Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 2021

Collection and Recycling of Farm Plastics: Discussion

As Mr. Walker is still not with us, I suggest that we move on to the Irish Farm Film Producers Group, IFFPG. Is that agreed? Agreed. The purpose of this session is to discuss the collection and recycling of farm plastics. We have been joined by Mr. Liam Moloney, general manager, Mr. Tom Dunne, chairperson and Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan, company secretary, IFFPG. You are all very welcome to the meeting. I thank you for attending to clarify a number of issues for the committee. We have received the group's opening statement and it has been circulated to members. We are limited on time due to Covid-19 safety restrictions. The committee has agreed that opening statements will be taken as read such that the full session can be used for questions and answers. All opening statements are published on the Oireachtas website, and publicly available.

Before we begin, I wish to point out to witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Participants in the committee meeting who are in locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating from within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether or the extent to which participation is covered by the absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

I will now open the floor to questions from members. As Deputy Leddin has indicated that he has another engagement I will allow him to go first. He will be followed by Senator Boyhan.

I thank the Chair for facilitating me. My questions are for the witness from the Department so I will pass for now and allow Senator Boyhan to proceed.

I thank the witnesses for attending this meeting. This is a very interesting topic. For the benefit of those following these proceedings I would like to point out that agri-plastics are the large plastics one sees on bales of silage. Most members of the public will have at some point in the year noted them going up and down the roads.

I have a number of questions. I get the sense that there is a significant stockpiling of this plastic that has not been processed and that there are issues and a number of difficulties in terms of how it is being processed. This is not a blame game, but we need to fully understand the current capacity in terms of the management of agricultural plastics which are a difficulty commodity to deal with. I am not sure if the witnesses heard the Chairman's earlier remarks in regard to the end product as he viewed it at the particular plant he visited. That is encouraging. We need to understand that, the significant costs involved and the issues in regard to the environment. Are the witnesses aware of large stockpiling of these agricultural-related industrial plastics? If so, where are they? In terms of their operation, what level of capacity does it have to stockpile, retain or store plastics for processing? Do the witnesses believe that the industry has the capacity to deal with the problem? It is a big problem. We do not fully understand what is going on. As part of the committee's work we are here today to tease out those issues with the witnesses. We also want the witnesses to share with us their experience and, more important, their knowledge about this sector. I ask the witnesses to address the stockpiling issue, the capacity to deal with it and the end product. I would like them to focus on that and to share with us their understanding in that regard. That would be very helpful to the committee.

I invite Mr. Moloney to respond.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Good afternoon everybody. There is no doubt that the recycling market has been difficult over the past number of years because of the decision taken by the Chinese three years ago to stop importing plastic waste. However, it has improved in the recent past. In our case, we carried over 10,000 to 12,000 tonnes of waste from last year. We expect to collect in the region of 30,000 to 35,000 tonnes this year at our bring centres and at the farmyard. We are confident that the vast majority of that will be recycled in advance of the commencement of the 2022 season. It is a difficult situation, but as far as we are concerned it is one that is being managed correctly and we are confident that we will be able to recycle all the material that we collect.

Due to audio drop-off, I did not hear figure for the expected collection this year. Perhaps Mr. Moloney would repeat it.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We expect to collect in the region of 30,000 to 35,000 tonnes this year and we are carrying over 10,000 to 12,000 tonnes from last year. We would expect that the vast majority, if not all, of that will be recycled before the commencement of the bring centre programme for 2022.

The carryover is substantial. How is that stored and why is the plant carrying over to that extent? What are the financial implications on all aspects of the chain in relation to that carryover? Where is the inspectorate around all of this? I ask Mr. Moloney to share that information with the committee.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We are carrying over the material because the market has been so difficult in recent years that we have found it hard to get enough outlets to collect all of the material that we have been collecting at the farmyards and bringing to our bring centres. As I said, the situation is improving somewhat. The material is being stored in our contractors' yards. Currently, we have four contractors. The material is stored in their yards. Their yards are permitted by the relevant local authorities. We are licensed by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Every year we submit a detailed operations report as well as detailed audited accounts to the Department . The Department checks those to make sure it is happy with how we are performing.

What is the role of the local authorities? Mr. Moloney has said that the Department and the local authorities have roles and that the IFFPG submits a report.. Are the reports ever challenged, inspected, validated or audited? What is Mr. Moloney's experience?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The local authorities issue the permits to waste facilities throughout the country. Their job is to inspect all waste facilities routinely and to ask the waste facility owners to submit reports. Our contractors co-operate fully with local authorities in that regard.

What is the outcome of the reports? What feedback has the IFFPG been getting? Have there been any shortcomings, in Mr. Moloney's experience? Has there been any criticism? Have any recommendations been made? Has the IFFPG responded to those recommendations? What actions have been taken?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The local authorities deal with our contractors rather than the IFFPG directly, but the feedback we have received is that the local authorities are happy with the service that our contractors are providing. They are also happy with the waste facilities that our contractors are operating.

So, the IFFPG has not received any negative feedback in the last few years.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Nothing substantial that I am aware of. We are managing our business very efficiently. The market is difficult. We are carrying forward material [interruptions] within the calendar year. That has not been possible in recent years. Our contractors are managing their facilities very responsibly and local authorities are happy with them.

I thank our guests for coming in. I wish to clarify the point in my own mind. As I understand it, all of the waste that is collected is collected by contractors rather than by the IFFPG directly. Is that what Mr. Moloney has indicated?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The way it works is that we use contractors to collect the waste on our behalf, but we own the waste from the point that it is collected from the farmer until it is supplied to the recycler. The contractor is paid a management fee for managing the waste for us.

I assume that fee increases if the contractor has to store the waste for a lengthy period of time.

Mr. Liam Moloney

There is no storage aspect to the fee. The fee is paid based on collection, baling and transport.

So, the contractor is responsible for baling.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Exactly. We pay the contractor a fee per tonne to collect, bale and transport. The fees vary for the different contractors that we have. It is all based on a tendering process.

Is it correct that there are set fees that are charged to farmers for collection, namely, €50 to bring the waste to the bring centres or €100 for on-farm collection?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is correct.

So, the difference between what the contractor is paid and the cost to the farmer goes to the IFFPG directly. Is that correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No. All the fees charged to the farmer come directly to our organisation via our contractors, and then we pay our contractors for collecting, baling and transporting the waste, based on the prices they have tendered at.

Yes, but the IFFPG keeps the remainder. That is what I am saying. The remainder is kept for the organisation's administration and associated costs.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We manage all the finances of the company. We manage everything that comes into us. All the farmer fees that are paid to our contractors make their way through to us. Separately, we pay our contractors based on the rate they have tendered at.

Does it happen that the IFFPG does not have contractors to collect a certain amount of waste?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That situation should not arise. We provide a very comprehensive bring centre programme. We provide a year-round farmyard collection service. We would be most disappointed to hear that there was any part of the country where farmers could not access a service.

Is it possible that farmers could be accessing a service outside of the process that Mr. Moloney has just outlined?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Quite possibly. There have been independent operators. There may still be. If farmers want to use those independent collectors, they are fully entitled to do so.

It would be hard to imagine how any independent contractor could be financially viable, considering that Mr. Moloney's organisation collects the levy at the point of sale, which would be a huge subsidy, for want of a better term, in terms of the collection fees.

Mr. Liam Moloney

The levy funds our organisation. We are self-funding. We are not for profit. The levy comes from the producers, the companies who put the product on the market, and is a weight-based collection charge. That is how we fund the organisation and it is why we are able to achieve such impressive results year on year.

Representatives of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications are appearing before the committee next. I note, from the figures submitted by the Department to the committee on the indigenous waste infrastructure that was utilised, that in my own home town of Carrickmacross, ADN Material collected 925 tonnes, AES in Littleton, to which the Chair alluded earlier, collected 525 tonnes and Walker Recycling in Portlaoise collected 18,448 tonnes. Walker Recycling is no longer under contract with IFFPG. Is that correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The figures to which the Deputy referred are last year's figures. As he mentioned, unfortunately Walker Recycling is currently in process of liquidation and is exiting the scene. We are still quite confident that we will find sufficient recycling capacity in Ireland and abroad to recycle at least at much this year as we did last year.

What proportion of waste will be sent abroad this year, in comparison to last year?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I cannot say at this point in time. It depends a lot on how well the Irish plants perform. If they perform very well, we might possibly send a third of what we collect this year to Irish plants and the rest will go abroad. We have a policy of supporting Irish plants inasmuch as possible. If the Irish plants can take more, we will give them more.

I mentioned two plants at Carrickmacross and Littleton. How many other plants are contracted this year?

Mr. Liam Moloney

They are the only two Irish plants. We are also working with two European plants.

It would represent a substantial increase in capacity on the part of the two Irish plants to be able to compensate for the 18,500 tonnes that Walker Recycling was taking in.

Mr. Liam Moloney

They will not have to fully compensate for it, but, for example, the Deputy's local recycling plant will take 6,000 or 7,000 tonnes from us. At the rate AES is operating, it might take 7,000 or 8,000 tonnes. That is why we feel we will get a third of our material away to Irish recyclers. We are quite confident that we can send the rest abroad to recyclers with whom we have a long-term relationship.

Finally, in the long term, does Mr. Moloney think it is sustainable or appropriate for us to be exporting two thirds of our farm plastic waste?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Our preference would be to recycle it all in Ireland, if possible. If the recycling facilities come on stream to allow that to happen, we will gladly recycle everything in Ireland.

That concludes my questioning.

I call on Deputy Fitzmaurice.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. Looking back at our previous meeting, Mr. Moloney stated that there are 10,000 to 11,000 tonnes of waste around Ireland. I ask him to break that down. In the Kerry-Cork area, how many tonnes are there?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not have the breakdown to hand. In all our contractors' yards at the beginning of the 2021 bring centre season, there were approximately 10,000 to 11,000 tonnes.

Who owns the plastic in the Walker Recycling yard?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We own some of it and some of it has come from other sources. We will look after the plastic that is our responsibility. Currently, as the liquidator-----

How many tonnes is that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I would say no more than 1,000 tonnes of the material that is in the Walker Recycling yard is our responsibility.

No more than 1,000 tonnes.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

I have counted around the country as best as possible. Am I correct in saying that 6,000 to 7,000 tonnes of plastic was transported to Littleton from Kilkenny?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No, that is not correct.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not have that figure to hand but a small quantity went this year from our contractor in Kilkenny. AES opened only five weeks ago. In total, AES has probably taken between 1,000 and 1,200 tonnes in that period.

That is what has gone there. The IFFPG has contractors in Cavan as well. Is that correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is correct.

When I add up what is in the country, between the plastic the IFFPG is accountable for and private plastic, I am being pretty conservative when I say there are approximately 25,000 tonnes. Is this concerning?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We can only concern ourselves with our own plastic. We are very comfortable that we can recycle everything we have carried over and everything we will collect this year. Private collectors will have to manage their own businesses when it comes to their plastic.

Once the levy has been paid on plastic, be it by a private collector or whoever, is it possible to bring it to the bring centre? I am a contractor who works on baling. We have to get the numbers of the people for whom we do the work so they can bring their plastic to the various places around the country supplied by the IFFPG. It is a very good service. If private operators pay the levy can they bring the plastic to the bring centres?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Independent collectors cannot bring material to the bring centres.

Even though they got it from a farmer and the documentation is with it to show the levy was paid?

Mr. Liam Moloney

If an agricultural contractor doing a job on behalf of a farmer brings plastic waste to our bring centre, along with all of the details of the farmer, we will take the plastic in that instance. We will not take large volumes of material from independent collectors who are, in effect, our competitors.

The Chair mentioned €38 a tonne. How much per tonne is the levy working out at for the people who import the plastic? How much per tonne do they give to the witnesses?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I must take issue with the Chair. That was commercially sensitive information that should not have been revealed to the committee. I will not discuss what we pay to recyclers with regard to gate fees or contractors.

Excuse me, Mr. Moloney. The figure I gave was the gate fee being charged in the Littleton recycling plant. It was told to me yesterday on a visit to the recycling plant. I told the people there that I would tell members of the committee what the figure was. That is the only figure I quoted at the meeting, just to be clear.

Mr. Liam Moloney

That may be so but as far as we are concerned it is commercially sensitive information that should not have been revealed to the committee.

I beg to differ. We have to ensure there is value for money. There is a lot of plastic in yards throughout the country. A yard in Waterford has a similar amount of plastic in it. There are environmental issues. Farmers have already paid a levy on this plastic. It is extremely important that we get to the root of this and find out whether it is possible to have all of this plastic recycled at home in a way that is commercially viable and of value to everyone in the chain. I apologise for interrupting Deputy Fitzmaurice.

The Chair is okay. That is a valid point. What is the levy paid by the importers to the IFFPG for getting rid of plastic? How much per tonne is it?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Our members are paying €160 per tonne this year.

Farmers pay approximately €50. Is this fair to say?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is right, yes.

That is approximately €210 per tonne. Going by the figures I am looking at, with what the Chair revealed to us and with collection and baling, I have a good general idea. I do not want any figures from Mr. Moloney. It looks as if things went well in this country this year there would be a surplus from what farmers are charged when they buy plastic without charging them at the bring point. Is this fair to say?

Mr. Liam Moloney

What I can say is this year we intend to generate something in the region of €5.3 million in income from levy and collection charges. We will spend all of this on collecting and recycling our own plastic.

I know the figures involved if we had to export it. I understand it could cost €70 or €80 a tonne to export it. I know centres in the UK charge £50 to take it in. I know what it costs to bale it because I have done a bit of research on the baling. The figures are far more substantial than if we could do it here ourselves. Why would we be charging more money if it costs us a good bit less? Why do farmers also pay when bringing plastic to the bring centres?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Because as well as paying the gate fee we have to pay the transport costs to the recycling facility.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We collect the material, which is another charge. In many cases we have to pay our contractors to bale the material. On top of this, we have to run our office and advertise the service. We are a not-for-profit body. We send audited accounts every year to the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. It is very happy with how we operate. I assure the Deputy that every cent we generate this year we will spend on what we collect and recycle this year and carried over from last year.

Going by the figures I am looking at, if the IFFPG gets €160 a tonne it would well cover transport, baling, paying the gate fee and all of the other elements. This is why I cannot understand why we charge farmers. That is for a different day. The committee can look in detail later at how it is going for the farming community.

We are having this meeting because we were contacted about an issue we spoke about at our previous meeting. At that meeting, I asked whether we have green plastic. I was told it was put through a trammel and then went out as green waste, which looked like a great idea to be quite frank about it. My understanding is that when Mr. Moloney came before the committee at our previous meeting he was aware of 20 containers that had gone out since January and, because of new EU regulations that changed everything, they were sent back. Is this correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

There were ten containers related to Walkers that were sent back. This was material that was sent back because, as the Deputy has quite correctly said, the legislation changed and the authorities did not consider it green listed any more. Those ten containers went back to Dublin Port. We were asked by the authorities to assist and we did so. We moved those ten containers to Littleton where the material is being recycled.

The day Mr. Walker came before the committee and spoke to me he said Walkers was turning it into green waste. That green waste had been gone for a few months at that stage.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Walkers had not exported material for five or six weeks but it was working to put a bond in place to try to export materials that were amber listed. Unfortunately, it was not successful.

I am speaking about recycling that went through the trammel as green waste that was not accepted because of the new EU regulations. Is this correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is correct.

We had a different ball game even at the previous meeting.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We had no different ball game. Everything we said at the previous meeting we stand over. Unfortunately, since then, Walkers has gone into liquidation and we have to make alternative arrangements for material that previously we sent to Walkers. It will have to go to other recyclers. We are very happy that we will be able to do this.

With regard to the IFFPG, how many farming groups are represented on the board?

Mr. Liam Moloney

One, the IFA.

Are there more farming groups around the country? Would it not be good to involve them? I am looking at the make-up of the board. In fairness to the IFA, there are six from the industry, two from the farming organisations and two independent members. Is it not heavily loaded with plastics experts as against representatives of the farmers who are paying all the money at both ends? The levy is built into the price of a roll of plastic and this is understandable. They are also charged when they sell it. Would the IFFPG not consider having a representative from all of the farming organisations? Would it consider making up the board of half farmers and half industry at least?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It is a producer responsibility organisation so it is appropriate that the majority of members of the board represent producers. Farmers are very well represented at present through the IFA. In my 13 or 14 years with the IFFPG, we have not been approached by any other farming representative body looking for representation on the board.

If the farmers are paying the money, which they are and there is no point in saying they are not, would it not be fair to them to have equal representation at least when the price for plastics is set each year?

On top of that, they should have an input when they are paying at the beginning and the end. Does Mr. Moloney agree?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We would say that farmers are ably represented by the IFA. In terms of our relationship with farmers, it is all about the service we provide to them, and that service is of a high quality. Farmers have bought into our service and are very happy with it in terms of the cost and convenience. The figures are there to support that. We achieved an 80% recycling rate last year, involving 34,500 tonnes of material. Farmers are very well represented on our board at the moment and are receiving a very good service from us.

My next question might be more for the departmental officials. In fairness to Mr. Moloney, I asked at the previous meeting about plastic coming in across the Border. It is hard to put a figure on that, which I understand fully. I assume he will agree that it would be a worthwhile exercise for the Department to look into that. We need to know how much plastic is in storage all around the country. Going by the figures I am looking at, there is a lot more that what Mr. Moloney has indicated. He said there is only 10,000 or 11,000 tonnes and I have to take his word on that. We need to get on top of this. I assume the IFFPG is liaising with the Littleton facility to which the Chairman referred. If that plant gets to the figures that are being talking about, I presume that will solve many of the headaches in the plastic industry. Does Mr. Moloney agree?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, I think so. AES represents potentially a major part of the solution. Certainly, we are very impressed with how it has operated over the past four or five weeks. If it keeps going along those lines, it will be an important part of the solution as we move forward.

I thank Mr. Moloney for answering my questions.

Deputy Fitzmaurice has covered many of the burning issues but I have a few more questions. Mr. Dunne said in his exchange with the Deputy that since our previous meeting, unfortunately, Walker Recycling Services has gone into liquidation. However, that would not have affected the IFFPG in any way because, at the time of that meeting, it had ceased its contract with the company. Is that the case?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No, that is incorrect. Walker Recycling Services went into liquidation after the previous meeting and we terminated our contract with the company in early June.

Is Mr. Moloney saying that the IFFPG had a contract with the company until such time as it went into liquidation?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Correct.

It was not terminated before our previous meeting on 18 May?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is correct.

I want to go back to the points Deputy Fitzmaurice raised about the figures and the €210 per tonne levy. Notwithstanding that the IFFPG is obliged to collect only 70% of plastic, is it the case that it collected 80% last year? Doing the sums on that, the organisation was, in reality, receiving a levy of closer to €300 per tonne, based on the tonnages it is collecting.

Mr. Liam Moloney

The levy is €160 per tonne and because we-----

For clarification, the IFFPG receives €160 per tonne for 100% of the plastic that is supplied into the Irish market in any given baling season.

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is correct but, as explained at the previous meeting-----

The IFFPG is obliged to collect only 70% of said plastic. Last year, it collected 80% but it was only obliged contractually by the Department to collect 70%.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, and as explained at the previous meeting, although we receive 100% of the levy and may recycle 70% or 80% in a given year, recycling costs have been extremely high for the past number of years. Unfortunately, all that money is required at the moment to recycle the volume of material we collect. If the recycling costs reduce in the future, as we hope will be the case, then we will reduce both the levy and the collection charges to farmers. That is how we will address that situation.

Taking off his current hat, what would Mr. Moloney, as an Irish citizen, suggest, in the interest of our environment and countryside, for how we might solve the current problem, where we have thousands of tonnes in storage, blighting our environment, and the potential for thousands more tonnes to be dumped illegally and introduce environmental hazards of every sort in our countryside? How would he suggest we deal with that in a situation where levies are available?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We stand over what we are doing. We are achieving extraordinary results. We had an 80% recycling rate last year, involving 34,500 tonnes of material. We run a very efficient and cost-effective scheme. It is seen as a model scheme in Europe. In regard to the independent collectors, others will have to sort out that particular problem. It is not our problem to sort out.

I am asking this question of Mr. Moloney as a citizen. Does he not see the problem that is there?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The situation with independent collectors is nothing to do with us. That is for others to sort out. We manage our business very efficiently and successfully.

Can Mr. Moloney not see how the independent collectors have a grievance when the IFFPG is getting a levy on the plastic they collect?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No, I do not see why that should be the case. They made a decision to get into this market knowing what the conditions were. They were playing the market and making money when things were good. Unfortunately, the market dropped and now they find themselves in a difficult position. That is nothing to do with us.

If the development continues in Littleton such that, as the Chairman briefed us at the start of the meeting, the plant will be able to take 45,000 tonnes of plastic in a given year when it gets to full capacity, then that is over and above the total tonnage that needs to be collected or recycled. It amounts to 100% of the total tonnage in any given year. That will surely reduce the costs. How does Mr. Moloney see the additional money being distributed in that scenario?

Mr. Liam Moloney

As I have mentioned many times, if our costs go down, we will reduce collection charges to farmers and we will reduce the recycling levy for members. That has happened in the past. Some years ago, we reduced them quite significantly when the market was in our favour. If the market comes back in our favour, we will make those reductions again.

What about if that scenario does not materialise? If the Littleton plant does not meet those targets and the IFFPG still has to export a certain tonnage, and it has to be green, how does Mr. Moloney propose to put that plastic through a trommel given that the only company in the country with the trommel technology is now in liquidation and his organisation no longer has a contract with that company?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We have always exported unprocessed material as amber and we will continue to do so. We have the capacity in place to do that. We do not see it as a difficulty. As I said earlier, we are very confident that we will recycle at least as much this year as we did last year, even though Walker Recycling Services has stepped out of the picture.

I have a final question. How much more expensive per tonne is it to export amber material than it is to export green?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I would say it is very similar, when all is said and done.

Why then would one brother with the trommel process?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We were supporting an Irish recycler and we gave it almost half of what we collected. In fact, we gave it more than half of what we collected last year. It was easier to move the material as green-listed but it was not necessarily cheaper.

There is still confusion on this issue. We are talking about a company that was contracted to the IFFPG for 15 years. The director of that company, in his statement, said that on or around the morning of 18 May 2021, he was telephoned by the CEO of the IFFPG and verbally informed that the contract with Walker Recycling Services Limited was terminated, with no reason given. Mr. Moloney, however, is telling us that the contract was terminated in early June, which is some three weeks later. One of the two witnesses is very mixed up with their telephone calls. Can Mr. Moloney clarify the date? He and his colleagues appeared before the committee on a previous occasion. It gets really annoying when different groups come in telling us different things. Our purpose, as a committee, is to get the facts and ensure there is oversight of the expenditure of public money. When the witnesses from the IFFPG came before the committee on the previous occasion, did they not think it worthwhile to inform us that, if Mr. Walker is correct, it had terminated his contract that same morning?

Mr. Liam Moloney

My first response to that is that I did not have a discussion with Mr. Walker. That is the first point. Point number two is that Mr. Walker's company did not go into liquidation until after the committee meeting.

I did not ask that yet. I am asking about the telephone call.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Mr. Walker's contract was not terminated in a telephone discussion at any point. I can assure the Deputy of that. His company did not go into liquidation until after 18 May. We sent him a letter on 4 June terminating his contract because his company was in liquidation.

Would Mr. Moloney say that the IFFPG's termination of Mr. Walker's contract helped to shove his company into liquidation?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Not at all. Walker Recycling Services was supported to the hilt by us. As mentioned already, it got almost half of all the material we collected last year and, in addition, it was our biggest collecting contractor, covering eight counties. We could not have supported Walker Recycling Services any more than we did. The company was unfortunate in that the legislation changed, but that had nothing to do with us.

If 4 June was the-----

I wish to come in here. I have to put this point on the record. I have reported it to the Chairman. On the Monday morning, two days after our previous meeting, I got a telephone call one hour before the next meeting from a person alleging to be Mr. Walker saying that his contract was terminated. I need to put that on the record. You are aware of it, Chairman, as I told you about it. I wish to be clear about that.

That is correct, Deputy Fitzmaurice.

I do not know how it could be three weeks after when someone rang me two days later. I have the telephone records. They are easily got. I made the Chairman aware of what happened allegedly one hour before our meeting.

Mr. Liam Moloney

My response is that telephone conversation never took place. The Walker company contract was not terminated on the telephone. It was terminated by letter. I imagine we are happy to give committee members a copy of it if they wish to see it. The letter was dated 4 June.

I am keen to get an answer to this for the record. Is is Mr. Moloney saying that on the day he was at our committee meeting there was no telephone call between him and Mr. Walker?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not know whether I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Walker on that day but I can tell the committee with certainty that the contract was never terminated on the telephone.

I imagine Mr. Moloney was thinking of terminating the Walker contract the last time he was before the committee. Yet, he made no attempt to make us aware of what was going on. Was the Department contacted about terminating the Walker contract? If it was, at what stage did Mr. Moloney contact the Department?

Mr. Liam Moloney

If I had come before the committee on 18 May and said that the Walker company was going to go into liquidation and then the company did not go into liquidation, I would have landed myself in serious trouble. While we were aware that the Walker company was in financial difficulty we did not know when the company was going into liquidation. The liquidation process started on 22 May when the company published a notice in the newspaper concerning a creditors meeting. We would have informed the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

Was the Littleton facility in the minds of the IFFPG when the contract with the Walker company was being terminated?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Let us be clear. We cannot terminate the contract with the Walker company. The company is in liquidation and it is not operating anymore. We were left with no choice.

The company was not in liquidation on 18 May when the IFFPG representatives were before the committee.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, but we did not have the contract terminated at that stage. The company contract was terminated subsequent to the liquidation process beginning.

If the change in the definitions of green and amber waste increases the cost, then how does terminating contracts with the likes of the Walker company make things any better?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Let us be clear. The Walker company is in liquidation and has gone out of business. We cannot do business with the company anymore. Like it or not, we had to terminate the contract. The company does not exist anymore as an operating company.

We supported the company to the hilt while it was operating. We put a vast amount of material through the Walker plant in recent years and we were happy to do so. In addition, it was our biggest collector, covering eight counties. Despite our best efforts, unfortunately, the company went out of business. The company is out of business and therefore we cannot operate with the company anymore. That is why the contract was terminated.

We are at another committee meeting with total confusion again about when all these telephone calls and terminations took place. We are going to be none the wiser leaving here. We have one report from Mr. Walker and Mr. Moloney is giving us a different definition. Which one are we to tell the public is the truth?

I have a text stating that Mr. Walker is supposed to be somewhere in Leinster House. Are you aware of that, Chairman?

Mr. Walker will be before the meeting as soon as we finish with IFFPG. Mr. Walker will have a chance to address the committee. We tried to get him in at the start of the meeting. I am unsure what way it is going but as soon as we are finished with the plastics group, Mr. Walker will have a chance to address the committee.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Let me be crystal clear. The Walker contract was terminated after the liquidation process began. We have the letter to confirm that and it is dated 4 June. Whatever Mr. Walker said about a telephone conversation relating to having the contract terminated, that never happened.

Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. We will see what they have to say.

I do not have many questions as such because many of mine have been raised. I have a funny feeling that we will be returning to this perhaps after next week. There should be some evidence given. My major concern is for the farmer. He is paying for boreens and paying another tax for the purchase of farm plastics. My greatest concern is for the farmer and the cost to the farmer.

My question is for the IFFPG. There are several other farming organisations besides the IFA. This has been mentioned already. Why is there no one from these organisations on the board of IFFPG? We are told that approximately 50% of farmers are not members of IFA but they have to buy new plastic from IFFPG members. These farmers have a preference for farmyard collections provided by the independent contractors.

My second question is the only other question I have for now. The independent collectors need the levy now. This is because there is currently a market in Littleton incurring a gate fee of €38 and a haulage cost of €30 per tonne along with bailing and loading fees. The levy would cover all these expenses and solve everything at no cost to any Department. The IFFPG has this money. Is that correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The first question related to farming organisations. We have not been approached by any other farming organisations expressing an interest in being represented on our board. Therefore, no other farming organisations, apart from the IFA, are on our board. The IFA represents farmers effectively on our board.

We made the point with regard to the levy clear at the previous meeting. That levy is how we fund our group. We are self-funding. It is money we generate from our members and from farmers. The levy is required in its entirety to run our scheme, which is highly successful. No part of that levy is available to independent collectors.

In many ways this conversation has moved on and the next witness is probably the key witness. The only issue I want to ask about is the so-called 30% or 20% left out. Mr. Moloney stated that his group does a practical and resourceful job in ensuring that the group collects 70% to 80%. In many ways, that is not the major issue in the current debate. The issue in the debate is the other 20%. We have yards in some parts of the country allegedly with hundreds if not thousands of tonnes of plastic stockpiled. Whether that is the responsibility of the IFFPG - I sense by the response of Mr. Moloney that it is not - we need to find a solution to that problem. It may be by amending legislation or going back to the Minister. We need to work with all angles. We need to work with the IFFPG in particular, which has a track record of picking up plastic and doing a sensible and appropriate job in recycling it and exporting it on occasions. We need to find a solution to ensure that the 25% of plastic not going through the IFFPG formal system can find a home.

The argument all committee members are making is about what will happen. If we do not have a scenario in place for the 25% to be delivered, collected, recycled or exported, then we are going to have a problem with the plastic building up. I appreciate the previous response from Mr. Moloney was that it is not the baby of the IFFPG. It is nothing to do with the group and the group is getting a 100% levy for collecting 80% under the legislation. The real question is what we do with the 20%. We have a responsibility of care and a duty.

Farming is in a different space. We have a time-in-action element at the moment. We all know the significant pressures we are under as an industry. We have never been under the microscope like this before. We need to find a solution not only for the plastic producers industry but for the sustainability of the industry. That is the real point. How can we find a sustainable solution to this issue so that, as the entire farming community, we can move forward?

Does the legislation need to be amended and strengthened such that IFFPG will have more control? Should it be changed in order that there could be an open market and anybody who collects would get a percentage of the levy? The current system does not work. IFFPG does its job, independent operators do theirs and there is 20% in the middle about which nobody knows what has happened. If we were to change legislation, should we strengthen IFFPG's hand or open the market to more participants?

Mr. Liam Moloney

What we are achieving nationally, in terms of farm plastics recycling, is spectacular. No country in Europe comes within reach of what we are doing at the moment. We are achieving an 80% recycling rate for our waste plastic stream. Currently, in the context of packaging plastic, for example, a 30% recycling rate is being achieved. What is being achieved in regard to farm plastics recycling in Ireland is quite spectacular and that is because the key stakeholders - the producers and farmers - are working co-operatively in our scheme.

Separate to us, independent collectors made a commercial decision to go out and play the market. They were entitled to do so; we have no problem with that. They now find themselves in difficulty because the market has changed. This is not a matter for IFFPG to address but rather for others, and we wish them well. Farm plastics recycling in Ireland is a spectacular success story by any measure.

I have heard that previously, and, in fairness to him, Mr. Moloney is sticking to the party line. The 20% has been left in limbo because, as he said, the independent collectors played to the market and the market changed; we all know that. We need to find a solution. What does Mr. Moloney think that solution is? Should the legislation be changed to strengthen IFFPG's hand to ensure it has more control over the market, or should there be a percentage share-out of the levy? I am trying to get to the nub of Mr. Moloney's opinion of the solution. The 80% figure is amazing, but we all know we are in a completely different space now. Unless we are sustainable, we are not going to be there.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I am afraid that if the Senator is looking for a figure of 100% recycling, he will always be disappointed. It is just not achievable. We will collect as much as possible over and above the 80% recycling rate. The independent collectors, I am going to hazard a guess, might have been collecting 4,000 or 5,000 tonnes per annum when they were collecting, but they are largely parked up now. The reason a farm plastics recycling service is available to farmers in Ireland at the moment is we have a scheme that works, that is sustainable and that has the key stakeholders involved. That means that from year to year, we provide farmers with a top-quality, cost-effective service. The solution is us; we are the solution. We see no need for a change in legislation. There is a problem with independent collectors that got into difficulty but, as I said, that is for others to sort out.

Much of what I had intended to ask about has been covered, so I will not take long. On expanding the representation to reflect fully the farming community, will Mr. Moloney give a commitment that IFFPG will engage with the other farming representative bodies and invite them to put forward a representative to sit on the board?

On the Walker Recycling Services issue, I accept that formal notification was not issued until 4 June, but it is quite possible that there was some indicative conversation on 16 May. Did IFFPG seek legal advice before it had any conversation with or issued that letter to Walker Recycling Services? Given that it had operated with IFFPG for 15 years, the latter is probably its main contractor. There is an implicit and implied contract with the company that would leave IFFPG open, in all likelihood, to having to compensate it for the termination of the contract. Did IFFPG seek legal advice before it made that decision?

Mr. Liam Moloney

On the issue relating to Walker, we did receive legal advice and its contract was terminated on 4 June. Let us be clear as to why that happened. It was terminated because it was in the liquidation process. It was no longer able to provide a service for us. We did not terminate its contract before liquidation or that this made any contribution to the liquidation process. It went into liquidation because it had severe financial problems, not because IFFPG was not supporting it. As I said, we supported it to the hilt and gave it record quantities of plastic for its recycling plant. There were eight counties in which it was providing a collection service and we could not have supported it any more. Despite that, unfortunately, its financial circumstances were such that it went into liquidation, and subsequent to that, we terminated its contract.

I thank the IFFPG for again appearing before the committee. Senator Lombard put it accurately in regard to the significant volume of plastic out there, with the levy paid on it, that is causing an environmental problem, although we can argue about the tonnage. It is an issue that will have to be addressed. Mr. Moloney has made it clear that it is not IFFPG's problem and I fully accept where he is coming from. He made that clear and he has been distinct on it. Nevertheless, it is an issue that will have to be dealt with and I hope we can get a resolution. I appreciate the IFFPG representatives coming back before the committee today, after such a short interval, to give us an update on where we are.

Mr. Tom Dunne

I had my hand up for some time. Is it possible for me to come in?

There are severe time constraints. Mr. Dunne's chief executive was answering all the questions, but I will allow him one minute.

Mr. Tom Dunne

I was involved in the discussions about the legal questions. What Mr. Moloney stated in regard to the Walker issue is exactly correct. We had that discussion with our legal representative in the first few days of June. When the Walker company went into liquidation, it became impossible for it to continue. Mr. Walker's contract was terminated exactly as Mr. Moloney described. As someone who was involved in that decision, I want to back up what Mr. Moloney said.

May I clarify one matter? There is an onus on me to clarify the position. Mr. Walker must have been suffering from divine inspiration. I can go back over my phone records to check but it was either a day or two days beforehand because he told me he was going to hospital. He must have received divine inspiration that this was going to happen, but he got the phone call an hour before the meeting. A few questions were asked and I can outline those questions for the Chairman because, as I said, everything should be transparent. Mr. Walker stated that his contract was terminated an hour before our meeting. I want to be clear that that was the call I got because I have a duty under-----

I thank the Deputy. In fairness, the representatives of the IFFPG have provided extensive answers to questions on that matter. Mr. Walker will be coming before us in a moment. I thank the representatives of IFFPG for coming before us. There is much plastic in the country that will have to find a home, and a solution will have to be found. I thank Mr. Moloney, Mr. Dunne and Ms O'Sullivan. I propose that we suspend in order to allow the next group of witnesses to come in.

Sitting suspended at 4.38 p.m. and resumed at 4.39 p.m.

Before we begin the next session, I suggest that either the Chairman or a member of his choosing might put whatever questions need to be put to Mr. Walker. They are fairly self-evident but I want to ensure we will have enough time to deal with the Department afterwards, given that many questions have arisen out of this session.

Will the Chairman put the following two questions to Mr. Walker? What tonnage of plastic is-----

I ask that members hold on for a moment. We are still in public session. Deputy Carthy has made a suggestion. If it is okay with members, I will let Deputy Fitzmaurice lead because he has dealt with Mr. Walker before. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome Mr. Robert Walker of Walker Recycling Services Limited, who is joining remotely.

I have an important notice relating to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Participants in the committee meeting who are in locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that the constitutional protections afforded to those participating from within the parliamentary precincts do not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on whether or the extent to which participation is covered by the absolute privilege of a statutory nature.

I welcome Mr. Walker to the meeting and ask him to make an opening statement. We have a couple of questions we would like to put to him.

Mr. Robert Walker

I thank the Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I apologise for whatever went wrong in the beginning when I could not make contact. I probably did something wrong with my computer. I do not know but I apologise for that anyway.

I am a director of Walker Recycling Services Limited and my company is in voluntary liquidation, having a registered office at Clonkeen, Portlaoise, County Laois. My company has been recycling plastic for upwards of 15 years. Parts of our recycling facility include shredding, trommelling and other equipment purchased approximately four years ago at a cost of €850,000 plus auxiliary equipment at a cost of approximately €350,000.

The company has been contracted to the Irish Farm Films Producers Group, IFFPG, for upwards of 15 years and part of this work included the use of the aforementioned machines to shred and trommel plastic to clean it so it could be treated as green waste. At the beginning of this year requirements in respect of green list waste changed and it is now necessary to establish any contamination of product at 4% or less. This contamination could be water, grit or similar materials. This cannot be hazardous waste but it is contamination, meaning the plastic would be classified as amber waste.

This resulted in a bond being required to export amber waste and the requirement for the volume recycled by Walker Recycling Services was beyond the financial capacity of the company. We have been recycling waste for the IFFPG with these machines since their purchase and we also did it with earlier machines.

On or about the morning of 18 May I was telephoned by the chief executive officer of the IFFPG and verbally informed that the contract with Walker Recycling Services was to be terminated. I cannot account for how such a decision was made, especially in circumstances where we had the only facility for trommelling waste. With economic conditions in the plastics market worldwide and other economic restrictions, I found the company in a position where we were advised to hold a creditors' meeting, following which a liquidator, Mr. David Walsh, was appointed on 1 June 2021. The company is not currently in a position to provide any recycling services.

I will be brief because I know our time is short. I thank Mr. Walker for coming before us. I want to clarify some comments arising from what previous witnesses have said. Mr. Walker contacted me from his hospital bed and apologised to me because it could have been a Saturday or Friday night. He said it was late but I told him it was no problem. That was a day or two days after the first meeting we had here and he said the contract had been terminated and he could not get bonds and the company would end up in liquidation. Will Mr. Walker clarify that?

I drove to meet Mr. Walker on a Sunday evening after that to find out exactly what happened because we had only spoken on the phone. He verified what he said. Is my recollection correct?

Mr. Robert Walker

It is correct. I had a conversation with the chief executive officer of IFFPG and he said my contract would be terminated. I had no contact with him thereafter until I got it in writing in June, stating the contract was terminated.

It was stated earlier that it does not make much difference if waste is amber or green. Is there a fair difference in price in the export of such waste?

Mr. Robert Walker

Yes, there is. To export amber waste a bond must be put in place and a large sum of money must be essentially locked away to cover any catastrophe that may happen in transit, or if the waste was dumped. I am not in a financial position to export amber waste.

It has been stated that there are 1,000 tonnes of IFFPG plastics in Mr. Walker's yard. Is that correct? What is there to be removed and who owns what?

Mr. Robert Walker

There is approximately between 5,000 and 6,000 tonnes in my yard and it is all IFFPG-collected plastic.

Okay. In Mr. Walker's opinion, what is the way forward for the plastics industry in order to ensure we can cater for the amount of plastic, especially with the restrictions that are to be introduced on plastics use and all of that?

Mr. Robert Walker

More money must be invested in recycling in Ireland in order to meet criteria, including the cleaning of plastics or even melting it into pellets. It is a very expensive process, as the Deputy knows. There will have to be money invested in that.

I will let in other Deputies as we only have 15 minutes for this.

The Deputy has put many comprehensive questions to Mr. Walker.

Unless someone has any other specific questions, he has answered what we need to know.

I would like if Mr. Walker could clarify whether all of the plastic in his yard is IFFPG plastic.

Mr. Robert Walker

Yes.

The 7,000 tonnes in his yard is IFFPG plastic.

Mr. Robert Walker

I cannot give the committee the exact tonnage, but I reckon there are more than 6,000 tonnes. Anything that is there is IFFPG plastic.

I thank Mr. Walker. Does anyone else want to ask a specific question or will we move to Department witnesses?

I thank Mr. Walker for coming before the committee. What was his relationship with IFFPG like before 18 May or 4 June? Were there any disagreements between them? What reasons did it give him for terminating the contract?

Mr. Robert Walker

I received notice in writing. It stated that what happened was due to the fact that the company was in liquidation.

Had there been any disagreements between Mr. Walker and IFFPG in the run-up to that date?

Mr. Robert Walker

No, there were no disagreements as such. I asked whether it would be able to export the plastic from my yard under its bond. It said it would, but it would take a period. As I was not making any money at the time due to the fact I could not export, the company could not continue.

Could Mr. Walker address the problem with the 20 containers that went out in order to clarify the position?

Mr. Robert Walker

Twenty containers in total were returned. The first ten came back when I was still trading. I returned them to and offloaded them in my yard. It was in liquidation when the last ten came back. Obviously, IFFPG said it had them sorted.

Okay. I thank Mr. Walker for briefing the committee. We will now suspend to allow officials from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications to join us.

Mr. Robert Walker

I thank the committee.

I thank Mr. Walker.

Sitting suspended at 4.53 p.m. and resumed at 4.54 p.m.

I welcome the following officials from the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications: Mr. Paul McDonald, principal officer, waste policy and resource efficiency; and Ms Sorcha Byrne, assistant principal, waste, plastics, remediation and producer responsibility division, who are joining us remotely. They are very welcome. We have received their opening statement, which has been circulated to members. We are limited in our time due to Covid, so the committee has agreed that the opening statement will be taken as read so that the full session can be used for question and answers. The opening statement will be published on the Oireachtas website and will be publicly available.

Before we begin, I want to read an important notice on parliamentary privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege with respect to the evidence you are to give to the committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to do so, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Participants in the committee meeting who are located outside of the parliamentary precinct are asked to note that the constitutional protection afforded to those participating within the parliamentary precinct does not extend to them. No clear guidance can be given on all whether or the extent to which participation is covered by absolute privilege.

I now invite questions from members. Deputy Leddin asked me to let him in first on this earlier. I will honour my commitment.

I thank the Chair and offer my apologies to Deputy Carthy who raised his hand before me. I wish to ask Mr. McDonald about the design of the scheme and alternatives. We heard today and on previous occasions that the recycling rate for farm plastics is very high and stands at approximately 80%. Farmers are to be commended for taking part in what is a very successful scheme. Perhaps Mr. McDonald could indicate what might be the position if there was a fully market led system for the recycling of farm plastics, based on the experience of other sectors, and even jurisdictions, and whether he is aware of how such a system might compare in terms of recycling rates.

Mr. Paul McDonald

I thank the Chairman and Deputy Leddin. The farm plastic scheme is one of a suite of what we call extended producer responsibility, EPR, schemes. This EPR model is an environmental approach whereby the responsibility for a product is extended beyond the post-consumer stage of a product's life cycle. It has been a very successful model that we have used in a number of waste streams in Ireland over several years. People may be familiar with the schemes for electrical equipment, packaging, end-of-life vehicles, tyres and so on. The farm plastic scheme is run by the IFFPG.

From my reading of the matter going back over a number of years, the basis for the introduction of EPR schemes came from EU initiatives. That was essentially because the market had not addressed the issue of this waste arising from waste streams, be it electrical products, tires and so on. We found these schemes provide stability in dealing with a waste stream. This is stability that one would not get in a privatised arena. As we have seen from discussions at the committee earlier and back in May, if a market is subject to fluctuations that is very bad news for the waste arising from it.

As we have seen here, private contractors entered the market on the basis of a commercial decision that they would have made. When that environment changed, we were left to deal with the issue being discussed. EPR schemes were introduced to bring stability to a waste collection stream, a stability that they would not get if they were subject to standard market forces. They have been successful in that.

The model we have in Ireland is that each EPR scheme is run by a system operator. The operator is appointed on approval to the Minister and there are various targets and so on set out for the operator. IFFPG has met those targets. They were approved again earlier this year. As the Deputy said, we are happy that the recycling rate approximately 70% - in the most recent report the figure was 80%. I do not think one would get that level of performance if there was a simple private sector model.

Are there other examples of EPR schemes in Ireland? How does the IFFPG scheme compare? I understand that the legislation allows for a deposit and return type scheme, but I am not aware of any instances of that in this country. Perhaps Mr. McDonald could discuss the potential for such a scheme.

Mr. Paul McDonald

A deposit return scheme, DRS, is available, but it has never been taken up. The model that is used successfully by IFFPG is the EPR model. As the Deputy is aware, we are considering DRS schemes in other waste streams, specifically plastic bottles and so on.

The model that is operating in Ireland is the EPR scheme, through the system operator, the IFFPG. All of the system operators that operate these EPR schemes, including Repak, companies that operate end-of-life vehicle schemes, WEEE Ireland and others, must go through a rigorous process for approval approximately every five years. The standard is quite high. These companies are obviously run on a not-for-profit basis. We like to think the bar is set quite high. The approval is not just done on the nod. Anyone who is looking to operate as a system operator has a relatively onerous list of things they have to show us they are capable of performing.

I thank Mr. McDonald. I am due to speak in Convention Centre Dublin shortly so I will head over there now.

I will try to put this in a context that non-farmers might understand by comparing it to something similar I might experience in my life. If I am buying a new fridge, I can leave the old fridge with the guy I am buying the new fridge from and he has the responsibility for disposing of it safely. It is a similar situation if I am buying new tyres for my car.

Mr. Paul McDonald

That is exactly right.

It is very different in this instance. Farmers pay €160 per tonne. That goes to one company but that company does not have an obligation to ensure that the product is safely disposed of and recycled. The company has an obligation for 70% of that material and therein lies the problem. I was taken aback by some of the comments considering the IFFPG is a not-for-profit organisation. There has been a dismissive attitude towards the potential 20% or 30% that may be left outstanding. I would certainly not support a privatised approach that would leave it to the industry but is the Department analysing other mechanisms by which this can be done more successfully? This is a different type of waste, in that if it is not collected, it can land in our rivers and countryside. It can be bulky and damaging to biodiversity, habitats and all the rest of it. Even 20% can be a substantial amount of waste. What level of examination of the process does the Department undergo?

Mr. Paul McDonald

The approval process is where we examine the performance of the IFFPG and its running of this scheme. The figure of 70% to 80% of collection for recycling is extremely positive. It is probably unheard of. We are not aware of a problem having arisen with the proper disposal of this material. We are looking at an 80% collection rate, based on the amount placed on the market each year. As the committee has heard at this meeting and at previous meetings, farmers do not deal with this product on a yearly basis. If stuff is placed on the market, it is perhaps purchased and may not be brought for recycling for two, three or four years. There is a roll-over effect in that regard. However, an 80% collection rate is extremely impressive. We are happy with how the scheme has operated.

The test of the scheme is done when the system operator comes in for its approval. That approval process takes a number of months. We go through everything from the accounts of the system operator, how it approaches governance and how it is performing generally. It is only after that process has been gone through that we would recommend approval of a system operator to the Minister. That is what has happened in this case.

Has this scheme been stress-tested against EU competition law? We heard earlier about private collectors who are essentially doing the same job as the IFFPG but do not receive any portion of the levy that is mandatory for those who are purchasing the product.

Mr. Paul McDonald

To my mind, this question of contravening competition law does not arise. It is open to any corporate body that wishes to pitch for this business to seek approval to become a system operator. It is open to anybody to do that. Any such body would go through the normal stress-testing that is applied to the IFFPG. Other EPR schemes currently exist. We referred earlier to the scheme that applies for electrical equipment. There are, for example, two system operators in that space. Any corporate body that wants to set up as a system operator to rival the IFFPG would have to go through the same provisions from the point of view of corporate governance, contingency reserve funds and all of that type of stuff.

There is an issue in terms of local or smaller collectors and the scale that would be operated. We can assume none of those collectors would be anywhere close to the IFFPG. The difficulty I have is that far from being a polluter-pays system where producers have responsibility, producers are instead being let off the hook. They collect the levy from farmers but once it goes outside the producers' gates, because none of them are collecting sale-and-return or deposit-and-return schemes, it becomes somebody else's problem.

Mr. Paul McDonald

The model is well established. When a farmer buys the product, he or she pays the levy. When the farmer has finished using it and wants to present it for recycling, it is collected through the farm collection scheme or it can be brought to some of the bring centres. As the IFFPG has stated, 100% of what is presented to them for collection is collected. It is quite an efficient scheme. We have also heard that the cost to individual farmers averages out at somewhere around €65 or €70 per annum. It seems to be an efficient scheme for a relatively modest sum of money per annum.

I will reiterate the point that the difficulty I have with the scheme is that a company, a not-for-profit company but a company nonetheless, is getting €160 for every tonne of plastic that is sold without having the obligation even to attempt to collect it all. There is no obligation on the company to collect it all. The scheme, therefore, de facto recognises that a significant portion of this plastic is unaccounted for. In the long term, that is unsustainable. To repeat a question I asked earlier, is Mr. McDonald satisfied that it is appropriate that two thirds of that waste is potentially exported?

Mr. Paul McDonald

The IFFPG has said that it pushes to have as much of this material as possible dealt with in Ireland. We support them in that regard. We discussed that topic in detail with the IFFPG during the most recent approval process and its commitment to the circular economy. We have a proximity principle here. We try to ensure that as much of this material as possible is dealt with on the island of Ireland.

The waste action plan for a circular economy which we produced last September had a chapter specifically on the indigenous treatment capacity for waste material. One of the commitments we made in that, and subject to provisions around state aid and so on, was that we would look to convene a meeting of the various stakeholders to try to see how we could push this out as much as possible to ensure that as much of this material as possible is dealt with here in Ireland.

On the figure for the levy, the levy is the levy. It is collected by the IFFPG and it goes into the group's operating costs. It is used, as Mr. Moloney has outlined, in its operating costs in running what is a very efficient system. The target is 70% and the group has collected close to 80% in the last year.

I welcome the representatives from the Department. To follow on, the current system has been in operation since 1998 and it has evolved over a period to where we are today. While we cannot change the system here overnight does the Department, as the Department with responsibility for the environment, appreciate that the 30% of plastic waste on which there is no obligation on the IFFPG to collect would and could be a problem environmentally?

Mr. Paul McDonald

Certainly the target set for the IFFPG is 70% and it has exceeded that. As I was saying earlier on, with this rolling-on of the farmers not presenting this for collection on an annual basis, and if that is what was done, maybe that figure is a little bit off. If there is a gap there, we would like to establish where that problem is. From what has come out in the most recent meeting today and the previous meeting, the nub of the problem seems to be a portion of this plastic has been collected over the last number of years by private contractors who, because of the market fluctuations, are now not in a position to deal with that. There may be an issue there. The figure of somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 tonnes of this material lying around the country has come out. That could well present an environmental threat, yes.

To follow on from that, a good year for the IFFPG was 80% collection. It claimed that today and the last day. Its representatives are almost shouting from the rooftops that they hit 80%. That leaves 20% of the recorded plastic unaccounted for now the private contractors have gone out of the market. That is not to mention the illegal plastic, for want of a better word, that is coming in from the North and which does not have a code and is not being accounted for when the levy is collected. On the environmental aspect of that, we will not go there; it should not be here and it came in illegally but it is here now and it is going to be a problem.

We all know why we are here today. This is our second meeting on this matter. The fact is that the market for exporting or moving this plastic on has collapsed. The private contractors are going out of business. There is nothing in it for them. They were covering that slack and Mr. McDonald has admitted we were damn glad to have the private contractors because they were actually making sure the 25% to 30% we have not accounted for in our legislation or in our contract with the IFFPG was being looked after. It is now not feasible for them to do that, for commercial reasons. What is the Department's proposal to sort out that problem now, in the market we have today, and allowing for the fact there are thousands of tonnes stacked up in various yards or fields around the country? We all know how we got here. I hate the statement but we are where we are. I want to hear from the officials what the Department is proposing as a solution to solve the problem and clear the blight, going forward.

Mr. Paul McDonald

Just to correct that, I do not think I said I welcomed the intervention of the private companies in collecting this material over the last number of years. It is what it is. The Department-----

As a nation we all welcomed it because if they had not filled the gap we would have had in the region of 23 years where our 20% of our plastic was in bogholes, down boreens, in ditches and getting burned. I certainly welcome the role they played for the last 23-odd years.

Mr. Paul McDonald

Again, I am not aware whether the IFFPG could have filled that gap. I do not know why individual farmers and so on would have gone to the private contractors as opposed to the IFFPG. I am not aware of what the pricing structure is but to use the Senator's own expression, we are where we are. It seems, again, that there is 10,000 tonnes to 12,000 tonnes of this material. The onus for dealing with that material rests primarily with those contractors. It rests primarily with them to deal with it. As I understand it, they all have waste permits and have certain obligations under that to deal with this material. The onus for dealing with this material rests primarily on those contractors. We can look-----

I will pursue that point with Mr. McDonald. For the purposes of debate, could we park what is stockpiled and wind the clock forward to the 2021 baling and silaging season? The private contractors, as we all know now, are gone off the pitch. The IFFPG is going to collect 75% to 80% of the plastic. When there are no private contractors on the pitch, who is responsible for the disposal or recycling of the additional 30% of plastic this year? We should remember the farmer who will have it in his or her yard has paid a levy on it for the recycling and disposal of it. Who in the Department's view has responsibility for that this year?

Mr. Paul McDonald

The operation of this scheme is dealt with by the IFFPG. If that is the case for the next season, I do not know this for certain but I imagine the IFFPG has capacity to deal with an increased push on this. I do not see it as the private contractors filling a gap that could not have been filled by the IFFPG. I am not convinced of that.

The IFFPG has been in existence and has been doing this for 23 years. As its management is singing from the rooftops about hitting 80% collection, I do not know how it is going to get to 100% magically in one year.

Mr. Paul McDonald

Again, as we have said, the Department recognises the figure of 70% or 80% is an extremely positive performance by a system operator operating an extended producer responsibility scheme. We have not done any analysis of the reasons individual farmers may have used private contractors over the last number of years but I expect if it is a case that the private contractors do not present a service in the next year or two, I would think - and I can have this conversation with the IFFPG - that it could fill any gap that was there. I am not convinced that the system operator-----

(Interruptions).

We lost Mr. McDonald there at the end of that. He might just repeat his last sentence or two. We lost connectivity.

Mr. Paul McDonald

I am sorry, a Chathaoirligh, can you hear me now?

It is perfect now. We only lost his last sentence or two.

Mr. Paul McDonald

I am sorry. I expect the IFFPG would be able to fill any gap in the market because of the absence of private contractors.

I apologise to the Chairman for taking up a lot of time, but in conclusion, the IFFPG contract is renewed every five years. As Mr. McDonald said himself it got a new five-year rollover approval last year. When that is happening, is that position put out to public tender? When the Department is rewriting the group's contract every five years or reviewing its performance for approval of the coming five years, do the parties have this conversation about the 70%? Has the Department every suggested that perhaps, for the next five years it will try to set it at 80%, 85%, 90% or God between us and all harm, 100%?

Mr. Paul McDonald

Again, the approval is undergone every five years. It is not a licence as such but an approval. It is quite a rigorous procedure. We take advice from some of the experts within the Department and look at what is happening internationally to get a figure. That figure was 70%, which is an aggressive, onerous figure in any recycling scheme or any extended producer responsibility scheme. That it is an onerous figure would stand up to any objective scrutiny. The IFFPG has performed well as a system operator in exceeding that.

Is it advertised though, or put out to public tender? Could somebody else apply?

Is it a done deal every five years, a box-ticking exercise, or is it-----

Mr. Paul McDonald

Absolutely not.

-----publicly advertised?

Mr. Paul McDonald

It is far from a box-ticking exercise. It is a process that takes at least six months or thereabouts. As I said in response to a question from Deputy Carthy, if a corporate body or individual seeks approval to run a scheme to operate as a system operator, that opportunity exists. If such bodies or individuals can show the Department their ability to reach the bar set from the point of view of corporate governance, a business plan, contingency funds and all of that, on that basis there is no question and it is not provided for in the regulations that the approval must be advertised. It is open at any stage for a corporate body to apply to become a system operator for this EPR scheme.

To conclude then, the approval is not advertised. It is just a roll-over exercise.

Mr. Paul McDonald

It is an approval that comes up every five years. It is a rigorous process. There is not a requirement for it to be advertised but people in this industry are aware of how they may go about seeking approval for an EPR scheme.

I thank the Department officials for appearing before the committee. What Mr. McDonald clarified for Senator Paul Daly is that next week, any corporate body can apply to the Department and become a system operator. Is that correct?

Mr. Paul McDonald

That is correct.

I understand Mr. McDonald listened in to the earlier part of the meeting. Is he concerned that a witness stated he has 6,000 tonnes of plastic belonging to the IFFPG, and the IFFPG stated in response it understood there were 1,000 tonnes of plastic involved? Is Mr. McDonald concerned, in terms of carrying out the Department's checks and balances, there is a discrepancy of 5,000 tonnes of plastic on the part of an operator which was supplying the IFFPG? Have officials visited the IFFPG's different collectors to calculate the tonnage involved, given the Department was awarding the system operator's licence? I am an ordinary Joe Soap and one can argue as to whose product this is. There are 25,000 tonnes of plastic around the country which will cause a major problem.

Mr. Paul McDonald

On the Deputy's point regarding the discussion with Mr. Walker, that is something that will have to be dealt with. As I understood it, there was a conflict between what Mr. Moloney understood and what Mr. Walker understood. That will take its course.

When we go through this approval procedure with the IFFPG or any of the other system operators, a relatively forensic examination is taken of how they are performing and what the general environment in their particular field is. It is only relatively recently we have become aware of the problem of the stockpiling of material by these private contractors who-----

This plastic is to be found in the yards of those who are not private contractors, as these people have a contract. If we go by what Mr. Waker said, he was a supplier and that plastic he referenced is from last year, as none of that product has come in yet for this year. There is a large volume of plastic in other yards around the country. Is Mr. McDonald concerned about that? If there are 25,000 tonnes of plastic around the country and 10,000 or 11,000 tonnes of it owned by the IFFPG, is he concerned about that? Does he know the volume of plastic that is being brought across the Border given that it is two thirds the price there from what I hear?

I am a baling contractor. I have to give a farmer the number for every bit of plastic I give them because it has to be done legitimately and when they go to a bring centre, they can produce that number. I want Mr. McDonald to deal with this question separately. If a private operator gathers plastic and has all the numbers attached to each roll of plastic, is there is not an obligation on that operator to collect the plastic when the levy has been paid on it? Is a simple yes-no answer to that question.

Mr. Paul McDonald

The Deputy asked Mr. Moloney a similar question and the way he phrased his response was that if a contractor was doing some work on a farm and he has a small amount of-----

If I were to set off in my lorry to go to a farm and were I to pick up the plastic on that farm and if I had the numbers attached to it on which the levy was paid - the important aspect is that 100% of the levy is being paid - is Mr. McDonald saying there is not an obligation on the IFFPG to accept that plastic? I am not singling the IFFPG out but is there not an obligation on whosoever is the service provider or system operator to accept that plastic for the simple reason the levy has already been paid on it?

Mr. Paul McDonald

The nature of this scheme is the Department has recruited and approved the IFFPG to operate this extended producer responsibility scheme. The operational issues relating to that scheme are within the ambit of the IFFPG. I am happy that the way the IFFPG is operating this system meets all the requirements set for it by the Department.

There could be 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of plastic around the country on which the levy has been paid. If you had 1,000 tonnes of plastic and 500 farmers brought it on their tractors and trailers to a bring centre, they could tip it without a problem and could give the figures attaching to the plastic. If, however, you have gathered the plastic on which the levy has been paid and it would be handier to handle the plastic, Mr. McDonald is saying the Department does not think that should be brought in, even though €160 of a levy has been paid on it.

Mr. Paul McDonald

The Department has approved that the IFFPG operates this scheme. As the operator of the scheme, it can operate it within the terms of the approval. If its operational decision is not to pay that amount, that is how the system will operate. I would not see any reason for the Department to interfere to that micro level on how the system operates.

Is the Department concerned about the volume of plastic that may be brought in from the North given its lower price there and no levies would be paid on it? When a person applies for a licence or on a yearly basis, does any Department official go through the recommended operators who have permits to ensure there is not a large volume of plastic around the country?

Mr. Paul McDonald

On the Deputy's first point, certainly we would be concerned if material was coming over the Border, as we would be with any waste stream or any product. As was touched on, an enforcement brief is held by the local authorities and they would try to counter that. A figure of around 5% was mentioned but it would be a matter of concern.

On the Deputy's second point, the Department does not carry out individual inspections of any of the contractors. That comes under the approval of the IFFPG. It would recruit its own contractors and so on and that would be part of the brief of its system operation approval.

I have a final question. Is Mr. McDonald concerned that this system was set up for payment at the beginning, as Deputy Carthy said, and at the end when plastic is left back, while the farmer has to pay at both ends, which is tough?

Mr. Paul McDonald

Looking at this product, it is one that is very useful for farmers. I understand it revolutionised how they carried out their operations. To have the benefit of a product like that, at an average operating cost of approximately €65 per annum, represents good value. On that basis, I agree with previous evidence given that the system operates well and provides a good service to the farming community.

I must leave the meeting shortly because I will be speaking elsewhere. We all appreciate that 80% is a good rate of collection but 20% of plastics is a massive amount to leave sitting around. It is just not good enough. The officials told us that the Department is setting a target of 70% for the IFFPG every year but that company is still getting 100% of the levy. What would happen if I priced a house for Mr. McDonald and built 70% of it but took 100% of the money? He would come after me for the other 30% to get it finished somehow. It is not good value for public money that the Department is setting a target of only 70% for a company that is getting 100% of the levy.

We heard about Mr. Walker earlier. Why are departmental officials so quiet about what happened in that case? Have they anything to say about it? Are officials worried that the waste management infrastructure, whether it is recycling or farm plastics, is falling apart?

Mr. Paul McDonald

On the first point, we have touched on the issue of the 70% to 80% target. Of the 100% that is placed on the market, if IFFPG collects 80%, it is not my understanding that the other 20% appears in ditches and so on or is illegally dumped. There is a roll-over position whereby farmers buy for one year but may take up to five years before the plastic is presented again. On the IFFPG figure, as its representatives stated, it collects 100% of what is presented to it. I again emphasise that the Department engages IFFPG as a system operator. It knows more about this business than I do. Mr. Moloney stated earlier, and I agree, that a collection figure of 100% is just not attainable. It does not happen. The figure of 70% to 80% is a remarkably efficient one that is set for IFFPG and for which it accounts each year.

I do not agree with Mr. McDonald. I have been working over the last week and I got someone to come to remove stuff for me. If he had left 20% or 40% of what I asked him to move in my front yard but, while I was away, my wife paid him 100% of the money, by God, I would be fairly angry when I got home for the weekend. It is time departmental officials started pushing a crowd like IFFPG, who are taking 100% of the levy while farmers are paying at both ends. Maybe officials should start getting angry with the likes of the IFFPG.

Mr. Paul McDonald

As has been explained, the IFFPG gets 100% of the levy, which stands as its operating fee and for which it collects 70% to 80% of the plastic. By international standards, or any yardstick, it is an extremely efficient operation. I missed the second question the Deputy asked.

Are departmental officials worried that the waste management infrastructure, including farm plastics and the recycling rate, is falling apart?

Mr. Paul McDonald

No. Again, this is a matter we keep an eye on. I referred to the waste action plan for the circular economy that we produced last September. A chapter in that is devoted specifically to the indigenous treatment of waste in Ireland. We stress to all our system operators that they operate a proximity principle and to recycle as much product as they can in Ireland. There are some issues around State aid and so on that we have to look at before we could impose any regime on this, but in the waste action plan we committed to engagement with all stakeholders to try to increase the amount of indigenous capacity for waste material in Ireland.

I thank the Chair. I must leave the meeting to speak in the Chamber.

There are two more speakers. We are over time but I will let them in. I will take Senator Lombard and Deputy O'Flaherty together and will then go back to Mr. McDonald for answers.

Mr. McDonald cited twice, if not three times, the precedent whereby he believes farmers might buy plastic but not recycle it the following year and stated that there might be an overlap regarding the recycling. Taking that into consideration, over the 23-year period of the scheme has there ever been a situation where we had 110% recycling? In that scenario, there would be 110% or 120% recycling going through the scheme. Can Mr. McDonald give a breakdown, by year, of when we peaked in recycling?

I do not know much about Mr. Moloney and Mr. Walker. I just sat and listened to their testimony. There seems to be €5,000 difference between their testimonies. Does Mr. McDonald acknowledge that, as he listened to them? Can Mr. McDonald explain, in detail, what the Department will do with that information?

It is 5,000 tonnes. Senator Lombard said €5,000.

I apologise to the Chair and thank him for correcting me. There is difference of 5,000 tonnes. Mr. Moloney and Mr. Walker came before an Oireachtas committee today. Committees are a significant part of what we do in the Dáil and the Seanad and we have a major discrepancy in figures representing a huge amount of plastic. The Department is the one with due responsibility. He sat and listened to that testimony. What steps will Mr. McDonald now take to clarify this situation as we go forward? We will need to get clarity. This committee deserves it, one way or the other. As I said, I do not know the two individuals at all but we need clarity. I will ask the Department and Mr. McDonald to correspond with the committee and to inform us about what they will do to ensure that clarity is provided in respect of that issue.

On the amount of plastic at certain locations throughout the country, mainly on private land - although this is not always so, sometimes it is on land connected to the scheme - is Mr. McDonald happy with these stockpiles of plastic? I have heard stories of yards full of plastic throughout the county, although I have not seen it for myself. What will the Department do about that issue? Strictly speaking, it comes down to policy and the Department. What will the Department do to ensure that this major issue is dealt with?

I am conscious that we are tight on time so I will not delay. Following two meetings on this matter, the Department will be very aware that it is a serious issue for the committee. There is a great deal of concern, especially in light of the testimony we heard from representatives of the two companies. We accept, to a point, that 80% is a relatively good take-up but nothing short of 100% of collection of plastics throughout the country is an acceptable goal for us.

In summary, we would like to see ongoing engagement with the Department on this. Given what we have learned during the past two meetings, this issue has been ramped up our agenda. Regarding focus and how big a priority this is for the Department, and based on the concerns we raised, has this issue been scaled up by the Department to where it is seen as a priority? What reassurance can we be given that departmental officials will go away from the meeting today and that we will see meaningful engagement on trying to meet that 100% target?

Mr. Paul McDonald

To reply to Senator Lombard, I referred a number of times to the figure for the rollover. That was just to illustrate a point.

I do not believe the Senator, in referring to the rates of 80% and 100%, is dealing with exactly the same things because there is confusing input into the equation concerning the time farmers may take before disposal. However, I fully take the point on whether the rate, at some stage, goes over 100%. It may well have done. I cannot say definitively whether it did but, considering the figures for what has been collected through the scheme and what some of the private operators may have collected, the amount in question well have been exceeded at some point in the year. Again, however, it is something of a matter of mathematical confusion. I was making my point just to illustrate that it is not quite as clearcut as it might seem.

On the point made on the discrepancy in the evidence given by Mr. Moloney and Mr. Walker, it certainly jumped out at me that there is a discrepancy. We will certainly take that up. I would be happy to revert to the committee to clarify how it might be rectified.

The stockpiling issue has come up relatively recently. Regarding the problem concerning private contractors who had engaged in the practice, it is only relatively recently that we have become aware of stockpiling. As Mr. Moloney said earlier, there may be stockpiles in some of the IFFPG facilities. These are checked regularly by local authorities and so on and meet the standards so I do not believe they would pose an environmental threat. That may well not be the case in other instances. We will have to address that through our colleagues in the local authority sector. We are aware of one stockpile that has been subject to a judicial process, in Waterford. I believe there are over 5,000 tonnes involved. The onus for dealing with the stockpiles rests primarily and initially with the private contractors. It is their responsibility. They would have committed to it under the terms of their waste permits.

To return to Deputy Flaherty, I am more than happy to engage on an ongoing basis with the committee on this. This is an issue that has gained a lot of prominence recently. We are happy to monitor it through our engagement with the system operator in the first instance and also with our colleagues in the local authority sector who look after the enforcement side. The issue has a degree of prominence in the Department and this will continue. I am more than happy to keep the committee apprised of our progress on that.

On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. McDonald and Ms Byrne from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications for engaging with us today on this important issue. I heard Mr. McDonald say the plastic is not the responsibility of the Department. There is a considerable amount of plastic to be dealt with. It poses a monumental challenge. Farmers have paid the levy on it. I am aware that environmental conditions have changed for the people who collected it. We are not going to start disputing that. It was profitable to collect plastic in the past and now it is not. I hope we will have a homegrown solution for our plastic in the very near future. I was in the recycling plant in Littleton on Monday and I was impressed with it. Its throughput will only improve. We have a homegrown solution. For those who have plastic stockpiled, the economic viability of being able to get it moved is very questionable. The farmers have paid a levy and we do not want an environmental issue arising over plastics. I strongly urge the Department to consider solutions as to how we can get this plastic moved and recycled. We are here with no agenda today other than to make sure the plastic is dealt with environmentally correctly. Therefore, I ask Mr. McDonald to listen to what the committee members have said today. This issue has to be dealt with.

Mr. Paul McDonald

I assure the Chairman that I did not mean to suggest for an instant that this is not a concern in the Department. Any environmental threat posed by any waste stream is one that we would treat very seriously. I listened very carefully to the evidence today and at the other meeting. We will engage in a meaningful way to try to resolve this issue.

I thank Mr. McDonald very much.

I propose that we hold a private meeting on MS Teams tomorrow, 30 June, at 3.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed. That concludes our proceedings for today.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 6 July 2021.
Barr
Roinn