Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Sep 2007

Vol. 638 No. 1

Priority Questions.

Anti-Poverty Strategy.

Olwyn Enright

Ceist:

104 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the actions he is taking to tackle poverty and prevent homelessness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21086/07]

People who are homeless are among the most vulnerable in society. There are a variety of reasons people end up homeless including, poverty, unemployment, poor health, loss of contact with family and friends, alcohol and drug dependence and leaving institutional care. The variety of causes of homelessness and of services required to address them underlines the need for a co-ordinated, integrated approach to providing for the needs of homeless people on the part of Departments and agencies at national and local level and, the voluntary sector. I pay special tribute in this context to the excellent work done by so many dedicated people in the voluntary sector in supporting people who are homeless.

The Government has adopted a strategic approach to tackling poverty since the introduction of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy in 1997. This is designed to promote the joined up approach to policy development and implementation which is of particular importance for vulnerable groups such as the homeless. The current National Action Plan for Social Inclusion, NAPinclusion, and the social inclusion commitments in the national development plan follow a similar approach. They have been drawn up in consultation with the social partners and following a wide ranging consultation process with other stakeholders and set out clear goals, demanding targets and, a detailed programme of action to meet these goals and targets during the period 2007-16.

The overall goal in the NAPinclusion is to reduce the number of those experiencing consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016. The NAPinclusion adopts a life cycle approach, in line with Towards 2016, with specific, measurable goals set for each group: children, people of working age, older people and people with disabilities and their communities. Detailed action targets cover a broad spectrum of services including homelessness and housing, health and long term care, education, income support, early childhood development and care and participation. Homeless people are eligible for the full range of services provided for in these strategies, subject to the normal conditions.

Special provision is made where necessary by the various services to meet the needs of the homeless. One of the most important supports provided to homeless people through the social welfare system is assistance with rent deposits to enable them to secure private rented accommodation.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

In excess of 8,800 rent deposits were paid out under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme in 2006 at a cost of some €4.7 million. Responsibility for addressing homelessness rests with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and, in the case of youth homelessness, the Department of Health and Children. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, has a substantial programme under way to assist people who are homeless to move to accommodation suitable to their needs. I am aware of, and fully support, the approach being adopted by officials of that Department under the aegis of the cross departmental team on homelessness in developing a revised Government strategy on addressing adult homelessness. It is envisaged that the revised strategy will have as its core objective the elimination by end 2010 of long-term occupancy of emergency accommodation and the need to sleep "rough". This initiative builds upon the commitment made in Towards 2016 that no homeless person will occupy emergency accommodation for a period exceeding six months by end 2010. I understand it is intended to launch the new strategy before the end of this year.

Reducing and eventually eliminating homelessness is one of the key outcomes sought from the strategies to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Much has already been achieved but, I am fully aware that much more needs to be done. I am confident that through the NAPinclusion and the other relevant strategies we can achieve the necessary co-ordination and integration within the Government sector and with the voluntary sector that is required to provide the necessary support and care for this most vulnerable group.

Does the Minister appreciate the difference between eligibility and accessibility? Currently, there are 5,000 to 6,000 homeless people on the streets of Ireland. While some of them may be eligible for the service, clearly, they are not accessing it.

Does the Minister agree that the rent supplement is inadequate particularly in certain areas? It has been pointed out that it is impossible to obtain rental property in Dublin 1, Dublin 2 and Dublin 13 based on the current rental supplement. In view of his answer, and given there are 1,400 children homeless, how does the Minister intend to address the issue of homelessness? I am sure everybody in this House would offer their sympathy to the family of Kevin Fitzpatrick who was found in appalling circumstances a fortnight ago. In response to that incident, homeless people have said they know of many people who sleep in wheelie bins in cities around the country. If what happened to Kevin Fitzpatrick happened to an Irish person in London we would be up in arms. What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure there are no further such people found on the streets of Ireland with no access, as opposed to eligibility, to services?

There is a huge range of services available which all people in society but specifically homeless people can access. The issue of homelessness is complex. There are various reasons why people end up homeless in different parts of the country. There are issues in Dublin currently, to which the Deputy referred, that affect not only homeless people but also people returning to college. There is again a lack of rental accommodation which it is hoped to address. The rent supplement scheme, which has been extended dramatically over a number of years, has had a major impact and has facilitated and benefited people throughout the country, particularly in terms of allowing homeless people to get into private accommodation. The resources put into this area are substantial. The strategy set out in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion was drawn up by all the stakeholders working with the Department and has been bought into by all of the participants. At its core are the many supports to help people get back into education, into society and into employment.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has taken up many of the relevant issues with the local authorities in an effort to prevent long-term homelessness and get people permanently into housing throughout the country. In terms of the resources that have been put in across the spectrum on behalf of the taxpayer, the general social welfare budget has been increased from just over €3.5 billion some years ago to more than €15.3 billion today. Working with the relevant agencies we intend to reduce homelessness and meet the targets that are clearly set out.

We are talking about the most vulnerable people in our society. They would not be homeless if they had been able to avail of services. What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that those 6,000 or so people are able to access the services the Department provides so they will not find themselves homeless? Is the Minister aware of the growing tension between nationalities that has been reported among the homeless population? Has the Department examined that issue?

I do not agree that people are unable to access services. A large number of voluntary groups, principally the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, work in this area. We work with those groups. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to persuade individuals to work with the services. It is part of our role to ensure that people can get into a secure environment where we can work with them and examine the range of services available to ensure they have capacity within themselves whether in terms of better health care, more education, or facilitation in getting back into the work force in order to try to earn an income, which would give them the sense of independence and well-being they need. I do not accept there is a difficulty there.

The problem is growing, not reducing.

The problem has reduced. Certain issues have compounded the problem in recent times. The population has expanded, for obvious reasons. Nevertheless a clear strategy has been agreed by the social partners and the stakeholders working at the coalface to eliminate this problem over the next few years.

I wish the Deputy well in her appointment as spokesperson for Fine Gael.

We all join in that.

Social Welfare Appeals.

Róisín Shortall

Ceist:

105 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he is satisfied with the adequacy of procedures for determining social welfare claims in view of the fact that almost half of all appeals made to the Social Welfare Appeals Office in 2006 were successful; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21098/07]

Deputy Shortall shadowed me when I was the Minister for Transport and now she is the Opposition spokesperson on Social and Family Affairs. I congratulate her and wish her well.

The report to which the Deputy refers was produced by the Social Welfare Appeals Office, SWAO, of my Department in accordance with legislative requirements. It contains details of the activities of the office in 2006 as well as commentary on other issues which arose during the year. As previously stated by me on 29 June 2007, I welcome the continued commitment of the SWAO to provide an accessible and independent review mechanism for people who wish to appeal against decisions made by my Department.

My Department makes every effort to deliver entitlements to people in accordance with the legislation. However, considering that in 2006 my Department made over 1 million payments per week that benefit more than 1.5 million people, and received 1.75 million claims for statutory social welfare schemes, it is understandable that there will be some people who will not agree with decisions made on their entitlements. The 13,800 appeals received, when viewed in the context of the number of claims received is less than 1%, which is small. Of the 14,006 appeals processed in 2006, favourable decisions were made in 6,439 cases.

The report highlights that 46% of appeals had a successful outcome for the appellant. It refers to the fact that of the 6,439 favourable decisions on appeal cases, almost half of these decisions, 3,199, were in fact revised decisions made by statutorily appointed deciding officers of my Department, who reviewed the claim following the initial disallowance.

These revised decisions arose as a result, in many cases, of new facts or fresh evidence produced by the claimant after the original decision on his or her claim. In such cases an appeals officer decision was not necessary. In addition, it should be noted that of the 9,100 appeals actually decided by appeals officers, a total of 5,860,64%, upheld the original decision of the deciding officer.

Customers whose claims are disallowed or who are disqualified from payment or awarded social welfare at a reduced rate are informed that if they have any new fact or evidence that has a bearing on their case, they should send it in the first instance to the deciding officer for re-examination and, if appropriate, for revision of the decision. They are informed that this right is in addition to their right of appeal to the SWAO.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

They can seek a deciding officer review before making an appeal or can do both concurrently. The right of appeal to the SWAO remains an option if the review by the deciding officer is not fruitful.

The success of the deciding officer review process has been highlighted in a number of annual reports of the SWAO. In the annual report 2002, for example, the contribution which the deciding officer review process made in reducing the overall number of appeals that were received in the SWAO was noted. The 2005 annual report also highlighted the success of this strategy.

The role of the statutorily appointed deciding officer is to decide entitlement to statutory social welfare schemes and insurability of employment in accordance with the legislation. To assist deciding officers in their role, guidelines relating to all aspects of decision-making and social welfare legislation are issued and regularly updated by my Department. In addition, training is provided to deciding officers on their statutory obligations and the application of principles of natural justice and fair procedures.

The need for transparency in the decision-making process by deciding officers is also provided for in legislation. Regulations provide that decisions on social welfare claims must be set out in writing and, where the decision is unfavourable, the reasons for the decision must also be recorded and included in the notification to the person concerned. Therefore, when a deciding officer has reached a decision, which is unfavourable to the claimant, she or he must give the grounds for the decision, that is, the statutory condition which is not fulfilled; and the reason the grounds are not met.

The rules of natural justice and fair procedures are applied by deciding officers when making decisions that could have an adverse affect on the person concerned.

Given the legislative provisions and administrative guidelines and practices in place, I am satisfied with the procedures in place for deciding social welfare claims.

The annual report of the appeals officer which was published last June stated that a majority of the appeals heard were upheld. He referred to the serious problems arising from inadequate information being provided to clients on their entitlements. He drew attention to serious delays in the response from deciding officer to queries from his office. These are quite serious indictments. The appeals officer made a number of recommendations in his annual report. Does the Minister accept that his findings indicate that something is wrong down the line in the Department and in the decision process of deciding officers? Will he outline what action has been taken on foot of the appeals officer's report?

When the number of appeals is put in context of the 1 million payments per week, I think the system is working extremely well. We can always learn from the issues that arise. There is constant contact between the officials from my Department and the Social Welfare Appeals Office to see how to improve and get consistency in the decision making process throughout the country. While there were more than 6,000 successful appeals, some 3,000 were made by the Department's deciding officers. In many of the cases, new information came to the fore, which allowed the deciding officer to make a different decision. Some years ago it was decided that an independent body was needed to deal specifically with appeals. We are encouraging our offices to make people aware of all information and to assist them in making their case in the first instance. We must remember that the Department deals with more than 1 million people per week throughout the country. The Social Welfare Appeals Office did not intend the report as an indictment of the Department. It simply highlights issues which need to be changed. Since the report was made, the officials in my Department and in the appeals office have enhanced procedures and training for staff throughout the country to try to achieve the consistency we would all like.

Does the Minister accept that there is a specific problem in respect of medical evidence? Most Members regularly come across the problem at constituency clinics of people with substantial medical difficulties who submit medical evidence but are refused the payment for which they are applying. The figures from the appeals office bear this out. Only 25% of appeals relating to disability allowance and only 15% of appeals relating to illness benefit were disallowed. The invalidity pension and injuries benefit figures are similarly poor. The issue of how medical evidence is viewed by officials of the Minister's Department and medical officers is a real one. I ask the Minister to examine this situation again, given the poor performance figures I have highlighted. This is a matter of concern to many people who have serious injuries or other medical problems. They are often subjected to excessive hardship by being asked for additional evidence from their medical practitioners and obliged to go through the appeals process. Hardship is imposed on people who already have medical problems. I ask the Minister to examine this area.

This issue is encountered by all Members when we deal with people who have serious medical problems and are going through an appeals process. While the vast majority of appeals are dealt with satisfactorily, there are always some which are more complex. As a non-medical person, I find it difficult when one medical opinion gives one outcome and a second opinion gives a different outcome.

The vast majority of appeals are upheld.

I am glad the Oireachtas appointed an independent body to make these assessments. I agree that it can be difficult for people who have serious medical conditions. I would like to see consistency wherever possible and I have raised this issue in the Department. We can achieve this by talking to the Social Welfare Appeals Office and I have done so. I would like consistency in the parameters adhered to by all social welfare offices throughout the country.

Pension Provisions.

Olwyn Enright

Ceist:

106 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when, in view of the fact of recent findings by the Ombudsman in relation to a dispute regarding entitlements, he became aware of this case; the action he has taken to prevent a repeat of same; if his attention has been brought to similar cases of this nature; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21088/07]

The case in question relates to a customer who had requested a pension forecast from my Department on two separate occasions in 1989 and 1995. On both occasions the forecasts provided made reference to 260 contributions, which led the customer to believe he had sufficient contributions to qualify for a pension.

In October 2003, the customer applied to my Department for a retirement pension. Qualification for retirement pension is based on a number of conditions but primarily the customer must have 260 paid full rate contributions and a minimum yearly average of 24 paid or credited contributions. The rate of payment is determined by the yearly average. His application for a retirement pension was refused on the grounds that he had less than 260 full rate contributions paid since entry into insurance. The customer, a retired public servant, had a combination of insurance classes but less than the 260 paid full rate contributions. A decision outlining the position issued to the customer in February 2004. On receipt of the notification of disallowance for retirement pension the customer appealed my Department's decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. His appeal failed because the decision was correct, based on his paid insurance record. However, in this case the customer claimed he had a legitimate expectation to a pension based on the information provided for him twice by my Department. He was of the view that if accurate information had been supplied to him when requested and the implications pointed out to him, he would have had ample time to secure the additional contributions required to qualify for a pension. He subsequently took his complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman which made representations on his behalf. It was of the opinion that the customer had a legitimate expectation of entitlement to a pension on foot of the information supplied to him by my Department.

The background and circumstances of the case were fully reviewed and in the interests of fairness, in 2006 my Department sought and received sanction from the Department of Finance to pay a pension under existing legislative provisions, as though the customer had 260 paid contributions. The customer was subsequently paid his pension in September 2006.

Was the pension paid on the basis that the Minister's staff had created a legitimate expectation? Was that the basis on which the senior official decided to pay the sum of €32,000 plus a lifelong pension to the individual in question? What review has the Minister carried out to ensure there are no other individuals with a legitimate expectation created by officials in the Department because of inaccurate information? Will he confirm that the Social Welfare Appeals Office established that the Department had provided inaccurate information when it reviewed the case? Did it inform the Department of this at the time? Was the appeals office unaware of this? Would it not have been more appropriate for that office to establish the claimant's entitlement at the time rather than obliging the claimant to revert to the Ombudsman?

The Social Welfare Appeals Office upheld the decision of the Department. Officials provided the information in good faith in 1989 and 1995, confirming that 260 contributions were required. However, it was not made clear that these should be at the full rate, which they were not, and therefore did not qualify as payments towards a full pension. That should have been made clear when the information was provided. The procedures have now been changed and such cases are isolated, this being the only such case that has arisen. It was agreed to pay a pension in the interests of fairness because the individual concerned thought he had qualified for a pension on the basis of the information given. When we receive a request for information, customers are now provided with a copy of their insurance record to facilitate pension entitlements. The danger is that people want forecasts, which is a separate issue. We provide the full insurance record and the method used to calculate it. This eliminates the possibility of a recurrence of what happened in this case.

I welcome the fact that changes have been made. Must steps be taken across all sections of the Department to ensure adequate information will be provided by the customer to officials in the Department? We should reduce the need for people to make appeals to the Social Welfare Appeals Office and the Ombudsman.

We must consider the context. Given the scale of involvement and the customer base with which the Department deals — over 1 million people per week, benefiting 1.5 million individuals — the number of errors is small. Nevertheless, I would like to reduce it further. Most would say the quality of the information provided by the Department over the past years and long before I came to it was of the best available to customers. However, nothing is perfect in society and the Department will continue to strive to improve on its parameters and guidelines so the information provided to customers is easily understood so as to allow people make judgments based on the correct information and facts.

Financial Services Regulation.

Róisín Shortall

Ceist:

107 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps he is taking to assist service providers in combating and alleviating personal debt; the progress made by his Department in regard to the preparation of legislation to make it illegal to charge exorbitant interest rates to low income families, as promised in a television interview in October 2006; the details of the contact between officials in his Department and the Financial Regulator and the Department of Finance on measures to combat extortionate moneylending; the outcome of these discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21099/07]

The Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, is the main Government funded service which provides assistance to people who are over-indebted and need help and advice in coping with debt problems. There are 53 independent companies nationwide with over 230 money advice staff operating the service. Many voluntary and statutory bodies such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the credit unions work closely with the programme. Last year, MABS provided services to almost 12,500 new clients throughout the country. To date in 2007, some 8,300 new clients have approached the service. The number of active cases at the end of August was 18,400.

In 2006, €16.4 million was provided to fund the service and in 2007 the annual allocation was increased to €17.67 million to assist MABS in dealing with its workload.

The issues that give rise to problems of over-indebtedness for people are highly complex. The cost and availability of credit for people on low incomes and the barriers they face in accessing mainstream and cheap forms of credit add to the difficulties people encounter in managing their finances. I am particularly concerned about the high level of interest rates currently being charged by some financial institutions, loan companies and by legal moneylenders in situations where people have no alternative sources of credit available to them. My concerns in this regard are borne out by the recent Financial Regulator's report on the licensed moneylending industry in Ireland which shows that moneylenders may be charging interest rates of up to 188%. Most significantly, 71% of people surveyed in the report did not know what interest they were paying on their loans.

The regulation of moneylending comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and the licensing of moneylenders is a statutory responsibility of the Financial Regulator. MABS has a unique and expert contribution to make, on behalf of people on low incomes, in shaping the strategies that need to be put in place to ensure greater financial inclusion. For example, MABS has a role in promoting to the providers of payment services, such as the banks and credit unions, the needs of people on low incomes, so it is easier for them to access financial services.

In line with the programme for Government I am developing proposals for a new structure for MABS geared to meet the needs of people with debt difficulties in today's society.

There is no doubt that MABS provides a very worthwhile service throughout the community. I was disappointed to note that the legislation to put this on a statutory footing will not be ready until next year. It has been promised for some time and it is regrettable there is yet a further delay.

My question is not about MABS but rather that moneylenders can legitimately charge exorbitant interest rates of up to 188% which represents about ten times the level of interest charged on credit cards. People and families on low incomes who are in a difficult financial situation and who need to obtain short-term loans quickly are forced into the hands of moneylenders. I am referring to legal moneylenders as I have not even begun to discuss the issue of illegal moneylenders. Legal moneylenders can legitimately charge up to 188% interest which is scandalous. This problem has been identified by a number of agencies working in this area. It has been discussed at length by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Séamus Brennan, who last year and earlier this year gave a series of interviews in which he promised to take action in this area and to work with the Financial Regulator and the Department of Finance to curb the level of interest that can legally be charged. Yet, there has been no action — it is all promises and no action. In light of the comments made by the Minister in the media in the past week, I ask him to state what action he intends to take to limit finally the level of interest that can be charged to these vulnerable families who have no choice but to go to moneylenders in order to gain access to short-term credit.

I would like to achieve a scenario in which people have no need to go to moneylenders in the first instance and can instead access legitimately the main stream of financial services to which most of us have access. The difficulty is that people on very low incomes get themselves into debt and find it very difficult to access credit from the normal institutions with which most of us deal on a daily basis. They end up in what are regarded as legal institutions elsewhere.

The Deputy has rightly identified the Financial Regulator who is entirely independent in this matter and has a direct responsibility along with the Minister for Finance. The levels of interest being charged in these circumstances are quite exorbitant. Since I made certain comments, it has been pointed out to me that while it may be quite easy in some respects to reduce the level of interest charged, I may still not achieve the end at which both Deputy Shortall and I aim. Deputy Shortall has outlined that end in the House this afternoon. I am informed that the rates of interest in question are usually charged on very small amounts of money which are repaid over short periods. If the outcome is to cap interest rates, people may be charged at a lower rate but over a much longer period and no significant difference will be made. It is important to note also that there are more issues than this one involved in the wider context of financial markets, including the legitimate moneylending market, which have consequences elsewhere.

While I am having discussions in this area, I am not sure as I speak today where the answer is. One may turn a corner and think one sees the answer there, but it may be pointed out very quickly that adopting that course may achieve the opposite of what one intends. Discussions are taking place in the tripartite group on the issue and the database MABS now has will be very important in informing the decision which is finally made. The Deputy and I both want to ensure that vulnerable people on low incomes can access credit which does not impose the exorbitant interest rates charged by some of the legitimate moneylending institutions. The credit unions, for instance, are working very actively with people on low incomes.

The Minister must tell the House today whether or not he finds it acceptable that people are forced into the hands of moneylenders who can legitimately charge exorbitant rates of interest. The Minister's predecessor promised to introduce legislation to limit the level of interest which could be charged. Does the Minister intend to proceed with legislation and, if so, at what point does he expect to bring forward legislative proposals?

I will be very straight with the Deputy. I do not find it acceptable that people are charged up to 188% interest.

What is the Minister doing about it?

I have just outlined to the Deputy that I wish to ensure that vulnerable people — the small but important cohort who are caught in this situation — have broader credit options and access to the legitimate system. I wish to ensure at the same time that if we take action in the financial market, the benefit is felt directly by those for whom we are making the changes. There is no point in changing the name over the door, so to speak, but allowing the same operator to do the same thing with the same outcome in what is simply a different way.

What about limiting the interest which can be charged?

It has not been demonstrated that even if one places a cap on interest, the game will not change dramatically again. I wish to ensure that if I move, as I would like to, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance and the Financial Regulator, the outcome of our action works. It is easy to pick things out of the sky, but we must ensure that they deliver.

Waste Management.

Olwyn Enright

Ceist:

108 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has been in communication with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding a waiver system for refuse charges incurred by elderly people; the nature of that communication; the response received by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21089/07]

The setting of waste management charges and the introduction of waivers in respect of waste charges is, as has been stated in this House on many occasions, a matter for each local authority. Local authorities operate under the auspices of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Since taking office as Minister for Social and Family Affairs I have not been in contact with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding a waiver system for refuse charges. My officials have discussed this issue with their counterparts in that Department.

It has been suggested that my Department could respond to the issue of waste charges through the exceptional needs payments of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Under this scheme a single payment may be made to help meet essential, once-off, exceptional expenditure which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of his or her weekly income. The payments are for such items as bedding or cooking utensils for someone setting up a home for the first time or costs relating to funerals, or visiting relatives in hospital or in prison. This scheme is not intended to meet the cost of regular household bills.

In any event, the introduction of a national social welfare scheme to address the issue would not be feasible given the wide range of charging regimes and cost structures that exist in respect of waste management throughout the State. Charges vary across local authorities and within local authorities where there is more than one provider. In addition, some local authorities and private operators already operate waiver schemes but, again, the qualifying conditions for these schemes also vary. Any system put in place to assist people with waste collection charges would have to take account of the different local arrangements.

In its 2005 report, Implementing a Waiver System: Guidelines for Local Authorities, the Combat Poverty Agency investigated the practice of charging for waste collection services, examined the rationale behind the practice, established the implications for low income households and considered potential solutions to ease the financial burden on them. A set of guidelines was developed for local authorities to consider when implementing a waste charging system. The report considered that the most effective way of achieving a fair and consistent system of waste charging in Ireland would be via the national implementation of one model that satisfies all of these guidelines.

The report concluded that if a suitable procurement approach could be developed, a locally operated waiver system would offer the most effective delivery model and I am in agreement with that finding, given that all options were considered.

I am not sure if that is a "Yes" or "No" to the possibility of a waiver system. Half of the local authorities are in a position to offer a waiver because the refuse collection service is not privatised in their areas. In the 17 local authorities where the service is privatised, the local authorities cannot offer a waiver as they do not receive the charges, which is why I have asked the Minister and his Department to implement a waiver scheme.

The exceptional needs payment is not the way to do it because that payment might be made monthly, weekly or annually. I urge the Minister to reconsider the possibility of the Department providing such a scheme. It need not be dissimilar to the fuel allowance given that the cost of fuel, depending on the type being used, can vary between different areas and this does not alter the fact that it is a standardised payment. The Minister could have discussions with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about the issue but he should consider letting his Department take it on board. It is difficult for some people to pay the charge. The average charge is €360 per annum or approximately €32 per month. Many elderly people and social welfare recipients are simply unable to pay it.

I do not disagree with the Deputy's last point. Everybody is aware that this issue can be difficult for some people. I have some experience with the matter because I dealt with it when I was Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This is a matter for the local authorities. Some local authorities operate good waiver schemes, and not simply where the authorities operate a public refuse collection service. In some areas private contractors are involved in a waiver scheme. It is not an excuse for local authorities to suggest that because they have privatised the service they cannot operate a waiver scheme.

The local authorities have all the necessary powers to operate waiver schemes in their areas. It is a matter on which local councillors in the local authorities should make the decision. They can do it by involving themselves in the estimates process. It is wrong that there should be differences throughout the country, whereby good waiver schemes are operated in some areas, urban and rural, while there are none in other areas. This is an issue on which local councillors should step up to the plate. We are regularly accused of taking power away from local authorities and giving it to central government. Councillors, particularly when estimates are being drafted, should put this issue to bed once and for all by demanding, through motions and submissions, the introduction of waiver schemes in their areas. That is local autonomy. This is a local issue that is better looked after at local government level.

Does the Minister intend to raise this issue with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure that local authorities are in a position to carry this out and are given the funding to do so? The people most affected are those in receipt of social welfare payments who fall under the remit of the Minister's Department. They cannot make ends meet because of these charges. The Minister cannot wash his hands of the issue.

The Deputy asked where the authority lay and I gave a straight answer. When the Deputy reads the full reply, she will see that the matter of how this issue could be managed best was considered in some detail during recent discussions between this Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and it was clear it was managed best at local authority level. It is not simply a matter of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government providing extra money for local authorities. We all have priorities and if one had all the money in the world, one could probably spend it. Like each Department, each local authority must decide what way the resources available will be used. I agree with those local authorities which have decided a waiver scheme is warranted and to implement one as a priority. It is an issue and other local authorities should step up to the plate and take a more serious view of the needs of their constituents. If this were done, it may lead to other issues in which we might be able to become involved.

Barr
Roinn