JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 Dec 2008

Waiver Scheme for Refuse Charges: Discussion with Ombudsman.

Chairman

We will now deal with the main business of this afternoon's meeting, which is an investigation into the operation by local authorities of waiver schemes for refuse collection charges. At our meeting on 18 November, correspondence referred to the Ombudsman's recent report on local authority waiver schemes. The report was critical of the multiplicity and diversity of the schemes, and the absence in some cases of any waiver provision at all. Copies of the report have been circulated to all members by the clerk to the committee.

I welcome the author of the report to discuss this matter with us today. I thank her and her officials for accepting our invitation to come before the committee. We are joined by Ms Emily O'Reilly, Ombudsman, Mr. Pat Whelan, director general, Ms Maureen Behan, senior investigator and Ms Ann O'Reilly, senior investigator, all from the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman will provide a brief, opening presentation which will be followed by questions and answers. Before they begin their presentation, I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege in the Oireachtas, but the same does not apply to witnesses. I remind committee members not to criticise or make charges against anybody who is not a Member of the House, or any official in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Ms Emily O’Reilly

Thank you, Chairman. I am very pleased to have been invited to attend a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to discuss a report I published recently, concerning the administration by local authorities throughout the country of waivers from charges for waste collection. I am particularly pleased to be in Leinster House today while the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2008 is on Second Stage.

In October this year, I published a systemic investigation report into the operation by local authorities of waiver schemes for refuse collection charges. The investigation was prompted by complaints to my office by a public representative on behalf of several low income householders who had been refused waivers by Waterford County Council. Having considered the complaints and the issues raised by the complainants, together with the views of the local authority concerned, I formed the view that this was not likely to be a matter of concern to that local authority alone, but to other local authorities as well. Therefore, I decided to carry out a general investigation into the operation of waiver schemes in the local authorities.

The key aims of my investigation were to establish the terms and qualifying criteria of the waiver schemes administered by local authorities for refuse charges, and to consider any adverse effects on low income households as a result of the failure of local authorities to grant waivers in deserving cases. A representative sample of 23 local authorities were surveyed by way of a questionnaire, and a number of interested stakeholders including the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament were invited to make submissions to my office on the issue.

Traditionally, local authorities carried out waste collection services throughout the country and administered waiver schemes for the benefit of those who could not afford to pay their charges. This still remains the situation in a few areas, but in most areas, the local authority and private operators provide the service. In a growing number of areas, the service is provided exclusively by private operators. Two issues arose in this context, namely, where the service is provided by or on behalf of local authorities, whether the waiver schemes in operation are administered fairly, and whether local authorities are acting properly towards those households that cannot afford to pay the waste collection charges of private operators.

The results of the survey indicate an unacceptable level of inconsistency between waiver schemes administered by local authorities. In one county alone, three different waiver schemes are in operation, each with different qualifying criteria. This level of inconsistency is not in keeping with the highest standards of public administration. The results of the survey also give me cause for concern about the extent to which sections of the population are effectively excluded from access to waiver systems that are designed to provide relief for low-income households and that, depending on where one lives, there may or may not be access to a waiver scheme. The submissions I received from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Senior Citizens Parliament also clearly highlight the impact of waste charges on the poorer sections of our community and the inadequacies of existing waiver schemes. This is a concern I share following the results of my survey.

Where the waste collection service is fully privatised, it would seem that, with a few exceptions, the local authorities surveyed take the view that their obligations towards low-income households are somehow diminished or non-existent by virtue of the involvement of a private operator. However, many of these households are tenants of the local authority — a proportion of whom avail of low rents under the differential rent scheme, in recognition of low household income. I find it difficult to reconcile the existence of a strong and long-standing social obligation towards one public service, namely, the charge for social housing, with its almost complete absence in another area of public service provision, which is the charge for waste collection services.

It is clear that the intention of section 75 (3) of the Waste Management Act 1996, as amended, was that local authorities would have discretion to exercise a social obligation by providing relief in cases of individual personal hardship by way of a waiver scheme. It is also clear that they have the authority to do so where the waste collection service is provided directly by the local authority itself, or where the service is provided under contract by a private operator on behalf of the local authority concerned. However, the Act is silent on the subject of the provision of a waiver to customers of private operators where the service has been fully privatised, as opposed to being operated by a private operator under contract to the local authority. Local authorities probably have some scope to provide a waiver to clients of fully privatised services by entering into a local arrangement with the private service provider for the collection of waste, although whether all local authorities agree that they have such a power is open to question.

Limerick city and county councils, having privatised the waste collection service, have found a solution by entering into local arrangements with the private waste companies operating in the area. These arrangements authorise the private operator to collect waste on behalf of the council from certain low-income households identified by the council. This then allows the council to waive or subsidise all or part of the waste collection charges to those households.

Some local authorities have argued that they lack the resources required to provide a waiver scheme that would be equitable to all low-income households, that the provision of a waiver scheme is a very heavy cost on the local authority and that there are administrative difficulties involved. I do not accept the validity of these arguments for the following reasons. Some local authorities have found a way to provide a reasonable service, and while others may not provide the level or standard of service to which they would aspire, they are nonetheless providing a service for the most needy cases and the cost does not seem to be prohibitive.

Some waiver schemes operate in a discriminatory fashion, as demonstrated in Complaints A and B outlined in the report. This means that in the case of two households on the same income from the same source, one would qualify for a waiver because it is a means-tested payment, while the other would not. One local authority has claimed that it would require an excessive level of resources to conduct a means test for all waiver applicants. I have difficulty in accepting this argument, particularly when the survey results indicate that 48% of the local authorities surveyed have found a way to carry out some form of means-testing.

I found that there is a multiplicity and diversity of schemes in operation in local authorities and in some cases, there is no waiver scheme at all. Overall, I concluded that the system is a shambles. I can illustrate this by using some concrete examples. In 2006, a total of seven local authorities had no waiver system at all in place, on the grounds that the service is provided exclusively by private operators. Others only give waivers for refuse not collected by private operators. One county has three different waiver schemes in place, while the average value of an annual waiver varied from €40 to €357.

The report highlights a significant social policy deficit, with local authorities increasingly being driven by commercial considerations, while the poorest and most vulnerable in society suffer. While local authorities may outsource their waste collection service, they cannot outsource their social obligations also. Despite the legislative silence on the matter of private operators and waivers, some local authorities have taken steps to provide relief for qualifying waiver applicants. Where the service has been privatised, all local authorities should emulate this practice by introducing a scheme or reviewing their existing scheme, as appropriate, to ensure that it provides relief in cases of hardship. However, I also recognise that the longer term solution lies mainly in the hands of the Department. There are unresolved issues relating to the regulation of the waste management sector which include the matter of the social obligations of local authorities regarding waivers. In the shorter term there is scope for the Department to provide guidance for local authorities on the administration of waste waiver schemes.

The primary concern of my investigation was to highlight unfairness in the administration of waste waiver schemes and focus particular attention on how severe an impact the system had on people. In my report I have set out a series of recommendations that should be implemented as a matter of priority by local authorities and the Department to address the problems encountered. My report recommends that each local authority take immediate steps to ensure it has in place a waiver scheme that caters for hardship cases in a fair, equitable and consistent manner and review its position on clients of private operators to ensure hardship cases are provided with relief. I have asked that each local authority proceed immediately with implementation of these recommendations.

Given the responsibilities of the Department regarding local government matters, I have recommended that it take a lead role in helping and encouraging local authorities by carrying out a review of the administrative inconsistencies and anomalies in waste waiver schemes; devising guidelines for local authorities that will assist them in achieving fairness, equity and consistency in the administration of waiver schemes; addressing the legal position on the provision of waiver schemes where the waste collection service has been fully privatised; and expediting consideration of the regulation of the waste management sector, with particular reference to the needs of low-income households with a view to ensuring all households availing of such services, from whatever source, are facilitated with a waiver scheme.

I have indicated that I intend to ask each local authority to furnish me with a progress report on the implementation of my recommendations 12 months after the date of publication of the report. The Department will be asked to report to my office, at six-monthly intervals, on its progress in implementing my recommendations. Since its publication I have written to all county and city managers and the Secretary General of the Department to draw their attention to the report and my recommendations. I have also sought their views and, in particular, an undertaking that they will proceed to implement my recommendations to ensure all local authorities have in place a waiver scheme that caters for hardship cases in a manner that is fair and equitable.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I thank the Ombudsman for her presentation and welcome her team.

The Waste Management Acts refer to the polluter pays principle which applies to everyone, including those on low incomes. I am in favour of low-income families receiving a waiver. I am sure it is not easy for members of those local authorities which do not operate such a system because they used to be greatly involved in securing such waivers. I see no harm in operating a tiered waiver system because those on reasonable incomes find it hard to pay their service charges and sometimes one is also obliged to pay such charges for water, refuse and sewerage services.

The Ombudsman has referred to the local authorities or town councils which have in place private contracts and which ceased to provide this service a number of years ago. Their reason for so doing was the waivers were costing them too much. Consequently, they employed private contractors instead. While they may not have been correct in so doing, they assumed that in getting rid of the collection service and handing it over to private contractors, they had divested themselves of the obligation to provide a waiver scheme. The Ombudsman has now asked such local authorities to reintroduce a system of waivers, regardless of how waste is collected. I agree with such a proposal.

Does the Ombudsman consider local authorities to be the correct organisations to provide waivers for low-income families? Should this not be a matter for the Department of Social and Family Affairs which has all the details of such families? As it has their PPS numbers and all the required information, it could provide a highly accurate assessment as regards who would be entitled to a waiver. While I may be wrong, local authorities do not have access to people's social welfare details and are not in a position to provide such information as easily as the Department would.

My final point pertains to the Ombudsman's comments on waivers for low-income families. I am aware of people who live in rural areas and who do not have a collection service because of the inaccessibility of their place of residence. Will the Ombudsman comment on such persons who would be entitled to a waiver if they were provided with a service?

Ms Emily O’Reilly

On the polluter pays principle, there always has been an argument that by having free bin lifts and so on for people, the incentive is removed. However, most of the local authorities which provide for a waiver system do not do so for everything people put out. They are allocated a certain number per annum, after which they are obliged to pay or recycle. Nevertheless, the Deputy has put his finger on the heart of the argument. For a few years no one has taken ownership of this problem. I do not believe anyone disagrees that there is a social obligation to help those who have a difficulty in paying their refuse charges and I have not encountered anyone who rejects that there is such an obligation. At issue is who will take ownership of this obligation. Many believe, including the Deputy perhaps, that it should be the Department of Social and Family Affairs. While I would not have a principled objection to this, obviously I have taken into account everyone's views. Because local issues and circumstances have such a direct impact on the issue of waste management in respect of the charging schemes, recycling and so on, the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Social and Family Affairs both agree this is a local issue and a matter with which local authorities must grapple. A few years ago the Combat Poverty Agency also examined these issues. It came up with different scenarios and also agreed, because of the local issues involved, that it was a matter with which the local authorities should deal.

I take seriously the commitment of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to take on board my report and examine it in the context of its wider consideration of waste management and the possibility of having clear or fresh regulations. However, while it states local authorities have the power to have contracts with private operators and sort out this problem, this message is not coming across clearly. As one can see, a great number do not have access to a waiver system and are suffering as a result. My report calls for a single body, preferably the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to take control and ownership of the issue. It should tell local authorities there is such a social obligation and how they should deal with it, through a series of recommendations and guidelines. No one disagrees with the fundamental concept that people suffer because of the lack of a waiver. Someone must take control. Based on the views of the many people we consulted in the compilation of the report, it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to so do.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I welcome the Ombudsman and her team and thank her for taking up the invitation to appear before the joint committee. She has put her finger on the issue — that in different parts of the country two old age pensioners who live on the opposite sides of a street can have two different waste collection systems. Given the circumstances of the current regime, one might have the opportunity to avail of a waiver, while the other might not. The language used in the Ombudsman's report, which I assume is deliberate, is scathing. It refers to how the multiplicity and diversity of schemes are shambolic and states that where someone lives or who collects rubbish should not determine whether a waiver can be acquired or how much the set-a-side charge is.

The report is damning of the current system. When it was published, I tabled a parliamentary question inquiring as to the Minister's opinion on the situation. He stated:

Waste management services have traditionally been provided at a local level, with individual arrangements being locally determined and tailored to local circumstances. The present legal framework, as determined by the Oireachtas, reflects this. In accordance with section 52 of the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, the determination of waste management charges, and any associated waiver scheme, is a matter for the relevant local authority, where it acts as the service provider. Similarly, where a private operator provides the collection service, it is a matter for that operator to determine charges.

When outlining the service's problems, the Ombudsman's report provides the same explanation as the Minister's response, which runs at odds with the report. The Minister seems to explain and stand over the system before waffling on about integrated waste collection schemes, which relate to recycling and separating waste. However, the issue in question is about social equity and paying bills. It is not a waste issue.

The Ombudsman mentioned a series of agencies, including the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Combat Poverty Agency, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service and the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament, that deal with marginalised groups and hold determined and evolved opinions in this regard. To elicit some of the Ombudsman's thoughts, I will put some questions her way. Does she agree that a fair, consistent and national waiver scheme should be available to every low-income household, irrespective of whether it uses local authorities or private operators? To achieve this objective, should the necessary change be driven by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the local authorities on the Department's recommendations or the Department of Social and Family Affairs?

In question is the system in which the waiver scheme operates and the structure in which the scheme is held. The system focuses on applying a consumer-friendly waiver scheme consistently across the country. The Ombudsman's report shows that the scheme is not applied universally and waste collection charges, be they in the private or public sector, vary greatly. There are major contradictions. Only one private collector operates a waiver scheme. Increasingly, local authorities are getting out of the business of operating waste management services. Given this, there will be an increase in private collections. Where waste collection is subcontracted to the private sector, has the Ombudsman considered whether the procurement process should require the private contractor to state in its tender how it will manage a waiver system or outline a prescribed waiver system?

What is the main stumbling block to the achievement of the desired outcome of a national waiver scheme? Is it the local authorities, the Department or our own opinions? The Ombudsman mentioned that local authorities traditionally managed waste, but there has been a change of culture in that management. Must there be a major reconsideration of the scheme? It seems to have been left in the landfill.

Something else raised in the report that must be taken on board is the ad hoc nature of the scheme where it is in place. While I do not want to promote that nature, flexibility in a system is necessary and should be applied nationally. I am a former member of Cork City Council, which faces a yearly bill of €3.5 million for trying to implement a waiver scheme. The city manager’s opinion is that this is a substantial sum for a local authority to surrender from its budget every year with no comeback. However, the council provides a generous waiver scheme. Flexibility is required in the system. Otherwise, if one draws a line at a particular income level, one may create anomalies.

Every local authority engages in means testing in two ways, namely, through the rental accommodation scheme and the rent differential. Any tenant of a council house has already been means tested, as has any applicant on a housing waiting list. It is the system and structure argument. The system focuses on people availing of a waiver scheme. The critical element in the development of a structure is the establishment of with whom responsibility for its administration lies.

Where a collection system is fully privatised, what legal anomaly is presented by the absence of a waiver scheme for low-income families? Local authorities providing collection systems seem to allow waivers. The Ombudsman referred to the Act. Does she consider that a wide variation in charges for collection services and the absence of a charge based on weight or volume under the current system represent an inequality of treatment between citizens, which relates to Deputy Fitzpatrick's comments to some extent? What is the Ombudsman's opinion on what would represent a fair threshold for qualification for a waiver system? An example cited in the report is that of Waterford City Council, where the threshold is a social welfare payment being a household's sole source of income. Is this the type of threshold up for consideration? What are the main consequences of the absence of a national equitable system?

The Ombudsman has answered my final question to some extent, but where next will her report go? She has sent it to the Department, which is required to revert to her at six-monthly intervals. She has also contacted various local authorities. Since the report's publication, has she been contacted by the Department or any local authorities? I will reveal the full lack of my knowledge concerning the full functions of the Office of the Ombudsman. At the end of this 12-month cycle, what legal authority does she have to require the Department or local authorities to comply with the report's recommendations?

Ms Emily O’Reilly

I will address the Deputy's last question on responses. This morning, I received a letter from the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stating that a report on the implementation of my recommendations will be sent to me by April of next year. That falls within a six-month period. There has been a trickle of letters from various local authorities commenting on various aspects of the report. The increasing costs are referred to by many, particularly those that operate waiver schemes. In an economic downturn, costs will obviously be higher, which is cause for concern for the local authorities.

Waste management is a significant issue and has gone through a considerable transformation in a relatively short period, partly directed by the EU in terms of environmental protection and so on. The OECD report on the public service looked at waste management, integrated services and so forth. It praised much of Irish waste management practice in terms of the "polluter pays" principle, recycling and so on. However, the overall point was made that because everything raced ahead so quickly, there was a lack of planning in some areas and in a sense, the chickens are now coming home to roost. One of the chickens the report identified was the issue of social obligation. Local authorities were suddenly faced with the high cost of waivers and chose to go down the privatisation route without taking account of their social obligation, even though they were aware of it and were executing that obligation when they provided the service themselves.

The law is silent regarding the obligation on private operators. I refer on page 5 of my report to a High Court judgment delivered in June 2005 which noted that a local authority is not entitled to pay a third party for a waiver scheme. All it is entitled to do is waive a charge it levies for a service it provides or which is provided on its behalf. There is a grey area there and it is not clear that a private operator is under any legal obligation to put a waiver scheme in place. While I recognise this is a matter of Government policy and I cannot be prescriptive, one of the recommendations I have made is that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government clears up that grey area. If this is a barrier to local authorities providing waivers, which many of them believe is the case, there is an onus on the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to clarify the situation.

I will not be prescriptive regarding the amount of waivers and so on but I ask that whatever system is put in place is fair, open, transparent and consistent. If one looks at the complaints received by my office from County Waterford, for example, one can see that Person A earns €180 and is entitled to a waiver while Person B earns €190 and is not entitled to one, and vice versa. Quite simply, as children would say, that is not fair. The system is unfair and everyone recognises that.

I do not want to be prescriptive on the issue of means testing either but income is income, from whatever source. If a person does not have a great deal of income, he or she should be able to make the case for not having to pay the full bin charge. I appreciate that local authorities are wrestling with enormous issues regarding waste management but this issue has been lost sight of and it is definitely a problem, as identified by St. Vincent de Paul, Combat Poverty and others. Now, as we enter an economic downturn, the problem may become worse. Will there be more fly-tipping and damage to the environment caused by people burning their rubbish or dumping it in lay-bys and fields? Will people be put to the pin of their collar even more by having to pay the full bin charges?

What is needed here, and I do not want this to sound too pious, is leadership and will. That leadership and will must come from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Many local authorities are genuinely concerned about meeting their social obligations but they are equally concerned about the cost of doing so. They want some guidance on the issue.

The OECD report is worth reading because it is very complimentary about some of the ways in which this country handles its waste management, while being critical of others. On the issue of costs, it is the view of the OECD that local authorities are not making full use of the commercial potential of recycling. The report argues that private operators are exploiting that potential but the local authorities are not doing so. Perhaps if local authorities developed that area more they would generate the money needed to deal with these waste management issues.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I welcome the Ombudsman and thank her for her very informative presentation. She referred to a very important principle some minutes ago, namely, that any waiver scheme should be fair and transparent. One could add that it should be nationwide. It is unfair to have one local authority applying a waiver scheme and another not doing so. At present, seven local authorities are not operating any waiver scheme at all. Schemes cannot be run in that manner, whereby they apply in some parts of the country but not in others.

On the issue of cost, the waiver in Cork city and county is costing almost €5 million, which is an enormous amount of money by any standards. The nub of the problem is that the service is being provided by local authorities and private operators. Local authorities exist to provide services and the issue of profit is not their overwhelming concern. However, when one is dealing with private companies, profit maximisation is their main objective. There will continue to be problems in this area unless proper standards and criteria are set down for the implementation of waiver schemes. We must be in no doubt about the fact that waiver schemes are enormously important to many people and even more so in the current climate.

There is an inherent unfairness in the situation at present. I come from a rural area where some people need a waiver even more than many of those who are currently availing of one in towns and cities but the playing field is not level for those people. We must roll out waiver schemes to people in isolated rural areas. If there is no proper collection system, they should at least be able to bring their waste to a central drop off point to be collected free of charge or to bring it to an amenity centre which uses a voucher system. The waiver system is enormously important and may well have to be applied to other services in the foreseeable future. Many people are in financial difficulty and are finding it hard to pay for services.

While it might not be common here, waiver systems can be abused. This is an issue which must be examined. The figure for Cork of €5 million, for example, indicates to me that there could be some degree of abuse of the system. If there is a free waste collection service for some, others might also be tempted to avail of it. This is an issue that must be addressed but the bottom line is that if a waiver system is to continue and be carried out in a proper manner, someone will have to take responsibility for it. The local authorities or the Department will have to take responsibility for a scheme that is costing an enormous amount of money. It costs €5 million in Cork but I do not know the total nationwide cost. It is a serious problem. The sooner we get to the bottom of it and make someone responsible, the better.

Ms Emily O’Reilly

Deputy O' Sullivan makes the argument very well with regard to the need for local management of this issue. We talk about the "polluter pays" principle, for example, but if people are getting free bin lifts, there is no incentive for them to recycle any of their waste.

Let us say that a local authority has a particularly excellent recycling policy that is extremely user-friendly and accessible. In that case, one could argue that the waiver should not be as high as in other areas because the authority has made it easier for people to get rid of their waste. That undermines the idea that a one size fits all waiver system, administered through the social welfare system should be adopted.

Those of us who live in cities like Dublin and Cork have our refuse collected from outside our doors and tend to forget that many people in the country do not have such a service. That point was highlighted in the OECD report, which indicated that only 74% of the country is covered and that Ireland is second last in the OECD in terms of the availability of refuse collection services. My office is looking for national guidelines that will ensure the social obligation is seen to, that there is equity, openness and fairness in the system. That has to come from the top, from the leadership at Department level.

Deputy Johnny Brady

I too welcome the Ombudsman and her staff and thank them for coming here today. This is a very worthwhile discussion on a subject which has been a chestnut for a long time. I was a member of Meath County Council from 1974 and I think it was in the 1980s that we privatised the refuse collection service. I spoke to an official recently in the context of difficulties in the service. Some of the operators have stopped taking tagged bags and this has caused a lot of hardship, particularly to the elderly, who normally have very little refuse, and to the less well off sector of society. Some local authorities and companies will provide a large bin or a smaller bin, but this is not happening across the country. There are no regulations whereby local authorities must provide a smaller bin if that is what people want. If we had not privatised the refuse service at that time, it would probably cost three or four times more than the price at which the local operator can do the job. Regrettably there are irresponsible people who continue to dump refuse in beauty spots, forestry areas and so on. Much of this has been stopped, but the practice is continuing to a certain extent.

I understand there is a division in the Dáil, but I wish to ask a final question. If a problem arises and the council writes stating that it is a matter for the private operator, what will be the response?

Chairman

We might get a note on that matter. I wish to refer to page 38 of the report, the appendix. Ten counties operate dual systems involving the local authority and a private operator. In nine of the ten counties the local authority charge is dearer than that of the private operator. One could say the best way to reduce the cost for low paid people is to privatise the service. You might comment on that. A second point is that every Member of these Houses qualifies for tax relief on refuse collection charges, while our elderly neighbours do not. That is clearly inequitable. You might also refer to that.

While private operators collect the waste, many of them take it to the local authority landfill site. Other operators take the waste to private landfill sites. The collection of waste accounts for only a portion of the cost. Most of the costs are incurred in the operation of the landfill. There might be a mechanism whereby the local authority could recoup part of the landfill costs from the people who deliver the waste.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Many private operators will say their charges must be at a certain level because of the local authority charge.

Chairman

I apologise that we have to curtail the meeting owing to a division in the Dáil Chamber.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 December 2008.