Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005

Vol. 597 No. 6

Domestic Refuse Charges: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Gilmore on Tuesday, 15 February 2005:

That Dáil Éireann:

—calls on the Government to introduce a uniform national waiver scheme for domestic refuse charges in view of:

—the way in which the decision of the Government in 2003 to transfer responsibility for setting waste charges from democratically elected councillors to local authority managers has led to a very significant increase in the level of charges;

—the fact that these charges can result in financial difficulties for pensioners and others on low incomes, or those who have large families or exceptional household circumstances; and

—the great variation in waste charges and existing waiver schemes operated by local authorities and the total absence of any waiver scheme in some areas.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"(i) notes:

—that the operational details of waste management services have never been the responsibility of central Government;

—that local authorities have received record levels of discretionary general purpose grants from the local government fund in the current year;

—the very significant investment which has been made by the Government in developing modern integrated waste management infrastructure and services;

—that the costs of maintaining these services must be met;

—that many local authorities have availed of the existing statutory provisions which allow for the operation of waste waiver schemes; and

—that the introduction of use based charges is a more equitable way of meeting these costs and encouraging waste reduction and recycling;

(ii) supports the continuing discussions within the social partnership process which seek to identify and address any inequitable impact which the charging system may place on the disadvantaged."

—(Minister for the Environment, Heritageand Local Government).

Mr. Nolan

I wish to share my time with Deputes O'Connor, Carey, Fiona O'Malley,Callanan and Devins.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. The growing economy and growing wealth of the country have been mirrored in the waste we produce. Over the years, particularly in the past eight years, successive Governments have acknowledged the difficulties we face in the management of our waste. The "reduce, re-use, recycle" campaign, currently very active, is being taken on board by householders. Recycling centres, bottle banks and so on are now part and parcel of every local authority and town. Villages now have their own recycling centres. All that is evidence of the genuine concern and worry of the public about our environment.

However, one of the areas of concern to all legislators and indeed the managers of our Government and local authorities is the cost of dealing with the mounting waste. Many years ago one saw what are now termed landfills but which everyone aged over 30 will recall as dumps. They were by the side of the road, normally uncovered. Every kind of vermin was around. The dumps usually had fires burning in them which seemed to go on forever. All that has now changed, and rightly so. With the police powers of the Environmental Protection Agency we now see state-of-the-art landfills throughout the country.

One of the difficulties faced by local authorities lies in acquiring new landfills and getting extensions to existing landfills. In that regard, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has set down waste management strategies for various areas and it sees landfill as only part of the strategy.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

I will interrupt the Deputy briefly. I am obliged to read the following for the observation of all. Before commencing the Private Members' business debate this evening I remind Members that the motion before the House specifically proposes the introduction of a waiver scheme for domestic refuse charges and therefore the debate should be kept closely to the matters raised in such motion, and Members may not extend the debate into the area of refuse charges generally. Deputy Nolan appears to be heading in that direction so I want to remind Members of this.

Mr. Nolan

I thank the Acting Chairman for his guidance.

I welcome the opportunity of speaking to the motion. In terms of a waiver for service charges, local authorities in the main have decided to privatise their waste service and in that capacity it is difficult for local authorities to impose a waiver on private contractors. I know that some local authorities are still carrying out waste collections and they have the wherewithal to provide a waiver if they so wish. However, most local authorities have decided that it is better policy to employ private waste collectors and in that context it is not easy for a government or a local authority to apply a waiver system.

If the Government were to look at the matter in general, the only manner in which such a system could be accommodated would be through an increase in child welfare benefit because large families would have a bigger waste problem than smaller families, or in the case of old age pensioners, perhaps through the social welfare system.

The motion as presented by the Opposition is unenforceable and unworkable. I commend the amendment tabled by the Government.

Mr. O’Connor

If I stray from the subject I know the Acting Chairman will rein me in. This is an interesting debate and it is interesting that the Acting Chairman should try to control it with the directive given. I listened to the debate last night and to the otherwise excellent speech by Deputy Gilmore.

Mr. Gilmore

I thank the Deputy.

Mr. O’Connor

This is a subject which people talk about, no less in my constituency than anywhere else. I represent a constituency where the community in Bohernabreena in the greater Tallaght area had to tolerate the problems associated with Friarstown dump for many years. We are still putting a lot of pressure on the council as we go to it every day to talk about waivers. We are trying to ensure that the council finally does something about that dump, clean it up and integrate it back into the environment.

This is an interesting debate and an interesting motion. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, is a former resident of Tallaght and spent a little time correcting the historical record last night so I will not add to the discomfort of Deputy Gilmore.

Mr. Gilmore

It is no discomfort at all.

Mr. O’Connor

I know the Deputy listened very carefully and that he understands the points made.

I have sympathy with the notion that the Government would look at how our local authorities are dealing with the waste problem. At the same time we must understand their position. Deputy Gilmore would be the first to say that. Local authorities are entitled to their independence and to make their own decisions. I suppose it is a bit confusing in the Dublin region where all the local authorities seem to be going in different directions to some extent. There are some differences between them regarding the operation of the waiver schemes. The Minister may have a role to play in bringing all the local authority managers together, particularly in the Dublin region, to get some conformity so that people will understand the issues.

I have been associated with the south Dublin area since I was first elected to the council there in 1991. The council then broke away as a result of the Local Government Reform Bill 1994 and South Dublin County Council was founded. That council is very progressive with regard to waste management and the waiver scheme. I am not patronising the council. When I need to attack my local council I do so and when I need to bring concerns to its attention I am not afraid to do so.

I can speak for my own area, and it is important to understand that the waiver scheme seems to be working. I will always make the case that we should consider people who cannot pay for one reason or other. One of the difficulties I have with the current waiver scheme of South Dublin County Council is that households paying tax, which may include people on pensions and so on, are not entitled to such a waiver up front. There is a clause to the effect that if the manager believes a family is in need of a waiver, it is considered. Managers should look at that. Having listened to Deputy Ring make the point last night I am sympathetic to the view that if families are entitled to various benefits and claims, we should take into consideration their ability to pay for the disposal of waste.

I have a great deal to say about the success of the green bins, the need for recycling and the whole notion of helping families pay for things easily, but, having looked at the clock, I will leave that for another night. I look forward to supporting the Government amendment.

Mr. Carey

Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar son leasú an Rialtais freisin. I am pleased at the opportunity to say a few words on this matter. As previous speakers have said, it is difficult to stick to the Chair's ruling, but I intend to do so.

Mr. O’Connor

As we do.

Mr. Carey

We have constantly talked about the need for local authorities to be given the freedom to act independently. We talked ad nauseam about the important principle of subsidiarity — that no one should attempt to do what someone can more appropriately do for him. I am an awful critic of the document Better Local Government, which has only eroded the roles and functions of local authority members. Like others here, I was a member of such an authority for some years, a function that I enjoyed. However, the work of councillors has been eroded progressively, and that has not led to better governance.

The targets set in waste management plans throughout the country are being met very slowly. We still lag far behind our counterparts, particularly in such northern European countries as Denmark and Sweden. On the day the Kyoto Protocol takes effect, we should not be proud of the tardiness with which many of our targets are met. That said, there has been a great increase in the number of recycling sites. For example, there has been significant improvement in management of construction waste. Like Deputy O'Connor, I represent an area that has had to live with landfill sites of one sort or another since the late 1940s. For example, the city will have to pay approximately €1.7 million this year to extract methane from a badly managed landfill site. Some of the methane has already been extracted from Dunsink tip head and sold off to the gas grid, which is good.

With regard to the waiver, when I headed the Fianna Fáil group on the city council, we spent a great deal of time trying to fashion a waiver scheme, and we were successful. We developed a scheme where those dependent on social welfare, outside the tax net or in difficulties could be granted a waiver. I am pleased to know that it has stuck. I see no reason other local authorities cannot do it, regardless of whether they are using a privatised service.

The principle of a national waiver scheme implemented locally is good. People talk about the difficulties of implementation. It could be implemented like the national fuel scheme, which gives a top-up payment made through social welfare. That cannot be beyond the bounds of implementation. It does two things: it alleviates difficulties people on low incomes experience and it encourages the drive to recycle.

The waiver scheme will not be the entire reason, but here in the city, 53% of householders put out their black bin, known in Dublin as a "grey bin", only every second week. That is great progress. If one goes to city recycling centres at weekends, one sees that there are now often queues to enter. It is an awful pity that the green bins in Dublin are not under the operational control of Dublin City Council. That whole industry is now a major cash generator, and it could be for local authorities.

Incidentally, local authorities, including those in Dublin, have often failed to crown themselves in glory in the way they have introduced recycling centres. Deputy Gilmore will know about the one in St. Anne's Park on the north side of the city. There is also Collins Avenue in my constituency. If something is foisted on a community without adequate discussion, groundless fear can be created. However, that fear is nonetheless real. Local authorities must learn more about the principle of consultation.

I suspect that I have very little time left, but I wish to throw this out to the "four horsemen of the Apocalypse" who are absent from across the way, Deputies Gregory, Joe Higgins, Healy and Finian McGrath. I would like to hear their contributions on how they propose to run a waste management system. The very final part of their motion calls for major investment in a genuine waste management plan involving comprehensive reduction of waste at source and comprehensive facilities for recovery and recycling. I thought the waste management plans around the country were all about that. What are they talking about? I have heard those four Deputies go on about a great deal ad nauseam.

When it comes to the "polluter pays" principle, we are slowly getting there. I hope the discussions going on in the context of Sustaining Progress will produce a mechanism that will alleviate financial difficulty for people while promoting a high level of participation in recycling, reuse and recovery.

Ms F. O’Malley

We are making very good time. We must have instilled great fear in people. I intend to stick to the motion, but I also wish to address some issues raised in the debate last night.

In his contribution yesterday evening, the Minister concluded with a plea for honesty on waste charges and that the sentiments expressed here and nationally might follow through locally, particularly in areas where the Labour Party holds the balance of power. However, they have failed to act accordingly. In my area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, the so-called "dream team" of Labour and Fine Gael is in power. Without so much as a murmur of complaint or reservation, they voted through the waste management system, including the waiver system that now applies in the county.

Mr. Gilmore

That is not true.

Ms F. O’Malley

It is absolutely true. Last night Deputy Gilmore said that it was wholly untrue that parties holding power in any local authority could be held responsible for the introduction of charges introduced under their control.

Mr. Gilmore

That is right. The county manager does it.

Ms F. O’Malley

That is blatant nonsense. With respect to the Deputy — and he knows that I have a great deal of respect for him — you will learn now, as you exercise power, that with power comes responsibility.

Mr. Sherlock

The Deputy will address her remarks through the Chair.

Ms F. O’Malley

You cannot abdicate responsibility for decisions that your party takes — the party which holds the chair.

Mr. Gilmore

The charge had already been levied.

Ms F. O’Malley

For a political party to be taken seriously, it must adopt the policy locally that it espouses nationally. I need hardly remind Deputy Gilmore that the most important annual decision for councillors is probably the agreement of the estimates. In the case of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Fine Gael and Labour councillors endorsed the county manager's proposals without any effort to create a more acceptable waiver system. In 2005, the Labour Party members voted for a system that was less generous. That reeks of hypocrisy. Deputy Gilmore also knows that councillors have an opportunity to influence policy at estimates time, and they can refuse to adopt one. That also means that wheeling and dealing with the manager can operate, as it has in Dublin City Council, until a compromise is struck that is agreeable to both the manager and the councillors.

Mr. Gilmore

What section of the Act was that in?

Acting Chairman

Deputy Gilmore, please allow Deputy O'Malley to continue.

Ms F. O’Malley

Thus it happened that, for the first time in the history of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, the Labour Party agreed an estimate. I request that DeputyGilmore not undermine the authority of his local representatives on the council by criticising their decision to adopt such a charge. The other objectionable feature of the motion before us is the centralist approach. I have already said that Deputy Gilmore's wealth of experience and knowledge is acknowledged in this House and outside it.

Mr. Gilmore

Will the Deputy give way?

Ms F. O’Malley

I will not give way because my time is limited. Frequently, DeputyGilmore has bemoaned the fact that not enough power resides with local councils.

This attempt by the Labour Party to have a waiver system applied locally would counteract the notion of subsidiarity and decisions being taken at as local a level as possible. It is both confused and confusing. I am aware Deputy Gilmore is passionate about local government but I do not believe he has thought through this measure.

Mr. Gilmore

I have thought it through better than the Deputy when——

Acting Chairman

Deputy O'Malley, without interruption.

Ms F. O’Malley

The honourable history of Labour Party Ministers was not to apply a centralised system. Both the former Tánaiste, Dick Spring, and Deputy Howlin, when they were Ministers with responsibility for this area, determined that charges and waivers should be applied locally.

The cost of dealing with commercial and domestic waste is soaring. I welcome the Minister's indication that he is considering the application of a regulator to this area because we must all be careful about these soaring charges. I reject the Labour Party motion because decisions must be made as locally as possible. I am surprised at the notion of removing more decisions and power-making from local councils.

Mr. Callanan

I intend to stray briefly from the subject matter of the debate but Members will understand the reason when they hear what I have to say. I am delighted to speak on the motion to provide for a national waiver scheme for refuse charges and other aspects of waste management. A waiver scheme for the elderly, widows and people on social welfare to reduce the charge for refuse collection is very necessary. There are many ways of providing waivers, however, and it should be left to local authorities to provide them.

The cost of waste collection has increased considerably in recent years. Each local authority has the power to introduce a waiver scheme where it is the service provider or to make appropriate arrangements with the private sector to provide waivers. Local authorities are now in a better financial position than they have been for many decades. That is due in large part to the establishment by the Government of the local authority fund.

In 2005, local authorities got a record level of general purpose grants from this fund. This year, the discretionary block grant, which local authorities can use as they see fit, amounted to a staggering €817 million. That represents an increase of 9% on 2004, and far exceeds the rate of inflation. In anybody's language that represents a tremendous boost for local authorities and enhances the ability of local authorities to provide quality service, including the operation of an appropriate waiver scheme, to their customers.

Galway city and Ballinasloe town operate a waiver scheme but Galway County Council does not. When the pay by weight system comes into operation, which I welcome, it should reduce the costs, especially for the elderly as they would not have a large amount of refuse. However, a waiver scheme will still be necessary.

The overall cost of collection and disposal of waste is now huge. The Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, of which I am a member, was informed a few weeks ago that waste management costs in Ireland are two and a half times greater than those in Britain. In fact, representatives of the grocery trade told the committee that waste management costs were their third highest costs after wages and insurance.

We must reduce and recycle more of our waste. The tax on plastic bags was a major success, and we must look at other means of reducing waste. There is a problem in agriculture in that the black plastic from silage bags has not been collected for recycling. We must keep as much of our waste as possible away from landfills.

Galway County Council has what is called the Connacht waste management plan which recommends one landfill in east Galway and one in the north Mayo-Roscommon region. Already, this plan has been ignored as Galway County Council has proposed a site for a landfill at Cross, New Inn, Ballinasloe, while Greenstar has got planning permission for a landfill site in the next parish, Kilconnel, which is my parish, to accept waste from Galway County Council and Galway city for the next ten years. Will the Minister ensure fair play so that only one landfill is allowed in east Galway?

I congratulate Galway County Council for the way it transformed the landfill in Ballinasloe. The proceeds from the landfill have given the local council the funds to put in place a very generous waiver scheme. I would like each local authority to introduce a waiver scheme that suits each individual local authority but a national scheme is not necessary.

Dr. Devins

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on this Private Members' motion. It is a topic of immense importance as it affects every householder in the country.

Last night, the Minister outlined clearly the reason charges for collection of waste should remain the prerogative of local authorities. We hear many complaints about the fact that this country is becoming a very centralised State and that local authorities have very little power. That is a premise with which I do not agree. In fact, I strongly support the right of local authorities to govern their own areas. Traditionally, local authorities have had control of waste collection and it is important that continues into the future.

It would appear that different local authorities are using very different systems for waste collection. The area I know best is Sligo where Sligo County Council privatised the collection of waste some years ago. It is a system that is working well but only for the reason that the public have actively embraced the principles of reuse and recycling.

The Minister stated clearly that he is fully behind the polluter pays principle. In my experience, most members of the public agree with that principle and, as a result, the frequency with which a household needs to have its waste collected and the amount of waste it puts out for collection has dramatically reduced in recent years.

It is noticeable also that there has been a significant increase in the number of people using their local recycling depots. In that regard, the depot on the deep water quay in Sligo has become very busy. However, some users have complained to me that the recent imposition of a nominal charge of €2 per car load, which is by no means a heavy burden, has acted as a deterrent to some people. This is especially true of elderly people who are living alone and are in the habit of taking small loads to the recycling depot. I appeal to the owners of that depot and to Sligo County Council to revisit this issue and perhaps devise a more equitable system that can take account of all situations.

I commend the Government on the massive increase in the local government fund, which this year is a staggering €817 million. This fund is described as discretionary because each local authority has discretion to use the fund as it sees fit. In that regard, it is a suitable vehicle for the application of the various waiver schemes to ensure that those who cannot afford to pay for their waste collection are not unfairly penalised.

I thank the Minister for providing funding to Sligo County Council recently to enable a green recycling area to be established at Ballysadare. In conjunction with a local community council, which is providing much needed sports facilities, a state-of-the-art facility for green waste will be operational very soon and will provide a much needed facility for the people in my constituency. I commend the Minister's amendment to the motion to the House.

Mr. Morgan

I wish to share my time with what would appear to be half the Members present, namely, Deputies Gregory, Joe Higgins, McHugh and Boyle.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Morgan

Sinn Féin firmly believes that waste services are core services that must be provided by the State through local authorities and paid for through the central taxation system. Our opposition to service charges is well recorded. They are aggressive and unjust. We made our commitment to the issue clear when we tabled the Waste Management (Amendment) Bill 2003 to amend the Waste Management Acts on the collection of waste and the imposition of charges for waste services and to return the powers for the making of waste management plans to elected members of local authorities. The real motivation behind the introduction of service charges across the State has not been environmental in nature. On the contrary, cash-strapped local authorities have grasped these charges as one of the few finance-raising mechanisms available to them.

There is widespread misunderstanding and malicious representation of the meaning of the polluter pays principle. Its purpose is not to meet the cost of dealing with waste but rather to act as a prevention mechanism against unnecessary waste production and to encourage conservation of resources. It should be primarily targeted at the producers of waste such as manufacturers who produce non-recyclable, non-biodegradable goods and excess packaging, who are involved in the wasteful use of resources and who are responsible for damaging emissions. These producers, not householders, are the real polluters.

If service charges are to be part of a polluter pays system, they will only make sense if the infrastructure is put in place to enable the householder to divert the maximum possible amount of waste from their residual waste collection. There would be no basic or flat charge. Householders would merely be charged on a literal pay-by-weight system for residual waste which cannot be recycled, reused or composted. This is not the case, however, and in the absence of proper regulations and infrastructure to enable reduction, reuse and recycling, householders do not have the ability to divert waste from the residual waste stream.

While we do not accept service charges, we believe that, in light of the refusal of central Government to abandon the current inequitable system, the plight of low income families must be addressed as a matter of urgency. As they stand at present, service charges are an added burden on families already facing financial hardship. These charges, which are increasing dramatically on an annual basis, make low income households relatively worse off than high income households.

The Combat Poverty Agency published a report, Waste Collection Charges and Low-Income Families, in November 2003. Upon its publication, the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government promised to consider the report's findings. In the report, the Combat Poverty Agency stated: "the cost of waste collection charges and other public utilities can be a major financial burden, often associated with an increased risk of indebtedness". It also stated: "Waste collection charges exclusively based on the ‘polluter pays' principle are inevitably regressive, posing a major burden for low-income households, especially those with children and other dependants." The report went on to state:

Central government subvention is directed at better-off income tax payers [imagine that] rather than welfare recipients and other low-income households. As a result of this national policy vacuum, low-income households are vulnerable to financial variability depending on where they live, rather than social need or amount of waste produced.

The agency recommended that a national waiver scheme for waste collection charges, which would be administered by the relevant local authority and which would be available from all refuse collection operators, be introduced. A similar compensation scheme was proposed by the ESRI, in a report, Carbon Taxes: Which Households Gain or Lose? which it prepared for the EPA, as a method of compensating low income householders if carbon tax is introduced.

Much of the groundwork on this subject has, therefore, already been well covered and the case has clearly been made. Let us now have some action from the Minister. That is all that is missing.

Mr. Gregory

It appears from the Labour Party motion and the amendment thereto from the Green Party that the political parties which facilitated the introduction of the bin tax at local authority level are now having second thoughts and are crying crocodile tears for the disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society, including pensioners, whom this unjust tax is hitting hardest. The position of the Government parties, which are primarily responsible for the bin tax, is similar, and they are, according to their amendment, supporting the continuing discussions within the social partnership process to address the inequitable impact of the tax on the disadvantaged.

I opposed this tax from the outset because it is inequitable, is not based on people's ability to pay and hits lower income groups hardest. That was always clear and was for me a basic reason for opposing the tax. While Fianna Fáil councillors were whipped in to tow the line at Dublin City Council and propose the tax, Opposition party councillors made no genuine effort to stop this unjust tax and, to a greater or lesser degree, they facilitated its introduction.

I well recall the estimates meeting at which Dublin City Council voted in this tax. A majority of councillors representing Fine Gael, the party opposed to stealth taxes, voted in favour of the bin tax. The Labour Party was, as usual, in turmoil and several of its councillors, including the Lord Mayor, voted for the tax. Another Labour councillor went missing. The Green Party, not wanting to be outdone, seconded the proposal on the estimates to introduce the tax. Sinn Féin, the party the media constantly informs us is doing trojan work in disadvantaged urban areas, had four city councillors at the time and, as part of the deal to get this unjust tax imposed on Dublin city, two of the four went missing. When I and Deputy Finian McGrath, who was a councillor at the time, requested a roll call vote to expose this arrangement, we could not obtain the support of a single councillor from any party and the most important decision of the city council as regards its estimates for the year was rushed through on a quick show of hands.

The dishonest and hypocritical arrangement to which I refer continued to hold sway in Dublin City Council right up to the most recent estimates meeting held on 29 November last, when a majority of the council was composed of councillors from Labour and Sinn Féin, in particular, who were elected at the recent elections to oppose the tax. These two parties did not even make an effort at the meeting, with Labour again in disarray and some of its councillors voting in favour of the tax, and the ten Sinn Féin councillors colluding yet again to prevent a roll call vote.

Mr. Morgan

That is not so and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. Gregory

Only the three independent councillors, one of them elected as part of the anti-bin tax campaign, stood firm against the tax.

In this evening's vote, I will be opposing the Government's amendment. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to place on record my disgust at the hypocrisy of all the political parties, with the sole and honourable exception of the Socialist Party, in respect of this issue of inequitable stealth taxes.

Mr. J. Higgins

The EPA audit of waste in 2001 showed up the complete sham of a policy over which the Government has stood for years when it reported a complete failure to significantly reduce waste or to put effective recycling programmes in place. All we had were gestures and posturing. The latter were particularly represented in the so-called "Race against waste" television advertisements when, quite fraudulently, householders, who account for only 15% of waste going to landfill, were portrayed as being responsible for the waste crisis in this country. It was only recently we discovered that a crony of the Minister, to whom he paid hundreds of thousands of euro of taxpayers' money, was partly responsible for that advertising campaign.

If I had been presented only with the Labour Party motion, I could support it in so far as it goes. However, it does not go very far. Deputy Gilmore correctly attacked the undemocratic amendments to waste management structures introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Cullen, in 2003. The problem did not arise in 2003, however, it first emerged 20 years earlier in 1983 when the former and unlamented leader of the Labour Party, Dick Spring, introduced the possibility of implementation of waste and water charges. During the period in question, there was a crisis of national and international capitalism and the Labour Party, in conjunction with Fine Gael, decided the working class should pay to extricate the system from crisis in which it had become mired. This was at the same time when billions of euro were being salted away, untaxed, in offshore accounts by millionaires, speculators and the rest of them. Working people always recognise a sham and a scam when they see it. They reacted from the beginning against this double tax policy and that opposition continues. They fought against it relentlessly and I was proud to have been part of the leadership of a fight against an aspect of that local taxation in the mid-1980s during the anti-water charges campaign when we forced the Government to retreat and abolish them at that stage. If we had not and the huge campaign of opposition and boycott had not achieved that victory, what would households now be paying in terms of waste and water charges combined? At least €1,000 would now be demanded. In 1996 there was even a sewage charge in some counties, a charge to have the toilet flushed, no less. That was how far it was going. The agenda is, of course, to ratchet up waste charges relentlessly and to bring in water charges. If that were done every household would quickly face a charge of €1,000 for what in reality would be a new local tax. Communities in Dublin have reacted against this tax and that will continue. Unfortunately, when we brought this fight to a head in 2003, and 21 decent citizens were sent to prison, including myself, Labour, Fine Gael and the rest of them gave cover to the Fianna Fáil Government because they did not support that campaign. We could have brought down the tax at that stage if we had received genuine support right around the country.

Mr. McHugh

This motion is about the introduction of a national waiver scheme for domestic waste charges to apply to householders with low incomes. That is exactly what the motion is about and I fully support it because it is appropriate and urgent, requiring the immediate attention of the Minister to introduce such a national scheme. It is regrettable, though, that almost everything, including the kitchen sink, is being brought into the debate on this succinct motion. By ignoring the motion's parameters, speakers have undermined its focus to a degree and allowed the Minister and Government to muddy the waters and obscure its urgency. The central tenet of the motion is the urgent need to introduce a national waiver scheme, because the situation is so chaotic throughout the country and is manifestly unfair and inequitable.

My own County Galway is an example. In the Galway city area waste is collected by the city council and a waiver system applies. In the Galway County Council area the waste collection system is privatised and no waiver system applies. That shows the total inequity of the system. People on low incomes or social welfare in Galway city get a waiver while the same category of persons in Galway County Council's functional area cannot get a waiver. That is the clearest way I can find to explain the inequity. The Minister and Government must act immediately to introduce a national waiver scheme. Otherwise, they are complicit in supporting a gross act of inequality that impacts on the most vulnerable in society. It is just not good enough for the Minister to say it is a matter for the various local authorities because there is considerable doubt as to whether it is legal for councils to provide waiver schemes in their functional areas if the waste system is privatised.

There may be a view in Government, and perhaps the Minister shares it, that people in the anti-bin charges campaign and those totally opposed to waste charges are headbangers and consequently cannot be allowed to succeed or be given any concessions. That is another example of where issues are being brought in to muddy the waters. The motion, let us be clear, is calling for the introduction of a national waiver scheme. The reason the waiver scheme is being sought is that there are people who genuinely cannot afford to pay their waste charges. They are not necessarily opposed to paying them in principle. They are simply people on low incomes or on social welfare who have not got sufficient means to pay the charges. Just because of their location they find themselves lumbered with waste charge demands while their neighbours in the adjoining local authority have waivers. The Minister has direct responsibility in this area. He and the Government have a moral responsibility to remove this inequality in our society. There is no way the responsibility may be shifted on to local authorities. The Minister should act now.

Mr. Boyle

An amendment in the name of Green Party Deputies reads as follows:

In line one, to delete "uniform national waiver scheme for" and substitute "waste allowance, akin to the existing fuel allowance, to be made available to social welfare recipients and State pensioners to assist in meeting the cost of".

We tabled the amendment, not because we disagree with the substance or even analysis of the original motion. However, the Green Party believes another funding mechanism is needed and would be more effective in dealing with the problem that the poor application of policy from the Government has brought about. The Green Party believes in waste charges. We believe there has always been a need to identify the cause, source and potential problem the creation of waste presents and the management of its safe disposal. We have never argued that such a scheme should be introduced in a manner whereby those least able to pay cannot do so. We have argued for free waste allowances and the introduction of a waste collection social welfare scheme in much the same way as the smokeless fuel ban allowances were dealt with when that initiative was introduced in Dublin and subsequently in Cork and other urban areas. It was catered for under social welfare and pension payments. This would be easier to put into effect than a waiver scheme because by its nature the latter would be costly to administer. It also gives power to all citizens to act as consumers with the added income, to ensure that they spend any or all such moneys in dealing with the waste problems experienced in their own particular households.

The difficulty with the manner in which the Government has introduced the current waste charges around the country is that there is no consistency. There is no sense of a level playing pitch between one local authority area and another in terms of a recycling infrastructure or whether a council assists or even encourages local households to recycle, segregate at source and have such waste collected. Because of the structures of the various local authorities there are wide variations in the rates of payment. In my constituency in Cork city, residents pay a standing charge of €255 as well as a €5 weekly charge. I must inform my colleague, Deputy Gregory, that we have lived with waste charges in Cork since 1985. It is not a recent phenomenon. The difference is that we pay the €255 standing charge and €5 a week while in Dublin the annual charge is €80, with €5 as the pick-up charge. That inconsistency between local authorities is not being addressed by the Government. The possibility of a national waiver scheme means the degree of subsidy as between one local authority and another will have less of an impact, depending on where one lives.

The Green Party is all in favour of a wider debate on this issue, but let us accept that a set amount of waste is unavoidable per person per household. Let us put in place the type of charges that would discourage the emergence of excess amounts of waste per person and per household. We have limited evidence that even with this poor scheme, the level of waste being presented in urban areas compared to that presented in 2004 is 40%. We have yet to see whether that means that 40% of the 2004 waste level is being produced. Anecdotal evidence suggests it is not.

I found it depressing in this evening's debate to hear people opening old sores and re-introducing council debates that belong in the local authorities concerned. Some Members do not appear to realise the extent of the powers elected local authority representatives have as regards the waste issue. I heard Deputy Fiona O'Malley speaking of the situation in Dún-Laoghaire-Rathdown. The Minister might nod but it was his Government which altered those powers. This Government decided it was council managements that should make the decision as to what the waste charge should be in each local authority and whether the residents should pay it in each case, while removing any role for elected representatives in the process. Because that democratic accountability does not exist, the Government washes its hands of it in Dublin, saying it is the responsibility of the local authorities, and tries to spread the blame locally. We all know the decisions are being made and implemented by unelected, unaccountable officials who are fomenting the type of crisis I see in my city with the Cork city manager, with uncollected waste and the creation of unnecessary waste hazards. As a result, we have a crisis that would not have existed if we had a sane and sensible approach to this issue.

Mr. Stagg

I thank Deputy Gilmore for introducing this straightforward motion to the House, which would allow for a waiver scheme for people who cannot afford to pay waiver charges. I hold the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, in fairly high regard. However, his speech last night was the most dishonest speech I have heard in this House for a long time. His Government introduced legislation that removed from councillors the right to make charges at local level and gave it to county managers. Yet the Minister berated councillors in different councils for not kicking up against the charges levied by managers when he knew that the law introduced by his Government prevented them from doing so.

There is a very wide acceptance among the public and in my party of the principle that the polluter should pay and that there should be a reasonable charge. The Minister said that the charge must meet the full cost, which is also part of the law that his Government passed. The county manager is also bound to have charges that will meet the full cost and the councillors are prevented by law from interfering with that. I do not want to hear any more nonsense from the Minister on that matter. Unelected and unaccountable county managers, who are well organised nationally, are effectively setting policy for this country at that level. The last group of people that had that type of unelected power were Russian commissars and they are long gone by the board. This Government transfers more and more power from the elected representatives to these county managers every day of the week.

If the charges in my constituency were proportionally related to income, and given that old age pensioners living alone in Naas have to pay €350, then the county manager would have to pay €4,000 per annum. However, the county manager sets the charges, so he pays the same as an old age pensioner living alone. The elected majority of councillors in Naas, made up principally of Fianna Fáil, Progressive Democrats and a few so-called Independents from the Fianna Fáil gene pool, privatised the refuse collection in 1998. They sold off the refuse lorries, made the workers redundant and left the citizens of Naas to the tender mercies of largely unregulated private sector operatives. One of these cowboys, and I use the word advisedly, subsequently served a jail sentence for illegally dumping rubbish that he collected in Naas and dumped in County Wicklow. Despite the best efforts of my colleagues, Councillors Pat McCarthy and Paddy McNamara, the old scheme of waivers was abolished by the same motley crew of Fianna Fáil, Progressive Democrats and Independents. That situation has continued to this day.

Who are the citizens affected by this decision and how are they affected? An old age pensioner on a non-contributory pension of €150 per week must pay €350 in Naas or he will receive no service. If he does not pay it, he must explain to the authorities why he will not do so and where he has put his rubbish. He will get no waiver as no waiver scheme exists. A widow with two children on €194 per week in Naas town must also pay €350 and she will get no waiver. A disabled person on €134 must pay €350 to get his or her bin collected in Naas town and that person will not get a waiver. A blind person on €134 per week must pay €350 and that person will not get a waiver. A person on carer's allowance of €139 per week will pay €350 in Naas town and no waiver is available. For the long term unemployed on €134 per week, the charge is still €350 and no waiver is available in Naas town. However, for a county manager on €2,000 per week, the charge is still €350 and the manager will get a discount for early payment and a tax credit if he pays exactly the same.

Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and like minded Independents do not have a majority in Kildare, outside of Naas. In the rest of Kildare, a waiver scheme exists to allow free service to all the categories that I have mentioned. Thanks to Councillor Paddy McNamara and his colleagues, the battle to retain the waiver of refuse charges has again been won this year in the rest of the county. In Sallins, Kill, Clane, Maynooth, Celbridge, Leixlip and Kilcock, all the categories of deserving and needy families effectively enjoy a free refuse collection service, as they should. I congratulate Councillor McNamara and his colleagues for ensuring that senior citizens and others in these areas are treated with justice and fairness. In Naas, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats sold out the old people to their sacred cow of privatisation while pensioners and other deserving families are penalised by paying the same rate as the county manager. Tonight's motion will make the case for these people in Naas and in other areas that have been described by other Deputies. It must be done and it must be done in this Parliament.

Ms O’Sullivan

I commend my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, for tabling this motion. This is about trying to get a uniform system throughout the country that will be fair and equitable. In particular, the motion addresses the issue of inequality for our most vulnerable citizens. There are disparate charges throughout the country. Some county and city councils have no waiver schemes while others have relatively generous schemes, but there is no uniformity. Despite this, we are asking senior citizens and other vulnerable people to pay charges they cannot afford. We are talking about people with very limited fixed incomes who are trying to come up with the money from those limited incomes. For them, it is a question of not being able to afford to pay.

My colleague in Limerick, Deputy Power, had an article in the local media last week calling for a national waiver scheme and he indicated that he had spoken to the Taoiseach about it. He also wrote that he would propose it within the Fianna Fáil Party, so I welcome that support. I hope the same support will be forthcoming when it comes to the vote tonight. I think many Members from Fianna Fáil would support a national waiver scheme, but because the Labour Party is proposing it tonight, I doubt that Fianna Fáil will vote for it. The national waiver scheme makes sense and is equitable, and if such a schemes existed, we would be more likely to avoid the kind of situation that exists in Cork city. The capital of culture, on show to the rest of Europe, has mountains of filth in various parts of it. The reason this happens is because people object to a system that they see to be inequitable. If we had a fair system, there would be much more co-operation and compliance.

Part of the problem is that local, elected public representatives have been sidelined and city and county managers have all the power. In Limerick, we had a situation where the legal validity of providing a waiver system was questioned during the estimates process in the city. The city manager received a legal opinion from the Office of the Attorney General, advising that it was illegal for Limerick City Council to pay money to private collectors in lieu of payment for customers who qualified for a waiver. The system is privatised in Limerick city.

When Labour Party councillors refused to pass the estimates without the inclusion of a waiver scheme, a second legal opinion from the Office of the Attorney General decided that such a waiver could be implemented. The question then arose as to whether a local authority could provide recompense to a number of different private collectors for waived customers or be forced to put the collection of refuse of waived households to tender. The matter is currently before the courts. I raise the matter as it demonstrates the need for a national scheme. We have national schemes in other areas, including the free schemes of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and concession travel. As precedents exist, it makes sense to introduce an element of fairness in the collection of service charges.

The Minister spoke last night about a regulator which is something I suggested in one of the national newspapers recently. I would welcome regulation in this area should the Minister introduce it. Ultimately, the issue involves fairness and the real need and inequality of senior citizens in particular and other social welfare recipients who cannot afford to pay the charges involved. In the interest of equity, the same system should apply throughout the country.

Mr. Penrose

I compliment my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, on bringing forward this important motion to ensure the Government takes cognisance of the issues and introduces a national waiver scheme in respect of the various domestic refuse charges. The Government should have learned its lesson from today's Supreme Court decision and the electronic voting fiasco over which the Ministers, Deputies Cullen and Noel Dempsey, presided. It is time the Government took cognisance of what people have to say on this side of the House. If it does, it will no longer end up in court spending significant sums of money which could more profitably be expended on ordinary people throughout the land. Just because an idea comes from the Opposition does not mean it is bad. There is no reason to assume a voluntary organisation cannot have some inspiration about how to administer various schemes more effectively and efficiently.

A waiver scheme has always existed in Westmeath. Irrespective of legal advice, we put the scheme in place to ensure that ordinary working class people, especially pensioners and those on invalidity payments, received a waiver. We always supported the idea that refuse collection should remain within local authority control. This is the context in which part of the problem arises. When services are privatised, people contend that a waiver system cannot be implemented. When Westmeath introduced a tag system some years ago, the Labour Party members of the local authority ensured a waiver system remained in place. We put two structures in place. If a person is over 75, he or she need not furnish evidence of income to receive a waiver. It is applied on submission of a birth certificate. If a person is under 75 and in receipt of old age pension, invalidity payment or any social welfare benefit, he or she receives a certain number of tags.

Thank God, Fianna Fáil lost control of the council last June. Previously, the party used its one-vote majority by bringing a person from a sick bed to push through the private contracting of the refuse collection service. The Labour Party stuck to its guns and said that while Fianna Fáil could privatise the service, it could not allow the waiver system to fall. People over 75 now receive 24 refuse tags, 12 of which are for the recycling system. Each tag is valued at €8 so for those who get 18 tags the waiver is €144. People under 75 can receive 12 tags divided between ordinary and recycled refuse. We ensured those provisions were enshrined.

In Meath, where we thankfully have a strong candidate in Councillor Dominic Hannigan, the average refuse collection charge is approximately €380 per year but no waiver system exists. Meath always crowed about being better than Westmeath at football, but we have reversed that. Thankfully, we are better than Meath when it comes to ensuring that ordinary working class people are looked after. They have paid for services and continue to be willing to pay.

I was raised in a household as the eldest of ten children. We did not have running water and used a dry toilet, but we still had to pay rates. My father was a council worker and ours was a working class family. My father and mother reared two pigs each year, one of which was sold in June and one in December to pay the rates. Working class people do not resist paying for services once they see some value for money.

The Government must take cognisance of the fact that people on low incomes do not have disposable money to throw around like confetti unlike well-heeled people. It is time to rectify the anomaly in this area. My colleague, Councillor Dominic Hannigan, is articulating this viewpoint strongly on behalf of the Labour Party. We will take our message across the Meath constituency to ensure that people are treated equally in each county. It is our job to articulate the Labour Party policy on which we will stand in a general election. We have been proved with our Fine Gael colleagues to have been right on many issues.

It is time for the Government to take common-sense advice from these benches instead of firing money at consultants and legal advisers. Our candidate is effective and efficient and will give the people of Meath the advice they need. We encourage the implementation of a national waiver scheme to ensure the same rules apply whether one lives in Dublin, Cork, Donegal, Westmeath or Meath.

Ms McManus

I thank Deputy Gilmore for tabling this very important motion. I represent County Wicklow. When Fianna Fáil appointed a Minister from the county for the first time in Deputy Roche great pride was taken among many who may not have voted for him. They felt it was good for the constituency. His appointment as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was considered appropriate given the many major environmental issues which affect Wicklow. Anybody from County Wicklow would have listened with dismay to the self-serving, hypocritical speech the Minister made last night.

Mr. Gilmore

Hear, hear.

Ms McManus

It was disappointing and demonstrated how quickly someone in the Minister's position can forget about the people who support and depend on him. This is especially true of older people on pensions and those on fixed incomes who are still reeling from the increases in waste management costs. The reason they have experienced such massive increases in costs is that Fianna Fáil county councillors, with the support of Fine Gael, privatised the service in a way which left no protection for many people on low incomes, including the elderly, the unemployed and those in receipt of disability benefit. The Labour Party fought tooth and nail against the privatisation of waste collection services in Wicklow and argued that it would create a monopoly, increase charges very significantly and lead to illegal dumping. That has been the exact outcome of a disastrous decision in rural and urban areas of Wicklow.

Very limited waiver schemes apply in Wicklow, one of which is in Bray. A waiver scheme must be applied nationally to ensure the provision of support to everyone entitled to it. This is exactly what is happening in health in respect of which the Government argues every day for centralised, uniform national benefit schemes. Waste collection is another area in which a need has arisen. Despite the fact that it is at least in part the result of Government policy and the exorbitant increases in charges from which people now suffer, the Administration has walked away from the issue. Deputy Roche does not deserve the title of Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when he walks away from an issue in his county as central as waste management. Serious illegal dumping has occurred in Wicklow but the Minister has turned his back on a petition by hundreds of people in the Blessington area which he received yesterday. All they seek is to ensure that Roadstone requires a planning application to create a new dump close to their houses. It is disappointing, but also revealing. It is clear there is no understanding on the Government side. I do not have as much confidence in the matter as Deputy O'Sullivan. Fianna Fáil does not seem to have an understanding of what is happening to older people and those on low incomes. An elderly pensioner came to me and said she did not get a waiver but a littering fine. An envelope with her name on it was found ten miles away from where she lives. The envelope was part of a very large amount of rubbish collected, which included a fridge and a snooker table. This lady could not afford a snooker table, and she certainly could not afford the fine levied against her. The reason she cannot afford it is because she must pay waste charges that are beyond her income level.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. B. O’Keeffe)

Waste is an inevitable consequence of human activity and its treatment in a sustainable manner is important for our well-being and that of the environment around us.

Mr. Stagg

That is a fantastic discovery.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

Ireland has witnessed a rapid moving away from circumstances in which we had little regard for the way in which we handled our waste. We are now progressing to a situation in which we will have waste management services that match best international practice. As my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Roche, stressed in the House last night, this comes at a price. Successive Governments have reached a correct conclusion that the fair way of meeting the cost of waste services is by charging those who use these services. This is not only fair; it is in line with a proper application of the internationally accepted polluter pays principle.

Once this principle of charging is accepted, it becomes a matter of determining the best and most equitable system to operate. Concern has been expressed in this debate with regard to a number of aspects of charging policy, including the variances which can occur in charges. While such variances occur, they are a reflection of the particular circumstances and costs faced by individual service providers, be they local authorities or private operators. The service providers, as required by Government policy, are moving to a pay by use system of charging. This is generally accepted as a more equitable approach in that it rewards those who act in an environmentally responsible manner by maximising the amount of waste they recycle.

Mr. Stagg

What about the people who cannot afford to pay?

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

These factors combined inevitably mean the charges will reflect both local circumstances and the individual choices and this is as it should be.

Mr. Stagg

The Minister of State should address the issue.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

The concern at the centre of this debate is the issue of waiver schemes. Let me be clear about the facts. Local authorities are empowered to provide such schemes where judged necessary.

Mr. Stagg

It is county managers.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

Local authorities who provide a waste collection service directly have traditionally provided waivers.

Mr. Stagg

They have not.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

It is important to stress that such waivers are not uniform in character.

Mr. Stagg

There are no waivers for old age pensioners or others.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

They vary in scope between local authorities which reflects local judgments about local circumstances. While waiver schemes have not been a significant feature in areas served by private operators, local authorities have the power in such circumstances to make appropriate arrangements to deal with cases of hardship. This issue has not been pinpointed as part of the debate.

As with charges in general, the position on waivers takes full account of the principle of subsidiarity. Waste management is, as it always has been, an essentially local service deserving predominantly local management. In regard to the cost of waste collection for those on low incomes and households, discussion has taken place and is continuing between my Department and the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Mr. Stagg

The bills have already arrived. Discussions will not help these people.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

These discussions are as a consequence of the issue being raised under social partnership arrangements and Sustaining Progress. It is to be hoped that there will be an early conclusion to this dialogue.

Mr. Stagg

It should be backdated.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

We have an increasingly sophisticated and effective waste management system. These services are progressively being funded by those who benefit most from them based on the pay by use principle. The charges reflect the actual cost of providing waste services in individual localities, and the Government has long recognised that the waiving of charges in certain limited circumstances may be appropriate. The Oireachtas has legislated to provide local authorities with the power to do so. Decisions of this nature are best made locally, but through the medium of social partnership process, consideration is being given to any necessary supplementary steps.

A number of issues have been raised, particularly by Deputy Stagg. Last night the Minister, Deputy Roche, said that when elected representatives agree on an estimate, they do so knowing the estimate is based on the charges set by the manager. Inherent in their acceptance of, voting for and agreeing to the estimate is the knowledge that they are accepting the charges that are being set. They therefore vote in the estimates. If the charges were not in place, the estimate would be very different. The Minister made the point that on the basis of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council issue, those Labour and Fine Gael councillors were aware of the charges being levied, the income that would be derived and that they allowed the manager to proceed——

Mr. Stagg

That is not what the Minister said.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister of State should conclude.

Mr. Gilmore

He is trying to correct the record for the Minister.

Mr. B. O’Keeffe

I take issue with Deputy Higgins who cited statistics from 2001. He was selective with regard to recycling. Recycling of municipal waste has increased from 9% in 1998 to 28% in 2003, and packaging waste recycling has increased from 15% in 1998 to 42% in 2003.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will share my time with my colleague, Deputy Eamon Gilmore. It is bad enough to hear Fianna Fáil backbenchers not knowing what the powers are in this matter, but when a Minister of State does not know the powers and in so far as he does he differs with his Minister, one wonders what is really happening in Government on this issue. My colleagues have clearly set out why this is a simple straightforward issue of inequity which imposes severe financial hardship on many low income families and households. The extent to which it can vary from one part of the country to another and differ a mile down the road is simply unjustifiable.

What we are seeking in this motion is no more and no less than to introduce a uniform national waiver scheme. As my colleague, Deputy O'Sullivan, said, something similar has been argued for in local newspapers by the Fianna Fáil Deputy, Peter Power. Unfortunately, he did not repeat that on the record of the House. However, he is on the record in Limerick and his position is very close to ours. Fianna Fáil Deputies have bad habits in Limerick and it is not the first time a Limerick Deputy said one thing in the House and another down in Limerick. The late Deputy Jim Kemmy said mighty mouse in the constituency and church mouse in the Dáil. That could apply to Deputy Peter Power. He may have picked up bad habits from the Minister of Defence, Deputy O'Dea. However, he is right. It is possible to implement a national waiver scheme.

My colleague, Deputy Gilmore, when he presented this motion, clearly set out three ways it could be done. For pensioners, the waste waiver could be added as an additional free scheme. For others on social welfare and pensioners who do not qualify for free schemes, the waiver could be paid as an additional payment, like the living alone allowance or the fuel allowance. For workers on low incomes, the waiver could come as a tax credit. Contrary to what is said on the opposite side of the House, there is no difficulty in it being done if the will is there. The motion refers to ongoing discussions with the social partners to tackle the inequity the Labour Party is addressing tonight. When I asked the Taoiseach about it at Question Time today, he did not appear to know anything about it. He said there are many committees and it could be under examination in one of them. I have no doubt that a majority on the Fianna Fáil benches acknowledge the hardship being unnecessarily imposed on people with low incomes as a result of the discrepancies that have grown so dramatically since these charges were first implemented.

Deputy Gregory's contribution got my attention. It is rarely that Deputy Gregory not just visits this House but visits the country. He appears to think he can attack the Labour Party with impunity. I heard him spread his miserable bile tonight to distort this motion. I am surprised he is in the House. I read in this morning's newspapers that he will travel to the by-election constituencies in search of an independent candidate he can help. If it is true that Deputy Gregory is travelling — and he is more travelled than any public representative in Ireland inside or outside the Dáil — that independent candidate should know that he will expect to get paid for it.

For Deputy Gregory, as somebody who was so recently a member of a local authority, to pretend that he does not know what the powers are and that he does not know the former Minister, Deputy Cullen, introduced a law which removed power from the elected local representatives and conferred it on the city and county managers as an executive function, is to be untruthful and deliberately to misrepresent the position. Deputy Gregory knows that. He is now all in favour of Labour Party councillors collapsing the council and refusing to agree an estimate. When he was a member of the local authority he was not so quick to recommend the collapse of the council.

My friend, Deputy O'Connor, is present and all he is concerned about is being on the side of the angels and mentioning Tallaght as frequently as possible in his speeches.

Mr. O’Connor

If the Deputy was from Tallaght, he would do the same. I am not ashamed of where I live.

Mr. Rabbitte

Absolutely, Deputy O'Connor. I do not know what the Deputy is saying but I agree with it.

The issue in this debate is straightforward. In a country as small as this, where 21 of the larger local authorities have privatised waste collection and where there is a question of clarity about what the law permits in terms of a waiver scheme in the case of private collection, serious hardship is being unnecessarily visited on people on low incomes. I do not know why the Government wants this to happen. An overwhelming majority of people accept "the polluter pays" principle and are willing to pay a reasonable charge to have their waste collected. They know it encourages reduction, recycling and so forth. Why allow a situation to prevail where the county and city managers are obliged to exert the full economic cost and, as a result, impose this hardship on people on low incomes?

Debate adjourned.