Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 126: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the reason he decided against a ban on ATM receipts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11036/05]

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Following the success of the environmental levy on plastic bags, which was introduced in March 2002 and has resulted in a reduction in the dispensing of plastic shopping bags at retail outlets by over 90%, An Agreed Programme for Government contained a commitment to consider the extension of the levy on plastic bags to other materials which may be problematic from a waste management and-or litter perspective. The litter monitoring body, which is co-ordinated by my Department, has published two reports to date in respect of the years 2002 and 2003 which provide valuable statistical data in relation to litter pollution in Ireland. In the light of the first litter monitoring body report published in July 2003, in respect of the year 2002, my predecessor announced his intention to tackle the issue of litter caused by chewing gum, fast food packaging and automated teller machine, ATM, receipts, which were identified as significant elements of litter pollution.

A consultancy study was subsequently commissioned in September 2003 to carry out an analysis and recommend appropriate economic instruments, including environmental levies, that might be implemented as a means to tackle the litter problems caused by these items. The consultancy report was released for public consultation on 23 September 2004 and, with specific regard to ATM receipts, recommended that rather than apply a levy, a negotiated agreement between my Department and the industry should be developed. The consultants recommended that this should involve the introduction of a standardised protocol by the banks and the adoption of improved litter controls at all outlets.

The negotiated approach would involve the establishment of specific targets and measures for litter reduction and may also require the banks to alter ATM programmes to require customers to confirm their request for ATM receipts. This confirmation should include advice on litter prevention. The consultancy study further recommended that failure of a negotiated agreement to meet agreed targets should, in the case of ATM receipts, result in the application of mandatory environmental levies to meet the clean-up costs associated with such litter, a 1 cent levy per ATM receipt generated, with a potential yield of circa €400,000 per annum, was proposed by the consultants.

On foot of a comprehensive examination of the various submissions made as part of the consultation process and having considered the recommendations of the consultancy report, I recently announced my decision to commence a process of negotiating agreements with the banking sector, fast food industry and chewing gum manufacturers. I am of the view that this approach will give all three sectors an important opportunity to propose positive and meaningful measures to minimise the impact of the items they produce in causing nuisance litter. In accordance with the consultants' recommendations, the application of mandatory levies will be back on my agenda, if any sector fails to propose effective measures, which will include an appropriate level of funding, to address the problems caused within an agreed timeframe.