude that I express some disappointment at Members’ attendance. Many of us serve on local councils and, therefore, have first-hand knowledge of the litter problem. Litter is something that grieves us all. A considerable portion of the rates bill is spent on gathering and cleaning up litter that has been deposited by those who sometimes do not give much thought to dropping it.

I warmly congratulate the Minister, his Department and officials for getting the Bill into the House and bringing it to this stage. If it does pass — having listened to Members’ comments, I suspect that it will pass unanimously — Northern Ireland will be a different place as a result.

However, there are one or two matters on which I would like the Minister to comment in his winding-up speech. There are issues in the Bill that need a little bit more clarification, and I would like to hear his views on those. I have concern about the implementation and enforcement of the legislation. It is all very well to have a Bill and to tell people what they should and should not do; it is quite another thing to get them to do it, as is what the aftermath will be if they do not do it. There is, therefore, the issue of enforcement.

At present, we have powers to issue what are called ASBOs — anti-social behaviour orders. In the past year, 39 ASBOs were applied for and granted. As everyone in the House will be aware, the agencies that can apply for an ASBO are, of course, the PSNI, the Housing Executive, and local councils. In the police division in which I reside, which takes in Cookstown, Dungannon, Fermanagh and Omagh, not a single ASBO was issued. I cannot believe for a moment that no antisocial behaviour goes on in those areas. As one who lives in Dungannon, I have to say, unfortunately, that there is.

That, of course, takes us to the field of litter louts. People going into any town or street in Northern Ireland will find litter in one form or another, whether cigarette butts, or chewing gum, which has been much referred to in the debate. There is no more obnoxious piece of litter being deposited on our streets than chewing gum. It is the scourge of all council areas. It is not an easy one to tackle and is not one that can be dealt with at low cost. Therefore, I wonder whether the proposed legislation will be effective, sturdy and robust enough to deal with an issue such as that.

A number of Members mentioned dog fouling. That issue has to be tackled in a big way, because it is becoming a real problem, certainly in the Dungannon area. I hope that the Bill will enable it to be dealt with effectively. Although dog fouling is an offence, I do not read in my papers or get reports from my council that another one, two, three, four or five people have been dealt with in relation to dog fouling.

I warmly congratulate the Minister for taking the Bill to this Stage. As I said, if implemented and enforced, the legislation will change the face of this country. However, I have concerns about the enforcement. I ask the Minister whether there are any incentives in the Bill, because a carrot can sometimes be as constructive as a stick?

I declared that I am a member of Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council. In the past, we have entered competitions such as Ulster in Bloom and Britain in Bloom. We have done exceptionally well, and if Members want to come up they will see why. To see all those things that are happening there is another reason why tourists should be coming to Dungannon. However, that is for another day and, perhaps, another place.

If the Bill is light on anything, it is light on incentives. Councils may wish to go into new aspects of tackling litter, antisocial behaviour and all the things that relate to that. What incentives will the Minister’s Department give them to ensure that that happens? When my council enters competitions, the town is spick and span. There are those who visit the town to see it, and I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have come to Dungannon just to see it on many an occasion. In the run-up to the competition, there is not so much as a leaf on the ground. Once the competition is over, there is a tendency to slip back a little and allow a leaf to fall before it is picked up.

We want a Bill that encourages activity all year round from the local community. Can community groups avail themselves of any provision in the Bill that provides an incentive for them to express an interest in their town, village, street, neighbourhood or housing development? When we get it right down to that level, we will make a big impression. Not only should councils be involved, but every one of us has a part to play. There is a big onus on us to do that.

There is potential for lines to get a bit blurred around the role of the Environment Agency in all of this. I have been critical of the NIEA in private and in public; it does not react quickly enough sometimes, and, when I speak to them, it tells me that it does not have the resources. There is a gap between the responsibilities of the council and those of the NIEA in dealing with a form of litter, be it lorry-loads of rubble or whatever it is.

In my town, we had a situation recently whereby a local farmer became a victim of some lout who deposited material on his land, yet the farmer was held responsible and he had to go through a very costly exercise of cleaning the whole thing up. Not only that, he was taken to court through no fault of his own. We all have to be responsible for our properties and for what is on them or not on them. However, sometimes there is an unfairness that has to be looked at too. I know the individual involved; he is a highly responsible citizen of Dungannon, and I think he was dealt a very hard blow.

The area that this Bill can make most impression in is by encouraging something that, in Northern Ireland, has in the main been lost: civic pride. If we can get back to the day when everyone, all the citizens of Northern Ireland, take a keener interest in the towns, villages, streets and housing developments in which they live, that will be a big achievement. This Bill can go some way in doing that. I look to the Minister to see whether, in the future, he can inject some incentives for community groups and councils.

We recognise that society is strapped for cash at present; there is an economic downturn and there may be worse news ahead. In such times, these things get secondary treatment, and I do not think that that should be the case. It is imperative that this sort of stuff that the Minister is trying to get through here today should be given top priority, and it is a pity that there are not more MLAs in the House to take part in the debate. We all have a part to play here. This is not an issue where the Minister comes through with a Bill and tells the councils to get on with the job. That is a part of it; but there is much, much more to it. There is an education programme here, and that has to be taken seriously.

My colleague referred to a stroll in the park with his young daughter. We could all draw the parallel. It is dreadful to follow a car and see litter being deposited from each window. I had that unfortunate experience quite recently, when a Mars bar wrapper was thrown from one window of a car in front of me, and a Bounty bar wrapper came out of the other side. Those folk must have been having a picnic in the car. I do not know what was going on.

Dungannon park is another very scenic area and another reason why MLAs should visit Dungannon. I once saw a person deposit an empty can there, and I told him that I thought that he had dropped something. He replied that he did not think that he had It is that sort of unthinking behaviour that brings big bills to our local council areas, as well as bringing shame. There will be costs around the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. How does the Minister see those costs being met? Will councils have to take on extra resources or will it be done with existing resources?

Photo of David McClarty David McClarty UUP 12:30, 30 June 2010

Your attempted promotion of Dungannon was commendable.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I declare an interest as a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council. The Bill will increase the enforcement powers of councils over a wide range of areas.

The Bill is long overdue. This Assembly has been sitting for over three years and, in welcoming the Bill, I have to say that it is regrettable that it did not come at an earlier stage. England and Wales have had the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act since 2005, and I am aware from my constituency work of how this Bill could enhance the lives of many of our citizens.

The additional powers that will be introduced by the Bill must be welcomed by all. They will significantly update Northern Ireland’s legislative position. The Bill will give district councils additional powers to address litter, nuisance alleys, graffiti, illegal fly-posting and abandoned and nuisance vehicles. It will also improve legislation governing dogs, noise and statutory nuisance issues. Such issues are not effectively covered by the existing provisions in Northern Ireland, but they are being addressed by local authorities in England and Wales through different legislation.

The powers in the Bill are to be welcomed as a means of addressing local environmental issues. The lives of many of our citizens will be enhanced when councils and other statutory agencies use enforcement powers against the misdemeanours that are taking place, such as fly-tipping. I am thinking of the dams and reservoir around Carrickfergus, the Woodburn and the Lough Mourne dams, where fly-tipping has occurred on a number of occasions. Anything that increases the powers of our agencies and councils to ensure that the environment is kept in pristine condition must be supported.

The Bill will also make it very clear who will be responsible. There has been wrangling over whether NI Water, the Forest Service or the councils are responsible. There will be an obligation to sort that out at a much earlier stage and improve the environment, because, of course, rubbish collects rubbish, and the sooner that it is tidied up, the better.

A key aspect of the Bill is that it allows for fixed penalty notices for a range of offences and the retention of those fixed penalty receipts by councils, which may make some contribution to the cost associated with the additional work that will come with the legislation. A wide range of additional areas will come under the remit of local authorities, which they will be able to pursue in order to improve the lives of citizens. However, at the same time, it will allow council officers to act in a manner that will be much more speedy and that will require considerably less resources than other forms of legislation; for instance, taking ASBOs to court level. Some of the new provisions for dealing with noise in the street, car and house alarms will result in councils having to carry out additional work, but they will also enhance local neighbourhoods and our citizens’ lives.

The Minister indicated previously that planning powers would have been devolved to the 11 super-councils. He subsequently indicated a wish for planning powers to be devolved to the current 26 councils. In addition, it was indicated that Housing Executive powers would be progressively passed to local councils. It would be helpful of the Minister to clarify that whole area to provide an understanding of the context in which the new laws will operate in terms of any complementary budgets that may or may not be coming to local councils.

I turn to the proposed gating orders. In my constituency work, I have come across situations in which these would be a useful tool to improve the lives of local residents. Concern was raised relatively recently about some of the access points to Greenisland railway station — I am thinking in terms of antisocial behaviour and underage drinking. Outside railway operating hours, when there are no trains, gating will be a useful option to consider as a way to improve the lives of pensioners who are being plagued at present — that is, if other measures prove unsuccessful.

I am also aware of locations where considerable antisocial behaviour has occurred in the past, including dumping in the middle of housing areas. In one area, families had to be rehoused after it reached the stage of a couple of arson attacks. As some Members have said, there are areas in which drug dealing goes on. A key aspect in my mind was that there were multiple escape routes in that area. Anybody wanting to get up to antisocial behaviour had numerous means of getting away from the law or others who might have been trying to apprehend them for their criminal actions. I view the gating orders as useful.

Photo of Cathal Boylan Cathal Boylan Sinn Féin 12:45, 30 June 2010

Does the Member recognise that the other element to gating orders is that parts of some developments are used as walkways? Does he accept that, if we are to introduce alley-gating, proper consultation with all the people in an area is needed?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Consultation will be a key aspect of alley-gating that restricts movement. I suspect that councils will not proceed with gating without clear support from local people. I am thinking of areas that service the back entries to houses and to back gardens, which would be used by a small number of residents living in that area.

The entry that I am thinking of was attracting people from outside the area; it was not a route to or from anywhere, it was merely a service area for those houses. I understand the point made by the Member: if there was a right-of-way issue, there might be difficulties in closing it down. However, if it could be seen to be of service only to local residents, I would fully support their wish to take back ownership of that area. They would have keys to enter as freely as they wish, but the movements of those from outside the area would be restricted. As I said, in some areas I have seen dumping occurring, fires being started and drug dealing going on. Anything that would return such an area to local ownership must be supported unambiguously — I would support local residents in their wish to improve their area. I have also said that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had an alley-gating budget: will that be passed to councils?

I turn now to Part 2 of the Bill, which refers to vehicles and nuisance parking offences. I intend to concentrate on this area, because my constituency work has given me some experience here. Some Members may think that the number of clauses dealing with that area make the Bill over-elaborate and burdensome, but I welcome those details. My sense is that those details come from experience, and if the Assembly is to enhance any of the powers in the Bill, we have to take account of what people say. In my experience, those who have been involved in nuisance parking, and so forth, look for every available loophole to abuse the system, which results in antisocial behaviour that greatly disturbs ordinary neighbours.

I warmly welcome the Bill, which environmental health officers suggest will enhance their ability to improve local environments. At present, they work closely with the Housing Executive and the police to deal with antisocial behaviour. I can think of an individual from my constituency who caused misery to his neighbours in the Taylors Avenue area of Carrickfergus by collecting and dismantling abandoned vehicles. In court, the police linked that individual with 90 vehicles that had been abandoned on a small number of streets over several years, causing huge disruption, leaving the area looking unsightly and making it difficult for residents to park. Indeed, one disabled resident was unable to park close to his home.

In that case, although an ASBO was issued, existing legislation clearly did not work. The matter rolled on for six or seven years, involving numerous agencies and, in the past two to three years, a number of statutory agencies met monthly to discuss it and other issues. Dealing with such cases using ASBO legislation involves considerable cost. As a public representative, I gave evidence in court because people were fearful and suspected that houses had been damaged in relation to the case. Abandoned vehicles can also be used as runarounds for petty, or even more serious, crime, so removing them from our streets can play an important part in preventing further crime.

My ASBO experience required numerous court sittings; I have to admit to a level of frustration with the court system. An interim ASBO was issued, followed by the actual ASBO case. There was then an appeal, but the individual involved dismissed his legal representation, so we had to come back for a second appeal. As we scrutinise the Bill, we should bear in mind that, using the present system, the cost of dealing with abandoned vehicles is horrendous. In the court case that I attended, the following were also present: eight police officers and two environmental health officers; and the prosecution counsel and a defence barrister and solicitor, who were paid for by legal aid. There were also the usual court costs. When all the costs are added up, I reckon that the whole case cost a minimum of £10,000 or perhaps even £20,000.

The new legislation must be welcomed, because issuing a fixed penalty notice at an early stage will allow situations to be dealt with more speedily and efficiently. Instead of having to spend years gathering information, during which time residents may be tortured, the Bill will provide a speedier and more efficient method with which to address the issue, so I welcome it. I hope that no other residents have to undergo the experience that those on Taylors Avenue had to face. I might add that the situation has improved considerably since the ASBO was issued.

As I said, some Members may consider the powers to dispose of vehicles to be too detailed and over the top. For instance, people will be prevented from selling vehicles on a public road. When too many vehicles for sale or repair are parked on a public road, they cause road safety issues and prevent other people from parking their vehicles. If a business regularly works on cars on the public road, it causes problems for neighbours. It also gives rise to road safety issues: how can appropriate health and safety checks be carried out, and how can the public be protected from all the tools, and so on, that are left lying around? However, it is important to strike a balance so that the legislation does not apply to people who work on their own cars outside their homes.

I told Members about my experience of dealing with the power to require names and addresses. The activity in question happened at night, which made the situation more difficult, and the vehicles concerned were registered in multiple names. Some people were not even aware that vehicles had been registered in their names. Anything that increases the statutory powers to gather information must be welcomed.

The Bill contains more detail about the notice of and procedures for the removal of such vehicles. My experience was that, on a number of occasions, when it became known that the statutory authorities were about to lift a car, it was deliberately set on fire in the middle of a residential area. Therefore, there are good reasons for increasing the councils’ powers to enable them to lift vehicles speedily and, if necessary, dispose of them.

Storage costs are involved when cars are taken to a compound. We do not want to incur unnecessary costs, particularly for vehicles that are at the end of their life. It is appropriate that their speedy disposal should be possible after attempts have been made to contact the rightful owner. In the past, some individuals attempted to use the complex existing legislation to claim compensation for their vehicles. They did so by making themselves difficult to contact and then trying to claim compensation after their vehicle had been lifted. As there is a clear need for improvement in that area, I see good reason for the detail in the Bill.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

I welcome the increased powers for litter control, the additional protection for the waterways from littering and the use of fixed penalty notices in early and efficient enforcement. Our waterways were almost omitted from the Bill, because it was unclear who controlled or owned them, and, therefore, it was not clear how action could be taken.

Litter clearing notices will facilitate the enhance­ment of neighbourhoods. As I said, rubbish collects rubbish, and, therefore, litter problems must be addressed as early as possible. I accept that difficulties arise when someone illegally drops material on private property. In practice, who will tidy up that material, other than the owner? If the quantities of litter are excessive, statutory intervention is required. At present, however, it is largely down to the owner to clear the material. The legislation makes that clearer at a much earlier stage.

We have all had advertising flyers placed on our windscreens. Frequently, they blow away and litter an area. The legislation needs to be improved. I welcome the provision that requires businesses to take greater care to prevent their shopping trolleys from going astray. Members would be surprised by the costs that businesses incur from trolleys going astray. They will, therefore, benefit from having to manage their trolleys more carefully. Over the years, numerous trolleys have turned up in the Inver river in Larne. They endanger wildlife, and the local angling club has undertaken a number of clean-up operations to clear trolleys and other debris from the river.

The Bill also covers graffiti and other defacements. It is important to improve the regulations so that our town centres are not defaced by fly-posting and graffiti and that there are more speedy routes to tidy that up. Fly-posting is an interesting area. We do not want to be hitting the owners of the walls that have been posted on; many of them have not have indicated their willingness for the fly-posting, and I suspect that most of the pasting takes place in the dark. Who benefits from the posting? That is an area that we may well have to look at. Frequently, the leaflets do not say who printed or published them. However, if they are advertising a particular event, it is clear who will benefit from that event. If those who do the illegal fly-posting cannot be traced, them some degree of accountability should be brought home on those who promote or benefit from the event, as they will have paid for the posters to be printed and erected. Therefore, we must introduce accountability and look at the enforcement powers that are there so that responsibility does not fall on the homeowner or the owner of the business where the items have been pasted.

I agree that we need new regulations restricting the sale of aerosols to children. Why do children need aerosol cans? If there is a particular art exercise for school work, I am sure that their parents will be more than willing to purchase the cans and let their children use them appropriately in their own home. We do not want our town centres disfigured and full of graffiti. We need to improve our environment and make it more attractive to visitors and tourists. This is an increasingly important area.

There are also powers to make dog control orders, and we will need to look into the detail of that. Most people in local government agree that there are problems with dog fouling and how dogs are regulated. We must ensure that there is improvement there, and we must also ensure that responsible owners are not unduly burdened. We need to check that the balance is there.

Intruder alarms are set off frequently and can run for hours and hours. Therefore, I welcome the increased scrutiny in that area and the fact that local government will have a role in ensuring that businesses control their intruder alarms. Many people live in residential accommodation in town centres, and we must remember that people are going back to living over the shop. Therefore, it is important that we not allow their home life to be disrupted by faulty alarms.

If enacted appropriately, the regulations will generally improve the quality of life for our citizens. I welcome the extensive use of the fixed penalty notice throughout a whole range of areas. It will allow for a speedy and efficient method of bringing about improvement and address things earlier at a lower level, which will enable that speedy improvement to come about. The Bill can help to empower local people. With the support of local councils and other agencies, it will be possible to enhance the lives of many. Generally, I support the Bill and look forward to discussing it in more detail in Committee.

Photo of Brian Wilson Brian Wilson Green 1:00, 30 June 2010

I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council.

Like other Members, I welcome the Bill as it addresses many of the problems that face councillors on a day-to-day basis. It will increase the powers of councillors and bring them into line with district councils in Great Britain. The additional powers introduced in the Bill are overdue and significantly update the existing legislative position. It will give district councils powers to address problems that are not covered by currently legislation but that can be addressed by local councils in GB. In recent years, I grew increasingly frustrated because the council did not have adequate powers to resolve many of the problems that my constituents raised. The new powers provide a means of resolving existing problems, and I have no doubt that they will assist in improving the quality of life and health of many residents.

To many, issues such as abandoned vehicles, litter, graffiti, fly-posting, dog controls and noise may not seem particularly important. However, they can cause considerable distress and have a significant impact on many residents’ quality of life. For example, an abandoned vehicle often causes concern for neighbours. At present, a council officer must put a notice on the vehicle but cannot move it for a week. During that time, it attracts vandals who wreck it or set it on fire, and that causes considerable distress to local residents. The new proposals give the council the power to issue fixed penalty notices for the offence of abandoning a vehicle and the power to move the vehicle. Therefore, it does not have to sit there annoying the residents. The Bill is welcome because it streamlines the process for dealing with abandoned vehicles. However, north Down has a major problem with abandoned caravans that is not addressed under current legislation, and I am not sure whether the Bill addresses that. It should be extended to deal with caravans.

As many Members said, litter is a major problem that raises much public anger. In fact, it costs ratepayers in north Down almost £1 million a year. As a society, we are a filthy lot, particularly compared with our continental neighbours. The present legislation is not effective in dealing with that problem, and the council needs greater powers. I hope that the powers in the Bill will resolve that matter. Therefore, I welcome the Bill’s proposal to make it an offence for a person to give a false name and address when they are questioned by an authorised officer about a litter offence. In addition, in light of the courts’ failure to deal adequately with litter louts, it is more appropriate for such an offence to be punishable by a fixed penalty notice. I welcome the introduction of the fixed penalty notice in the legislation.

I welcome the litter clearing notices, which can be served on an occupier or owner of land. Those are long overdue, because many serious neighbourhood disputes have arisen because householders allow rubbish to accumulate in their gardens and the council cannot do anything to resolve that problem. I hope that those notices, which require land to be cleared of litter within a specified time frame, will reduce that problem. However, I believe that the 28-day compliance period may be too long. That should be reconsidered.

The Bill contains provisions on fly-posting. However, I am concerned that the Bill provides powers to councils to target only the people who post the information as opposed to the beneficiaries. The power to target the beneficiaries lies with the Planning Service. Although it is more effective to target those groups, the Planning Service in Northern Ireland does not see that as a high priority. If fly-posting is to be properly addressed, councils must have full powers of prosecution.

Although the Green Party welcomes the new proposals to create dog control orders and the measures to resolve noise problems, we are concerned that they will create an additional workload for councils and, perhaps, be a strain on their resources. I cannot accept the Department’s view that the financial effects of the Bill on local councils will be cost neutral. Although the proposals are welcome, it is unlikely that they will lead to full cost recovery by councils through the income generated by fixed penalty notices. The time spent by officers and on administration that is required to investigate and enforce many of those issues adequately will still be significant and, therefore, will still carry a cost to the council. The Department should reconsider the proposed levels of fine and consider whether they adequately reflect the polluter pays principle.

The Bill allows for fixed penalty notices for a range of offences and the retention of fixed penalty fines by councils, but that will not meet the costs associated with the additional work. Furthermore, the successful resolution of many such problems is often best achieved without recourse to formal action. We will not need to go to the courts. If we have the power of the courts behind us, situations can be resolved in an informal manner. Such an approach will not attract fees and, hence, income. Moneys obtained from the provisions are likely to be relatively small compared with the level of work associated with such complaints. Notwithstanding those comments, the use of fixed penalties, with the amount set by councils, and the retention of fees for use in qualifying functions is welcome.

In view of those matters, I ask the Department to consider what additional resources could be made available to councils to successfully undertake the new and enhanced powers and, therefore, improve environmental conditions in our area.

We welcome the introduction of the Bill and the increased powers that it gives to the tackling of environmental crime. The new powers will provide a new foundation to change antisocial behaviour, which impacts directly on the quality of individuals’ lives, health and standards of living. The legislation introduces excellent opportunities to begin tackling a broader range of local environment quality issues, and I hope that we can develop those at Committee Stage. I support the Bill.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I welcome the general support for the Bill that Members have expressed. Mr Boylan, on behalf of the Committee, indicated the Committee’s broad support for the issues that were raised and asked questions about helping local communities. Much of what we are doing through the Bill is enabling local authorities to make local areas and neighbourhoods better and cleaner places. The Bill will largely be implemented through local authorities.

A number of Members, including Lord Morrow and Mr McGlone, raised the issue of the cost of implementing the Bill’s provisions. Our advice is that it should be close to cost neutral. There may well be an expense — that remains to be seen — but it will not be hugely expensive. Most people who own their own homes know that it may cost a bit of money and hard work to make their place look better. There may be a small cost and additional work for local government, but the benefit, reward and incentive will come in their sense of place and the civic pride that Lord Morrow referred to. They will have a considerably better community for the small cost associated with the implementation of the Bill. Indeed, it will lead to considerably less cost because there will be less waste to be collected.

I would like local authorities to work with others. It is up to each local authority to decide how to do it, but I look at the effectiveness of the officers who implement car parking restrictions in our towns and cities. Is there any reason why those officers are not brought in to assist in observing people who drop litter and ensuring that they are brought to book? There are six or eight such officers in full-time operation in the city in which I live. Why bring in additional officers if those who are already there can be employed for a small sum?

People ask how it will work, but it will work by doing it. I know of local councils that employed litter officers in the past. Lisburn City Council employed a litter officer, perhaps 20 years ago, and I think that, after about 12 weeks, one person was done for dropping litter.

The news needs to be that somebody — perhaps more than one person — was done on Monday, somebody was done on Tuesday and somebody was done on Wednesday. I guarantee that, once the local community gets the message that people are regularly receiving on-the-spot fines for spitting out chewing gum, dropping litter and despoiling our streets, we will see an improvement in behaviour within weeks or months. People do not want to get caught and have to pay a fine. They do not want anyone to look at them and say, “There’s yer man from our estate. He was one of the ones who got caught.”

I guarantee that that approach would make a difference, and quickly. Effective early implementation of the measures would drive home the message that such behaviour is no longer tolerable. The public should not have to put their hands in their pockets to pull out not litter but pound notes to pay for others who drop litter out of their pockets rather than put it in a bin or take it home with them. We need to be very strong on the issue.

Mr Boylan mentioned cars on footpaths, and that is a matter for the Department for Regional Development (DRD) alone. He also mentioned alley-gating, which is a problem. DRD addressed the issue in Belfast, and the scheme that was put in place there has been of considerable help.

A number of Members, including Mr Beggs, who talked at length, talked about problems associated with certain areas. Graffiti, drugs being sold and young people with plastic bags for glue-sniffing are all common sights in those areas. The ability to clamp down on those activities is very limited at present. The system for putting alley gates in place is so convoluted and cumbersome that it is not effective. The Bill will allow us to deal effectively with issues through the local authorities and in a way in which the community wants us to. A community may want an alley to stay open until 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm in the winter or until 10.00 pm in the summer. I do not know, for that is a decision for the community to make in conjunction with its local authority. However, the community should get what the community wants. If the community does not want an alley gate, it should not have one. If the community wants one, let it work out with the local authority at what times the individual who is given the keys to the gate should lock it each and every day. People will get used to alley gates, and they will welcome them. They will assist policing, particularly in clamping down on low-level crime.

Mr Ross told us about what students get up to, and then Mr Kinahan elaborated on that when he confessed that he had engaged in shopping-trolley racing. We see people walk out of supermarkets with trolleys full of drink. It costs them £1 to wheel a trolley full of drink back to their destination, but those trolleys are inevitably not returned. Those people do not care about getting their pound back, and the trolley ends up being dumped. As I cycled to work last week by the River Lagan — I recommend that all Members try that, as it will help to keep them all looking fit and well, particularly over the summer — I saw shopping trolleys in the water. That is completely wrong, and such a sight spoils an area of natural beauty.

Supermarkets need to get the message that they must think about what they are doing to secure the investment that they have made. Supermarkets have spent a considerable amount on buying the trolleys, so could they not chip them to prevent them from being taken beyond a certain area? What is happening at the moment is theft. If I were to walk out of a supermarket with £100 of goods that I have not paid for, I suspect that the security guard would stop me fairly quickly. However, I can walk out of a supermarket with a shopping trolley, which I expect is worth £100 or more, and take it away with me. Many people are doing that with impunity. Why can shopping trolleys not be chipped so that an alarm goes off when people try to take them away? Security guards could then deal with the problem there and then. That would tackle two problems at once. That area needs to be addressed. Hopefully, this legislation will create an impetus for the supermarkets to act. Not only will they lose the shopping trolleys, they will be charged for their removal from the waterways or wherever they are dumped. Perhaps the message will then get through to them.

Mr Kinahan also mentioned rural noise. I would express caution to the Committee on that point. Some very fine people move into rural areas, and they are not there for very long before they start to complain about the smell of slurry and about farmers who are ploughing until midnight, making silage, mowing grass, cutting barley and so forth. They fail to understand that, on occasion, country people have limited time frames in which to carry out their work. Although some people might want to lie in bed at 6.00 am, others want to get on with their work. I do not want to introduce some sort of legislation to benefit people who have moved from towns to rural areas and who just do not understand that, although there are many positive aspects to living in a rural area, there are also some negatives. I caution the Committee against going down the route that Mr Kinahan suggested.

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP 1:15, 30 June 2010

I am interested in the Minister’s point about farmers who want to get on with their work at 6.00 am, and I understand that. However, will he take it from me that some urban dwellers start work at 6.00 am, and some start even before then?

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Absolutely. Nothing should be taken out of what I said that implies otherwise. Many urban dwellers are very hard-working people. It is just that some urban dwellers who move to rural areas have a little difficulty in coming to terms with how things are done.

Mr Kinahan also mentioned cost recovery, as did Dr Farry. Dr Farry said that recovered costs are just a bonus. I do not see it that way at all. It is something that my colleague Mr Ford, the Minister of Justice, will need to address. The amounts that can be recovered were set down in an Order in 1981. A council can recover only £75 for something that might cost it £500, £1,000 or more. That figure might not have been unreasonable in 1981, but now, 30 years later, it might be appropriate to revisit it. I do not see why we, the ratepayers, should pay huge amounts to ensure that things are done right. I encourage my colleague Mr Ford to address that in due course. I am aware that he has a very heavy workload. Members only have to listen to the radio to hear mention of the Department of Justice every morning in relation to other issues. I am, therefore, aware that he has considerable work to do, but I will support him if he addresses that matter.

Mr McGlone referred to the cost-neutral issue, which I have sought to deal with. I recognise that there is an issue about abandoned vehicles. At present, the Driver and Vehicle Agency database has some difficulties in identifying all abandoned vehicles. Considerable work has been done on that, and Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) declarations have helped to ensure that many more vehicles are easily identifiable. I should add that many scrap vehicles have value. People make businesses out of collecting and processing them for further use. Therefore, the proposed actions can be taken at a fairly low cost to local government. Councils can set up arrangements with legitimate companies that engage in processing scrap metal for further use, and I think that that can be done reasonably, without putting a huge burden of cost on the ratepayers. At the same time, the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) will continue to try to deal with the identification issue that was mentioned.

Mr McGlone also raised the issue of alarms. Car alarms can be dealt with under the new statutory nuisance measures in Part 7 of the Bill, which makes provision for:

“noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street”.

District councils must issue abatement notices when they are satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, may occur or may recur. In the case of car alarms, a notice is served on the responsible person, or on the vehicle if that person cannot be found. If the abatement notice is not complied with, the district council is empowered to enter or open a vehicle — by force, if necessary — to silence a car alarm and to remove the vehicle from the street to a secure place if that is necessary to abate the nuisance. Therefore, powers to deal with that issue are relatively extensive.

Mr Farry raised the issue of buck-passing between councils and central government. The Bill is not about buck-passing. Responsibilities for clean neighbourhoods already exist within local government. As it stands, almost all of the issues that we are debating are local government responsibilities. What we are doing is creating the opportunity for local government to deal with them much more efficiently and effectively. It is enabling legislation for local government, not a method of passing councils further responsibilities that will cost them more money.

Mr Farry also mentioned flags and bonfires. Let me say this: flags and bonfires do have an environmental impact. However, Northern Ireland is somewhat peculiar. That peculiarity is demonstrated by the fact that there is no Opposition in this place at this time. Because of those peculiarities and difficulties, flags and bonfires will not be dealt with as part of the normal environmental process. They are a matter of community relations, which is headed up by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. In Northern Ireland, there are many challenges in dealing with problems that have existed in the Province for generations. They will not be dealt with through this particular Bill. Therefore, although I appreciate the Member’s comments, they will not be dealt with under this particular legislation.

Mr Givan mentioned exemptions that relate to literature that can be given out. I can assure him that literature that is associated with church organisations will not be affected. Mr Morrow referred to implementation and enforcement. It is important that councils who have requested this legislation and who desire it wholeheartedly take it, endorse it and carry out its implementation. Early and quick implementation will mean more cost-effective implementation. Any cost that could potentially be associated with implementation will actually be retrieved quickly.

Mr Morrow also referred to incentives. A council’s incentive is to have a quality neighbourhood and environment in its area. He also indicated that Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council did not raise its rates in 2010. I commend it for that. Other councils seem to have imposed hefty rate rises, not all of which were necessary. Having just resigned from a council, I am glad to say that the council that I left is in good condition. It has the second-lowest rates in Northern Ireland and, I believe, the seventh-lowest debt per head of the population, and it has excellent services. It demonstrates that quality services can be provided without always having a high rate base. I encourage councils to look at how they can do their jobs better in that respect.

Mr Beggs commenced with a whinge about the Bill’s timing. I could not have brought it forward any sooner. I am happy to bring the legislation forward; I think that it is the right legislation. Mr Beggs also mentioned fly-tipping. The Bill does not deal with illegal waste activities, such as fly-tipping. That will be dealt with under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Amendment) Bill. Illegal waste activities involving illegal dumping of waste, or fly-tipping, can have a detrimental impact on the local amenity. One of the main objectives of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Amendment) Bill is to ensure that Departments and councils have sufficient statutory powers to deal effectively with illegal waste activity. It is intended to give councils the same powers as the Department to prosecute offenders.

We also recognise that legislative change alone will not provide a solution to illegal waste activity, so we are working with local government to develop a fly-tipping protocol, which will clearly set out the respective roles and responsibilities of the Department and councils in dealing with illegal fly-tipping activities. I sympathise often with councils and private landowners who find that people have dumped goods on their property and they are left with the responsibility. I know that people have dumped on other people’s property highly toxic materials that have been used for laundering diesel, and the property owner has been left with the clean-up costs. That is wrong, and it is something that we in government need to address.

In other instances, councils have had to collect dead animals from rivers, and that is wrong. We need to look at how we can address those issues and seek to challenge them. Let us be honest: it is wrong that individuals carry out such dumping in the first instance. Traditionally, a lot of people in Northern Ireland have turned a blind eye to a lot of those activities, but, in fact, the individuals who are engaging in such activities are destroying the neighbourhood for everyone. We need to encourage the public to move away from taking a blind-eye approach to activities that we know are going on in our neighbourhoods. Such activities are damaging to our neighbourhoods and our country, and it costs all of us. Let us rise to the challenge.

Mr Morrow referred to the individuals who dropped the Bounty bar and Mars bar wrappers. They are fairly low-level offences, but I encourage people to take the registration numbers of cars from which rubbish is thrown, report the individuals and allow the councils to follow it up. Unless we do that and provide the information, we cannot expect to reap the dividends. Let us rise to the challenge of those who contaminate our neighbourhoods and despoil and destroy our country, and let us, the good people, take them on and tell them that we are not going to tolerate their activities any more and that we are going to report offences. That will not make us touts or bad people. Doing so will ensure that we are keeping a better, cleaner and healthier Northern Ireland and a place to which tourists will be attracted to visit and others will be attracted to invest and live in.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill [NIA 31/09] be agreed.