Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Jun 2016

Vol. 914 No. 1

Waste Collection Charges: Motion [Private Members]

Deputy Bríd Smith

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes:

— the steady increase of charges for waste collection and the removal of waivers since the privatisation of waste management;

— the recent outrageous plans to increase the standing charges for the collection of household waste that are proposed by many private waste management companies;

— the severe hardship these rises will inflict on many households and families, particularly the disabled and those on low incomes; and

— the dramatic increase in numbers of households reducing, reusing and recycling over recent years and that the plans to increase these charges flies in the face of the so-called "polluter pays" principle;

calls on the Government to:

— immediately take action to prevent private waste management companies from implementing the planned increases;

— ensure that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government meets with the said companies as a matter of urgency;

— ensure that standing charges cannot be increased out of line with the consumer price index;

— implement rules for maximum pay by weight charges of 11 cent for residual household kerbside waste, 6 cent for food and bio waste and zero cent for recyclables per kilo; and

— reinstate waivers for pensioners, disabled persons, carers, all those whose primary income comes from social welfare payments and low-paid workers in receipt of family income supplement;

and makes the following changes to page 13, item (III) in section 20 "Other conditions to be attached to waste collection permits" of S.I. No. 24 of 2016:

— delete "not less than" and replace with "not greater than"; and

— insert "and also ensure that any fixed or standing charge does not increase in any one year by an amount any greater than the consumer price index as calculated by the Central Statistics Office" after "of the Act"’.

This the first Private Members' business for the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit and we considered it most appropriate to raise this issue. In the space of two weeks, after I first mentioned it, the issue has become a national hot potato for the Government. Indeed, it is probably a very good example of the type of Government we have, which is one of obfuscation, suspension and one that fears mass movements and people power. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Coveney, said a week ago that it did not need another protest movement on the streets, such as the water charges movement. That is exactly what it would get if it did not deal with this issue. An amendment to the motion has been tabled by the Right2Change Deputies which we are happy to accept. There is also an amendment tabled by the Government which I will discuss comprehensively shortly.

First I refer to the news today that the Government and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, have met with the waste management industry and worked out an agreement which will freeze the bin charges for a year and, through transparency in waste bills over a period of time and a big education campaign, the population will be won over and convinced that it is a great way to go and that it must be done to control the waste management industry. My first response is that we have included in the motion a form of secondary legislation which we are asking the House to pass. The reason is that we do not have an iota of belief in a gentlemen's agreement with an industry which does not contain a single gentleman.

As a result that gentlemen's agreement will not be worth the paper it is written on. Instead, we need some kind of legislation that puts a cap on the annual charge, or the service charge, as it is sometimes called; that puts a maximum on pay by weight instead of having a minimum for the pay by weight structures in the last statutory instrument; and that reinstates waivers not just for recipients of HSE payments who need nappies, etc., but all disabled persons, pensioners, carers, those whose primary income comes from social welfare and low-paid workers who rely on the family income supplement. We think this important.

I went to prison over the bin charges along with 24 or 25 others. I did not go there for the craic. I went there because we were protesting day and night and firmly believed that the reason we needed to step back from the charges was because it would lead to privatisation. What we are witnessing is another Irish Water debacle because that is exactly what would have happened with water had it gone through. Instead of that, we are at the point where this Government is in crisis because of the threat of privatisation of an essential service. The Government is suspending the implementation of the new bin charges, it has become a Government of suspensions. I include the support of Fianna Fáil in that if it votes to back the Government on this on Thursday. Its role will then be shown up as being akin to the role of Fine Gael rather than something separate.

We want binding legislation imposed on the waste management industry. In this regard we hope the Government amendment will be defeated. The Government talks about looking at a commitment to a public awareness campaign for the first half of 2016. The commitment that the Government would have a public awareness campaign was given in late 2014 but, of course, it backed off from that because of the number of people on the streets fighting against Irish Water. It is now revisiting that in the hope that people will be sold the lie that pay by weight is the only way to go. In its amendment, the Government has completely ignored that Thorntons has increased the standing charge by 100% while Greyhound has increased it by up by 200%. I have e-mails from people in other parts of Ireland, including Tipperary, which I am sure Deputy Healy will talk about later, where the standing charge has increased by 400%. Can the Minister deal with the question of the standing charge because the Government amendment does not contain a single reference to it? It is all about pay by weight and nothing else.

There is another element in the Government amendment that is very worrying. It says that a price freeze for customers for the next 12 months based on their current pricing plans is agreed by the industry. What about young people or anybody who is not on a plan at the moment but who joins a plan within the next 12 months? That is not spelled out. Is the Minister telling us that what is contained here is further discrimination against young people because it is most likely to be young people who are buying a home for the first time, as distinct from renting, who will be the ones who are bound to take up a contract with the waste management companies? We need that spelled out. Will those who will enter into a contract in the next 12 months be penalised and treated differently to the rest of the population who are currently on contracts?

The last point to note about the Government amendment is that it relies on a commitment from the waste management industry. There is a series of questions to be asked about this industry. I live in Ballyfermot. A big company called Thorntons operates at the back of where I live. Thorntons bales all the food waste from all of the McDonald's restaurants, hospitals and college canteens in the Dublin area. Thorntons has spent quite a bit of money trying to deal with the pollution that this causes but it has not fully addressed it. Every time we complain to the EPA, we get fobbed off. I have received dozens of e-mails from people as far as Kilconnell in County Galway where Greenstar has left a complete mess of environmental destruction and it is the local authority that is spending the money to clean it up. One could look at Panda in County Meath where the local population has been campaigning to stop a major pollutant being built in its area.

A recent edition of "Prime Time" on Indaver in County Kildare showed how this industry is is unaccountable and out of control and is not managed or curtailed by the Government in any way. It is now pushing up the prices for the ordinary consumer by an extraordinary amount and there is no reference to it in the Government amendment or the Minister's public statements. The Minister wants us to sit back and look at how pay by weight might work out but he will not deal through legislation with what amounts to a cowboy industry that has been completely out of control. A total of 41 companies are signed up to the Irish Waste Management Association. This is a small country. One has to ask why are 41 companies are getting in on the act. It is because they are making vast profits. Most of them are registered offshore. We cannot see what are their profits or the tax they pay yet they are coming after the taxpayer to deepen and increase the size of their pockets.

I ask the Minister and the rest of the House to support this motion and the amendment by Independents4Change because in the immediate term, we need to control these cowboys and stop these charges being implemented. In the long run we must examine the waste management industry in this country, its legacy, what it is up to and where it is going. We need to appoint a regulator and, as I said to the Taoiseach a week ago, a committee to sit on these people and this issue and make sure our society is dealt with in an environmentally friendly way and that the cost is not passed on to those who can least afford it.

Deputy Mick Barry

One could say a lot about the events of the last week. One thing one could say is that it has been a shambles from the point of view of the Government. The Minister, who is charged with responsibility for the housing emergency and who should be devoting every minute of every day to addressing it, has had to put it on the back burner and run around trying to sort out a crisis in respect of bins that is of his party and Government's making.

The last week has also been interesting in that it has revealed who this Government and previous Governments have allowed to take control of the vital bin service industry. These are companies who were prepared to ruthlessly exploit the opportunity offered by the opening of the pay-by-weight window to double prices in some cases and treble them in others and in doing so, to hurt the old, the sick and those on low incomes. If the Government and the Minister attempt tonight to offer a version of "move along now, nothing to see", it will not wash because these events show the need to open up a debate about what is the best way to organise waste services in this State. Something is clearly very wrong with the way they are operating at the moment and change is needed but what change?

The Government is operating a crazy model of privatisation. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other country in Europe, apart from Poland, that organises its waste services the way they are organised in this country. It is a model that was consciously chosen by Fine Gael in alliance with Labour in the last Government. Yesterday's report in The Irish Times showed that this was consciously chosen in 2011 when preplanning was taking place for the introduction of pay by weight. At that time, the Government considered and weighed two alternatives. The other alternative was also a privatisation model but one with a greater element of State regulation. It would have meant local authorities having a de facto licence with a competition whereby the service would be franchised out to one operator in a local authority area. That is the model that is used in most European countries. The Irish Times said that in Finland, it produced savings for consumers of up 40%. Fine Gael consciously rejected that model. According to reports, it did so after being lobbied by the Irish Waste Management Association.

The former Minister, Phil Hogan, as well as being Minister for water charges was Minister for introducing this crazy model of privatisation. The Taoiseach hinted, in his contribution in the House today, that he might consider going for an alternative model along the lines sketched out there with regard to the local authorities but it is too late for that now. The bin service operators, who are known for having trampled on workers' rights and for having ripped up waiver schemes, have revealed themselves to a greater extent than ever before as ruthless profiteers who are probably operating a cartel. It begs the question as to why on earth the Government would allow companies like this maintain control over this vital service in the State. It would be far better to reverse the privatisation programme entirely, give control of bin services back to the local authorities and scratch the bin charges altogether. The Minister would no doubt ask where we would get the money to finance this. There would be very significant savings to be made on the bill picked up by the taxpayer every year for cleaning up illegal dumping. When I was a member of Cork City Council, I was told by senior officials in the environment department that there was a more than tenfold increase in the level of illegal dumping at the time that charges were introduced. This is a hidden cost of privatisation and of bin charges and a form of corporate welfare. It is money which would make a significant contribution towards a publicly owned bin service run by the local authorities.

I will focus in my concluding remarks on the issue of wages and conditions in the industry. These workers provide a vital service in society. If bins were not lifted for one week or two weeks, one would see just how vital that work is. It is a story of capitalism, red in tooth and claw and it is not a pretty picture. The average work week for many workers in this industry is 50 to 60 hours a week and it is not unknown for some to work 70 hours a week. After tax, many drivers bring home less than €400 a week and in the case of many operators not much more than €300. A large percentage of the workforce does not receive overtime, sick pay, holiday pay and is organised through agencies. A reasonably fit worker should be able to move 600 to 700 bins in a ten-hour day but workers are being asked to move double that - 1,400 bins a day. It is not possible to do that pushing one bin at a time, which is best practice, so two bins at a time is what is done. There are significant health and safety implications, particularly towards the end of a shift because people are tired, particularly in two-man crews which should be three-man crews. As a result, injury is common and death is not unknown. A lot of this work is put on the shoulders of immigrant workers. Already this year, there have probably been tens of thousands of workers farmed out to the industry through the agencies. Many of the workers last in the job for two, three or four weeks. They cannot maintain it for much longer than that, so there is a huge churn. The Minister met the Irish Waste Management Association but he would do well to meet the workers who work in the trade. If he listened to them, it might open his eyes to the real scandal that is going on in this industry in terms of wages and conditions, which is something that needs to be seriously addressed.

Deputy Seamus Healy

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Private Members' motion. I support the motion tabled by the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit and also support the amendment in the name of the Independents 4 Change which calls for a commission of investigation to examine the waste industry and to explore the potential for local authorities to re-enter the waste collection services.

This pay-by-weight bin charges fiasco is yet another spectacular own goal by the former Labour Party Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly. It was not enough to have the debacle of the whole domestic water charges business but the former Minister has now followed that up with another spectacular own goal. The current Minister has announced today that he intends to freeze this pay-by-weight system for the next 12 months. That is simply not good enough - this proposal must be annulled. I hope the proposal in the Seanad later this week will be successful because the whole area of domestic waste charges is a huge rip off of ordinary people right across this country. One has to ask what the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, has promised the waste companies from July 2017 on? I believe they have been promised that they can charge what they like. That is something that ordinary families, already put to the pin of their collar by all sorts of other stealth charges-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

The Deputy should not be scaring people with spurious statements.

Deputy Seamus Healy

-----will simply not be able to bear and are not able to bear now. These waste collection firms have used this pay-by-weight system and the privatisation of the services to ensure they have gouged the public and ordinary families. Families with young children, who of necessity produce a lot of waste, are particularly disadvantaged by the whole pay-by-weight system and so too are elderly people who are ill. Carers are particularly disadvantaged as well. It is simply not good enough that in the Minister's amendment tonight he talks about a waiver for the 60,000 Health Service Executive patients supplied with incontinence wear. What about carers, people on basic social welfare incomes, people on low incomes and families with young children? What about large families who are particularly hit by these charges? There should be a waiver for all these categories not just the ones referred to by the Minister. The provision of domestic waste services by local authorities should recommence. At least in that situation, there are public representatives who can have an input into the particular service.

I support the motion and the amendment by the Independents 4 Change. I call for a real waiver system and for us to ensure that local authorities re-enter this market and that the huge increases in standing charges be stopped forthwith.

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Simon Coveney)

I move amendment No. 2:

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

“supports the introduction of pay-by-weight charging for household waste collection from 1st July, as the most effective and proven means of managing and segregating household waste, in line with the polluter pays principle, to reduce residual waste going to landfills but also to give households more control over their waste costs, by incentivising people to reuse, recycle and compost better, and providing for more transparency in charging by service providers;

welcomes the following arrangements agreed between the Government and the waste industry to facilitate the effective roll-out of pay-by-weight charging:

— a price freeze for customers for the next 12 months on the basis of their current pricing plans;

— during the second half of 2016, the Government and the waste industry are committed to an intensive public awareness, information and promotion campaign to promote the benefits of the pay-by-weight charging model, support customers in understanding how they can change their waste management behaviour and manage better their waste costs under the pay-by-weight system;

— no later than 1st January, 2017, customers will receive a dual pricing bill listing the amount of waste they are disposing of, their costs under their current price plan and details of the comparative pay-by-weight charge, and they will be given the option to transition, should they so choose, to pay-by-weight charging or to remain on their current price plan; and

— after the transitional 12 months, the operation of pay-by-weight and of the wider waste market will be reviewed to inform decisions in relation to the arrangements beyond 1st July, 2017;

notes the Government’s intention, in advance of 1st July, to underpin the requirements regarding provision of comparative billing information and the pay-by-weight opt-in arrangements through amendments to the relevant Statutory Instrument, and the intention to keep the operation of the price freeze under review, with further legislative intervention being considered, as necessary; and

acknowledges the commitment of the waste industry to provide a full weight allowance for the 60,000 Health Service Executive patients supplied with incontinence wear to reduce their waste charges, and the Government’s provision of a 50 per cent exemption to the waste industry from the landfill levy in respect of such waste.”

I will try to address some of the comments which been made so far. I congratulate the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit on their first Private Members' motion and I look forward to many of them. We had some questions on this issue last week and there was some back and forth debate with Deputy Bríd Smith. She signalled this motion and said that she wanted the Government to stop any price increases that may arise after 1 July. The Deputy wanted me to meet the industry with some urgency. She wanted there to be a link between any increases in standing charges and the consumer price index. She wanted to make sure that families were not being targeted unfairly by price increases and that companies would not use the confusion around changes in charging structures as an opportunity to bump up prices.

Since then, I have been actively engaging with the industry to deliver most of what the Deputy was seeking while also continuing to prioritise what we need to do in respect of housing. For example, I was at South Dublin County Council talking about housing for two hours yesterday.

On the waste issue, it is clear there was not acceptance of a new charging structure among households across the country, there was a great deal of concern that householders' bills would increase and there was much scepticism and suspicion around the motivation behind some of the new charges that have only been published in the past ten days. I took action in that regard. I asked the industry to meet me at short notice on Friday last. We spent at least three hours in direct discussions around reflecting the concerns and views of this House and the concerns that all parties have expressed here. I made it clear that we would not be proceeding on 1 July with the mandatory introduction of a new charging system, and they accepted that. I made it clear that I wanted a continuing commitment to a switch-over to pay by weight because I believe it is right to do so, for the environment and for households, in terms of encouraging people to segregate and separate waste at source, to use brown bins and green bins, and to minimise the amount of waste that must go to landfill. At present, there is waste coming from the west of Ireland to Kildare because there are not any landfill facilities for people there to use in their own localities. It makes sense, in terms of waste management, to take initiatives that can encourage people to separate waste at source so that we minimise what is going into landfill. Most importantly, we want a system that makes sense for families and individuals who are managing their waste. I have tried to speak to as many people as possible. Nobody who has switched over to pay by weight to whom I have spoken - approximately 20% of households are currently paying by weight - wants to switch back from that system now that he or she has got used to it.

We, as a Government, are essentially saying that households are not ready to have pay by weight mandated because of the suspicion around the changes in charging and the potential increases in charges and, therefore, we have called a halt to that. We have said to the industry we want a freeze on all charges for the next 12 months to create a window of opportunity to be able to raise awareness of the advantages and positive elements to a pay-by-weight charging system in the future. We have said that for the first six months during the freeze on charges there will be much activity around raising awareness, education and encouraging people to think about how pay by weight might help them in terms of reducing their bills and the positive contribution that makes from an environmental perspective. However, there is no obligation on anybody and no one has to worry about increased charges in that period. Then, after six months, we are requiring the industry to introduce dual billing, whereby households can look at their bill, see what they are paying and see what they otherwise might pay if they were paying by means of a pay-by-weight charging structure. If they choose to opt-in to pay by weight, they must be given the opportunity to do so. That is what people are giving out to me about delivering. We are talking about moving away from mandating people to switch to pay by weight and instead investing in an education and promotion campaign around what most would accept, if it is working properly, is a much better way of charging for waste and offering people opt-in on a voluntary basis for the second half of that 12-month period, and the companies have agreed to facilitate that. Nobody is obliged to do anything. They can just sit and pay what they have been paying with no increases for the next 12 months, if that is what they choose to do. We want to put it up to the industry, and, indeed, to me, to persuade people to choose this option as opposed to mandating the change, in other words, forcing people to change and trying to force changes in behaviour through charging structures. We have learned lessons to the effect that society does not respond well to such an approach.

What we are doing now involves a step-by-step process and a clear commitment to encourage people to choose a pay-by-weight charging system. The evidence is that when people get that option, they do not turn back easily because they like it and they see why it works for them. Following the 12-month period, we have given a commitment not only to a review of where we go on pay by weight but also of the industry and the waste market about which many Members have raised real concerns. We will look at that. The industry is due that full review and the Government is committing to doing that as well.

In addition, we have obtained a commitment on a specific issue on which we have been working with the waste industry for quite some time. I refer to families that are affected by a family member who may be incontinent and has incontinence wear or incontinent pads. There are 60,000 people who are affected by that issue in Ireland producing approximately 40,000 tonnes of waste linked to incontinence wear. Clearly, it is unacceptable and unfair to ask those people to pay more in waste charges on the basis of pay by weight. The retail estimate of what would be paid, if one were to look at 30 cent or 35 cent per kilogramme, for 40,000 tonnes is approximately €12.5 million. The industry has agreed not to charge for that and to work with the HSE to ensure that people get allowances to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as a result of issues relating to incontinence. We are responding with the industry to concerns that are being expressed.

We are also responding to the concerns expressed in the past week or so in the context of the negative response to the new charging plans that were published. That is what the Government needs to do. When something is not working out, one responds and changes direction. However, the fundamental direction that we are going in is the right direction in terms of encouraging more people to buy in to the concept of pay-by-weight charging.

Issues around standing charges and the relationship between standing charges and pay by weight can be examined during the review. I accept that we certainly do not want a situation where we are trying to encourage, support and reward a change in behaviour and our actions being undermined by dramatic increases in standing charges. The deal that has been agreed contains a commitment to freeze the entire charge. What we do not want is to freeze one element of it and for the other element to be jacked up. There is a danger of the latter happening if we solely focus on the standing charge and, therefore, encourage waste operators to make margin from increased pay by weight.

We now have a commitment that we will follow through on in legislation to change the statutory instrument to ensure that by 1 January companies will be obliged to offer pay-by-weight options if their customers choose that. They will also be obliged to have a dual-pricing model so that people can see the detail of the consequence for them of switching over to pay by weight. We have also said quite clearly in the amendment to the motion that if there is any breach of the price freeze, we will introduce primary legislation to deal with that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thank the Minister.

Deputy Simon Coveney

That is a reasonable approach to an issue that clearly was raising much concern in many households last week. We are responding to it. We now have a step-by-step process to encourage people to change their behaviour and to reward them - by means of a pricing model - for doing that on a voluntary basis. After 12 months - unfortunately Deputy Healy is not here - we have made no promise-----

An Ceann Comhairle

I thank the Minister. The time is up.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I will conclude on this. We have made no promise to the industry in terms of what will happen at the end of 12 months, except to say that we will hold a full review of its activities and, indeed, the progression towards a better way of charging.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I thank AAA-People before Profit for bringing forward this motion. I agree with much, but not all, of what it contains but I acknowledge the role it has played in bringing this issue to a head and in forcing it to be dealt with in conjunction with other matters.

The Minister referred to the debate we had last week on foot of a Topical Issue Matter raised by me and many other Members of the Opposition.

Unfortunately, as previous speakers alluded to, this matter has its roots in the statutory instrument put forward by the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. Like many other issues dealt with by him and his predecessor in that Department, this has been a disaster. Those involved have been ill-informed, ill-advised and ill-prepared. I notice he stated in recent days that the Government took its eye off the ball with regard to this issue. There was a ball as big as a beach ball on his desk last January and he failed to enter into a process that could have allowed a more informed debate at that time and a more meaningful process that could have led to the solution now being spoken about. It could have prevented the great fear and trepidation that was placed on many people throughout the country. In recent weeks we have been hearing anecdotal evidence of this as the issue developed.

A vacuum was created because of the gap in the statutory order and it allowed many collectors to increase standing or handling charges. That was not appropriate and it led to an opportunity for collectors to reach the holy grail with respect to the commitment they made to investors some years ago when they sought market share with rates that were below cost. Ultimately and inevitably, it led to what took place in recent weeks.

There was a responsibility on us to address the issue and, as representatives, this was said to us in no uncertain terms. From my perspective and that of my party, during the course of that debate, we and many others asked the Minister to take responsibility for the error made and the opportunity created by the Government because of a lack of appropriate legislation or possibilities within the statutory instrument. It was imperative that the Minister met representatives in the industry, brought in his officials and had legal representatives available to him. I appreciate the speed with which he did that. I also appreciate the work of those who engaged with the Minister, and I spoke to some of them in the past few days, reaffirming my party's position on the issue. We wanted the matter addressed properly, effectively and to everybody's satisfaction. We called for space to be created and a transition period with the freezing of prices. Within that space, there should be transparency around the proposals emanating from collectors and information provided to consumers. There was a lack of information available to consumers on the potential of the pay-by-weight system to reward them for improved efforts to recycle.

An opportunity has since been created on proposals to allow consumers to opt in, having adjudicated on the system, as mentioned by the Minister. There is a 12-month period for a price freeze and within that there may be opportunities to educate and inform, allowing an opportunity to reward those who engage in recycling. In that time there must be a root and branch review of waste management by the State and its policy in that regard so the sector can be effective in future. If that amounts to the provision of a regulator for the industry, so be it. It is incumbent on the Minister and the Government to ensure this root and branch review is undertaken, with all stakeholders included in the process. Perhaps an all-party committee with responsibility in this area could lead that. Ultimately, there should be feedback to the Department so the Minister can return to the House before the end of the year with proposals that could meet with the approval of the rest of the Members. That is important.

From my perspective and that of my party, we sought space for the Minister to take control and report to the Dáil with proposals for reversing the price hikes. The Minister should have industry buy-in to the process. I note the representative association, comprising 75% of those involved, has committed to that, and the other 25%, comprising two providers, has since also given a commitment in that regard. The legislation is hanging over people's heads and will be there in the autumn if there is no follow-through on commitments.

To be honest, I can ask for no more than that. I cannot be responsible one week and irresponsible the next. I made a firm commitment to those who sought our interference in this matter to hold the Government to account so it would intervene and address the fears of people informed of price hikes of up to 50%, 100% or 200%. That has been achieved. I pay tribute to those involved. I hope and expect that what has been put in place has the potential to resolve this issue. If the same effort, commitment, responsibility and transparency around the issue had been evident last January, we might have subsequently been in a better place. Irrespective of who deserves the blame, as the awful saying goes, we are where we are. There is a duty and a responsibility on the Government to address the issue and I sought that. I wanted interference and a resolution, and what is contained in the Minister's amendment to the motion has the potential to succeed. Its success will be based on continued surveillance and transparency. More importantly, there must be effort and will from the Government, together with others in the House, to participate in a real and meaningful root and branch review. If that happens, when we return to the issue in 12 months, we will have moved on.

From my time as a councillor I know it has been 15 years since the initial waste management plan across the regions was proposed. At that time there was much more waste going to landfill than is the case at present; much progress has been made. It would be a retrograde step to reverse that progress now. I am also conscious of the associated costs of the providers or waste collectors when they dispose of waste in landfill. We can consider some of the remedies spoken of at that time, including incinerators in each region, but the cost associated with landfill means many local authorities are now out of that game and could not afford to meet the commitments expected of them, when one considers Environmental Protection Agency licence rules and so forth.

There is a duty of responsibility on us to have clear and real alternatives available so that consumers can be protected in the first instance and have a choice with respect to cost. Those consumers should be rewarded for participating in improved recycling efforts, which can only benefit all of us. Our party asked for this to be addressed and we feel that has been done properly. We hope the process will succeed and we will monitor it no less than anybody else in the House with a view to ensuring those whom we represent get a fair crack of the whip. Those who participate in these activities in the spirit of the original statutory instrument should be rewarded rather than penalised, as was the case when we stood to speak about the issue this time last week.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Lahart is next.

Deputy John Lahart

Deputy Dooley has another commitment so I am prepared to swap my slot.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is fine.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I thank my colleague as I have to participate in a radio programme after this. I believe Deputy Paul Murphy is due on "The Late Debate" with me.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It may be is a sign of the maturity of this House that we can discuss matters in an open and frank way. We can see how the changes in the dynamic of the Dáil allow an opportunity for people to recognise and respect viewpoints on all sides of the House.

It is to be hoped, based on the discourse we have had here over the past week, we have found a solution that moves us from this initial impasse. Sometimes issues get out of hand for all the wrong reasons and sometimes we do not discuss the issues in the context in which they need to be addressed.

It would be wrong to discuss this pay-by-weight scheme for the disposal of waste without addressing the overall context in terms of the management of waste. Some of the difficulties we are facing now can be traced back to policy decisions taken in the past. Notwithstanding that, it is very clear that the intended approach from this particular initiative has not really happened and is not going to happen. Certain elements of the waste sector within the contracting side are in a position where they are finding it difficult to make a profit as a consequence of decisions they made some time in the past to expose themselves to losses in an effort to gain market share. In my view, a number of companies have used this particular policy change, which has its genesis in the better management of waste, to remedy this. It might be a laudable policy under normal circumstances, but unfortunately at the time of its coming into play that policy decision has the potential to be abused by a number of contractors for their own ends. That has put the appropriate management of waste somewhat at a disadvantage. The principle of pay-by-weight does, in some instances, help to change consumer behaviour. It helps improve the level of recycling, it helps to reduce the overall production of waste and hopefully it gets some people into the mindset of eliminating waste in the first instance. When I say that, I do not mean eliminating waste from the waste cycle, which some have sought to do through fly-tipping.

The cooling-off period now in existence and the sense of security created by giving people the security of knowing there will be no increases for 12 months is useful and helpful. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Barry Cowen, for his approach in developing that point, along with others in the House who have fought that case over the last few days. As my colleague has said, there is an opportunity to deal with the issues over the next 12 months. It would not be right for any of us in this House to abuse that period of time to treat this issue as something that has been kicked down the road for 12 months and that we can come back at in 12 months.

We all have an opportunity now to come forward with ideas and there needs to be a root-and-branch review of our whole waste management system. Deputy Cowen has talked about looking at an appropriate structure in which that can be done, whether through a regulator or whatever. There has been a court judgment about the idea of certain areas being hived off and put out to tender, but we have to question whether it is good practice for three bin lorries to be chasing each other in and out of every estate. While I recognise that ensures competition, it may not ultimately give the best value for money to the consumer and may not be the best way to approach our waste business. Maybe issues like that can be discussed and addressed with all sides over the next 12 months. I know some in this House have the view that the only way to deal with the issue of waste is by giving it back to local authorities. That worked and did not work in various instances. Let us look at it if people on one side of the House or other have a view on it, but let us have an open and frank debate about it.

I speak with some experience, because the county I represent has been paying by weight for the past four years. Clean Ireland, which provides most of the service there, is one of the leaders in terms of developing technology and reducing costs, notwithstanding the geographic spread of the county. It has been delivering good value for money and can compete very effectively against those who do not participate in the pay-by-weight initiative. There are lessons to be learned from some of the industry and hopefully we can use them to try to solve this problem.

Deputy John Lahart

Last week, when this issue was raised first by my colleague, Deputy Dara Calleary, the impression was that the Minister was not going to meet the companies until today. Whether that was true or not, the fact that he met them as speedily as possible averted a weekend of Deputies being further inundated with anxious queries. The Minister's challenge is, in part, to demonstrate to this Chamber and to the people outside this Chamber that politics can work, this Chamber can work, democracy works, the voices of public representatives work and people do not always have to resort to protest to make their point. Some of the actions the Minister has taken in the last few days have helped to advance that.

The Minister has spent quite a large part of his speech talking about what we need to do. He is the unfortunate recipient of a ball that was not his to begin with because the question is why none of this was done. He talked about the need to educate people in respect of pay-by-weight. It is a case of closing the stable door that Deputy Alan Kelly opened. Where is he? The Minister is left with the consequences of that. One of his predecessors, Phil Hogan, had committed in 2011 to a waiver system. If such a national waiver system had been in place, it would have allayed many of the fears the public felt. It struck me as the Minister was talking about the need for education and the need to inform people that maybe Deputies on that side of the House are finally getting to understand why water charges were such a big issue. If it had been approached in this way from the start - I have said this in the House before, in one of my first speeches - that could have been so different. I am intrigued as to where the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, is tonight.

My colleague, Deputy Cowen, has made most of the points. There is no point in repeating them. The reaction from the public, as I have experienced it, is across all income brackets. It is obviously coming from people who are vulnerable and at a disadvantage, people on social protection and pensioners. The last Government gave social welfare recipients and pensioners a €3 increase and in some of the figures that have been supplied to me, even that paltry €3 would have been wiped out in a couple of weeks by some of those charges. The one thing I have become clear about is that despite all the talk about the economy building and booming, there are many people in Ireland for whom the well is dry, who are doing their sums because they have to do their sums because they are watching their pennies on a weekly basis and this was going to impact them significantly.

I will illustrate one case, which a constituent of mine in Firhouse wrote to me about. I will not mention the company. I know the Minister is familiar with the situation, but some of these statistics have to be put on the record. I know they came up in the Topical Issues debate last week, which I was chairing at the time, when Deputies Cowen and Curran spoke. This constituent says they have used a particular company since the local authority, South Dublin County Council, gave up collecting waste a few years ago. I know the Minister was out there yesterday and was received well, eventually. My constituent is currently paying €19.50 per month, which is a total of €234 per year, and details how much they would be paying based on the average weights of recent bin collections under the new charges circulated by the provider last week. The charges are itemised and go from €234 per year up to €428 per year. I wonder where Deputy Alan Kelly is now.

I wonder how he did not see this. The Minister has seen it and, in fairness, has responded to it. We will continue to monitor it.

How did the companies justify this? The Minister has not told us. What answers did they give him? I presume he asked them a series of questions. Many constituents would like a weights and measures authority to guarantee that the weights and measures quoted on their statements and bills are accurate. Perhaps that could be built into the regulator's position.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies Eoin Ó Broin and Maurice Quinlivan have five minutes each.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit for tabling this Private Members' motion, which Sinn Féin will support, and the Independents 4 Change for their amendment, which we will also support. Listening to the debate over the past number of days has been a little bit surreal. The dramatic hike in proposed bin charges is indisputable. These are not rumours but actual increases in charges, about which we have heard from real customers. In the case of Greyhound, it is a 76% increase, in the case of Thorntons, it is 66%, in the case of Greenstar, it is 80% and in the case of Citybin, it is 126%. These figures come from real families who have given us real figures based on their usage. The most dramatic increase has been in the standing charge. In the case of Greenstar, the increase in the standing charge is 50%, in the case of Thorntons, it is a 108% and in the case of Greyhound, it is 238%. These extra charges have flowed directly from the new regulations introduced by the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, in January. While I accept it was not the intention of the Minister for SI 24 to lead to an increase in charges, that is very clearly its effect.

The surreal thing about the debate, however, is the idea that a 12-month suspension is the most effective solution to this problem. I listened to the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, on the news earlier today and have listened to him very carefully in the House this evening. He spoke about the need for people to have knowledge of how this new pay-per-weight system is going to operate and to build public acceptance of it. During Leaders' Questions today, the Taoiseach made some very revealing comments. He talked about people thinking more carefully about the way they deal with refuse and the disposal of waste. He said that pay-by-weight would result in people examining what would be put into the black bin and that they would pay less as a result of using the black bin less. There is an assumption at the heart of the approach of the Government and, unfortunately Fianna Fáil, that huge numbers of people do not use the bin system properly and put the wrong kind of material in the wrong waste and that when pay-by-weight comes in and they understand the error of their ways, they will start using the bins properly, meaning savings will be made.

The four examples I have quoted are four people to whom I have spoken. I have looked at their usage over a 12-month period and have compared the exact cost under the new regimes from the four companies. However, these are also people who are already recycling all of their recyclable waste. They all compost additional waste to take it out of the bin system. For all four groups of people, there will be no reductions available at the end of the 12-month cooling off period about which the Minister has spoken. Two of the customers to whom I referred use Thorntons and Greyhound and already pay by weight. While Greyhound is not increasing the per kilo pay per weight charge but is only increasing the standing charge, Thorntons is doing so. The increase on its per kilo charge for pay-per-weight for the black bin is 40% under the proposed increase and under the brown bin it is 10%.

Deputy Simon Coveney

They are not increasing their charges now. They are freezing their charges.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

None of these people has savings available under the Minister's scheme. The bottom line is that SI 24 is not fit for purpose and that is why Sinn Féin firmly agrees with the sentiment of the motion. It was not written correctly and it will not have the impact the Minister says it will have. The best thing to tear up the statutory instrument and start again from the beginning. We should sit down with departmental officials and the relevant Members of this House in committee to design a new system. That would send a very clear signal to households that the Minister is not going to proceed with the increases in 12 months' time. There is nothing in what he or Deputy Barry Cowen has said today that will give any reassurance to families, scared by the proposed increases that were going to come into effect this year, that the very same increases will not come into effect this time next year.

Sinn Féin will support this motion and the motion being tabled by our Senators tomorrow will allow for the legal scrapping of SI 24. It would force us all to get back around the table and do this right once and for all. I see no reason to support the cooling off which the Minister has proposed and which Fianna Fáil, wrongly in my view, is supporting. On that basis, we are sticking to the position we had last week of scrapping the statutory instrument and of getting back around the table to draft proper regulations that will improve the level of recycling without fleecing hard pressed families.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Does the Deputy believe in paying by weight?

Deputy Maurice Quinlivan

I start by thanking the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit for bringing forward this motion. Last January, Deputy Alan Kelly, at the stroke of a pen, introduced SI 24. The rationale for this was that 90% of families and households would pay less to have their bin collected. Fast forward, however, to June 2016 and the truth emerges of what the costs will be and it now transpires that 90% of families and households will, in fact, pay substantially more than they were told.

Let us look at some cases. The first two were raised by Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, the deputy leader of our party. She spoke to a woman called Elaine, a mother of three children, who has a chronically ill husband and is in receipt of carer's allowance. The cost of her bin collection service is increasing from €204 to €360 per year. That is a 76% increase. They cannot afford this. Another woman called Marie, who is in her 80s, lives alone and is in receipt of the State pension. Her standing charge is being increased from €50 to €169 per year, an increase of 238%. She has told us that money is so tight that she will have no choice but to either go without food or burn her rubbish illegally. Is there not something obscene about this for a senior citizen?

I have come across other examples in the past number of days, such as a family of six with four children under the age of 12 and one still in nappies. Last year, the flat rate bill with Thorntons was €360 but it gave a discount of 10% for paying online and on time, so the bill came to €324. The family recycles everything they can and all their glass goes to bottle banks. The family used 1,450 kg of black bin waste in 2015. Thorntons shows the weights for the year online if Members want to check this out. If they use the same weights under the new charges from Thorntons, the bill will be €611, an increase of 95%. An old age pensioner living alone, with a garden which he mows on average three times a year, is currently paying €13.45 per month and his bill will go to €24.43 per month under the new Greyhound charges of €3.25 per week standing charge and 23 cent per kilo for the brown bin. His standing charge will go from €69.95 to €169 but he rarely puts out a black bin and if he does, he will pay 35 cent for every kilo, which is a 130% rise. Despite this, the Government has repeatedly said that 87% of households will save money.

We know that the Minister, Deputy Coveney, met recently with some of the providers and the outcome of those talks does not inspire confidence. What the Minister needs to do is to reverse this bad decision. The regulation was introduced at the stroke of a ministerial pen and it could and should be removed at the stroke of a ministerial pen. The Minister should today sign a new statutory instrument to remove this regulation which will cause so much hardship for families. A new statutory instrument would remove the threat of daylight robbery on the part of bin collection services.

While it is clear that the bin companies are taking the opportunity presented by the new legislation to change the standing charges, it is a no-brainer that if one privatises key public services, then the notion of service becomes secondary to the never-ending drive for profit. The Minister must bring forward new legislation, which he is perfectly capable of doing, without further delay. Failing this, we will avail of Seanad Standing Orders which give the Seanad the power to annul a statutory instrument within 21 sitting days of its signing by the Minister. As the Seanad has sat for fewer than 21 days since then, Sinn Féin Senators have submitted a motion to the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad to annul the statutory instrument and regulation.

Either the Minister acts or Sinn Féin Senators will bring forward the motion to ensure the regulation is annulled. If it comes to this, I hope those in Fianna Fáil and others will support the motion. Sitting on their hands is not an option in this case. The Minister is talking tough but that is not an option either. Either the Government acts or we will do so. Under no circumstances, come 1 July, will ordinary people be fleeced in the way bin companies intend.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. The Labour Party is committed to the concept of paying by weight for refuse charges as an important contribution to the environment. I think Deputy Dooley said it earlier on, but there has been considerable progress in Ireland with regard to how we treat waste and how we reuse, separate and so on and paying by weight is a contribution to that effort. I compliment the Minister, Deputy Coveney, on the fact that he has moved quickly on the issue and has, in effect, dealt with the first two points in the motion by both meeting the representatives of the deliverers of the service and addressing the issue of preventing them from implementing the planned increases.

In response to Deputy Lahart, I am the spokesperson for the Labour Party in this area, which is why the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, is not here. In case there is any doubt that he is still the spokesperson, he was the Minister but I have been appointed as spokesperson and am here to speak on behalf of the Labour Party on this issue.

I also wish to defend the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, against the blanket accusations we have just heard. As stated by a couple of Deputies already, this goes right back to way before the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, became Minister. This was first put on the table in 2011 and the actions of the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, earlier this year were simply to bring in a statutory instrument to provide for the pay-by-weight system that had, in effect, been decided on already. Again, I think it was Deputy Dooley who fairly said that the former Minister did not anticipate that the providers of the service - the waste collectors - were going to abuse the statutory instrument by raising charges way above what anyone would have anticipated. It is only in the past few weeks that it became apparent that this was the intention of the providers of the service. In fairness to Deputy Alan Kelly, I am surprised he is not being blamed for the weather or the fact that Ireland did not score against Belgium in the European championship-----

Deputy Paul Murphy

I have not spoken yet.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

-----because he seems to be blamed for everything else.

Deputy Barry Cowen

Bring him on at half time if the Deputy wants.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

He did bring in a statutory instrument, but he did not anticipate, as no one else did at the time, how it might be abused.

I have some questions with regard to the Government amendment and the statement by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, today. I commend him on the actions he has taken but there are still some outstanding issues, particularly in respect of what exactly he intends to bring forward by way of amendment to the statutory instrument. He referred also to the possibility of legislation. While the representatives of the majority of the collectors have publicly come out and stated that they will not increase their charges over the year, and I know that there has been some evidence that Greyhound and the other provider are also in that space, we need more clarity. In particular, we need clarity from the other two providers that they will not raise their charges over the next 12 months. In that regard, we probably will need either primary legislation or secondary legislation in the form of a statutory instrument.

The Dáil should return to this issue in the next few weeks and preferably before 1 July because we need clarity on those issues. We are acting on partial information here this evening. Indeed, when the motion was tabled, the proposers would not have been aware at the time that the Minister, Deputy Coveney, was going to take the two actions he has since taken. That is one point.

In the original motion there is a proposal that standing charges cannot be increased at a rate which is out of line with the consumer price index. However, I question the standing charges that are already in place by some collectors. They vary in different parts of the country but, if we are to have a real polluter-pay system to encourage people to reduce their waste, standing charges should be minimal and people should be paying on the basis of how they separate waste or appropriately use the system. While saying standing orders could not be increased at a rate greater than the change in the consumer price index is a helpful measure, we should be getting back to the idea that, if a person is doing everything he or she possibly can to reduce what he or she puts out, the standing charge should be very small.

I support the idea that we should examine the possibility of having a regulator because we need to ensure that into the future this is affordable, fair and transparent. As we have different systems throughout the country, there is an argument for having a regulator and I hope that will be examined over the period of the price freeze.

I would also like clarity on which Minister will have responsibility for this area. This morning, the Taoiseach indicated that responsibility was moving to the Minister, Deputy Naughten. However, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, has been dealing with it as of now. We could do with some clarity on where exactly responsibility will lie. This issue arises because "environment" was originally left out of all ministerial titles or responsibilities, and I hope the Government clarifies that soon as well.

We need to do something about the amount of packaging still in our shops. I know we can leave the packaging behind, but will people really go through their bags of groceries and take off the packaging before they go home? Most people will not. I would like to see some incentives, be it carrot or stick but probably stick, that encourage shops, supermarkets and manufacturers of goods to reduce the amount of packaging they inflict on the householder. This is something that should also be considered.

I welcome the fact that those who have to use incontinence pads are included in the concept of waivers. As the Minister, Deputy Coveney, stated, it is true that the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, had begun work on that matter before he left office. There is a case to be made for having some waivers. As Deputy Quinlivan will know, the Limerick city local authority ran a waiver system and people got a certain amount of free lifts. It has been diminished but still exists to some extent. A waiver system that would protect the most vulnerable of households could be introduced.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies Maureen O'Sullivan, Catherine Connolly and Clare Daly, who are sharing seven and a half minutes, have the next slot.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan

The root of the current problem goes back to the decisions made to hand the industry over to the private sector, where the driver is profit and increased profit. Businesses are entitled to make profits but we have questions over the extent of the profit, especially when it is coming from exploitation. We know that some of these companies have their accounts in other jurisdictions, so I really would like to know exactly what they are contributing to our economy.

As some of us submitted in the amendment, my preference is to go back to the local authority system. Failing that, I agree with the paying by weight. Before this controversy, I was meeting senior citizens, in particular, and people living alone who were paying for weekly and fortnightly collections of their bins which they absolutely did not need. The minimum charges of 11 cent per kg, 6 cent per kg and zero cost are acceptable but the problem arose because we do not have maximum levels. If the driver is profit, the sky is the limit, as we are seeing. It is totally ironic that in a system which, according to the previous Minister, was meant to see reductions for 87% of people, no change for 8.4% of people and an increase for a small number of people that the total opposite has happened. We are also seeing the undermining of efforts by people to cut down and recycle more.

State intervention was needed, so I acknowledge the speedy intervention of the Minister. However, the problem is not going away but merely being postponed and we now have a year to examine these issues.

Waivers are absolutely vital.

The north inner city is, in the main, going to continue with bags because there are so many houses that do not have a storage space. However, before the current controversy these people were being harassed by the waste companies to take bins. These bins were being left out on the street and became a health and safety issue. A more creative approach is needed and we need to look at best practice in other countries. Another issue is the amount of waste which is generated through packaging. The big polluters should be paying more.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I thank People Before Profit and the Anti-Austerity Alliance for tabling the motion and also for accepting the amendment. I am delighted with that. The Minister is not here unfortunately. He did say that he had acted swiftly upon concerns and that what is really at issue here is the lack of education and that a period of freezing of charges is necessary in which to educate the public. The Minister did not act quickly. He was made to act by People Before Profit, the Anti-Austerity Alliance, Independents4Change, by Sinn Féin and then by Fianna Fáil. That is the new Government working and we forced a change. I am not happy with the change because I come from the city of Galway where we had a wonderful service and we achieved the most fantastic recycling rates. As a result we were punished and the system was privatised.

Reference was made to research on the best way to proceed. I disagree with my colleague here with regard to pay by weight. We had a wonderful system in Galway where people were encouraged to act in a certain way. Indeed, the people led us. There was a threat to bring in an incinerator and the people of Galway were galvanised, not by the an attitude of not in my back garden, but by an attitude of wanting a better system for everybody. In a pilot project we reached recycling rates of 70%, which have never been met anywhere else in the country. On a regular basis we diverted 56% of waste from landfill. That was with positive encouragement where the people led us. The councillors were led by the nose and, more importantly, the officials were led by the nose. However, the policy of this and the previous Government has been was to privatise the refuse service. I do not agree with this and we should go back to the local authorities running the service.

With regard to the amendment put by the Government, it is significant that the Minister, Deputy Coveney has not referred to the legal capacity to place a cap and whether that is possible. The Minister has avoided the issue. He has provided for a review after 12 months but he has not told us what is going to happen in the meantime.

I will now turn to the absence from the Chamber by the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. I have looked at the statutory instrument and at the briefing document. The former Minister told us at the time that there would be a significant reduction in charges for households. He went on to say that big families would suffer but he did nothing to address that aspect. We had a waiver system. I would happily support the motion.

Deputy Clare Daly

The most articulate summing up of the debacle over the past few weeks was the article which appeared in Waterford Whispers News this morning. It states:

Government announce sequel to Irish water. Due to popular demand, the Irish Government has announced the stunning sequel to one of Ireland’s most beloved and celebrated entertainments ... “Everyone’s talking about it,” said a government policy expert “and you’ve got to hand it to Fine Gael, no one rolls out a [feck-up] quite like they do”. Demand for bin charges is not believed to be as low as Irish Water at its height-----

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is using language that is unbecoming in the Chamber.

Deputy Clare Daly

I am reading from an article and I actually changed it for the Chamber-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you very much.

Deputy Clare Daly

The article goes on:

but experts have assured Waterford Whispers News that given time, the Government will perform enough u-turns and contradictions to sufficiently rile up interest and anger. "Right now you might say ‘oh I’m not bothered by it’, but ... I guarantee you, you will be more annoyed by this stuff than you thought would be humanly possible" [The more the Government go on].

While that is actually funny, it is not funny that people are at home who are worried sick about the situation. The platitudes from the Minister tonight that everything is going to be okay only mounts to a kicking of the can down the road. In reality we are not any the wiser about what is going to happen because the Government is ignoring the elephant in the room - or the herd of elephants - which is that the situation does nothing to address the massive, underlying, systemic problems with a privatised waste system. One cannot rely on the goodwill of a bunch of bin companies, many of whom are based offshore, to set prices for consumers or conditions for workers. That square cannot be circled.

As a result of the privatisation of our system we have bin lorries trundling up and down the streets most days of the week. In some areas it is one company and in other areas companies are threatening to withdraw. We have escalating charges and huge price variations, with companies like Panda and Greyhound centred offshore, brutal wage suppression, illegal dumping and so on. Last year an investigation was promised into this situation on the back of the Greyhound dispute but ti did not materialise. An investigation is overdue. The behaviour of the waste industry would put the Sopranos to shame. It is an outrage and it needs to be investigated properly. The only solution is for waste collection to be restored to the local authorities as a public service rather than a commodity to be profited from. There is no other way.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thank Deputy Daly. The next seven minute slot is shared between Deputies Mattie McGrath, Michael Healy-Rae and Danny Healy-Rae.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am glad to speak to this motion this evening and I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Coveney on his appointment. I also congratulate the Ministers of State, Deputies Seán Kyne and Damien English on their appointments. Waste disposal has been a huge issue for many years. From my time on the county council my understanding is that the problems are around land fill, the unavailability of landfill and the whole area of recycling. We must try to educate around reuse and recycling.

I thank the Minister for his intervention in the current situation. The former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, left us in a fine mess here when he told us all that 87% of households would have a decrease in charges but nobody believed that only himself, and I do not think even he believed it. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has taken the initiative to bring the private operators in for talks and to freeze charges for a 12 month period. The introduction of a billing system is also welcome where customers can see clearly how the introduction of a pay by weight system compares to how they currently pay. They will see displayed clearly how it will affect them and how, if they are recycling, reusing and cutting down their waste, they could bring the weight down and get cheaper bills.

Carers must be looked after, as must those who care for people who are using incontinent pads such as the elderly, infirm and younger people who may have disabilities and whose needs are ongoing. We must also think of big families. We are hardly going to put the carers back to washing nappies as they did back in the fadó, fadó. People have to be treated seriously.

Waste is a huge problem and the polluter pays concept is a proper one. Polluters must be made to pay. We have a huge issue. In my own village last night we had a spring clean - a few months late but the weather last Monday stopped the clean-up then. I salute those who do the Tidy Towns. We had a huge turnout. I compliment the people in the Tidy Towns groups and those schemes who do a lot of work in tidying up litter. We must deal with the people who do not want to pay and who fly-tip and dump and expect the middle class to pay for everything.

I wish the Minister well with the proposal and I hope he will have constructive talks. He is passing his baton on to Minister for Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources, Deputy Naughten, and I know he will be well able to handle it as well. However, we must be realistic. We cannot be exporting our waste as we are doing at the moment. We only have weeks left of landfill in the State and it is not an option to export it. It must be looked at sensibly. We must educate our young people and maybe young people can educate us older people who have dirty ways. I will now hand over to my colleagues.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I congratulate the Ministers on their appointments and particularly the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, who is a safe pair of hands in what I consider a very delicate role for the next number of months, and years I hope. He will be very secure in doing the job that he has been given. He knows I mean that.

This is a very important issue. Deputy McGrath has highlighted one specific issue that I want to raise with the Minister and I believe he will be proactive in this regard. When pay-per-weight eventually will come in there will have to be an exemption made for people, teenagers or adults, who have medical problems which mean that there is a use of nappies. That would impose an awful burden on people.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We have agreement on those charges, Deputy.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I respect that very much. I have an account of it and I compliment the Minister on that because it was most important. That would have placed an unbearable financial burden on that sector of our society which we want to help and protect. I thank the Minister for that.

We do not want to be nonsensical about waste. In County Kerry an excellent facility was put in at Muingnaminnane by councillors who were ahead of their time but unfortunately now it is lying idle and dormant which it should not be. We want to see common sense prevailing and facilities like that being opened up again which would reduce the cost to the customer, to the people who produce refuse because dealing with it in their own locality is most important and that is what we want to do to reduce the cost to the customer and the people in our locality.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

Yes there was a cock-up in the past few days in respect of the waste collection service but the waste collection services have been unfairly targeted and criticised by many Members. In County Kerry and especially south Kerry we have a wonderful collection service provided by a privately operated company giving local employment and a very punctual service and helping the local communities to deal with waste. It operated what was called the Good Friday clean-up of the whole county, providing a service free of charge to collect bags collected by local voluntary groups along the roads and in the towns and villages. I could not stand over the service providers being tarred with the same brush because we have a wonderful service and we are proud of it. There are two or three more operators in County Kerry and we are very proud of them and this debacle was certainly not caused by them. I want that to be clearly remembered in this Chamber.

The local authority is still providing a service in Killarney town and is doing a wonderful job as well. We cannot criticise the providers because it is not fair or right. As Deputy Michael Healy-Rae said, deciding where to go with the waste will be a real problem because we are being told now that it is not cost efficient to go abroad with it any more, indeed it is not wanted. For a long time it was cheaper to go that way than it is now. We need to open up local places like Muingnaminnane around our country so people will have somewhere to go with it.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

We all accept that many of the problems associated with refuse collection originated with the decision to privatise this service. Refuse collection is such a fundamental public service that it does not lend itself to privatisation. While the service run by local authorities was not entirely trouble free it was much less troublesome than the privatised service has become. There is no doubt that we have all seen throughout the country a massive increase in dumping as a result of the privatisation of the service because there has been no recognition by the private waste collectors of ability to pay. In my constituency many people, pensioners in particular, and others on low incomes, were entitled to a waiver. Unfortunately, that was scrapped. In spite of promises by the last Government to introduce a national waiver scheme that never happened of course. We now have another fine mess from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the same Department that brought us Irish Water and the debacle associated with that and which persistently failed to plan adequately for housing demand.

When the then Minister, Deputy Kelly, last January announced this measure as an environmentally friendly one, the idea was that people would have an opportunity to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and would be encouraged to recycle more waste. That is not happening. One has to question the political decisions around that announcement last January and the decision to move to a pay by weight system. There was no poverty proofing when that was done. The plan the then Minister had was to charge people for green bins, to charge people for recycling, which is lunacy. That had to be scrapped in the meantime. Why, for example, was no consideration given to those adults and children who use incontinence wear and the additional cost that would involve for them? None of these factors was thought out and we are now reaping the reward of that lack of planning, forethought and consideration for how this measure would affect people’s daily lives.

The then Minister promised us in January that 87% of people would experience a reduction in the cost of their waste charges. That is the standard to which we have to hold this Government. That was the promise given. We want a new system that will ensure that is the case, that 87% of people will benefit from any new regime that is brought in.

The kind of price gauging we have seen over recent weeks by the waste companies is entirely unacceptable. Waste operators felt they could get away with it and that the public would think the price increases were due to the new rules. They need to be stopped in their tracks. I am glad there is a moratorium now but we need a solution to this issue not just a postponement of the inevitable. There is a huge lack of transparency around waste collection. Regulations should be set down to provide for conditions for the granting of waste licences so they are not awarded unless there is price and profit transparency. This is a multi-billion euro industry. It has been completely privatised in recent years yet there is little or no regulation of the industry. It is a huge industry. We know there are major question marks about how it is operating at the moment and that the Competition Authority is examining some aspects of the industry. We do not know who owns what within the industry. All the profits are kept offshore. We do not have access to any of the accounts from these companies. That is not acceptable. We should know who owns the companies that are running what should be a critical public service, what their profit margins are, who the beneficial owners are, which company owns which other smaller company, what mergers have taken place and the implications of mergers that are indicated at this stage.

It is a huge area where there has been very sudden deregulation but no regulator has been appointed. There are many questions about how it operates. It has become a free for all. If and when we move to a system of paying by weight what guarantee is there that the machines are properly regulated and calibrated? Who is doing those inspections? We hear about the relevant authority being responsible but that is all of the local authorities. How many times are companies and bin lorries inspected to ensure there is not a further rip-off going on?

The suspicion is that these companies are operating as a cartel as they all move together to rebuff the public under the guise of the new regime. They had the look of operating as a cartel. There is a need to examine whether a cartel is in operation. As I said, we cannot answer those questions without knowing who owns what companies.

We need strong regulation of the sector. My preference is for a return to local authorities, but it is difficult to see the situation being unwound at this stage. Major mistakes were made. If we are going to have a deregulated sector, we must have a very strong regulator.

We need a national waiver scheme that takes account of people's ability to pay. This was promised and needs to happen this year. The least the waste companies could do is issue an apology for their attempts at price gouging over recent months. They should apologise for the smash-and-grab approach they took to the public. There is a need for the Minister to continue to stand up to them and stop the price gouging.

The Minister claimed many people gain from the system. Many people already recycle to the maximum level possible and they will not gain at all. He should bear that in mind. Many people who recycle feel the Minister is being quite patronising. They are doing their bit.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies Coppinger and Boyd Barrett are sharing time.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

If the Taoiseach were a football manager and the Cabinet a team, I would strongly advise the manager to rest the team because the players must be worn out from kicking cans down the road. Between water, abortion and now refuse collection, what else is the Government putting off for a year or two? It must be worn out since it took over.

I want to recall a few memories from my political life that are very relevant to the debate. The Socialist Party and many others on the left were actively involved in the campaign against the introduction of bin charges, something the Government might recall. Several myths were trotted out about bin charges at the time. In September 2003, the top one was that one would only pay for what one threw away. The Minister might remember that slogan because the Government of the time took out very expensive advertisements to tell everyone this. When waste charges were introduced, people did not pay for what they threw away.

Another argument we had thrown at us were that the charges were only €3, €5 or whatever. It was a relentless tirade. The establishment and media, which are generally from a certain milieu, showed the usual disconnect from working class life and hardship they displayed in the water charges campaign. To them, €5 was nothing and they asked what the problem was. We now see the problem.

I was sent bills by a woman who is now paying €93 for eight bin lifts, which is outrageous and extortionate. The Minister is freezing the charges, but pensioners have asked me on my Facebook page what is being asked of them because they cannot pay. The Minister can kick this can down the road, but we obviously need to return to a system where refuse collection is fully public.

Another myth was peddled by the Labour Party in particular. It claimed the Socialist Party led to the privatisation of bin collections. This argument was trotted out on Twitter over the weekend, something with which I will deal in a moment. I remind the Minister how isolated and vilified those of us who fought the charges were. We had two elected representatives, one Deputy and one councillor, who were sent to jail for a month because of their refusal to abandon their communities who opposed charges. In Dublin, 21 people were sent to jail, along with many others in other counties and a pregnant woman. The media and political establishment accused all these people of being lunatics, on the fringes and polluters, even though, as was said, people in this country now recycle more than the EU average. They have nothing to show for it.

We were constantly asked what our problem was because the charges were only a few bob. We now see what an absolute encroachment into people's budgets this has become. I commend the bravery of the people who pointed out what would happen. Unfortunately, we lost the campaign, as the Government liked to remind us when we fought the water charges. When we lost the campaign, the charges were bedded down and rose relentlessly and all of the service was privatised. It did not take too long for the greedy private companies to engage in a race to the bottom in terms of the poor unfortunate workers or to go offshore, which practically every one of them has done. Greyhound, Mr. Binman, Oxigen, Panda and City Bin all have offshore accounts in the Isle of Man and other places.

I want to provide a few historical facts, in particular for the edification of the Labour Party, on the privatisation of bin services. An article in The Irish Times in October 2003, which was the very month bin charges were fought in Fingal and were beginning to be fought elsewhere in Dublin, reported that more than half of the county and town councils in the entire country had privatised refuse collections. Meath County Council was among the first to do so in 1990. I do not know what the Labour Party thinks. Perhaps it thinks we have a major influence on society, but we were not present on any of those councils. Among the councils that privatised their waste collection before bin charges were introduced were Sligo, Drogheda, Wicklow, Clare and Galway. I do not have time to go on.

The last regions where waste collection was privatised were those where people fought them the most, namely, Dublin. Of course, the Dublin county managers all got together, ditched the service and sold it off. As I said, the charges have risen relentlessly. I hope this history lesson is of some benefit to the Labour Party as it goes about its propaganda campaign. I hope it will listen to the anguish of people in terms of the drain the charges have become.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The mass movement against water charges is set to score two victories in a week. It is forcing the Government to reverse a scandalous effort by private waste companies to hike charges to extortionate levels, and later in the week the Government will be forced to climb down in its effort to inflict water charges on people. The movement against water charges was a child of the movement against waste charges. Many of the people who formed the core of the groups in communities, towns and villages throughout the country were the very same people who fought against bin charges ten or more years ago.

When we fought bin charges we said they would lead to prices going through the roof, privatisation, a deterioration in conditions for workers in waste collection and increased damage to the environment in the form of fly-tipping, and would be followed by water charges. We were right on every single count. The worst thing about the old politics is that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil knew we were right and that all these things would happen.

As Deputy Coppinger has suggested, the level of dishonesty is extraordinary. I heard it echoed by the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, earlier, and it was repeated endlessly by the Labour Party. The lie is that those of us who fought against bin charges were responsible for privatisation, when in fact the majority of waste collection services in this country were privatised before our campaigns against bin charges even began.

Most of the waste charges in this country were privatised in the 1990s. Our campaign only began in 2000 in Dún Laoghaire and in 2001 in Dublin city. The last places in which waste collection was privatised were Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire where there were fights.

They were privatised everywhere beforehand, just as we had predicted, by the racketeering bandits. What a shower of bandits these guys are. The Minister has said the Government is responding to the concerns raised.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We are.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

What the Minister does not accept is just how greedy the people concerned are and what they were willing to do. They were trying and willing to ratchet up charges by between 50% and 200%. All we are getting from the Minister is a promise that it will not happen for 12 months, but there is no promise that it will not happen in the future. We have been down this road before; it happened 15 years ago when we were given all of those promises that there would be waivers, that it would not be so bad and that it would not cost people so much, but it all turned out to be lies. That gives rise to the question of whether we believe charges will be introduced in 12 months time. Is it the case that the Government is colluding right now with the bandits in the private waste companies who wanted to rip people off to the extent I have outlined to ensure they would stay in business rather than that we would have a fair waste collection system? I do not trust the Minister. I am sorry, but I do not. The reason I do not trust him is that in 2012 the former Minister, Mr. Phil Hogan, chose the more expensive model - he knew it was the more expensive model - because the private waste companies had told him to do so. Why did the subsequent Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, bring forward a ridiculous statutory instrument that triggered the current situation in the first place? The reason is he was lobbied by the private waste companies.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I suppose I was asked to freeze charges also.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Why will the Minister not pass the measure we propose which would cap charges and reintroduce waivers? The reason is the waste companies do not want him to do so.

Deputy Simon Coveney

The Deputy is talking nonsense.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The Minister must balance his loyalty to the profit seeking bandits with what is a jury that has come in on the private waste industry and privatisation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is up.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

They have made a mess of private waste collection. They are racketeers and extortioners and should be put out of business.

Deputy Simon Coveney

The Deputy is looking for a headline.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

We should bring waste collection services back within public ownership and have a fair way to pay for them.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister of State, Deputy Seán Kyne, is sharing time with Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Seán Kyne)

The Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, outlined the Government's commitment to the principle of pay-by-weight charging for waste in terms of better environmental outcomes and the capacity to allow householders better opportunities to manage their waste costs. Research indicates that more than 440,000 tonnes of waste material could be diverted from landfill under a pay-by-weight charging system and its introduction will undoubtedly assist the State to achieve regional waste targets, in complying with national recycling and landfill targets under EU legislation, as well as making sure we will be well placed to meet future and more ambitious targets, for example, under the European Union's current circular economy package. However, we are aware of the public disquiet in response to the pricing plans proposed earlier this month by the waste industry as part of the nationwide roll-out of pay-by-weight charging and the impact on perceptions of the pay-by-weight system. The delayed release of the price plans, with only a few weeks to go to their coming into effect, has further confused matters.

In our meetings and discussions with representatives of the waste industry in recent days both the Minister and I raised concerns about - I sought justification for it - the reported escalation of waste charges for customers, especially some proposed increases in service or standing fees. We do not accept that companies should use the national transition to what is a more sustainable and better means of both charging for and managing waste to resolve long-standing issues concerning a cohort of customers who have unsustainably low waste fees. Although it is less than ideal to alter arrangements so close to the 1 July introduction date, the Government has been quick to act and is prepared to ensure we get it right, even if it means building in a transition phase to ensure a smoother and fairer shift to pay-by-weight charging in due course. The Government has set out a clear and fair way forward that will result in customers paying no more than they currently pay for waste in the next 12 months to avoid significant price increases for some households in their waste bills from next month. The operation of the price freeze by the waste industry will be monitored and if there is evidence that it is not being honoured, the Government is prepared to bring forward further legislative amendments to enforce it.

Another key part of the solution is that where households do apply the principle of pay-by-weight charging and reduce their residual or black bin waste, they should have the option to change over to a pay-by-weight contract to enjoy the benefits. To some extent, the implementation of pay-by-weight charging is being phased in, with a transition period being introduced to give households time to adapt to the new system and learn how to more effectively manage their waste. In the coming months households will be provided in their bills with details of the amount of waste they are presenting for collection, their costs under their current price plan and details of the comparative pay-by-weight price. In parallel, the Government, in partnership with the waste industry, will drive an intensive public awareness, information and promotion campaign to support customers in understanding the new system, how they can change their waste management behaviour and better manage their waste costs under the pay-by-weight system.

As the Minister alluded to, the Government welcomes the commitment from the waste industry to provide a full weight allowance to the estimated 60,000 patients supplied with incontinence wear by the HSE. The issue was raised by many speakers and genuine concerns were expressed previously by carers. The issue is being addressed. By arranging to collect the additional weight attributed to non-infancy incontinence wear free of charge, the waste collection companies will significantly reduce the annual waste charges of the households affected.

In overall terms, waste which cannot be prevented, if segregated and managed properly, can help to generate products, materials, energy and jobs. Government policy has been framed to minimise the generation of waste and maximise the potential of waste as a resource. Pay-by-weight charging is one policy measure to assist us to make the move to a circular economy. In that regard, I look forward to the coming 12 months when householders will be able to see the benefits of pay-by-weight charging for themselves in managing their costs, the advantages for the State in meeting waste targets and stimulating economic activity and the benefits to the environment through less waste being generated and sent to landfill. That is the basis of the charges, namely, to ensure we try to reduce the amount of waste being produced, being sent to landfill and that will be incinerated. We acknowledged the genuine concerns expressed in many cases and with the Minister and others, I intervened to allay fears and provide a welcome breathing space of 12 months. I hope that in the course of the next 12 months a fairer and better system will be put in place according to the principles of the polluter pays and pay-by-weight charging.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

This morning I listened to Deputy Paul Murphy on local radio and wish to quote what he said about the motion. He stated: "We have thought it through, but it is not our full position." We are once more debating a motion brought before the House which is little more than a political stunt. It sums up everything about the anti-austerity movement and Sinn Féin that protest for the sake of protesting and try to scaremonger at every opportunity. I ask Deputy Paul Murphy and his colleagues what their full position is and if, in fact, it is the case that they have thought it through fully. Does the Deputy have any real alternative that would work or is he and his party simply capable of taking a populist view on every issue that arises? He also suggested this morning that the councils should be in charge of waste collection and that there should be no charge to the customer. From where does he think the councils get their funding?

To return to the real issue of domestic waste charges, I have been contacted by many local people about the new pricing modules. The simple truth is that in County Louth - Dundalk, in particular - we have no information on what the charges will be, which in itself is causing great confusion and fear. I urge all waste collection providers to immediately publish details of their pay-by-weight charges in an open and transparent manner. The lack of information is causing unnecessary stress and worry for many and must not continue.

The principle that those who pollute most should pay the most is one with which I wholeheartedly agree. I also agree fully with the principle that those who carefully recycle their waste must be rewarded. There is no doubt that the current system under which a fixed amount is paid each month does not encourage those who seek to actively recycle and reduce their waste. For that reason, I agree with the introduction of a pay-by-weight system and the decision not to impose charges for green bin collections. However, I do not agree with the original decision to impose a minimum charge. That was a wrong decision and only allowed waste companies to take advantage of the new regulations. I have said previously that we should impose a maximum or capped charge to be imposed by waste companies. With such a system we could then allow market forces to take hold and, as in every other industry, companies would compete with each other for market share.

I ask the Minister to reconsider service charges. It is not fair to impose service charges that do not take into account situations in which households would only use the bin collection service on rare occasions. For openness and transparency, the price per kilogram charged for black and brown bins should include all charges. One need only look at other industries such as, for example, the mobile phone market, where a large proportion of users go for the pay-as-you-go option and there is no additional charge over and above the cost of the top-up credit.

To conclude, I fully support the concept of pay-by-weight for waste collection but would like to see a proper pay-as-you-use system implemented with no additional service charges. I also do not agree with suspending the introduction of the new charging system. What will that achieve? What Members need to do is to implement legislation that allows for the proper introduction of pay-by-weight and pay-as-you-use waste collection services.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The Government would like this to be a debate about pay-by-weight because that currently is the favoured method of the Government to green austerity measures and that is what it does. However, this is not a debate about pay-by-weight in the abstract; it is about how people over the past month or so have received letters explaining to them - without spelling it out fully - that they would experience massive price hikes. In particular, the standing charges were being doubled or trebled and some weight charges also were increasing. It is about a rip-off of people and price gouging by the companies. This happened because the door was left open through a statutory instrument by the former Minister, Deputy Kelly. Members of the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People before Profit, AAA-PBP, have been stating clearly and attempted in their motion to point out that this door must be closed. I do not believe the Minister is closing the door with the approach he is taking. This is why I do not believe the AAA-PBP is being unreasonable in continuing to criticise the Government's approach. While the Minister is closing over the door a good bit, it is left slightly ajar and in one year's time in particular, it potentially will burst open with these vultures who seek to maximise their profits.

The AAA-PBP stated and continues to state the door can be closed clearly, again by the method of a statutory instrument, which freezes in legislation the standing charge and which imposes maximum per weight charges for black and brown and with green at zero. The AAA-PBP's full position, for the benefit of Deputy Fitzpatrick, is clear as I tried but obviously failed to explain in the radio interview. Our full position is for charges to go, for privatisation to be reversed and for the bin services to be brought back into council control because we believe privatisation has been a disaster. The AAA-PBP Members have also tried to use the debate to illustrate this point. However, this is a bad fudge, which is modelled on the bad fudge of the water charges. It is the same process, albeit simply condensed into a short period. The reason this bad fudge will take place and that the Government will get away with it is because of Fianna Fáil. Had Fianna Fáil stuck to its rhetoric on the issue, the Government would be facing defeat on this motion right now, would be facing defeat in the Seanad tomorrow and would have no choice but to move more decisively to close the door permanently, as opposed to it coming back in 12 months' time. As with many such issues, Fianna Fáil holds the key to how this issue will be resolved or, as in this case, resolved unsatisfactorily.

How does one explain the position of Fianna Fáil? Deputy Cowen explained in this Chamber that one cannot be responsible one week and irresponsible the next week. This was from a party and a Deputy that obviously loaded us with 42% of the cost of the European banking crisis for which we are still paying. However, I also do not see how it is irresponsible to vote for a motion that encapsulates what is one's political position and what one has been saying. That is not irresponsible, it is democratic for people to express their mandate. The skies would not fall in, were the Government to lose a vote tonight or were it to lose in the Seanad and were it to be forced to bring in the necessary changes. In a radio interview this morning, Deputy Breathnach stated he agreed with the motion, that it sums up Fianna Fáil's position but that the AAA-PBP has some ulterior secret motives and for that reason, Fianna Fáil cannot vote for it with those secret motives being the openly stated case about opposition to privatisation and to charges full stop. These are not credible reasons as to why Fianna Fáil is taking this position. The reality is that what is expressed is that Fianna Fáil is the third leg of the Government and this has encapsulated in miniature, in the space of approximately two weeks, new politics as it actually is. I do not refer to the fairy tale version, whereby everybody forgets about the different ideologies and different class interests that are represented in this House and where everybody agrees, but to the reality of how politics is operating now because the Government continues not to be concerned about the attitudes or the effects of things on ordinary people until forced to be. The only Members speaking in here on behalf of ordinary people are those of the left, with the AAA-PBP to the fore using its Private Members' time effectively in this case. However, the difference is the establishment is extremely weak. It is weak in this Chamber and there is a confident people outside the House who felt able to mobilise and to put pressure on the different parties, with the result that Fianna Fáil then was forced into a position of raising this matter in here and then, just like with the water charges, agreed to a bad compromise and fudge that allows it to come back on the agenda in the future. However, people should draw the lesson that confidence is contagious. We will take this as a partial victory and will move on to further partial victories, all the while preparing to bring about the fundamental change needed, which can only be brought about by building a mass left-wing party to be a voice for and to mobilise for ordinary people and to establish a left-wing government with socialist policies.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I compliment Deputy Fitzpatrick on his honesty because he really tried to lash the AAA-PBP out of it by stating he does not agree with the move of his Minister to freeze the charges. He does not agree and he believes everybody is happy to recycle, that there should not be a problem and that the AAA-PBP is creating imaginary problems because we do not wish to be positive in anything but are negative about everything. That is the real sentiment of Fine Gael and I note the colour of the Deputy's shirt is a deep blue, whereas the colour of the tie of his colleague sitting below him is a pale blue. I refer to the people who speak nicely to us and try to tell us they agree with Deputy Smith or are glad that Deputy Smith brought this matter to their attention and so on. Indeed, the kowtowing or the Cowen-towing of colleagues from Fianna Fáil was quite similar. It was all very nice, all polite gentlemen, all talking to the gentlemen, so called, in the waste management industry and getting on well with them and getting agreements with them that they would freeze things and would not touch people and would do this, that and the other. It probably is because you know these gentlemen in the waste management industry a little more than personally, that there are relations of whatever sort, political, financial or economic, that go between the major parties and industries.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, that allegation is not appropriate.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I am just thinking aloud. I am not making an allegation-----

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not appropriate to make that-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

The Deputy does not know what she is talking about.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I am thinking aloud.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not appropriate to make that sort of allegation.

Deputy Bríd Smith

It is not appropriate to make it but I am thinking aloud here. The Minister really is asking Members to adopt the spirit in which these godfathers of the waste management industry have spoken to him. I am sorry but that is precisely why we have tabled this motion, because we do not believe in spirits; we believe in legislation that would curtail the profiteering-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

The Deputy believes in conspiracy theories.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should restrain himself, please.

Deputy Bríd Smith

-----of this industry in particular.

I refer the Minister to a strike that took place in 2014 - not that long ago - by Greyhound workers. It was vicious and was like something out of the Lock-out, where scabbing on a major scale took place. People broke picket lines, a lot of violence was used and the Greyhound workers, who took strike action to defend the limited pay and conditions they had, were bullied and intimidated. What has resulted from that dispute, and I have spoken to some trade union organisers about this, is that throughout the waste management industry, workers work on very low-paid contracts. They are working dangerous hours and as already mentioned earlier, some trucks are operating with two men, generally speaking, instead of three. Whereas the Health and Safety Authority recommends three, two are being used. There are many questions to be asked about the industry and the introduction of pay by weight will increase the working day by at least an additional 80 minutes. That will be offloaded onto the workers who will not receive an extra penny for it because they work on a task basis. There is much to be asked about this waste management industry, as many of my colleagues and Deputies have stated throughout.

Somebody said something to me today that stuck in my head. Do Members know the song "The Great Pretenders"? It is going around in my head, "Oh yes, we're the great suspenders." That is what this Government is: the great suspenders. It has been suspending every bloody thing since I came in here and well done to it that it is getting away with it.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Go away out of that. The Deputy is only looking for a headline.

Deputy Bríd Smith

It is only getting away with it because of the Fine Gaelers on this side of the House. I do not even-----

Deputy Anne Rabbitte

Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Bríd Smith

-----think they are Fianna Fáilers on this side. They are propping Fine Gael up to the hilt. As I said in this House when we started off in late February or March, why the hell do the two parties not just get together and run the country? There is no difference between them except the colour of their shirts. At this stage, that is all that exists. In principled, fundamental positions that they take on the economy, workers and social welfare recipients, they are the very same.

I have one last word for Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick. He asked about how we think the councils would get the money. The hated local property tax is where they would get the money to run the service. That is where it should be coming from. It was revealed-----

Deputy Simon Coveney

Is the Deputy not against that?

Deputy Bríd Smith

-----today that 86,000 social welfare recipients have had local property tax taken from them by Revenue already this year. The Government is sowing bitterness into people who can least afford to pay all of its sale taxes, local property taxes, bin taxes and we have already seen the reaction to the water taxes. The Government must learn at some point that the ordinary Joe and Josephine Soap have risen and are not going to continue to take it. That is why they are the great suspenders, no other reason.

An Ceann Comhairle

That concludes the debate. Is amendment No. 2 being pressed?

Deputy Simon Coveney

Yes.

Question put.

An Ceann Comhairle

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 23 June 2016.