Topical Issue Debate

Hospital Procedures

Deputy Jack Wall

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister of State for taking this very important matter, which concerns a six month old baby born under an emergency section procedure. This resulted in trauma for the family, the grandparents and the parents. Like myself, the Minister of State is a grandparent and the concerns one has in such cases cannot be overstressed. The child must have a number of operations. The family lives in Kilkenny, which is two hours away from Our Lady's Hospital, Crumlin. Arrangements were made for the operation to take place on 9 February.

The procedures in place for such operations meant that the family had to leave home at 7 a.m. and the six month old child had to fast from 3.30 a.m. The family arrived in the hospital and met the medical operation team. Suddenly, at noon, it became obvious that there was a problem with the availability of a surgical bed for this case. The family was informed that there was no bed available and the two procedures had to be cancelled. The family lays no blame on the medical team and stresses the help and guidance the medical team provided and the effort it made to facilitate the family.

Only one of the procedures will take place on Thursday because of the unavailability of one of the consultants. This leads to an added cost to the HSE. In the first place, there were to be two operations but now there will be one on Thursday and we do not know when the second will take place. One can see trauma for this young couple with one other child, for whom they must care as well as the child with health difficulties. Cathal needs attention but the beds are not available. Could beds have been made available in an emergency situation? Surely we cannot have a child fasting from 3.30 a.m. only for the family to be told at noon that the bed was unavailable. It was nearly 1 p.m before the child was fed. Surely we have a sense of responsibility that matters such as this cannot happen in the future.

I ask the Minister of State to provide a guarantee to the family that, on the next occasion they leave Kilkenny to come to Crumlin, beds and facilities will be available and the two operations can take place to allow the child the comforts of life and to allow the family to know that every effort has been made to ensure the child progresses.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter, which is not just urgent and crucial but also sensitive for parents and relatives. I will respond on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly.

Our Lady's Hospital, Crumlin, wishes to apologise for any discomfort for patient and parents caused by the need to reschedule this child's surgery. The Deputy will be pleased to know that the hospital has confirmed a proposed admission date for the child tomorrow, 15 February 2012. The hospital has indicated it will take into account the previous cancellations when allocating beds within the hospital tomorrow.

Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin, in common with its sister hospitals, the Children's University Hospital, Temple Street and AMNCH incorporating the National Children's Hospital, is currently experiencing a surge in attendances to its emergency department and a corresponding surge in admissions through its emergency department. These admissions have a knock-on impact on elective surgeries in that the clinically indicated admissions must take priority. The Dublin paediatric hospitals work across the three sites in order to ameliorate a number of pressures on elective surgery and have put mitigating mechanisms in place.

The clinical director, a joint appointment across all three hospitals, works with the hospitals to ensure patients are given the right treatment in the most appropriate location. When bed pressures occur, the clinical director clinically reviews patients and, where necessary, redeploys patients across the hospitals in order to minimise the impact on elective surgery.

In addition, a one-stop-shop is being created for paediatric intensive care beds, supported by an ICT infrastructure to streamline the process. Consultant paediatricians from around the country with patients requiring access to paediatric intensive care beds will be able to contact a low call number. The consultant will then access the ICT support and provide the patient details for review. Based on this information, the appropriate bed is designated and the admission procedure takes place.

The hospitals also have a number of cross-site working groups in place including nursing, theatre utilisation, ICT, waiting list review groups and a CEO group, all focused on conjoint working to improve access, quality and resource utilisation for patients. Paediatric hospitals remain cognisant at all times of the challenges facing their young patients and the need to support families. They work with the families whenever possible to ensure the least possible disruption to the patient.

In addition to the mechanisms already in place within the three Dublin paediatric hospitals, the special delivery unit, SDU, was also established last year to unblock access to acute services by improving the flow of patients through the system. It is working with the HSE, NTPF and hospitals to minimise patient waiting times in emergency departments and reduce waiting periods for inpatient and day case elective surgical care.

Again, the hospital wishes to apologise for the unfortunate need to postpone surgery in this case. The Minister is determined to ensure the steps now being taken will minimise the likelihood of having to do so in other cases.

Deputy Jack Wall

The problem is that it took so long to make a decision. If it had been made early in the day, the child could have been fed. The decision was not taken until noon, which meant the child was not fed until 1 p.m. The child has major problems and has to be peg fed, which has associated problems. There was pressure on the family. There was a major flaw with the case. There were two surgeons in place to carry out two different operations, as well as a team, and they were also disappointed.

Was a bed available that could have been used? If emergencies arise rules must be broken. A bed should have been made available in this case because of the importance of the operations and the fact the team was put together. None of the trauma the family is now experiencing would have happened. The family is now wondering what will happen.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

The child was acutely distressed and in need of medical attention before reaching the hospital. Everyone can understand that. The Deputy asked a very relevant question. Crumlin hospital advised the HSE today that it has had an increase of 25% in GP referrals of late, thus putting additional pressure on its emergency department at a time when it is historically busy with normal respiratory illness.

The Deputy asked whether, in the even of an emergency occurring, a bed was available. There was but the difficulty was that emergencies occurred. Unfortunately they occurred at a time when the child concerned should have been prepped and sent to theatre. Clearly, the beds that were available were in use and no downstream bed was available when the child came out of theatre.

I hope it will never happen again but I can understand how it did happen. That does not take away from the distress that not just the parents but the child felt. We all know it is not just about getting to hospital, rather parents psyche themselves up for the fact that a child will have invasive surgery. I hope tomorrow's procedure will go ahead as planned and will be successful.

Disability Services

Deputy Billy Kelleher

We had a debate last Thursday on disability. Politics and being in government is about making choices, in good or difficult times. The cuts in the budget announced in December and its follow-on, in terms of provision for funding for people with disabilities and organisations that provide care and facilities for people with disabilities, are now beginning to bite very severely. The Minister of State said these should be able to provide the same level of care, support and facilities they deserve and need as last year, but there have been budget cuts of 4.5%. The Government said it is less than that but I have yet to be convinced that is correct.

Many organisations are also obligated by the Croke Park agreement and the courts to pay increments to staff. It is clear that the budget cut will be far above the 4.5% I say it is or the 2% the Government says it is. Whoever is right or wrong, the fact is that organisations providing facilities and support for people with intellectual disabilities will have less money to spend this year than they did last year.

This is coupled with other severe announcements, such as the cuts to the disability allowance and the withdrawal of the training bonus. I said I do not believe it was the responsibility of the Minister of State but the Government made a decision over and above her head to cut at the very heart of what we are trying to do as a society, which to be inclusive and allow everybody an opportunity to participate to the best of their ability.

By any stretch of the imagination, the cuts to support services and individuals and voluntary organisations working in conjunction with State agencies to provide support to groups with disabilities was a regressive step. The recommendations made by the National Disability Authority and the statements on attitudes towards people with disabilities reinforce the view that the Government can withdraw facilities and get away with it.

I ask the Minister of State to go to Cabinet and try to raise the withdrawal of the disability and training allowances. Some provision should made for organisations that are trying their best to provide support, facilities and services to people with intellectual and physical disabilities. They will be massively under resourced if they have to implement the cuts ordered by the Government and the increments provided for in Croke Park agreement and by court cases that found in favour of employees. Rightly and justly, it has been found that they are entitled to increments but the money comes from the same pool, which means fewer supports for people with intellectual disabilities will be available.

This is unfair and is driving a wedge between those providing support and services and those that need them because we have to take money from one or the other. That is unacceptable. People are entitled to support and services. Those who went to court to vindicate their rights to their increments also have rights and entitlements. The system should not be pitting one against the other because they work closely together. It is wrong for people to highlight this issue without making financial provision. This is about pounds, shillings and pence, or euro and cent in modern terms, with regard to the issue of increments and support for people with disabilities.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

It is about pounds, shillings and pence and unfortunately they are someone else's pounds, shillings and pence - the IMF and the ECB - all because we had a system, which we still have, where despite throwing money at it, we did not change how it operated. That is what we must do now and we must examine seriously at how we treat people with disabilities.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. Under the Health Act 2004, the Health Service Executive is required to manage, deliver or arrange to be delivered on its behalf health and personal social services, including disability services. The HSE service plan for 2012 sets out a reduction of 3.7% in funding for disability services. The service plan states, however, and we fought hard for this, that at least 2% of this should not impact on services and must be generated from other savings and increased efficiencies.

The HSE is involved in ongoing collaborative work with the Disability Consultative Forum, which includes representative organisations and agencies from the disability sector. I am not dismissing those who have had the job before me, because they were as committed to the sector as me, but for the first time ever we had inserted in the budget statement that there would be flexibility for groups of people who deliver a service efficiently and effectively. For the first time, the HSE has the ability to be flexible about the 1.7%.

There are agencies who deliver an incredible service and who are most efficient. One agency reduced absenteeism from 18% to 3%. That must be rewarded; it was an incredible achievement. Cuts should not be applied across the sector to those who are inefficient and to those who are efficient. We must start looking at it in that way. There is a notion there is no fat within the system but there is.

The disability budget has been protected for two years and I give credit to the last Government for protecting it in the budgets before this Government came to power. For that, certain things were asked of the sector. In October and November, the Department of Health, in negotiation with the CEOs and the federation that represented disability service providers, asked which was preferable, a cut to the budget or demography funding. The clear message was that providers could manage from within their own resources if the budget was protected. We cannot say one thing in November and then send letters to parents in March that will frighten them in regard to the position of their children in September. We cannot go on like that. It is unfair on children and parents to face this constant battle every year. Demography funding was given €10 million but we are still saying we do not have enough for children leaving school in June and needing a place in September. A service cannot be run that way.

This is about planning and ensuring the person and the services provided to them are at the centre. The value for money review that is almost complete will give us the information we need. There are excellent service providers out there and we must reward them while bringing choice back to the centre of the debate.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

We all advocate choice but the choices made by this Government are shattering front line services through the reductions in the funding available. No matter how the Minister of State goes about it, there will be a major decrease in front line service supports this year. The access funding and training bonus funding for the Department of Education and Skills have been slashed. We are waiting for the review of the cuts announced in the context of the disability allowance and domiciliary care allowance. When will the decisions be made?

We all accept that many people live in vulnerable and challenging times. We have put in place the best supports we think are possible with the resources made available but choices must be made about where to draw the line. Unfortunately, on this occasion, the Government has wielded the axe in a blunt and arbitrary manner, affecting those who most need supports and services. At the same time, in other parts of the budget, the exact opposite has been done.

I am not saying the Minister of State is personally responsible but at some stage the Cabinet must stand up to its obligations to ensure those with intellectual and physical disabilities have a right and entitlement to express themselves as fully as they can in society and that they get the support of the State. Service providers and those who support them in a voluntary capacity do not have the resources to do this, coupled with the fact they will have to make incremental payment increases this year, meaning it is more than 2%. It could be 5% or 6% and if that is the case, there will be a fundamental problem whereby those with intellectual disabilities will be left behind.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch

This exaggerated notion is wrong and is not how we should conduct our business. It is an exaggerated claim because there will not be catastrophic effects on front line services. We are negotiating about service level agreements with service level providers and that will be managed. I come back to the fact that we cannot agree to a service plan in November before a budget and then four months later say it is no longer possible. That is exactly what was done every year and I saw it happen with Deputy Kelleher's Government and those that went before.

This is about a plan that will ensure stability and security in the system and we can do it. People with disabilities tell me every day that they might have a disability but they are not sick. We must bring a different skill mix into the service and we will be able to do that. The people with disabilities will have a better service and more control over that service.

Alternative Energy Projects

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

I wish the Minister a happy Valentine's Day. He might have been delayed for a particular reason and we will have to allow for that.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Olivia Mitchell)

An outbreak of love.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

It is catching.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

Just before Christmas, the Single Electricity Market Committee, SEM Committee, made a whammy of a decision that has left those trying to develop our wind industry reeling and that will affect adversely the achievement of the Government's 2020 renewables targets for wind energy. The committee decided to grandfather curtailment levels when there is too much electricity being produced for the grid from wind energy rather than to curtail the output of every wind farm proportionately. Grandfathering is the allocation of curtailment based on new wind farms, with non-firm access being curtailed first. This means that instead of every wind farm being curtailed or asked to reduce its output, because there is too much energy entering the grid, some will bear all the burden and some will bear none at all. This decision will have a devastating effect on the development of new wind farms and the achievement by the Government of our 2020 renewables target of having wind capacity of 4,000 MW. Some 1,500 MW are currently installed.

If we look to those parts of the country with the best wind resource in Europe, such as the west, and decide to build the wind farms there, we will realise there is no grid or superhighway to take the energy therefrom. It is like seeing no roads in vast sectors on a road map. We have a massive deficit in our grid infrastructure. Under the new decision, the areas in question will carry the burden of curtailment. The wind farms in these areas would be asked to cut back their electricity output at their own expense whereas those in areas where there is firm access to proper grid infrastructure could operate at a capacity of 100% and be guaranteed payment for their energy. I have already been contacted by wind farm developers in Mayo who have planning permission and grid offers but who will get no finance from a bank or investor on account of the grandfathering of curtailment.

In effect, people are being punished because they are trying to develop in areas in which the last Government and EirGrid failed to develop infrastructure. In my county there is a community wind farm project, rather than one associated with big industry, yet the developers are being told they will not receive finance. We need to remember that if we are to develop our wind energy potential, we will require significant interest and investment from the private sector. They have a real appetite to develop wind farms. Therefore, we should not support the decision of the SEM Committee, which would choke the financial viability of new wind farm projects.

There over 500 MW of investor-ready wind farm projects in counties Mayo, Galway, Leitrim, Donegal, Clare, Kerry, Cork, Waterford, Tipperary and Cavan that will be affected negatively by the decision. In my county alone, developing the 600 MW offered through Gate 3 would see an investment of €250 million. Analysis has shown there is not enough firm access for the capacity of wind generation required to meet the 2020 targets. On this basis the committee's decision will stop the wind industry building sufficient capacity to meet our targets.

The SEM Committee is not a body with a mandate from the people to make Government policy on renewables, to amend such policy or interfere therewith. The decision was sprung on the industry without consultation. The committee previously indicated curtailment would be applied proportionately and shared equally by every wind farm in the country. There was no consultation or regulatory impact assessment taking cognisance of our targets. Therefore, it is imperative that the Minister impart Government policy in the strongest terms to the SEM Committee and leave it in no doubt that its action is contrary to Government policy, and that he requires the SEM Committee to engage in a proper consultative process so the grandfathering decision will be knocked on its head.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte)

I apologise for being late.

Deputy Mulherin has given a lucid explanation of the problems that may arise from an unexpected decision of the Single Electricity Market Committee, SEM Committee. The Government places considerable emphasis in the importance of wind energy as a contributor to both energy security and environmental sustainability. We have international obligations because, under the renewable energy directive, Ireland has a legally binding renewable energy target of 16% by 2020. The latest estimates from the SEAI show that approximately 4,000 MW of renewable generation capacity will be required provided we meet our energy efficiency targets, and more if we do not.

At present, there is approximately 1,900 MW of renewable generation. This means that, within nine years, we will need to more than double the amount of renewable generation to meet our target. The directive provides that where we do not reach our renewable target domestically, we will have to purchase renewable credits at a yet unknown price from other member states to make up any shortfall. This would impose unacceptable costs on taxpayers. Given the scale of the necessary build-out required, any issue that could compromise the scale or pace of development necessary is a matter of serious concern.

At present, renewables projects receive payments from the wholesale market in respect of both "constraints" and "curtailments". Constraints arise where a transmission or distribution line is down for maintenance or due to some fault. Generation that uses the line must be "constrained" until such time as the line is in use again. Curtailment arises where there is high wind at times of low demand, and wind projects have to be curtailed because the system cannot handle the amount of generation. Until the committee's decision was taken, wind generators were paid the relevant wholesale price for the time they were offline. The all-island SEM Committee, representing energy regulators North and South, has responsibility for this matter independent of the Government.

The SEM decision to grandfather curtailment levels applied to wind farms took the Department and most industry stakeholders by surprise, as it reversed what was indicated in the SEM Committee's consultation paper of August 2011. The decision, as it stands, would favour existing generation units deemed to have what is termed "firm connection" status while placing the entire burden of curtailed output on new generation plants that would typically be built in advance of having the firm connection status. Typically most wind farms would connect years in advance of a firm date. The decision could also be very serious in terms of developers that were planning to connect on a non-firm basis in the coming years.

Modelling done by industry indicates that non-firm wind farms could be affected by being turned down to a significant degree, such that the financial viability of the projects would be threatened as they would not be paid when turned down. What I have heard from industry stakeholders is that the decision would slow down new projects by years and potentially mean that projects would be built too late for our 2020 targets. I have asked for a formal analysis of the impact of this decision from the Commission for Energy Regulation and also separately from EirGrid. I am also requesting the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland for an assessment of this decision.

I welcome the fact that the SEM Committee has invited industry representative associations to its next scheduled meeting at the end of this month. It may be that during the consultation process the industry did not adequately communicate the adverse implications of the option eventually chosen by the SEM Committee. The industry will now have the opportunity to bring fresh information to the SEM Committee and l am sure the committee will weigh the evidence carefully in light of any new information.

Waste Collection Services

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

If the Minister has followed the news, he will conclude, as I have, that the transference of household waste collection from Dublin City Council to Greyhound has been utterly shambolic from start to finish. My constituency offices, in common with those of other elected representatives across the city, are inundated with calls from citizens who in many cases have had no contact either from Dublin City Council or from Greyhound concerning the transfer of services.

The situation has now deteriorated even further because we have discovered that, from next Thursday, waste collections from 18,000 homes will not be made. The Minister may or may not be aware that the issue of illegal dumping is a scourge across the city of Dublin, but particularly in inner city areas. The prospect that rubbish will not be collected from 18,000 homes raises not just a problem for the households concerned but also for public health and environmental protection issues of a most serious nature.

I want to know what the Minister proposes to do about this. So far, the Government has pointed the finger at Dublin City Council saying it is up to that local authority to sort out this. We are clearly in a crisis and it falls to the Minister to address the issue. Unsurprisingly, Greyhound acts in the manner of a private company and wishes to be paid for its services. The Minister will know that for many low and middle-income families the additional burden of a €100 charge for waste collection is a bridge too far. The programme for Government promised a fair and comprehensive waiver system for low-income families but the Minister has not yet introduced such a system. What does the Minister propose to do in respect of the 18,000 homes whose waste will not be collected? What does he intend to do to extend a fair and comprehensive waiver system for low-income families, which was promised less than a year ago?

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan)

The Government is conscious that waste collection charges can be a significant cost for many households. While the polluter pays principle requires that households and businesses must pay for their waste collection, it is important, particularly in economically challenging times such as these, that efforts are made to provide flexible mechanisms to enable householders to meet costs such as waste charges.

As Deputy McDonald will be well aware, Dublin City Council's withdrawal from the provision of household waste collection services, and the transfer of that business to Greyhound, is a matter for the council and Greyhound. I note that in response to issues raised previously concerning the pre-payment of the €100 annual service charge, Greyhound announced that provision would be made to allow Dublin City Council customers the option of paying the charge in two instalments.

My understanding is that the issue which now arises relates to some 18,000 of the 70,000 former Dublin City Council customers who, although liable to a standing charge, have not yet made payment in that regard. The issue arising at this stage does not affect the remaining 52,000 standing charge customers, nor does it affect the bulk of the other 70,000 former Dublin City Council customers, who are subject to a range of other payment mechanisms or who are covered by waivers. For the Deputy's information, there are 34,000 people on waivers at the moment, which is in line with the commitment we made. In effect, therefore, we are talking about 18,000 customers out of a total of some 140,000. If those 18,000 customers wish to raise any further issues concerning payment structures, customer communications or service changes, they should engage directly with Greyhound.

In addition to the potential to address issues arising through further direct dialogue with Greyhound, it is important to bear in mind that there are alternative options available to householders to deal with their waste. In some areas, there is more than one provider of waste collection services and households can choose from among these. There is also a network of bring facilities and civic amenity sites through which households can deal appropriately with a wide range of waste materials.

I hope the Deputy, in using the words "inevitable illegal dumping" in submitting this item for debate, is not in any way conferring legitimacy on actions of that kind. Notwithstanding any difficulties that may arise from time to time with waste collection in individual areas, the fact remains that it is the responsibility of all citizens to comply with the law and not dispose of their waste illegally. It is simply not good enough for the majority of compliant customers to carry the can for the minority.

As the waste collection market is currently structured, the pricing schemes used by private waste collectors are a matter for determination between the service providers and consumers of the service, subject to a service provider's collection permit and other legal responsibilities being complied with. The programme for Government includes a commitment to introduce competitive tendering for household waste collection, whereby service providers would bid to provide waste collection services in a given area, for a given period of time and to a guaranteed level of service.

A public consultation designed to inform the policy development process concluded last September 2011. Many responses were made by a broad spectrum of interests, including individual citizens, waste management companies, other companies, local authorities and waste management regions, economic think tanks, community and voluntary organisations and State agencies.

As one might expect, a consensus on the alteration of household waste collection market arrangements is not apparent. On almost all the relevant issues, a considerable breadth of opinion was expressed by the collective response. Some respondents expressed outright opposition to competition for the market, others gave it a guarded welcome, while there was strong approval from others. I have published all the responses, together with a summary, on my Department's website.

The approach to future regulation of the household waste collection market will be carefully considered by Government and will take account of the full range of economic, environmental and other issues, and the many perspectives offered by consultees. Of course, policy in relation to household waste collection cannot be severed from other related areas which are also under examination, specifically the collection of household organic waste and wider national waste policy. Clearly, coherence is required, and I intend to conclude my examination of these matters in a unified manner. I expect to be in a position to submit to Government final proposals on household waste collection by Easter.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

There is nothing coherent in the Minister's current position. As the Minister with responsibility for this area, I do not know how he can tell me with a straight face that the non-collection of waste from 18,000 households in Dublin city is not his problem. How can he so brazenly wash his hands of the issue? We are well aware that the service has been privatised but I feel strongly that was a mistake. The collection of rubbish is a core civic function of any local authority but nonetheless the decision to privatise it has been made. Faced with this absolute shambles, in many cases there has been no communication between Greyhound, Dublin City Council and citizens. Greyhound is now saying it will not collect waste from 18,000 households in the Dublin city area. It is utterly bizarre for the Minister to simply wash his hands and say it is not his problem.

The Minister knows full well that, no more than anyone else, I do not approve of illegal dumping. I am simply identifying it for the Minister as a current phenomenon and a real scourge in the city. Picture the scene if waste is not collected from 18,000 households - it is a recipe for grave public health and environmental issues. The Minister should step in and talk to Dublin City Council and to Greyhound. If he needs to knock heads together, he should do so because the buck stops with him. He cited a figure of 34,000 citizens on waivers, which is correct.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Why did the Deputy not say so in her introductory remarks?

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

The promise he made was to low-income families, but he has failed to take account of the fact that such families extend beyond those reliant on social welfare payments. The sum of €100 may not seem a lot to the Minister or to those who run Greyhound, but it is a bridge too far for many poor households across this State. I do not accept the Minister's answer that he will stand aloof from this problem. The people of Dublin city will be disappointed and alarmed that the Minister has taken such a hands-off approach to this serious matter.

Deputy Phil Hogan

In this case, the buck stops with Dublin City Council which made a democratic decision to exit from the public collection of household waste and gave it over to the private sector.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

It was a decision by Dublin City Council management and not its public representatives.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The councillors voted to accept it.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

It was an executive decision.

Deputy Phil Hogan

Yes, but the councillors had an input into that decision.

Under the Waste Management Acts, people have an obligation to deal with their household waste. Under these Acts and pollution legislation, Dublin City Council has options to ensure the type of scenario presented by Deputy McDonald about people not willing to engage with a collector and public health problems arising from their waste on the streets will not arise. Those in that position should do what the 140,000 people have done by signing up to collection.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

What if they do not have the €100 required?

Deputy Phil Hogan

There are waivers available. Deputy McDonald chose not to refer to the waiver scheme earlier but then had to acknowledge it.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

It is a limited waiver scheme.

Deputy Phil Hogan

As I indicated in my earlier reply, there are facilities for people to engage with the collector to ensure their household waste is collected and they should use them. If they choose to go to a civic amenity centre, it will cost them more. The cost of collecting waste in Dublin city is lower than in any other local authority area. The people of Dublin city are getting good value for the collection of their waste.

I ask Deputy McDonald to support Dublin City Council and the collection of waste under the law. I ask she ensures people engage with Greyhound and Dublin City Council to meet their statutory obligations-----

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I want the Minister to do his job. Is that a big ask?

Deputy Phil Hogan

I am not going to give any credence to Deputy McDonald's advocating I micromanage the business of local government.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

It is not micromanaging.

Deputy Phil Hogan

It is micromanaging. Dublin City Council is responsible for ensuring household waste collection is done effectively and efficiently which in this case is through a private operator. It is up to the private citizen and the waste collector to engage in ensuring household waste is collected.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012