Appendix 1
Questionnaire on Waivers of Waste Charges
1. Please indicate by clicking on the box, which of the following waste collection services are provided in your Council area and state the average annual cost per household.
Local Authority Service Annual Cost
Private Collector Annual Cost
LA and Private Annual Cost
Other Annual Cost
Comments
2. What percentage of households in the Council area avail of
(a) Local Authority Service
(b) Private Collection Service
(c) Other
3. Details of your waste collection charging system and amount of charges:
Flat Charge Amount
Bin Tags Amount
Pay by Weight Amount
Green Bin Charge Amount
Brown Bin Charge Amount
Other Amount
Comments
4. Does your Council have a Waste Waiver Scheme?
If yes, attach a copy and give full details of type and amount of waiver.
For example: % reduction in charge, number of free bin tags etc
Comments
If no, proceed to Question 15.
5. Please give details of the qualifying criteria to avail of a waiver.
6. Does the Council’s scheme provide for a waiver for all households on income below a set threshold?
If yes, please outline how an applicant’s income is assessed, including details of any proofs of income that an applicant is required to submit.
7. Does the Council’s scheme provide for a waiver where the qualifying criteria are based on payments/income that are means tested by another body e.g. Department of Social and Family Affairs?
If yes, does the Council have concerns that this can result in inequity of treatment
e.g. in cases of applicants on similar incomes from non means-tested sources such as Invalidity or Contributory Old Age Pensions?
Comments
8. If difficulties or questions of equity arise, by reason of relying on a means test carried out by another body, does the Council carry out its own means test?
If no, why not?
9. Does the Council scheme provide for the exercise of discretion in the case of low income households who do not qualify for a waiver under the strict terms of the scheme?
If yes, please provide details:
If no, please explain why the scheme does not so provide:
10. How are households notified of the availability of a waiver?
11. How are households notified of the grant/refusal of a waiver?
12. Can an applicant appeal a refusal to grant a waiver?
If yes, please give details of the appeal process in place.
13. Details of the number of waiver applications received and the number granted/refused in 2006
Received
Granted
Refused
14. Cost of the waiver scheme for 2006 (not including administration costs)
Cost of administering the scheme for 2006
15. How is the cost of providing waivers funded?
From refuse service charges
Own resources (specify area)
Other
Comments
16. If the Council does not operate a waiver scheme, please state whether such a scheme has been considered?
If yes, the reasons why it has not been provided?
If no, the reasons why it has not been considered?
17. If all or part of the waste collection service in the area of the Council is provided by private collectors, does the private collector offer a waiver of charges?
If yes, please give details?
If no, the Council’s views on whether it (the Council) should offer a waiver to the customers of private collectors?
Comments
18. Has the Council received any complaint(s) about uncollected waste as a result of failure to avail of the waste collection system in place?
If yes, indicate the number of complaints received in each of the last three years, together with details of the response of the Council?
If yes, how many of these complaints can be linked to the issue of waivers?
19. If relevant, does each Town/Borough Council within the County operate the same waiver system as the County Council?
20. Any general comments the Council wishes to make which may be helpful to the Ombudsman in this review. These might include details/comments on problems encountered in providing waivers, complaints received, availability of resources, administration issues or any other matter considered relevant?
21. E-mail address and telephone number of Council’s contact person.
Please return this questionnaire by email only to: anne_o’reilly@ombudsman.gov.ie
Appendix 4
Waste Management Hardship Fund - Monaghan County Council
The domestic refuse collection service in County Monaghan has been privatised for a number of years. Consequently, there is no longer a waiver scheme in place for householders in receipt of a low income. In response to genuine hardship experienced by some householders in coping with the costs of paying for their refuse collection service, the Members of Monaghan County Council decided to establish a Hardship Fund for those most in need. There is a small annual budget set aside each year for this fund: the provision for 2007 is €20,000.
The Council recognises that there are many thousands of people living in the County who are in receipt of social welfare payments. However, in order to qualify for assistance from the Hardship Fund, applicants must satisfy the Council that their circumstances are worse than the majority of other low – income householders. Applications are assessed on a case-by–case basis. Examples of cases where assistance has been given include:
- Families where a member of the household has been diagnosed with a very serious illness who may incur significant additional expenditure travelling to hospital for treatment, visits etc.
- Recent bereavement giving rise to funeral and other costs
- Families caring for an elderly or disabled relative who needs to use incontinence pads
(Pay-by-weight is the most commonly used service in Monaghan: Incontinence pads add considerably to the weight of refuse bins and cannot be recycled / disposed of in any other manner).
Whilst Monaghan County Council has never advertised the availability of this assistance, the Elected Members (since it was they who decided to adopt the scheme) are all aware of the scheme and will frequently make its existence known to constituents they encounter who are experiencing grave hardship. Referrals are also often made by MABS (Money Advice and Budgeting Service) and the Society of St Vincent de Paul has also been instrumental in highlighting cases of special need.
Applicants for assistance from the fund are asked to submit a copy of their most recent refuse collection bill. The Council only makes a contribution towards the cost – usually 50%. Cheques are paid directly to the Waste Contractor not to the householder.
In 2006, 45 people received assistance and the total expended was €6,205. In 2007 to date, the number of applicants assisted was 35 and expenditure to date( October 2007) is €4,747.
Appendix 6
Submission by the Society of St Vincent de Paul
Introduction
While we support the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’, SVP is concerned that many low-income households are experiencing poverty due to the waste charges structure in a number of local authorities. There have been significant increases in waste charges in recent years coupled with a growing shift to private sector providers, whose main concern is cost effectiveness rather than protecting low-income households from unnecessary financial burdens. Private operators are under no obligation to provide a waiver scheme. Operational aspects of waste management policy are decided upon at local Government level, resulting in different systems operating in different counties .
The Current Policy
The current Pay by Volume / Pay by weight systems, while having clear environmental merits, pose a number of key problems and anomalies:
- Some Local authorities have a standing charge (recycling service included in this)
and any refuse pick-up is an additional cost;
- some have no standing charge and sell bags for waste, with a recycling service as an optional extra to pay for on top of the bag system;
- while some people on social welfare are entitled to a waiver, others in a neighbouring county – or even a neighbouring estate - may not be; and
- payment methods often do not assist the budgeting behaviour of low income households.
The Society notes also that there is an implicit inequality in the existing structure as tax relief is available to ‘tax-payers’ while low wage households who pay little or no income tax do not benefit from such relief. The relief is paid at 20% and therefore in some instances will equate to a saving of up to €100.
The Society welcomes the present advertising campaign of this relief as we believe that many low wage households on the standard tax rate are unaware that they are entitled to any tax relief whatsoever, and even if aware, are often unsure how to claim such relief.
To date, the state has failed to develop a consistent and comprehensive scheme to assist poorer households with such charges. To compound matters, there is often a lack of adequate recycling facilities, particularly in rural areas. At the local level, Conferences of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul provide financial assistance as a direct result of the hardship caused by lack of appropriate support with domestic waste charges.
Some Examples of the Present Situation
Grange in Douglas, Cork: a tale of two systems – Ardfield and Hollyville Estates
A waiver system operates in the Ardfield estate. Both estates have social housing units and according to the Society of St. Vincent De Paul some families who are experiencing financial hardship are further burdened by the waste management fee and the lack of a waiver system in the Hollyville Estate. It would appear to the SVP, and it is the perception of residents, that there is an unfair bias against those people who live in a Housing Estate where there is no longer a local authority collection. SVP assisted one family with €185 for six months waste collection.
Dublin 15: The difficulties faced by our volunteers
The SVP Conference have found it necessary to help clean out back gardens, and have helped with the replacement of stolen bins also. It is worth noting that for volunteers such work is very difficult and I believe the conference can no longer assist in such demanding physical work.
Dundrum: The inequalities within a Local Authority Complex.
The problems in this instance have to do with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council (DLRC) charging apartment dwellers (specifically their own tenants) in Rosemount Court a "common figure" for waste collection charges. If a single old lady (pensioner) lives in an apartment and puts out waste contained in a couple of small supermarket plastic bags per week she gets charged the same amount annually as her neighbour who might be a couple with two children on either social welfare or with one partner working at least.
Consequences of the Present System
Through the work of our volunteers the Society sees at first hand the direct consequences for individuals and families of the present system. These include rubbish building up in peoples’ back gardens leading to public health concerns, dangers for children, neighbour unease, and potentially anti-social behaviour. Having to pay full charges also has an impact on other household discretionary budgets such as food / clothing / entertainment. It is also worth recording the experience of Medical Burns Units who have mentioned the increase in burns due to the burning of household rubbish.
In order to try and deal with these issues the Society has paid for the costs of private skips, the costs of cleaning out houses and vermin control. At local level the Society has also come to arrangements with Local Authorities and Private Waste Collectors.
Monaghan: Finding a local solution with the assistance of SVP
The SVP locally enjoy a good relationship with the Local Authority. In some instances the SVP has more flexibility to assist families which the County Council may not have. This working relationship has been extended to include the provision of waste management services. While a private operator provides services in the town, the local SVP came to an arrangement with the County Council that in specified cases the County Council would in fact pay the bin rental (standing charge) to the private operator – basically an informal waiver. For their part the Society continues to assist these households, either directly with waste management issues or on other issues.
Westport: Negotiating with Private Collectors
Mayo Co. Co introduced private waste collection in January 2007. In meeting with the SVP our members were informed that the issue was now a private matter between customer and provider. The SVP had to resort to seeking meetings with one local provider who is now providing a significant discount to tenants living in SVP owned homes.
The Conundrum of Private Waste Collection
The majority of local authorities use the private sector to deliver waste management services to at least some extent in their counties. Waste collection permits are the means by which local government regulates private waste companies. Unfortunately, the waste collection permits fail to make mandatory the following: any aspect of pricing, payment policy or consumer protection (in contrast to essentially all other aspects of the waste management issue). As a direct result, we believe the majority of areas under private provision do not provide any form of income protection to poorer households. In counties where this is the case, SVP is very concerned about the barriers in establishing a system which protects low-income households while encouraging the reduction of household waste.
What SVP want
We believe that Government should allocate adequate resources for a consistent, country-wide system to assist those on low income - on both social welfare and low wage incomes - with their domestic waste costs. We believe that this can be done while continuing to encourage those households to recycle where possible.
Possible Policy Solutions
There is a need to integrate any policy development with Social Partnership initiatives on Waste Management as a matter of urgency. SVP recommend that Government introduce a locally administered system, based on the free allocation of two different amounts of bags / tags / bins. This free allocation can be based on sound environmental practice, by giving a limited number of tags or bags, and on the assumption that households will reduce, reuse and recycle a proportion of household consumption. A larger amount of these would be for households solely dependent on social welfare, and a smaller amount – perhaps half - would be available for low wage households, with incomes below FIS levels. However, the additional costs associated with the increased local / central administration of this scheme would require resources from a central Government fund.
An assumption that households will reduce, reuse and recycle can only be made if there are adequate, comprehensive, accessible and advertised facilities across the state in order to do so. It is also important that free waste tags / bags / bins should not look different to the pre-paid tags in order to avoid stigma.
Conclusions
Ultimately, this is an issue for Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG), given that they are the parent department, and did not poverty proof this policy in the first instance – an action they are obliged to do under the National Anti-Poverty Strategy. If DEHLG believe they do not have a brief in this area, the SVP would like to remind them that they currently operate an income support policy through the operation of the Differential Rent Scheme in the local authority housing sector. A social welfare solution alone is flawed for two reasons:
- It is not available for households in low wage employment – unless you channel and ring-fence additional resources through FIS (which in any event has a low take-up)
- It does not provide any incentives for households to reduce, re-use, recycle or compost.
Recommendations
SVP Believe that the Government should:
- Provide sufficient levels of recycling infrastructure – low income households can only minimise waste if there are opportunities to comprehensively reduce their domestic waste.
- Develop a locally based system using a particular level of free allocation of tags / stickers / bags or bins (according to weight or volume) for social welfare dependent households and a smaller free allocation for households headed by those on a low wage. In order to do this, Government will have to:
- Change the private permit system to incorporate the new measures outlined above. Failing this, Government will have to:
- Challenge the legal position with regard to the current permits system. If this cannot happen, Government may have no choice but to find a social welfare solution to the problem, which is flawed for reasons outlined above
- Regarding existing social welfare provisions, develop a standard set of guidelines relating to the waiver dimension of waste charging systems urgently.
The Society would like to thank the Office of the Ombudsman for undertaking this review.
Appendix 7
Submission by the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament
Why Should Waste Charges be waived for Pensioners?
The Irish Senior Citizens parliament wishes to make a submission on behalf of older people who are paying waste charges at present. The parliament takes the position that waste charges should be waived for all pensioners and for other social welfare and low-income groups.
At present many pensioners live at risk of poverty. Half of all pensioners are solely dependent on the state pension (CSO, 2007) and extra costs like waste charges erode their real income. The system is inequitable as some local authorities operate a waiver scheme and others do not. We can find no justifiable reason for this inconsistency other than the fact that it seems to be the result of uncoordinated policy-making. Simply put, no consistent national waiver system has been developed. The result is that older people in some areas benefit from a waiver, while many more do not. Of the 34 local authorities surveyed on this issue last year, just half operated a waiver scheme. 1
1 O’Callaghan-Platt and Davies A. (2006) ‘A Nationwide Review of Pay-By-Use (PBU) Domestic Waste Collection Charges in Ireland: Extensive Survey Findings (2005-WRM-MS-33) Interim Report Wexford: EPA
Where a wavier scheme does operate, there are inconsistent means of accessing the waiver. Some local authorities demand that older people apply for a waiver, undergo a means test or make an individual hardship case. Older people who are most at a disadvantage are those who have no waiver and must meet a large annual charge.
The parliament calls for a national system whereby all local authorities must operate a waiver scheme in order to avoid undue hardship for older people, or indeed for any low income families. At present those older people on the lowest incomes, namely pensioners reliant solely on the state pension, spend a disproportionate amount of their income on waste charges. This is of grave concern to the parliament as it means those older people living just above the poverty line may be pulled below it again, thereby widening the income distribution gap between low income families and the rest of the population.
To address this concern, the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament would like to make two simple recommendations to government:
1. Implement a national waiver system for waste charges ensuring that all pensioners are entitled to a waiver on waste charges.
2. Make this waiver part of the existing Household benefits package.
Were government to adopt these measures a far more equitable and efficient system of waste charging would result. This system would benefit everyone, but especially our older generation.
Appendix 8
Letter to Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Ms Geraldine Tallon,
Secretary General,
Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government,
Custom House,
Dublin, 1.
12 September, 2007
Review of Refuse Waiver Schemes
Dear Ms Tallon,
I would like to congratulate you on your recent appointment as Secretary General of the Department and to wish you every success for the future in your new position.
I wish to advise you that the Ombudsman has been dealing with a number of complaints in relation to alleged inequity in schemes operated by local authorities concerning the matter of waivers of refuse charges. The Ombudsman has decided to use the power contained in Section 4 (3)(b) of the Ombudsman Act, 1980 to carry out a general review of the operation of waiver schemes in local authorities. It is intended that the review will (a) highlight the key issues arising, (b) focus on the adverse effects suffered by some local authority clients, and (c) consider the options for mitigating any such adverse effects.
As part of this review a selected number of local authorities have been requested to complete a questionnaire in relation to their waste collection systems and to provide details of any refuse waiver scheme in operation. A copy of the questionnaire is enclosed for your information. The Ombudsman intends to publish a report on the outcome of the review and in that regard it would be helpful to have the views of the Department on the general issues arising so that the Ombudsman can reflect them in her report.
In the responses to the questionnaire a significant number of local authorities have made the following comments:
- local authorities lack the resources to provide a waiver scheme which would be equitable to all low income households;
- the resources of the local authority are used to fund the scheme and if costs are passed to the paying customer it would make the service non-competitive;
- private operators are not required to provide a waiver, therefore, local authorities are at a disadvantage;
- extending the local authority waiver scheme to include customers of private operators would weaken the competitive position of the local authority;
- a national waiver system is the best solution in the interests of fairness and equity,
- a national waiver system should be funded through the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
It is clear from the information provided to date that the refuse waiver schemes being operated by local authorities vary greatly, particularly in the category of persons deemed to qualify for relief. There is a lack of consistency across the board and we are aware that, in the geographical area of at least one County, there are three different schemes in operation all with different qualifying criteria. The result is that the relief, if any, available to low-income families is often dictated by the location in which they reside and the source of their income, rather than their ability to pay. The lack of consistency or uniformity of approach is a cause for concern, from an administrative perspective.
You may be aware that this Office wrote to the Department some time ago concerning difficulties, including the matter of inconsistency in the administration of the Disabled Persons Grant (DPG). In response the Department advised that it was reviewing the scheme with the aim of developing a more seamless set of responses to the housing needs of older people and people with disabilities, "to ensure the available funding is targeted to those persons in greatest need of such assistance, to improve equity and consistency and to streamline administrative and operational procedures". The Department published its new policy statement on DPG in "Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities". Perhaps a similar uniformity of approach would provide the solution to this issue also.
The Ombudsman notes that the 2005 Combat Poverty Agency report "Implementing a Waiver System" recommended the introduction of a National Waiver System and outlined 3 models for implementing such a system (1) via local authorities, (2) via the tax credit system, and (3) via the Social Welfare System. In this regard perhaps the Department would state:
(a) its views on the recommendations of the above mentioned report; and
(b) whether the Department has:
(i) initiated any action following consideration of the above report; and/or
(ii) entered into any dialogue/communication with the Department of Social and Family Affairs on this issue, and if so, the outcome of such
dialogue/communication.
As the deadline for the completion of the review, including a draft report, is the end of September 2007, a reply within 3 weeks would be appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
-------------------
Pat Whelan
Director General
Appendix 9
Submission by Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Waiver schemes in respect of waste management charges
Response to query in the Office of the Ombudsman letter of 12 September 2007
Query
“The Ombudsman notes that the 2005 Combat Poverty Agency report “Implementing a Waiver System” recommended the introduction of a National Waiver Scheme and outlined 3 models for implementing such a system (1) via local authorities, (2) via the tax credit system, and (3) via the Social Welfare System. In this regard perhaps the Department would state:
(a) its views on the recommendations of the above mentioned report; and
(b) whether the Department has:
(i) initiated any action following consideration of the above report; and/or
(ii) entered into any dialogue/communication with the Department of Social and Family Affairs on this issue, and if so, the outcome of such dialogue/communication.”
Response
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.
Where, as is commonly the case, a private operator (some 20 of 34 local authorities) is providing the service then that operator will set the charges. Similarly, in regard to waiver schemes in respect of these charges, it is a matter for the local authority concerned to determine the nature and extent of any such scheme in the case of services provided by itself. Generally speaking waiver schemes do not operate in respect of privately supplied collection services. There is legal advice to the effect that such a scheme is not legally provided for in circumstances where the private sector are providing the service. However, where a local authority enters into an arrangement with a private operator to provide a service to certain households a waiver scheme can apply. Local authorities have been asked by the Department to engage with commercial waste collectors to agree on arrangements to assist lower-income households by offering alternative payment methods to an annual lump-sum.
Since 2005 local authority and private providers of waste collection services are expected to introduce charges on a pay-by-use basis. This is intended to promote more responsible behaviour on the part of individuals by rewarding those who minimise their waste and reuse/recycle. The general increase in charges in this context has to be viewed against the background of the exponential increase in the cost of providing waste management services given the need to comply with necessary but stringent environmental standards and to fund extensive recycling infrastructure.
In a broader setting the issue of waste charges and low income persons/households has been raised in the Social Partnership context. The community and voluntary sector have argued that low-income households in areas serviced by private waste collectors are treated inequitably in comparison to those receiving waivers from local authorities; that they are also treated inequitably in comparison to higher income households in the same areas, as the latter can avail of tax relief on their waste charges; and that real hardship arises in certain cases as a result.
Discussions have taken place between the Department and the Department of Social and Family Affairs in response to the issues raised. It did not prove possible however to identify a mechanism to address the issues raised through the social welfare system.
The Combat Poverty Agency report again raised the issues surrounding the operation of waiver schemes in certain areas but not in others. The report gives background on the waiver issue, including the legal context, and goes on to look at three models for delivering what is regarded as a more equitable, across local authorities, system. The existing variable systems are seen as producing unacceptable differentials in entitlements to people of similar means.
The report fully acknowledges the centrality of the polluter pays principle and that incentives should exist for all households to control waste generation and maximise recycling.
Essentially the authors look at possible models for delivering what they would regard as a more nationally equitable waiver system and come down on balance in favour of one. The three options considered in the report are a locally based system, an exclusively tax credit system and a social welfare system. The tax credit option is ruled out given the numbers of people in the target population who would be outside the tax net. Ultimately the report comes down in favour of the locally based system as against the social welfare system. In discussing the locally based system the points made include:
- it would involve the least disruption over the present system;
- a bin tagging system is seen as the best option (this would permit frequent payment of small amounts for those on low income but who would continue to pay in whole or part and would allow the polluter pays principle to apply to exempted households by limiting the number of tags to be made available to a pre-determined number);
- funding the scheme should not involve cross subsidisation within the local authority but outside the waste area i.e. it should be funded by other users paying additionality;
- the potential for national funding is addressed and the allocation of funds by the Department of Social and Family Affairs is considered a possibility "if it is accepted that the waiver scheme represents a form of social welfare" (no definite recommendation is made in this regard but this Department is not considered as a potential source of funding).
It should be noted that the main focus of the report is in respect of local authority provided services.
The issue of waiver schemes was considered by Dail Eireann in February 2005 in the context of a motion which was not carried and which called for the introduction of a National Waiver Scheme . On that occasion, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government explained the Government’s policy on the issue. It has been the policy of successive Governments that waste charges should take account of the polluter pays principle in line with EU and wider international best practice – in other words, charges for waste services should reflect the costs of providing them and should be paid by those who generate the waste. There is an explicit provision to that effect in Section 22 (6) of the Waste Management Act 1996.
The switch to use based charges over the past few years is intended to reward those who generate least waste and who are most active in recycling. The precise charging mechanism in any given area will inevitably be fitted to local circumstances, local costs and available technology.
In regard to the waiving of such charges, each individual local authority has the power to make a waiver scheme where it is the service provider, or to make appropriate arrangements with the private sector, where it is not. In this way local solutions can be tailored to local circumstances with proper application of the subsidiarity principle. Ideally any such arrangement should also reflect the polluter pays principle and incorporate an incentive to recycle waste, though historically this has not been the case.
In practice, waiver schemes are generally available where the local authority provides the service directly. Where services are provided by private collectors, local authorities have the power, under existing provisions, to make special arrangements in the case of hardship if they consider it necessary. Some local authorities do so, although on a very limited scale.
There is one further development which is relevant to this issue. A public consultation has concluded on issues surrounding the overall regulation of the waste management sector. Stakeholders and the general public were invited to make submissions on whether there is a need for a regulator for the sector, on what model of regulator might be most appropriate and on what powers any such regulator should be given. Among the possible powers identified is the power to impose a public service obligation. This is a feature of regulation in some other sectors, and effectively requires contractors to operate cross-subsidisation so that services can be provided where they would not otherwise be economically feasible. The various submissions received and the issues raised will be considered further in the context of the review of waste management generally provided for in the Government’s policy programme and which will shortly be initiated.
To summarise the position then, it has never been the practice for central Government to determine operational matters in regard to waste management. Waste management is a service that is one of the oldest provided by local authorities. It is the Government’s view that, working to national and EU environmental standards, local authorities should be free to tailor services to local needs and that a local approach to the determination of charges, and any waiver of such charges, is consistent with this.
Appendix 10
Letter to Departmentof Social and Family Affairs
Ms Bernadette Lacey,
Secretary General,
Department of Social and Family Affairs,
Aras Mhic Dhiarmada,
Store Street,
Dublin,1.
12 September, 2007
Review of Refuse Waiver Schemes
Dear Secretary General,
I wish to advise you that the Ombudsman has been dealing with a number of complaints in relation to alleged inequity in schemes operated by local authorities concerning the matter of waivers of refuse charges. The Ombudsman has decided to use the power contained in Section 4 (3)(b) of the Ombudsman Act, 1980 to carry out a general review of the operation of waiver schemes in local authorities. It is intended that the review will (a) highlight the key issues arising, (b) focus on the adverse effects suffered by some local authority clients, and (c) consider the options for mitigating any such adverse effects.
As part of this review a selected number of local authorities have been requested to complete a questionnaire in relation to their waste collection systems and to provide details of any refuse waiver scheme in operation. A copy of the questionnaire is enclosed for your information.
In the responses to the questionnaire a significant number of local authorities have made the following comments:
- local authorities lack the resources to provide a waiver scheme which would be equitable to all low income households;
- a national waiver system is the best solution in the interests of fairness and equity,
- a national waiver system should be funded through the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
The Ombudsman notes that the 2005 Combat Poverty Agency(CPA) report "Implementing a Waiver System" recommended the introduction of a National Waiver System and outlined 3 models for implementing such a system (1) via local authorities, (2) via the tax credit system, and (3) via the Social Welfare System.The Ombudsman intends to publish a report on the outcome of the review and in that regard it would be helpful to have the views of your Department on the issue of a National Refuse Waiver System implemented via the Social Welfare system so that the Ombudsman can reflect them in her report.
In this regard perhaps the Department would state:
(a) its views on the recommendations of the above mentioned CPA report; and
(b) whether the Department has:
(i) initiated any action following consideration of the above report; and/or
(ii) entered into any dialogue/communication with the Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government on this issue, and if so, the outcome of such dialogue/communication.
As the deadline for the completion of the review, including a draft report, is the end of September 2007, a reply within 3 weeks would be appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
---------------
Pat Whelan
Director General
Appendix 11
Submission by Department of Social and Family Affairs
I refer to your letter of 12 September 2007 in relation to the Ombudsman's review of refuse waiver schemes.
The setting of waste management charges and the introduction of waivers in respect of such is a matter for each local authority. As you know, local authorities operate under the auspices of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
This is very definitely a local issue and local authorities have all the necessary powers to operate waiver schemes in their areas. Indeed, some local authorities already operate good waiver schemes and not just those where the refuse collection service is provided directly by the local authority. In some areas private contractors are involved in a waiver scheme. Minster Cullen reinforced this point recently in a recent Dail debate on the issue:
"The local authorities have all the necessary powers to operate waiver schemes in their areas. It is a matter on which local councilors in the local authorities should make the decision. They can do it by involving themselves in the estimates process."
It has been suggested that this 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.
This Department is responsible for the Household Benefits Package (formerly known as the Free Schemes) which provides recipients with assistance with their gas/electricity and telephone costs and covers the full cost of a television licence. The possibility of extending this package to cover other socially desirable goods which could include waste charges has been considered. The Review of the Free Schemes carried out in 2000 explained that other State agencies and indeed local authorities can introduce their own similar schemes if they wish as follows:
"While recipients consider the Free Schemes to be very valuable, there is continual pressure to extend these schemes to other socially desirable goods. Any new schemes would add to that pressure and divert resources from other areas such as increasing the basic rate of payment. However, there is nothing to preclude other State agencies introducing their own schemes, such as Local Authorities extending Free Dog Licences, as part of their wider social obligations. Many private companies already extend concessions to pensioners in order to increase their business usage, as part of their social aims and as recognition of the value they have received from their customers over the years. It is not the business of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs to provide for all socially desirable items of expenditure, even if there was agreement on what those items of expenditure might be.”
In any event, the introduction of a national social welfare scheme to address the issue of waste charges would not be feasible given the wide range of charging regimes and cost structures that exist in respect of waste management throughout the State. As you know, charges vary across local authorities and within local authorities where there is more than one provider. In addition, as I mentioned above, 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 (CPA) 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.
As you mention, the CPA report considered the various options for waste charging delivery models, examining a locally operated waiver system implemented via local authorities; a tax credit system implemented nationally, via the existing taxation scheme; and a social welfare system implemented nationally as part of the social welfare mechanism.
Each option was considered in terms of its operation, its implementation from a household perspective, its advantages and disadvantages, and its cost implications.
Each option was also analysed in terms of its fit with the guidelines, and in terms of procurement options. The report concluded that, if a suitable procurement approach could be developed, the locally operated waiver system would offer the most effective delivery model and this Department is in agreement with that consideration.
There have been some discussions between officials from this Department and colleagues in the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government on this issue. That Department is aware of our position.
You may know that one of the waste management commitments in the Programme for Government is to ensure that “flat rates on waste disposal will be abolished and a mandatory system of weight-related charges for waste collection introduced." This of course is a matter for the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
I trust this information is helpful to you.
Appendix 12
Response of Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government to the Draft Report
29 May 2008
Mr Pat Whelan
Director General
Office of the Ombudsman
18 Lower Leeson Street
Dublin 2
Dear Mr Whelan,
Thank you for providing us with a copy of your draft report on waiver schemes administered by local authorities.
The Department welcomes this report by the Ombudsman as a significant contribution to an issue which has been the subject of repeated comment by stakeholders and will be giving the report, and in particular the recommendations contained within it, our fullest consideration in the context of the ongoing review of the regulation of the waste management sector.
The report highlights issues in the operation of waiver schemes operated by local authorities and the absence of such schemes in areas serviced by the private sector. These are matters which have previously been raised in the social partnership context by the community and voluntary sector who have argued that low-income households in areas serviced by private waste collectors are treated inequitably in comparison to those receiving waivers from local authorities; that they are also treated inequitably in comparison to higher income households in the same areas, as the latter can avail of tax relief on their waste charges; and that real hardship arises in certain cases as a result. As noted previously, discussions have taken place between this Department and the Department of Social and Family Affairs in response to the issues raised but it did not prove possible to identify a mechanism to address the issues raised through the social welfare system.
It is recognised that significant regulatory issues have emerged as waste management services have rapidly evolved in recent years, including through the rapid growth in, and consolidation of, the private waste management sector. These matters have been the subject of a formal public consultation, including the dual role of local authorities as regulators and service providers, the need to ensure that waste services are provided in a manner consistent with the achievement of national and EU environmental objectives and targets, and the need to ensure that necessary public service criteria in relation to the provision of services in particular areas or in respect of specific households are properly reflected regardless of whether the service is provided by the public or private sector.
There is no doubt that the existing regulatory framework requires modernisation. The identification of the changes necessary will be greatly assisted by the recent OECD review of the Irish public service, which included a specific case study on waste management, and will be implemented in the context of the overall review of national waste management policy provided for in the Programme for Government and now being initiated.
Yours sincerely
------------------
Geraldine Tallon
Secretary General