Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Apr 2000

Vol. 163 No. 3

Order of Business. - Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 2000: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.–The Minister shall make a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas within two months of the passing of this Act on the arrangements made for the imposition of relevant charges and the sufficiency of the waiver schemes applicable thereto.".

I listened carefully to what the Minister of State said in respect of this matter on Second Stage. He indicated that part of the reason this legislation was brought before the House involved Dublin Corporation's consideration of a proposal for waste management charges. He also stated that there had been no legal challenge to this. The Bill makes specific reference to legal proceedings which might be brought before 18 April 2000. Why make such a provision if such proceedings have not been initiated?

As already stated, the Minister of State said that Dublin Corporation was considering the proposals and wanted to be sure of where it stood in that regard. He also said that there is a legal requirement under European Union statute, which is based on the tenet that the polluter pays, for a system of charges to be established. It is apparent that the Minister of State is clearing the decks for the introduction of waste management charges.

On Second Stage I made no reference to the Government imposing service charges similar to the old water charges. However, I did state that the Bill will give rise to a similar exercise. It is clear that service charges will be imposed in the form of waste management charges and that the Minister of State is intent on allowing the local authorities do his dirty work by obliging them to impose the charges. The Bill is being pushed through because he wants to ensure that they are in a position to do so. The Minister of State was concerned that local authorities might have encountered difficulties in applying a range of obligations instead of implementing the legislation. That is the impetus behind the Bill.

Amendment No. 3 proposes that "The Minister shall make a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas within two months of the passing of this Act on the arrangements made for the imposition of relevant charges and the sufficiency of the waiver schemes applicable thereto." Previous waiver schemes do not apply in this instance and there is a need for the Minister of State to exercise a degree of leadership by informing us what will happen.

When local authority members throughout the country become aware of the implications of this legislation, all hell will break loose. My understanding of the European position is that we must deal with the problem of waste management. However, the way we tax our citizens in order to pay for waste management is a matter for ourselves to decide. There is no stipulation that a blanket local service charge should be imposed by local authorities. The Minister of State can be sure that the local authorities will not adopt a uniform approach to this matter. He is saying that he intends to pass the buck to the local authorities, allow them to fight among themselves and, if necessary, put them out of business if they refuse to agree a rate of payment.

The Minister of State should give proper direction regarding how waste management will be dealt with. The 1996 legislation provided for a waste management plan to be put in place but it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to develop such plans. I understand that only seven authorities have produced such plans, despite the legal requirement that they should produce them within four years of the passing of the legislation. Given that those four years have elapsed, will the Minister of State explain why that is the case?

Will the Minister of State indicate how the local authorities will impose the relevant charges to which my amendment refers? Will he also indicate how the waiver schemes which will be necessary if the legislation is passed will be implemented? The Minister of State's Department must exercise a degree of leadership. He cannot simply introduce what he perceives to be amending legislation which is designed not merely to enable but to direct local authorities to impose charges without illustrating how the waste management plan will work, indicating the level of resources which will be made available, stating how central Government intends to deal with this matter and explaining how he will deal with the fallout that will result from objections from members of the public and politicians when local authorities are obliged to implement these charges in the autumn.

I am seeking leadership from the Minister of State in respect of this issue and I look forward to his reply.

Mr. Walsh

I had some sympathy with what I had thought was the motivation behind Senator Costello's amendment, namely, that a waiver scheme should be introduced to relieve the burden on people who are in financial difficulties. Most, if not all, local authorities already have such schemes in operation in respect of other service charges. Local authority members give careful consideration to and make decisions about this matter when discussing the annual estimates. That is as it should be.

Senator Costello stated that he felt the Bill, in some way, will empower local authorities to introduce additional charges.

Mr. Costello

That is what the Minister of State said.

Mr. Walsh

I may be wrong but I understand that the legislation merely validates any charges introduced on foot of previous legislation and ensures that they are not subject to legal challenges. This will safeguard the flow of funds to local government and ensure that this flow is not disrupted because of some technical defect. As the Minister of State indicated, a doubt has been cast on matters by the possible existence of such a defect in existing legislation. It seems eminently prudent that he and his Department should move with great haste to avoid difficulties in that regard.

The Minister of State stated clearly that legislation would have to be introduced to facilitate the imposition of any new charges and that local authorities could not use this Bill as a means to introduce such charges.

Mr. Costello

Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify that point when replying.

Mr. Walsh

Yes, but that is my understanding of the position. I wish to make a number of general points in respect of waiver schemes.

I will nail my colours to the mast on this issue. In 1983 I supported the introduction of water charges across the country. It was an equitable charge and I strongly opposed its removal which was done for the wrong reason and undermined local government. Local authorities should be given more autonomy. There is a tendency on the part of Government to be over-prescriptive. The more discretion people are given at local level, the better democracy is served. We should go in that direction.

Although I might be sympathetic to the thrust of what has been said with regard to a waiver scheme, that is commensurate with the needs of people. It is a matter for local authorities. If Dublin Corporation introduces charges in this area, it is its decision whether it will operate a waiver scheme, as indeed it is its decision whether to operate a charge in the first place. We should not be too ready to impose on local government.

This is not about waste management. If we were debating that issue, I would be strongly of the view that rather than the current standard charge and waiver applying, people should be charged by the weight of their waste. The Minister was correct in that regard. It is a fairer way of dealing with it and would be a more sensible waste management policy in terms of effectiveness. It would get people to curtail, at source, the amount of waste they are producing. There should be segregation and minimisation at that level, as happens in other countries. Hopefully, that will happen under the Minister's guidance over time.

This Bill simply safeguards the financial viability of local government. If we do not enact it, a doubt will linger. In so far as there is a doubt, the responsible course of action is to support the Bill's passage through the House. I hope that will happen.

Mr. Coogan

On Second Stage I spoke about the need for clarity. People must know what they are paying for. The vast majority of people recognise that they will have to pay waste charges because it is their waste. The proposal that paying by weight might be a more equitable way of dealing with waste is worthy of further debate. I would be happy to discuss it.

With regard to the amendment, if what the Minister said earlier is true, there is nothing in the amendment that runs contrary to it. If one reads the amendment rather than focusing on what has been implied or what might be in the amendment, one can see it is quite innocuous. It simply asks that the Minister report to the Houses of the Oireachtas within two months of the pass ing of the Bill on the arrangements made for the imposition of relevant charges and the sufficiency of the waiver scheme.

That is not saying that the Government will demand a 10% waiver, it simply ensures that the waiver schemes are equitable. That might be done through ministerial order to the local authority to the effect that, for example, three quarters of £200 is not enough, that some people simply cannot afford it. In other words, we seek a waiver scheme that is transparent. There is nothing in the amendment that the Government should find offensive. It will do no harm to the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace): I cannot accept this amendment. It is not necessary. Furthermore, it would interfere with the proper operation of local government.

I remind Members that an income tax allowance is available in respect of service charges paid in full and on time to local authorities for the provision of domestic refuse collection and to independent domestic refuse collection contractors. The allowance is payable at the standard rate. This was introduced by the previous Government and has been retained. As the allowances are at the standard rate, the better off on the higher tax rates will only benefit to the same extent as those on the standard rate. Waiver schemes are generally available for those on low incomes.

A power already exists for local authorities to grant waiver of charges in cases of hardship. The power exists under section 5 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983, to waive all or part of a charge for the services they provide on the grounds of personal hardship. Decisions on whether to grant a waiver or the scale of such waivers are matters for the local authorities. Waivers have been in place for some years and have had regard to circulars issued by my Department recommending the adoption of a sympathetic approach in the assessment of applications and provision of sufficient publicity regarding the operation of these schemes.

It is entirely appropriate in terms of the principle of subsidiarity and promoting local democracy and local self-government that decisions in relation to waivers should be taken by local elected politicians. The Government does not propose to interfere with this principle by imposing unnecessary central control over issues which are properly dealt with locally.

The Bill underwrites the status quo. It does not extend the current powers of local authorities to charge for services they provide under existing law. It does not introduce a power to charge for services which local authorities might be required or empowered to provide under any future legislation and it does not overturn or affect existing legislation which prohibits the imposition of charges for any local authority service, such as domestic water supply.

Senator Costello has repeatedly called for leadership by the Government. We are leading by responding urgently on this issue. The Senator's colleagues in the Dáil suggested that we should wait until there was a legal challenge. That is not leadership and the Government makes no apology for moving quickly on this matter. This is a matter of local government acting in relation to its responsibilities. Waiver schemes are in place throughout the country and 87% of the population is paying waste charges. That may not apply in the local authority in the Senator's area but it is not a reason to suggest that there will be upheaval throughout the country about something that simply confers legal status.

Mr. Costello

In his reply to the Second Stage debate the Minister suggested that Dublin Corporation is considering proposals in this regard. He referred to the local authority in my area as part of the reason he wanted to remove the doubt. Clearly, the action by Dublin Corporation is one of the reasons this legislation has been introduced.

Mr. D. Wallace

I did not say that.

Mr. Costello

The Minister said Dublin Corporation is considering proposals for waste management charges.

Mr. D. Wallace

That is a matter for Dublin Corporation.

Mr. Costello

That is what the Minister said, I took a note of it. He also said there was no legal challenge. Obviously, however, the local authority is concerned about its practices and that its regulations might not stand the test of law.

Finding out that this is the justification for the Bill was like extracting teeth. The action by the local authority in my area is the reason for this Bill. The local authority did not tell me or the other councillors that it was considering imposing waste management charges. We suspected it was and sought clarification, but the authority denied it. Obviously, it confirmed it to the Minister, and the Minister introduced legislation on foot of its request, even though it is on record as denying that it would introduce charges for waste management. This is a funny pickle. That is why legislation is rushed through the Houses without an opportunity to examine its implications. It is outrageous.

The amendment does not interfere with anything that was said by Members on either side of the House today. Senator Coogan is correct. It is a status quo amendment. It provides that the Minister should indicate, within two months of the Bill being passed, what arrangements have been made for the imposition of relevant charges and the sufficiency of the waiver schemes applicable thereto. Waiver schemes are different throughout the country. This is why I refer to leadership. If there is to be leadership, let us see what the relevant charges will be and what the Minister says about them. The Minister of State has not indicated how he feels about this and he has said nothing about how the waiver schemes operate. There is a divergence in terms of the operation of the waiver schemes and the charges imposed by various local authorities. Leadership in this regard would be very welcome. This is a modest and reasonable amendment and I do not think the Minister of State's advisers believe it would undermine the Bill if accepted.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Costello

Yes.

Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."

Tá

Coghlan, Paul.Coogan, Fintan.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Joe.

Jackman, Mary.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Toole, Joe.

Níl

Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.Gibbons, Jim.

Glynn, Camillus.Kiely, Daniel.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Walsh, Jim.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Coogan and Costello; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons.

Question declared lost.

Section 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.