Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the House.

I was hoping to produce a chewing gum levy Bill but it appears that under Standing Orders I am not allowed do so. In fact, it can only be done by a member of Government. I thought it was something that could be done by a member of the Opposition. As a result, I must raise this by way of Topical Issue, and I am glad to do so.

It is also disappointing that it proves difficult when one tries to get information on the sums spent on dealing with litter. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister last December to try to ascertain the individual sums spent on removing litter generally and chewing gum from the roads and footpaths in various counties and local authority areas, but that information is not available in the Department as it does not collect detailed information. I did get an answer, however, from the Minister for 2003, when local authorities spent in excess of €82 million on street-cleaning activities. This shows there is quite an amount spent on removing litter and chewing gum.

I am aware also that last year €841,000 was given to local authorities in anti-litter awareness grants. In fact, the figure for Galway City Council was €33,000 and for Galway County Council, it was €25,500. Obviously, there is a big issue in dealing with the various types of litter on the streets and footpaths. The most common types of litter are chewing gum, cigarette butts, fast-food wrappers, plastic bottles, plastic bags and cans. The litter I am addressing in my few short minutes is chewing gum. I saw figures for the Dublin city area where there is a real problem with chewing gum being thrown on the streets and footpaths. In 2013, in the O'Connell Street to Grafton Street area monitored by the Department, €83,000 was spent on removing chewing gum litter in 2013.

I was hoping a levy would be imposed on manufacturers that would raise funds to remove the litter from public roads and footpaths. Failing that, I understand that there was to be a meeting of all the major stakeholders - the manufacturers and the local authorities - to come to an arrangement where the manufacturers would contribute towards removing chewing gum. There was agreement in the past that there would be advertising campaigns but we must do much more than that. We must get funding from the manufacturers. The other issue that arose in discussions was the question of a biodegradable product that would ensure we would not have the difficulty in removing such a product.

I hope the Minister can give me some indication of the state of play. Needless to say, the Minister, Deputy Kelly, is the fourth Minister with whom I have raised this issue. I have not had much success with other Ministers and I hope he might able to give me an update on what is happening at present.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the fourth Minister, I might give Deputy Kitt a slightly different answer.

On foot of the success of the plastic bag levy, my Department commissioned a study on the possible extension of environmental levies to other materials that are problematic from a litter perspective. With regard to chewing gum, the study recommended that either a levy on sales be put in place or that a negotiated agreement be entered into with the sector.

However, unlike the use of plastic bags, the Government has no desire to curtail the use of chewing gum. What the Government wants to do is change the attitude and behaviour of those people who see it as acceptable to discard their gum on our streets. Some of the chewing gum litter we see on our streets is absolutely disgusting. I do not currently believe that a levy on chewing gum is the appropriate means by which to achieve our aim. I would stress the word "currently" because this may change. A levy would penalise both the industry and the consumer and would not provide an incentive to people to alter their behaviour with regard to disposing of gum. It was therefore decided that a negotiated agreement with the industry was the most appropriate direction to take on this issue. Such an agreement provides a mechanism for achieving a lasting change in behaviour with regard to the disposal of gum rather than a short-term clean up solution that does not address the underlying problem of the irresponsible disposal of gum.

A negotiated agreement has been in place with the chewing gum industry since 2007. The agreement facilitates a partnership approach through a range of agreed programmes that are practical, robust and targeted to address the root cause of the problem. As part of this agreement, the chewing gum industry mounted a national media campaign involving outdoor advertising throughout the country, national radio and TV advertising, in-store and around store advertising, as well as a schools' educational campaign promoting greater awareness of the damaging effects of chewing gum litter on our environment and of the penalties associated with the irresponsible disposal of gum.

Evidence indicates that the negotiated agreement approach is working. Since 2008, my Department's national litter pollution monitoring system report demonstrates that the percentage of national litter represented by chewing gum has decreased from 30.79% in 2008 to 15.32% in 2013, a reduction of 50%. The most recent programme, which ran from 2012 to 2014, has just concluded. It was funded entirely by the industry and was valued at an estimated €9.6 million. I have received a further proposal from the industry to renew the negotiated agreement for the term 2015 to 2017, and this matter is under consideration. I assure Deputy Kitt that while a renewed agreement is under consideration, it is not something that will simply go through on the nod. It is something that I will consider deeply. If we feel that we need a change of tack or need to consider levies or any other measures, we will do so.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his reply. The figure of 15%, while an improvement, is still high. This is an important issue because of the cost involved in removing this particular product from our streets. The problem boils down to the irresponsible disposal of chewing gum. Like the Minister, I am not trying to stop anyone from using chewing gum; it is the disposal of gum that is the issue. We have reached a compromise with the industry whereby it is funding an advertising campaign. However, if this situation continues, I do not envisage seeing any further improvements.

The Wrigley company has its headquarters in Chicago and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no problem with chewing gum or other litter on the streets of that city. We must try to get some more help from the industry. It was proposed in the past to put a levy on the chewing gum itself but that would have hit the consumer unfairly. It is very regrettable that the industry is not prepared, as I understand it, to contribute towards the cost of removing the gum from our streets. Will the Minister indicate if any discussions have taken place on the development of a biodegradable product?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Deputy's last point, discussions on that issue are under way and I will inform the Deputy of the outcome when I know it. The solution that has been put in place, namely, the negotiated agreement, has had a dramatic impact and the statistics prove it. That said, I agree with the Deputy that the figure that pertains is still of concern. I will consider whether a further agreement is feasible. I will examine the contributions that could be made, including whether we can increase the level of funding involved. I will make a decision then whether we should proceed with another negotiated agreement or go down another avenue entirely, possibly involving the imposition of a levy or some other measure. That will be up for discussion in the very immediate future.