Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 2023

Recycling Farm Plastics: Discussion

Deputy Kerrane is replacing Deputy Carthy.

Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and people in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. Members are requested to ensure that their mobile phones are turned off completely or switched to airplane or safe mode, depending on the device, for the duration of the meeting. It is not good enough for members to put their phones on silent mode as they may interfere with broadcasting systems.

The purpose of the today's meeting is to undertake an examination of the collection and recycling of farm plastics. The committee will hear from representatives of the Irish Farm Films Producers Group, IFFPG, and officials from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

All persons present are asked to take personal responsibility for themselves and others in regard to the risk of contracting Covid-19.

Before we begin, I bring to the attention of those present that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising out of anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, within reason, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as do witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publications by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance regarding participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

On today's agenda is a debate on the collection and recycling of farm plastics. The committee will hear from representatives of the Irish Farm Films Producers Group, IFFPG, and an official from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. I welcome them all and invite Mr. Moloney to make his opening statement.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I thank the committee for inviting us. We are happy to come here today and speak about farm plastics recycling which is a success story. We supplied the committee with a written opening statement some weeks ago. Perhaps committee members had a chance to look at it. Nonetheless, I will give a broad overview in the next few minutes of who we are, where we come from, how we operate and what the current challenges are. I will go back to the beginning. In the 1990s it was quite obvious that Irish farmers had a problem, which was a new plastic waste stream they had to manage. Despite their best efforts it was difficult for them to manage it in a responsible way and that a solution was needed. In the late 1990s, the key stakeholders, including the producers of farm-plastic products, that is, the companies that manufacture and import it, the farmers via the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and the Department of the Environment came together and found a solution to the problem through the Waste Management (Farm Plastics) Regulations 2001. Those regulations made it law that companies that put certain farm plastics on the market had to contribute to recycling costs. They could do so in two ways, namely by joining a scheme such as the IFFPG scheme or by self complying. Self-compliance means taking the waste back from their customers. I should say that everyone in Ireland who is compliant, is compliant through our organisation, IFFPG.

Once the farm plastics regulations were put in place, they gave the wherewithal for the licensing of a recycling compliance scheme and in 1998 IFFPG was licensed as one of the first recycling compliance schemes in Ireland. IFFPG is owned by our producer members, that is the companies that put the farm-plastic products on the market, and the IFA. We are a not-for-profit body. IFFPG was given the remit of managing this area. The objectives of the company are as people would imagine. We must offer compliance to companies that put certain farm-plastic products on the market. We must offer a comprehensive collection service for farmers throughout the country. We must achieve recycling targets and as a minimum hit the target of 70% set by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. The overarching objective of the scheme is to ensure that our rural environment stays cleans and to support circular economy initiatives. We are funded by two means, which are the producer contribution, which makes up the majority of our funding. It is the charge we levy on our members who put farm-plastic products on the market and a weight-based collection charge we levy on farmers. We chose this funding model because it encourages farmers to bring cleaner plastic to our bring centres or collection points because we weigh the plastics. The collections are carried out by a network of approved contractors who are selected through an open national tendering process, which is typically held every five years. Those contractors collect the material on our behalf. The vast majority of the plastic is collected at bring centres. Typically, we run between 200 and 225 bring centres each year during the early to late summer period. We collect 90% of the plastic at the bring centres. We also provide a farmyard collection service for farmers who cannot avail of the bring centre service.

The results are hugely impressive by any measure. At the moment we are achieving a recycling rate of 88% which is exceptionally high for a plastic waste stream. No other plastic waste stream in Ireland comes anywhere near that level. Our scheme is seen as a model scheme in Europe when it comes to recycling silage plastics waste. The volume we are collecting every year is in the region of 36,000 or 37,000 tonnes of silage plastics waste.

I will just put that in language that people might be able to better relate to. That is the equivalent to plastic from 18 million silage bales, so it is a huge volume of plastic. Typically, perhaps 20 million or 21 million silage bales are made in Ireland each year. In the past five years alone, we have grown recycling by 40%. For most Irish farmers now, recycling of farm plastics waste is a mainstream activity that they engage in every year or every second year. There is no mystery or novelty to it; it is just something they do. They expect our bring centres to be held and they engage with the service.

The scheme is not without its challenges, however. As members are probably aware, over the past five years, the big challenge has been a very difficult farm plastics recycling market. This is because of global events. If we go back five or six years, we see that the Chinese closed their doors on importing plastics waste, for good reasons, and the result was that Europe became flooded with excess plastic, the small positive value that we used to get from our plastic disappeared and large gate fees were reintroduced. Five or six years ago, we saw a situation develop where the costs were spiralling and there was also reduced demand from recyclers. There has, however, been an increase in recycling capacity in recent years. We are pleased to see that a number of Irish recyclers have got involved in the market. We support them in as much as we can but, nevertheless, sometimes there are capacity issues.

As members are aware, we had Covid in 2020 and 2021, as a result of which the output of plants was reduced and it again became more difficult and expensive to recycle. When Covid ended the war in Ukraine came along and, as we all know, that caused a spiral in the cost of fuel and energy, which drove up recycling costs. The recycling market has been a big challenge in recent years. Nevertheless, everything we collect, we send for recycling. We have put in place measures to ensure that for the coming period, we should be able to collect any volume of material and send it for recycling. That is just a quick overview of who we are and where we come from. We are very happy to be here to engage with the committee in constructive discussion.

I welcome the witnesses. The biggest concern for farmers is that they pay a levy fee twice for farm plastics, at purchase and disposal. That is hard hitting in what are tough times for many farmers.

I have a number of questions for the IFFPG and I would appreciate if the witnesses would make a note of them as some may be connected. If I go too fast, they might pull me up and I will slow down. Am I correct in saying the IFFPG has its own compliance officer? What is the job description? Does the compliance officer visit the yards of agents and, if so, how often? Are all the agents compliant with the terms of permits? If there are any issues of non-compliance, how are they dealt with and are they reported to the local council? Can it be confirmed or denied if the IFFPG gave a contract to a company some years ago that has a conviction following a prosecution by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA?

What happened with the contractor's yard in Killorglin? Why was it closed? Who and what gives the IFFPG the authority to demand exclusive rights to the end-market recyclers? Since the introduction of the levy, what has been its annual value to the IFFPG? How much did the IFFPG earn from the sale of plastic annually during the good years when plastic had value?

Will we take all the questions together?

Some of them are connected so it might be easier to do so. The reason I am asking them so quickly is to ensure the witnesses get enough time to answer. How much are the operating costs of the IFFPG? How much money must it have on deposit in the event that all contractors' yards have to be cleared? Where is this money? Where are farm plastics being recycled outside of Ireland at present? What facilities are being used in Ireland and are there plans to incinerate this farm plastic waste?

This is my final question. As a non-profit scheme, when we go to the Companies Registration Office, CRO, website, why can we not view the full set of accounts for the IFFPG and why should they be hidden under EU 105 regulation as a non-profit scheme? Mr. Moloney might be able to answer some of those questions.

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is quite a lot of questions. I will start with the last one, which was about our accounts. Our full set of accounts is available on our website, farmplastics.ie, if Deputy Collins wants to see them. That deals with that question.

With regard to the levy and the farmer being charged twice, we have gone with a funding model that sees the producer in the first instance making up the bulk of the income, through the producer contribution. We also have a weight-based collection charge for farmers. We have gone with this model because it encourages farmers to bring in cleaner plastic to the collection points. We could charge for everything through the producer contribution, in which case the producer contribution would increase, so there would be no difference to the farmer. This particular funding model encourages the farmer to take out at least large pieces of contamination from the plastic. We have seen quite an improvement in the quality of plastic in recent years because of that.

We have had a compliance officer working with us for the past nine or ten years. He has two main roles with the company. One is to ensure our producer members get their returns in on time and we get the required funds from them. He also works with the local authorities to ensure any cases of illegal supply of farm plastic products – those without the levy – are dealt with. He has a third role as well, which is working with our contractors to make sure they are running their bring centres and yards to a high standard.

Our contractors are currently moving material from their yards in advance of the new season, which will be starting very shortly. From time to time, there can be pressures in those yards. If there are pressures in a yard, we work with the contractor to make sure the yard is brought back under control. Our contractors work in a very co-operative way with the county councils, as we do all the time. There is a very good relationship with the county councils.

As Deputy Collins will see from our accounts last year, our turnover was just a little over €6 million. That was the cost of running the scheme, so that is what we spent last year. We work towards having a reserve of in the region of €3 million in place at any given time. Having said that, for the last number of years, because we have been collecting record volumes of material at a time when recycling costs were high, our reserve has become a little depleted, but we have taken measures to deal with that.

If I have missed some of Deputy Collins's questions, he might just remind me.

Can it be confirmed or denied that the IFFPG gave a contract to a company some years ago that has an EPA conviction? What happened with the contractor's yard in Killorglin? Why was it closed? I understand there are quite a lot of questions. Where is farm plastic being recycled outside of Ireland at present?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We have two recycling plants in Ireland, so we supply as much as we can to those two recycling plants. After that, the material at the moment is going to recycling facilities in the UK and mainland Europe.

On the Deputy's question regarding a contractor with an EPA conviction receiving a contract, it came to our attention after a contracting procedure, when the contract was signed, that eight or ten years ago there, there was a conviction for one of our contractors. It was quite a minor fine on the particular contractor.

The Killorglin yard is not closed. There is a little bit of pressure there in terms of material in the yard, but we are working with the contractor to deal with it and the contractor is working with the county council as well. The contractor has submitted a planning application to extend his permitted area.

I thank Mr. Moloney. I have to let other members in.

I welcome my colleague Deputy Claire Kerrane to the committee. I think she will do a very good job. Deputy Carthy is a hard member to replace but I think we have got a good replacement.

Deputy Kerrane is more than welcome.

Looking through the IFFPG's documentation, I see it receives 75% of its funding through the recycling levy. Mr. Moloney mentioned bring centres around the country that collect 90% of the plastic for recycling.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We typically run between 200 and 225 bring centres each year, from early summer to the late summer period.

Are the four approved collectors located at the bring centres?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes. The approved collectors operate the bring centres.

An issue has been raised by independent collectors who feel they are not getting a fair share. The IFFPG only collects 70% of the waste.

Independent people are collecting the rest of it and are not getting any share of the levy. Is there a reason for that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The recycling target is 70% but we are collecting in the region of 90%. We are probably collecting 98% or 99% of what is being collected at the moment. There are very few independent collectors we are aware of collecting at the moment.

That was my next question. Is Mr. Moloney saying IFFPG has to achieve 70% but is collecting over 90% of the waste around the country?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We are collecting approximately 90%.

IFFPG collects 100% of the levy, but if 100% of the plastics are not collected, what is the situation? What is the excess money used for in that situation?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No scheme achieves a 100% recycling rate. For a scheme dealing with plastic waste, 90% is extraordinarily high. No other plastic waste stream in Ireland comes anywhere near that. The rest of the money goes into running the scheme and the administration of the scheme. We also need to maintain a reserve, which has to be kept at a certain level as a requirement of our licence.

Of plastics collected in one way or another but not recycled, how much is being stored around the country? Does IFFPG record in real time how long yards have been hanging on to those plastics?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Typically at this time of year for the past few years, we carry 12,000 to 15,000 tonnes in our yards. All that material will be recycled. We carry material in our yards because we have collected such record volumes at a time when it has been quite difficult to recycle. We have measures in place to clear out those yards in advance of the 2024 season. Every tonne of plastic that is collected is recycled.

Are those yards being cleared out based on the length of time plastic is there?

Mr. Liam Moloney

They are being cleared all the time. All the time there is plastic moving from the yards.

How many yards is plastic being stored in? Is the Department aware of any more outside of those it collects on?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We have four yards and four contractors. That is what we are aware of.

What is the status of those sites? Are they operational or closed pending compliance with regulations or anything? What regime does the Department employ to keep track of that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We work hard with contractors to move material from those yards all the time. Sometimes there are pressure points when the yards carry a little more than they should. If that is the case, we prioritise those yards and work closely, as do the contractors, with the county councils.

Compared with previous years, how much plastic is being sent abroad?

Mr. Liam Moloney

For the past couple of years, we have probably been recycling 40% to 45% in Ireland. Prior to that, the vast majority went abroad. We have two recycling facilities in Ireland. They are developing and growing. We would like a situation to develop where everything could be recycled in Ireland but at the moment that is not possible.

Some 45% is recycled here and the rest is going abroad.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Exactly.

On the levy, does the Department think the current payment system is value for money? Have other approaches been considered?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Is that directed to IFFPG or the Department?

IFFPG or the Department, whichever.

We will go online to the Department. I welcome its representative to the meeting.

Ms Bernie Kiely

I thank the committee for facilitating me in joining from County Wexford. Our role in the Department is to set the policy framework and set up the legislation and governance of the scheme. Through the farm plastics regulations we have set out clearly what producers have to do to take responsibility for the plastics they put on the market. As Mr. Moloney set out, the IFFPG is a response from the producers. It is a producer-led company that has come together to fulfil the legal obligations of producers. It is their responsibility to put a model together that works environmentally and financially to get plastics back from farms and into the recycling stream, keeping them out of the environment. The figures and pricing are a matter for IFFPG. It puts together the business model that works. It is its 25th year in operation this year. The evidence of its recycling rate is that it seems to be doing a very good job on that.

Has the Department considered allocating a portion of the levy to independent contractors for their collection and transportation of plastics?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The levy is what the producers pay when they put the material on the market. It is not the Department’s levy. It is the funding stream that is generated by producers for the company to look after the plastic returned by farmers. It is not an income stream that is available generally but is part of the business model of the producer scheme.

I welcome the witnesses. I will not ask questions concerning documents people have sent me in recent days, though they are concerning. I like to deal with facts and will focus on the paper before us.

I welcome Deputy Kerrane to the committee. She will be a great addition. I look forward to working with her, as I know others do.

My questions are for both the Department and the IFFPG. Will the IFFPG elaborate on who its strategic partners are, for instance, the IFA and others? Tell me who your strategic partners are. Tell the committee. This is about the committee, not about me.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Our scheme is owned by two bodies: number one, the producers of the farm plastic products who are our members and, number two, the IFA. We are a not-for-profit body. There are many other important stakeholders, not least the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, the county councils, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, our recyclers and our contractors, but our key stakeholders are those who own the scheme, namely, the producers of the farm plastic products and the IFA.

Have concerns been raised with the IFFPG or the Department on the corporate governance of the IFFPG or compliance with requirements of the EPA? Will the witnesses share with the committee any concerns outstanding?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I am not aware of any corporate governance concerns raised with my company. We work to the code of corporate governance issued by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

I am aware of that.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We adhere to that and corporate governance structures in our organisation are strong and robust.

On the IFFPG's compliance with all the regulations and requests of the EPA, are the witnesses comfortable the organisation is fully compliant and there are no outstanding issues with the EPA?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I am not aware of any issues with the EPA.

Mr. Moloney is speaking on behalf of the organisation. Is he confident in saying the IFFPG is not aware?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes. We are not aware. I am speaking on behalf of an organisation.

That is great. That is a more collective response. Will the Department answer that question?

Ms Bernie Kiely

Similarly, I am not aware of any complaints that have been made about the corporate governance of the IFFPG. We work closely on overseeing the terms and conditions of the approval of IFFPG. It is required to submit an annual report, which is available on its website. Its annual accounts are online. The approval itself is online. A midterm review is due this year, as the approval runs to 2025. We have regular meetings with it. It has produced a strategic planning statement in the past year or two setting out its strategic vision for the next few years. It has developed a risk management model. We are quite happy with what it is doing in terms of corporate governance.

I thank Ms Kiely. That assurance is very important to the committee, so I am glad to hear that.

Is Mr. Moloney aware of any issues with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I am not aware of any issues with the EPA.

That question is to the Department and Ms Kiely, I am sorry.

Ms Bernie Kiely

No. I have not heard of any compliance issues with the EPA.

That is great. We will move on. Regarding the compliance officers' reports, Mr. Moloney outlined that he has them. Could he briefly take us through the mechanism for the compliance reports. Are they clean bills of health? Can Mr. Moloney reassure the committee that there is a clean bill of health from the compliance officers' reports?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Our compliance officer is working all the time with our members to ensure we get accurate returns in, and then he is working all the time to ensure we get the funds from the members that relate to the returns. At the same time, he is working with local authorities to ensure that, for example, cases of illegal supply of product are dealt with. Very shortly, he will be going out with the Border local authorities to work in that particular area. As well as that, he works with our contractors to ensure that our bring centres are run in line with the legislation. He works as hard as he can also with our contractors to ensure their waste facilities are properly operated.

I thank Mr. Moloney. He mentioned illegal activities, could he elaborate on that? What would be the most recent illegal activities that he would have been aware of?

Mr. Liam Moloney

With regard to the Border enforcement campaign, the illegal activity I am talking about there is the sale of product without levy, which on occurs on occasion, more so in the Border region than anywhere else. What will happen there is our compliance officer will go out with the five Border local authority enforcement officers, and they will target retailers. They will make sure they are charging the levy. If they are not charging the levy, they are non-compliant, and then they run the risk of prosecution.

Could Mr. Moloney share with the committee the extent of that illegal activity in the last 12 months?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It is very hard to quantify illegal activity, but I would say that the market is, largely, 90% to 95% compliant in terms of payment of the levy. However, there is always a non-compliance element.

Again, to the Department, is it aware of this illegal activity, and how does it monitor and deal with it?

Ms Bernie Kiely

This is something that is fed into us from the reports by IFFPG and then the Waste Enforcement Regional Lead Authorities, which is the local government enforcement authority which is charged with overseeing enforcement in this area.

To what extent does Ms Kiely or the Department have knowledge of this illegal activity in the last two years?

Ms Bernie Kiely

If the Senator is talking about material being put on the market, without-----

Illegal activity is what I am talking about.

Ms Bernie Kiely

-----paying its levies, then I have. We have not had specific instances drawn to our attention, but we meet with our enforcement authority colleagues on a regular basis for any updates.

Would Ms Kiely be in a position to tell us if she feels that the local authorities are adequately resourced regarding their role in all of this?

Ms Bernie Kiely

Yes, there has been considerable new investment over recent years in bolstering the capacity of local authorities for enforcement in the area of waste generally.

There have been no concerns raised by the local authorities regarding their capacity to police this area?

Ms Bernie Kiely

I am not aware of any complaints from the local authority sector that it is having a difficulty in managing the farm plastic sector.

Would Mr. Moloney have a view on that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We find we get good co-operation from local authorities. We work very much hand in glove with them. We are aware, sometimes, that what we are asking them to do is not top of their priority list but nonetheless I would have to say that we get good co-operation, particularly from the Border local authorities.

I thank Mr. Moloney. On the bring centres, would he be in a position to provide the committee with a list of these bring centres, and their locations and a list of them?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, we can indeed.

It would be helpful. Some of us will take the time to visit one or two of them ourselves. It is nice to walk the ground and see first-hand what is happening on the ground.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Absolutely. We are in the latter stages just now of finalising our bring centre calendars. We are very happy to supply the calendars to the committee.

Is Senator Boyhan proposing that we should go as a committee?

No, we could see it geophysically online. We do not need to be getting our boots on and going around. We do not need junkets or trips to see this. We travel enough around the country and we can have a look ourselves. If Mr. Moloney could provide a list of those centres, it would be very helpful.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Absolutely, and committee members are very welcome to come either collectively or individually to our bring centres. Just let us know in advance, and we will organise that.

I am sure Mr. Moloney spoke about corporate governance. In summary and wrapping up, it appears that all is well in his organisation. It appears that all is well, and the Department has no issue. That is reassuring, at face value, after my questions. I am going away a lot happier, but again, until someone rings one of us up tomorrow and says something different, we have to take it that this organisation is in a healthy state. It is doing what it has set out to do. That is reassuring.

Could I ask Mr. Moloney one other thing before I wrap up? I would like to ask about IFFPG's ambition to increase recycling within the country. I am not bringing up plastics. There are major concerns about the amount that is on the ground, that was waiting. I know the organisation has logistics, and I know there are markets, that there is value, and there is money in muck and money in waste. Clearly IFFPG is a commercial outfit and has to wash its face at some point, so I understand why there may be delays. However, I think we need to move it quicker, recycle it quicker, and ultimately it should be our ambition that we should be able to recycle these plastics within Ireland. Could Mr. Moloney tell us what the organisation's strategic plan is to work in that direction?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We are certainly 100% committed to supporting Irish recyclers. At the moment, we support two Irish recyclers. There are only two Irish recyclers providing a service in this area. As I said earlier, we would very much like to see a situation where 100% of what we collect goes to Irish recyclers. It makes better sense for everybody involved. However, that just does not exist at the moment.

Although it is very recyclable, the waste stream is quite a challenging waste to recycle. It is not an easy waste to recycle. It involves a lot of investment and an awful lot of expertise. However, our vision for the future is to continue to collect record volumes of material to meet the objectives of our scheme, which are: to offer compliance to our members; a comprehensive collection service to farmers; to always exceed the national recycling target, and exceed it by as big a margin as possible; and to ensure that we have very good corporate governance structures in place.

I thank Mr. Moloney. Finally, again, regarding the vision and the investment that he is talking about, that all has to be linked in to some sort of strategic plan. It would be very helpful for IFFPG, but it would certainly be very helpful for us as a committee to understand it, and get some sort of measure of confidence about the plan. I presume IFFPG has a strategy.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We have a strategic plan, and I am sure there is no great problem in sharing it with the committee.

Could Mr. Moloney share that with the committee?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, I am sure-----

It is really important that IFFPG puts out its best performance here.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We would be very happy to do that, and-----

I would welcome an opportunity to look at that. Again, I want to thank Mr. Moloney and Ms Kiely from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for engaging. It has been helpful.

I thank Senator Boyhan, and call Deputy Claire Kerrane.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations, and for being here this evening. A few figures have been mentioned. I understand the target was 70%, and IFFPG has exceeded 80%, while 90% and 98% were mentioned as well. What was the percentage collected in 2022, the specific figure?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That was an 88% rate. The previous year it was 90% and, as Deputy Kerrane mentioned, the target is 70%. As the Deputy can see, we are nearly collecting one third more than what the target requires.

That is great. Obviously, as has been said many times, IFFPG is collecting 100% of the levy, but not collecting 100% of the waste. Where the organisation is collecting anywhere between 70% and even 90%, there is a clearly a gap in the market for further collectors, as I would see it. They exist; there are independent operators, as we all know, but they are obviously not getting any of the levy. Would IFFPG be satisfied enough, in order to level the playing field, if there was to be an examination of changing the legislation to make it a fairer playing field where the independent operators would get their share regarding the levy that exists?

I know that in the legislation and the Act, as it is laid down, it is paid to IFFPG. However, the other issue is that while the producer pays the levy in the first instance when they produce the plastic, or whatever it is, it is actually the farmer who pays it, because they will pay that knock-on cost. Then they will pay at the point of collection, so they are paying on the double. Clearly, however, the elephant in the room is the independent operators, and the issue there is that they are not getting any share of that levy. If there was to be a change, or an examination of a change to make it a fair, level playing field for those operators, would IFFPG be content enough? Perhaps the Department could answer this as well as to whether it is something it would look at it in order to level the playing field for independent operators. There is clearly an issue here, and we know there is.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We would consider any review of the legislation to be a matter for the Department and others. Regarding our funding, all the funding that we generate through the levy and the weight-based collection charge is needed by the scheme. That is the money of the scheme, and that is what allows us to achieve such high recycling rates. It also allows us to give consistency of service to the farmers, so it is consistent from county to county, and year to year. That money is ours, and we need it, and we like to think that we spend it very well.

As for any independent contractors, we would say they have absolutely a right to be out there collecting, but they are on their own. They are doing their own thing and they are responsible for whatever waste they may collect.

I presume, though, that Mr. Moloney can see where their frustration comes from, given that the IFFPG gets the levy in full but is not collecting that 100% in full. In fairness to them, I can certainly understand their frustration in that regard.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, but, of course, there are other costs associated with the scheme. There are the administration costs and, as mentioned previously, we have to have a reserve to ensure that if we hit a bump on the road, we will have the necessary funds to deal with it. I am afraid all the money the scheme generates is needed by the scheme to continue providing this reliable, consistent, cost-effective service to farmers.

Then the existence of these independent operators makes the IFFPG's costs slightly lower in some cases where they are collecting, say, 10% or 20% of what is left. They are reducing costs in doing that work for the IFFPG, although they are not getting a red cent of the levy. The Department might be able to come in on this. I appreciate that the IFFPG is working under the legislation that is there and that it is not for the IFFPG to change it.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I would say 98% to 99% of what is being collected at the moment is being collected by the scheme. In previous years, independent collectors would have collected larger amounts than they are currently collecting. We have no issue with independent collectors - they are entitled to operate - but we need all the income we generate to run our scheme and to continue achieving very high results. We see the independent collectors as doing something separate from what we do. We have a contractor tendering process every five years and that is an opportunity for any independent collectors who might want to become involved with our scheme to submit a tender and have it considered.

Mr. Moloney keeps referring to the figure of 98%, but the percentage collected in 2022 was 88%. That is the percentage, depending on what it will be at the end of 2023, but the latest figure is 88% as regards collection, and that is to the end of 2022.

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is right. That is the collection recycling rate for last year.

Would the Department like to comment on that as regards the legislation as it currently exists?

Ms Bernie Kiely

As the IFFPG has pointed out, the scheme as it is running at present is taking responsibility for the vast majority of the material on the market and providing a very stable and successful system. The Department therefore has no plans to revisit the fundamentals of the legislation or the policy in that regard. The independent operators are, of course, free to operate. They are also free to charge farmers what they will, what they can. We have no control over that, we do not determine what they charge and we do not know what they charge farmers. Once they take the plastics, however, they are governed by their waste permits as to the appropriate handling and management of that waste, and it is a significant responsibility. I think, as the IFFPG has pointed out, that we are talking about a very small number of independent operators. The scheme as it is, as I said, is successful and stable, and the feedback from the farmers is very significantly positive about their experience of using the scheme. I think the IFFPG has done some surveying in that regard to provide evidence on that point.

As regards capacity issues, Mr. Moloney said there are two recycling plants in Ireland. I know this has kind of been asked, but will he go just a bit further as to how he sees us getting to the point where we do not have to go abroad with the material in the first instance, it can be recycled in Ireland and that can all be done here rather than going abroad such that that is kind of cut out altogether?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I think the best we can do in that regard is to support Irish recycling facilities that open. Obviously, that is on the basis that they are fit for purpose and are in some way competitive on price, but if they meet those criteria we will certainly support Irish facilities. As for the two Irish facilities currently operating, we are giving them whatever they request from us, so we are giving them all they need and we hope they will develop further in the years ahead.

I welcome Deputy Kerrane and wish Deputy Carthy the best in his new role. We have always had a very good working relationship here, politics aside, and I look forward to having a good working relationship with Deputy Kerrane also.

A few questions I had have already been asked so I will not rehash them, but I would like to tease the matter out a bit. Mr. Moloney broke down the tonnage into bales for effect. The equivalent of 18 million bales sounds good, but I would look at the flipside of that. There is the equivalent of 2 million bales unaccounted for, and that is in a year when the IFFPG collected 90%. It has to collect only 70% to be across the line and to meet its requirements. Mr. Moloney said 90% is 18 million bales. That leaves 10% out there that nobody seems to care about. We have the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications represented here. I am not mentioning at all whatever may be coming in illegally. If there is illegal trading, it will be possible to quantify only the amount of it that is captured or caught. We have no idea how much illegal trading is going on that is not being caught. Leaving that aside and not adding it to this sum, the IFFPG is quite happy, under the current arrangement and licence, to have, even when it has one of its better years and collects 90%, the equivalent of 2 million round bales of plastic out there unaccounted for. What is the plan, from the Department's point of view, thinking of the environment at large? How do the witnesses think that will be collected or recycled? Setting this up from day one and setting a target of 70% was certainly not very environmentally friendly. Is there a plan? The IFFPG can come in here and say it is doing a fantastic job and collecting 98% of what is collected, which sounds like it is collecting 98%, but if it is collecting only 98% of 90%, where does Mr. Moloney think the balance is going? What is the plan for the balance? I have a couple more questions.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Will I deal with those first?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It is never possible to achieve a 100% recycling rate but-----

I know, but we should have a target. We would tell an under-14 football team going out on the field to have a target of 100%. It is very defeatist to set out that 100% will not be achieved. We should at least aspire to achieve 100%.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We aspire to collect as much plastic as possible from as many farmers as possible in a given year. As a minimum, we must exceed the 70% recycling rate, which is a very high recycling target for a plastic waste stream. As the committee has heard, we are achieving a recycling rate of between 88% and 90% at the moment. That is exceptionally high. To put that in perspective, the national recycling rate for plastic packaging at the moment is, I think, in the region of 33% or 34% and there is a 50% target to be met by 2025, which is seen as onerous.

When you set a target to be achieved, perfection is the target and it will never be achieved. Just because somebody else is doing less, to me, it does not wash.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Then I will go at it from the other angle. We have an extremely high recycling rate at the moment. We are blowing the target pretty much out of the water every year. We have a policy of collecting as much as possible over and above the target. We would love to collect 100% but it is just not possible to do so because not all farmers engage with the service. It may be a very small percentage still being collected by independent collectors, but we are certainly committed to collecting as much plastic over and above the target every year, and I think our results in recent years support that.

The independent collectors, to judge from all commentary, have gone off the pitch since the move from the green list to the amber list. Then the Chinese gates closed and the price dropped. As I said, the equivalent of 2 million bales of plastic that the IFFPG knows about is out there, and that is for only one year. It takes only ten years until that adds up to a fully year of plastic. What action is the Department taking to remove that blight from our countryside and environment? That is the question I am asking. The bar, in my opinion, is set way too low at 70%. We clap ourselves on the back and say we have to do only 70% but are doing 90%. The problem is the 10%. I do not want to talk about 90%, 70%, 98% or 88%. I want to talk about the 10% the witnesses all know is out there. Where do they think it is, or what plan is there to deal with it? The independent collectors would deal with it but the IFFPG receives all the levy.

They will not do it on a charitable basis. What plan is there to clear the countryside of the blight of the equivalent of 2 million bales of wrap per annum that is accumulating every year?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Does Ms Kiely wish to come in on that?

Ms Bernie Kiely

That is fine. My understanding of the way the collections system is working is farmers do not bring plastic to the collection points or have it collected from their farms every year, rather, it is collected over two to three years. On the collection of statistics, and Mr. Moloney can probably say more regarding this as he has more knowledge about it than me, the Senator is talking about an ongoing stock of plastic being on farms. Farmers would be concerned if there was very negative talk about the handling of plastic wrap because the evidence is it is very responsibly managed. Farmers respond very supportively to the bring centres on bring days. A list of those bring centres is on the website. As Mr. Moloney said, the dates will be announced in due course for this season but the collection points that have traditionally been used throughout the country are all listed on the website.

Certainly, we are happy with the IFFPG using all its access through its stakeholders, particularly through the farm networks and the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, to encourage farmers to use the collection service and bring centres. We had recent discussions about what more the IFFPG can do in that regard and how farmers can be satisfied the levy they have paid is being used to recycle the material so that when they send it back through the IFFPG, they know this is the system they have already paid into and the material is being taken away and managed in a responsible and transparent manner.

I accept all that. I do not share the enthusiasm of my colleague, Senator Boyhan, regarding an invitation to a bring centre because I have been. I can only compliment how the bring centres are run but I pay for the privilege of every visit I make to a bring centre so I do not share his enthusiasm for an invitation.

I will move on. With the greatest respect to the representatives' answers, they are still all talking about the 90% whereas I am talking about the 10%. I am not getting an answer to that. There is no plan out there, which I am particularly disappointed about as regards the Department. The IFFPG has a job to do. If only 90% of plastic turns up, so be it. You cannot go out and physically make people bring it in but I cannot see how the Department can stand over the fact that, as I stated, the equivalent of 2 million bales per annum are out there, which is accumulating. Nobody seems to know where it is and there does not seem to be a plan to find out where it is or do something about it.

I will quickly move on. I am conscious of time and that other people want to get in. I have a couple of other questions. The IFFPG is licensed by the Department. It was stated that the current licence expires in 2025. What is the procedure for the renewal of that licence? Is it a fait accompli? Do the Department and the licensee sit down together, go through it, cross a few t's and dot a few i's, change a few conditions or review whether they are hitting 70%, 75% or 80%? Is it a case of a smack on the wrist and go out and do better next term? Is it publicly advertised? Could somebody else apply for that licence or tender? Is it a fait accompli licence renewal or a tendering process?

Ms Bernie Kiely

There are two elements. One is that it is open to any set of producers to set up a compliance scheme. If a group of plastic producers want to get together and set up a compliance scheme in the morning, they can, under the regulations, make an application to the Minister. We will assess their case and the business plan they have put together. If it stacks up, they will then be entitled to have an approval. There could be two schemes running. It is like that in the waste electronics and electrical waste stream where two schemes are running, it could be said, in competition with each other. That is there.

What has transpired is there is one scheme only in that the producers have come together and collaborated in this way, so the vast bulk of the market is there in one scheme providing a very stable environment for farmers to return and recycle their plastics. If we take the approval in place for the IFFPG, which has been there for five years and will expire in 2025, there is a facility to have that renewed under the regulations. The regulations set down exactly the kind of scrutiny that will be involved in renewing that, if that is what the producers go for. It is open to the IFFPG not to apply for a renewal but if it does, the procedure is laid down in our regulations showing exactly what it is we need to do to assess its performance and its capacity to continue to deliver. It is not a box-ticking exercise by any manner of means. It is an open and transparent process, as I said, because it is laid down in the scheme's existing compliance terms and conditions, including the recycling rates it is achieving. There is good transparency with the scheme and its performance can be judged according to the track record pretty readily.

Will it be advertised for people who may want to have an expression of interest when the scheme comes up for renewal in 2025?

Ms Bernie Kiely

No, it is not that it is advertised. It is that the client that has applied to the Minister previously to set up this scheme can apply to have its approval renewed. Anybody else, at any time - they do not have to wait until 2025 - can look for an approval in the meantime.

Okay. That is it for the moment. I might come back in again.

I welcome the witnesses. Will the IFFPG give some background on why it was set up originally? What were the aims and targets? What was the positive side for the farmer in that organisation being set up?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It dates back to the 1990s. As the Deputy is probably aware, farmers in Ireland then were increasingly switching from making hay and pit silage to bale silage. They were making that switch because it had become much easier and much more cost-effective to make bale silage. What then happened is we saw the generation of a new waste stream, which was a problem for farmers. Even for farmers who wanted to do right thing, it was very difficult for them to responsibly dispose of this waste stream. The main stakeholders in the sector came together to try to find a solution. These were manufacturers of farm plastic products, the IFA representing farmers and the Department with responsibility for the environment. It was felt that farm plastics regulations should be the solution. Those regulations oblige companies that place certain farm plastic products on the market to contribute to recycling costs. They can do so by joining our scheme or they can self-comply and take the waste back from their customers. Nobody is self-complying at present.

The farm plastics regulations put the obligation on producers. They also allow for the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to license the recycling compliance scheme. The IFFPG became one of the first recycling compliance schemes in Ireland in 1998 when we were licensed. The main objectives of our scheme are to provide cost-effective compliance to our producer members, to provide a comprehensive and reliable collection service to farmers throughout to country, and to exceed the national recycling target. Obviously, the overall objective is to keep our rural environment clean and support circular economy objectives.

On the oversight from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications over the years, and more recently over the past five or six years, what type of complaints is the IFFPG getting? What kind of oversight has the Department of the IFFPG? What regular meetings does it have with the Department? What input does the Department have into the IFFPG?

Mr. Liam Moloney

As Ms Kiely mentioned, we go through a rigorous approval renewal process every five years. This is a big body of work. It initially involves us submitting an application where we highlight all the operational achievements of the previous five years and the corporate governance structures in place. We then map our plans and strategy for the coming five years.

After that, the application is submitted to the Department, we engage with the Department, there are meetings and discussions. Eventually, all going well, our approval is renewed. In addition, we have regular meetings with the Department once, twice or three times a year. Every year, we must also get a detailed operations report in to the Department, as well as audited accounts for the previous year. Therefore, there is constant contact with the Department. The Minister approves our approval or licence, and we must constantly not only provide information to the Department with regard to how we are operating and our finances, but we must also make this information available to the general public through our website.

Mr. Moloney will be aware that we all got emails regarding his organisation from different people and organisations over the past two or three years. Is he content and can he confirm that its accounts are fully above board, that everything with the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is open and transparent and that it is hiding nothing? We get these accusations so it is very important for me to be able ask Mr. Moloney these questions and that he is able to put that on the record here. By him putting it on the record here, there is no going back. Is he happy that the accounts are 100% or, if not, then above board to the best of his knowledge?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Absolutely. Our accounts are properly kept, they are independently audited every year, we supply our accounts to the Department every year, they go up on our website and they are there for everybody to look at. Everything is absolutely transparent so I would be confident that our accounts are right and proper.

I will ask the same question of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Is Ms Kiely happy to confirm that any complaints that the Department has received regarding the accounts of the IFFPG have been fully investigated?

Ms Bernie Kiely

We have not got any complaints about the accounts of IFFPG, so we are happy, from our oversight procedures and from our engagement with the company, that things are above board and that there are no issues.

I will go back to Mr. Moloney with regard to the scale of the service, the number of collection centres and the level of participation. How many farmers participate in the scheme? What is the amount collected and processed by IFFPG on a per-annum basis? I believe it is in mid-30,000s in tonnage terms. Am I right in that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

Will Mr. Moloney give us a recap on that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

At the moment, we have around 75,000 farmers who use our service. They might not use it every year and they might come in on a two- or three-year cycle, but the important thing is that they recycle all of their farm plastics waste with us. Last year, we collected 36,500 tonnes of silage plastics waste, which, as mentioned earlier, is equivalent to plastic from 18 million silage bales.

I am sorry to interrupt. I have heard it said twice so far that there is a two- or three-year cycle of picking up plastic. I am a little concerned by that terminology because my understanding is that for the Bord Bia examination, you need a certified letter from your actual provider saying you have it recycled. If people were to store plastic for anything over the period the Bord Bia inspection, they would probably be out of sync. I am a little put out by this. I have heard it from the Department and from Mr. Moloney. For those of us who go through the Bord Bia process, it gives out the wrong signal that it is being stored.

On another issue, can Mr. Moloney clarify whether someone needs to be a registered collector in order to get approval from Bord Bia regarding the actual collection point? In other words, does it have to be IFFPG that has the actual stamp on the receipt or does a private operator’s stamp do when it comes to the Bord Bia inspection?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I am not aware of the answer to that and Bord Bia would not have engaged with us with regard to that requirement. Increasingly, we are being asked by farmers to get copies of receipts because they are having Bord Bia inspections. The upshot of that is going to be that farmers are going to come in more frequently, if this is what is driving it. Over the past ten or 15 years, many farmers have come in every year, but some would keep their plastics for a two- or three-year period and then bring them in. Maybe the more recent Bord Bia requirement is going to change practices in that regard.

How many farmers would retain plastic for two to three years?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not have the figure handy but what I can tell the Deputy is that, typically, around 50,000 farmers use our service every year but we have approximately 75,000 farmers on our database, so that is typically what is happening. They are not all coming in every year but they are coming in on a cycle.

If Paul Daly or Paul Kehoe are using the IFFPG service and if either has suddenly not shown up with their farm plastic, who follows up to see what they are doing with it?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Nobody follows up. There is no legal obligation on a farmer to recycle his or her farm plastics waste. Farmers recycle with us for a number of reasons, one being that they have got a problem that they want a solution to, which is the farm plastics waste, and they find our service convenient and cost-effective. There is no legislation compelling farmers to recycle, however, and we do not chase any who do not recycle. We approach it from the other side, whereby we encourage and make it is as easy, cost-effective and convenient for them as possible.

Does Mr. Moloney believe there are farmers going rogue and doing whatever they want with plastic? There is oversight from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, yet there is no oversight in terms of following up with farmers to see what they are doing with their farm plastics.

Mr. Liam Moloney

There is no doubt that some farmers - a small minority - are not recycling. What are they doing with it? There are various things. They might be just stockpiling it, they might be sending it to landfill or they might be putting it into their wheelie bin, if they are generating a very small volume. We do not want an approach where farmers are chased or there is legislation introduced in this area to compel them to recycle. We want a continuation of the present carrot approach, which is to make it as attractive and convenient as possible. We have found that this gives rise to a huge number of farmers engaging with the service.

How many licensed collectors has the IFFPG on its books?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We have four.

Where are they based?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Kilkenny, Kerry, Cavan and Mayo.

What gaps exist where IFFPG would need further licensed collectors?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Those four collectors cover the whole country between them. If the truth be known, another collector would be nice. We will have a tendering process at the end of next year and that is an opportunity for people who are interested in getting involved in this business to submit a tender and have it considered. Those four collectors cover the whole country.

Have all of those four licensed collectors full planning permission in place and every box ticked, for example, in environmental terms?

Mr. Liam Moloney

They all have waste permits and a couple of them are at the moment going through the planning process to extend the terms of their permitted facilities.

They all have planning permission for storage facilities.

Mr. Liam Moloney

They all have waste permits that allow them to store their material but, as I say, in the case of couple of them, they want to extend their waste facilities so they are going through the planning process at the moment.

How do I qualify to become a licensed waste collector?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Let us say that we have a tendering process at the end of next year. If someone is interested in participating, they would get the tender documents from us and submit a tender. There are certain essential things that we would look for from you. First, an operator would want a waste collection permit that would allow it to collect. Second, the operator would want a waste facility permit which would allow it to store materials. The operator would also have to provide information about insurance tax compliance. As well as that, we would want a price from the operator for the various services that we would be asking it to provide on our behalf.

Are any of the IFFPG’s four licensed collectors engaged in stockpiling?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We have material in yards. We have had material in yards over the past number of years. At any given point, there is material in yards. We are moving it all of the time but that is just a reflection of the business, with huge volumes of material coming in. Everything that comes in is recycled but sometimes there is a little lag between it coming into the yard and going out for recycling.

Between the volume that they have planning permission to hold and the stockpile volumes that they have, is Mr. Moloney aware that any of the IFFPG operators are way over their planning permission volume?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We have a couple of guys that are under a bit of pressure in terms of volume. We are working with them to bring their yards back into line. Those particular contractors are also working very closely with the county councils involved.

When Mr. Moloney says they have a few problems, what sort of tonnage would they be stockpiling?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not have that to hand ,but there are a couple of them where the volume is a little excessive. We are dealing with that by moving the material and working with the contractor as quickly as we can, and the contractor is also liaising with the relevant local authority.

I am sure Mr. Moloney, as CEO of the organisation, should know that. For example, if X licence collector has a volume of 30,000 tonnes and has 150,000 tonnes, surely Mr. Moloney knows that.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not think there is anything as excessive as that happening but I do not have those figures to hand at the moment. However, where we have a situation where a contractor comes under pressure, we work with that contractor hand in glove. In respect of that contractor, if there is an issue with the permit, we will work with the county council - we would very much advise that – and the situation would be quickly brought back in line.

Have any of the IFFPG’s licence collectors been an issue with their own local authorities?

Mr. Liam Moloney

As I said, there are a couple of collectors at the moment who are little over volume. They are working with their county councils and us to bring that situation under control.

Is any prosecution being followed up on or anything like that that Mr. Moloney is aware of?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No, there are no prosecutions.

If a licensed collector were to lose his or her licence, for what reasons would that person lose it? How many people have lost their licences through Mr. Moloney's organisation over the past ten or 15 years?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Is the Deputy talking about us terminating contracts?

Terminating, losing or whatever Mr. Moloney wants to call it.

Mr. Liam Moloney

In the tendering process, people can be successful or unsuccessful. I do not have to hand the number of existing contractors that we lost due to them not being successful in the tendering process. I can think of two contractors whose contracts were terminated in, let us say, the past ten years.

For what reasons had their contracts been terminated?

Mr. Liam Moloney

For a variety of reasons, including systematically collecting outside of their territory, charging farmers at the wrong rate, falsifying paperwork and various things such as that.

How many non-licensed collectors are out there at the moment? I am sure the IFFPG as an organisation has - and should have - researched them.

Mr. Liam Moloney

The Deputy is asking about the independent collectors.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not know how many are out there at the moment but I feel that the amount being collected by independent collectors is absolutely minimal.

I wish to go back to the officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. What percentage of farmers are they aware of who are not complying with the farm plastic waste collection?

The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

I am asking whether the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is aware of it because we do not have officials from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications before us.

Ms Bernie Kiely

To be clear, I am from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

My apologies.

Ms Bernie Kiely

That is okay. Mr. Moloney gave the numbers of farmers who are participating in the scheme. That would reflect then on the numbers who are returning their plastics. Beyond that, I do not have any further data.

Nobody from Ms Kiely's Department, through local authorities or anything such as that, is checking up on that?

Ms Bernie Kiely

No, not checking up on farmers. If there was a complaint or if there was excessive material held on a farm that was becoming an environmental nuisance, the local authorities would be the ones to investigate and enforce the law as regards holding waste.

This service was free of charge to farmers previously. When did the charge come in for when it is collected or when they take it to the bring centre?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It predates my time, but I think it was around 2005 or 2006.

Under what legal provision does that come in under?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I think, at that time, the scheme was restructured, the recycling target was increased and it was decided that a collection charge should be introduced to farmers to increase funding but also to improve the quality of the plastic. However, as I said, it predates me, so I was not involved in any of this.

Is there a legal basis there? Perhaps Ms Kiely might be able to answer that. What is the legality of charging farmers for the collection of farm plastic? Is that fully legalised?

Ms Bernie Kiely

It is within the terms of the regulations. It is part of the business model, primarily, that the compliance scheme has put together to fund recycling. It is important to remember that this is a waste product and it has a cost associated with it. Unfortunately, there is no longer a revenue stream coming from the recycling, so a cost is involved in collecting, sorting and shipping recycling, etc. Therefore, it needs to be funded.

Does Ms Kiely know under which Act that charge comes under?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The regulations are the farm plastic regulations from 2001 originally. They do not get into a charge per se. They just allow the compliance scheme to propose a business model to the Minister.

Ms Kiely is saying there is no legal basis required for charging.

Ms Bernie Kiely

I am not sure that it is explicit in the legislation. I can verify that and confirm that to the committee afterwards, if that is helpful.

Yes. Ms Kiely is saying that farmers are not being illegally charged. They are legally charged for that.

Ms Bernie Kiely

I have never heard it proposed before that the charge was illegal.

Okay. At the previous committee meeting, there was understanding given – I will not say "commitment" – that the IFFPG would clear the stockpiling within 12 months. Why has that not been done?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, that commitment was given. However, because we collected such record volumes in the past couple of years, it just put us under a little bit of strain. Certainly, we are confident that, within the next 12 months, we will clear out whatever carryover material is there. Last year, there was an 88% collection recycling rate and the year previous it was 90%. Huge volumes were collected and it put us under a little bit of strain. We were delighted to collect those huge volumes, but we did not predict them. We did not see such huge volumes coming.

What is the position with Littleton at the moment? I understand there is stockpiling there. Am I correct? Is that the responsibility of IFFPG or the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Littleton is a private company; it is separate to us. We supply material to it. I cannot speak on its behalf.

Perhaps the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications can answer that question. Is Ms Kiely aware of stockpiling in the Littleton plant at the moment?

Ms Bernie Kiely

No, I cannot say that I have been made aware. However, I would not expect to be made aware of that either. If there are any issues regarding its waste permitting, it would come through the local authority system.

Okay. I will come back in later.

I thank both parties for coming in. Perhaps Mr. Moloney can run me through one part of this that I am trying to get to grips with. In respect of the plastic that comes into the country from the different suppliers, who do they pay the levy to?

Mr. Liam Moloney

They pay the levy to the scheme.

That is for all the tonnage. It is per tonne, roll or what?

Mr. Liam Moloney

They pay per tonne.

How much is it per tonne?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It is €240 per tonne.

Was it not less than that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It was. That is right.

How much has it gone up?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It has gone up by €80 per tonne this year.

It has gone up €80 per tonne, so that will be €2 a roll on every roll. Would that be fair to say?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is right. Yes.

That is for every farmer. How many tonnes did the IFFPG get paid for in 2021 and 2022, let us say, for the previous year's baling and silage?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Last year, the market was very poor. It was down by 20% because of the price of fertiliser and because of droughts. There was just a little more than 20,000 tonnes put on the market.

Some 20,000 tonnes came in.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

Mr. Liam Moloney

From the manufacturers and importers.

What was the total income from that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Last year, it was €160 per tonne.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes. Last year was €160 but it has gone up to €240 per tonne.

How much is that, roughly?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I think it was €3.5 million or €3.6 million or something like that.

How many tonnes were collected last year at the bring centres?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Some 36,500 tonnes.

My understanding, and Mr. Moloney can correct me if I am wrong on this, is that if something is 1 kg here, it is 2 kg when they get it back. Is that correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Pretty much, yes.

What was the income out of that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The overall income last year was in the region of-----

No, I am talking about for the bring centres.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I think we brought in €1.8 million or €2 million - something in that region. Our overall income last year between levy and collection charges was approximately €5.5 million.

What are the overall costs with all of the contractors - without IFFPG's office costs - to collect that, the bring centres and, I presume, the baler fee?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The overall cost to the scheme last year was approximately €6.1 million to €6.2 million, and all but approximately €500,000 of that were operational costs.

Was the Irish Farm Film Producers Group making a loss of €0.7 million?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It was approximately €600,000 last year.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

That is a loss €0.7 million at the moment, is that fair to say?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I think it was in the range of €600,000.

That is €600,000; we will not fall out over €100,000. What is in the bank account at the moment? When does the Irish Farm Film Producers Group get paid for the imports? I presume that is in the back end of the year for this year and now it gets the subsidy.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Most of the members start to pay the contribution from May or June.

If it is May or June, the organisation would not have received anything yet for this year.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Very little.

What does the Irish Farm Film Producers Group have on balance at the moment in its accounts, cash in hand as it is called?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not have that to hand but there is in the region of €1.5 million to €2 million in resources.

Does that account for the €700,000 loss?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

What estimated tonnage is there in the four different sites at the moment?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We would typically carry 12,000 tonnes to 15,000 tonnes at this time of the year

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, I believe so.

What was disposed of by recycling in the past year?

Mr. Liam Moloney

In the last calendar year?

Forget about calendar years; I am talking about Christmas to Christmas. What was got rid of to recycling centres in 2022?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It was in the region of 31,000 tonnes to 32,000 tonnes.

It was 31,000 tonnes to 32,000 tonnes and Mr. Moloney said there would be a 4,000 tonnes carry-over from that or maybe more.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

Mr. Moloney estimates there are 15,000 tonnes in the centres at the moment.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Approximately.

What is the cost of getting that over the line at this minute?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It will go over the course of the year, but-----

Yes, but are we ready for this year's volume to come in shortly?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

What would the cost to get rid of 15,000 tonnes be?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It would probably be in the region of €1 million or something like that.

How much does it cost?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I would say approximately €1 million.

Does this have to be baled because from photographs the committee has seen of the Irish Farm Film Producers Group's bases, none of the plastic is baled. There is loose plastic in a lot of places is that correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Anything that goes for export is baled and anything that goes to Irish facilities is loose.

I am asking Mr. Moloney a question. Of the 15,000 tonnes the committee has seen photographs of it looks like it is all loose plastic. Is that correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The plastic is stored loose initially but as it goes to recycling facilities abroad, it is all baled.

In Mr. Moloney's estimation be it to balance both, what is the percentage going out of the country in the last year?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It is probably 55% or thereabouts.

So 55% has to be baled. What is the cost to bale it and then transport it?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I will not go into that level of breakdown because that is commercially sensitive.

It is very important.

Mr. Liam Moloney

It is also commercially sensitive.

I do not care. Farmers are paying for this service so they deserve to know. Mr. Moloney said the Irish Farm Film Producers Group is not-for-profit.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

If it is not-for-profit the farmer deserves to know the price.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I will not break it down to that degree because we have contracts and contractors and the information-----

I know the Irish Farm Film Producers Group has contracts. I am asking what it costs per tonne to bale plastic and to bring it out of the country.

Mr. Liam Moloney

As I said, that is commercially sensitive.

How much does it cost to bring the plastic loose to the place here?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is commercially-sensitive information.

How can the committee come up with a figure?

I am sorry, the privilege note gives the company a level of security with regard to commercially-sensitive information.

With due respect I cannot do up the figures. I will put it this way. I know it costs approximately €100 per tonne to bring the plastic to certain places in this country. The cost of baling is on top of that. Would I be correct to say that if the Irish Farm Film Producers Group was to get rid of all the plastic around the country at the moment, it would cost more than is in the kitty, going by the figures I have received from talking to people about the costs to get it out of the country, to England? Is it fair to say it is now tougher to get plastics out of the country now with the different colour codings, at one time there were green plastics I think it is now called orange or amber. I spoke to contractors who bring it out. Would it be fair to say that with the 15,000 tonnes hanging around, it would be nearly impossible to get rid of the plastic with what is in the kitty?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No, that is completely incorrect. We are confident that we are adequately funded this year to not only recycle the 15,000 tonnes of plastic but maybe an additional 25,000 tonnes in addition to that.

Am I correct that contractors got a letter from the Irish Farm Film Producers Group last year saying that it would not pay them until four or six months or whatever from the time there was a collection from the bring centre? Is it correct that it sent such a letter to contractors?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Absolutely not.

How quickly does the Irish Farm Film Producers Group pay contractors at bring centres?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We pay them by the terms of their contracts.

I am asking whether a letter went out last year.

Mr. Liam Moloney

No, it did not.

That is okay. No letter went out that contractors would be paid in September or October of whatever?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No.

Is it the case that Mr. Moloney does not agree with me that the 15,000 tonnes that is hanging around at the moment would cost what is in the kitty?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Absolutely not. We intend to recycle perhaps 40,000 tonnes of material this year. We feel we are adequately funded to do that. We have a levy increase which will bring a lot of additional funding.

If the Irish Farm Film Producers Group recycles 40,000 tonnes and last year it took in 20,000 tonnes and has 15,000 tonnes left at the moment, that is approximately 25,000 tonnes of this year's plastic, as well as 15,000 tonnes from last year. Does the Department worry that there is plastic hanging around that, in my opinion, if we were to keep on top of things, should be gone? Where does the Department hold responsibility?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The use the plastic is put to and the seasonal nature of the activities involved has to be taken into account.

There is no seasonal nature in recycling.

Ms Bernie Kiely

It is not that it is hanging around, it is being stored until it is collected and then it is stored again until it is baled. It has to be managed in-----

Sorry but recycling plastic is not seasonal. Plastic can be recycled all year round.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Absolutely. It is more the nature of the farmer's use of the plastic and the collection of it from the farms and the bring centres are organised largely in the late spring and summer.

Hold on a second. To be clear on this, in fairness there is a time of year when bring centres are open, so the plastic is there from then on. Farmers have nothing to do with this. I am asking if the Department is concerned that of last year's plastic, and this year's plastic that is about to come around the corner, that there is 15,000 tonnes of plastic hanging around the country? In my opinion there is more because there are private plastic operators as well. It is not down to seasons because recycling goes on year round. If is it going to England it goes year round, and if it goes to Ireland it goes to places in Ireland. What is the Department's view on that?

Ms Bernie Kiely

It has to be managed within the permit terms for those who hold the plastics. That is the bottom line and if anything untoward is happening, the enforcement authorities are there to monitor and take action.

Does the Department go out to those who are successful in getting licences to check what tonnage they have?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The local authorities monitor that.

Does the Department with responsibility for climate action do that?

Ms Bernie Kiely

No, but the Department with responsibility for climate action makes a contribution towards the funding of the local government enforcement sector.

Right. With regard to plastic, there is now an extra €2. The witnesses said it was €1.60, which is roughly €4 per roll. That means it will now cost €6 per roll ,which is an increase of 50% for the farmer. Is that correct?

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is correct.

To take the example of oil going up in price, generally over the years when that happened recycling material became more valuable. What is the story with this now? One time, when the price of oil was dear, people would be paid to take plastic. What was the story when the price of oil was dear in the last year?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Unfortunately, that linkage is broken now. This is mainly because of the decision by the Chinese five or six years ago to stop importing plastic waste. That country used to import 7 million tonnes annually. Once that importation stopped, we saw oversupply in Europe and elsewhere. Unfortunately, therefore, plastic at the moment has no positive value. We hope in the years to come to see it return. If that happens, our costs will reduce dramatically and we will pass the savings back to farmers and our producer members.

At the bring centres, the price paid was something like €50 a tonne. Is that accurate?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Last year, it was €70 per tonne and it is the same price this year at the bring centres. This is the price charged to process it.

It is €70 per tonne again this year.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Exactly.

Turning to the witnesses from the Department, I ask them to explain this to me because I cannot get my head around it. If I operate a school bus, I have to tender to Bus Éireann every five years under a procurement process and tick all the boxes, such as having washed it and all that type of craic. How come a Department gives out a contract, going by what I am hearing, under a fancy regulation that seems to provide the opportunity to keep going and going? Why is there not a procurement process for invited tenders for that contract? I would be very happy if I could do seven hoppers and get paid for ten when I am cutting turf for people. How come the Department does not deal directly with the importers? Customs deal with most things in this country. If a car is being brought in, the vehicle registration tax, VRT, and everything else must be paid to Customs. If a refund is owed, then the money is paid out. How come the Department does not look after this aspect?

I ask because it seems to be a piecemeal process. I refer to whatever deal is done with the importers and the people with the contract. That seems to be the system. Generally, what happens is the Department will get in X amount for everything and then pay out the money to the people doing the job. This is the rule in nearly everything, but this seems to be a completely different set up. Why does the Department not bring in a system for reward? If I collected 80%, for example, then I would get 80% of the tonnage that was sold or came into a country, or even 90% to try to rev it up a bit.

To all the witnesses, I had a look at the statistics on the single farm payment and 130,000 farmers are drawing it. Mr. Moloney stated earlier his organisation has the herd numbers of 75,000 customers. I refer to the context of 50,000, but I think 75,000 was the figure mentioned. Where are the other 55,000 going? What is happening? Do they exist at all or what is the story?

Ms Bernie Kiely

I will deal with the first question. The process is very different from the school bus provision in that it is not providing a service to consumers. This is about putting the responsibility on the producer of the plastic. If we regard this material as having a useful life but one that becomes waste at the end of it and has the potential to become a nuisance to society, then we wish to ensure that the people who put that product on the market take responsibility for it at the end of its useful life. This is, therefore, a producer and polluter pays system. It is a well established principle across EU legislation and it is there for other product streams. It is increasingly being used as a way of ensuring producers take responsibility for what they produce when it becomes waste. We have the waste electrical scheme that I just spoke about. When people are buying toasters, for example, they can bring back old ones and be confident they are being recycled properly. We also have a tyre scheme and several others based on this precise principle. Several more of these producer responsibility schemes are coming under the single-use plastics directive.

This is the basis for the existence of the farm plastics scheme. It is to ensure responsible treatment of the material at the end of its life. Profits are being made from selling the material. Plastic is a useful substance for farmers in their businesses, but at the end of its life it has no value and must be looked after. There is a legal responsibility on those producers in that regard. They are, therefore, legally obliged then to come up with a system whereby this material is safely and reliably collected and recycled, and this system has shown stability and success over years in providing precisely this service to farmers on behalf of producers. This is why it is different. I can understand it might be difficult to grasp precisely where this leaves contractors who are contracted to the scheme, but they are providing a service to a scheme and not to the Government.

Mr. Liam Moloney

To respond to the Deputy, we feel the vast majority of livestock farmers operating on any sort of large-scale are availing of our services. The figures support this. We had an 88% recycling level last year. Obviously, some farmers are not recycling. Equally, though, there are farmers who might have herd numbers but who are not necessarily wintering cattle or are producing minimal amounts of waste and dealing with it in some other way.

It is just the figure I am looking at in the context of the single farm payment, as Mr. Moloney may appreciate, is 130,000. Even if they are not farming cattle, the grass is still going to grow and it will be eaten in some way. Regarding the 55,000, if they make bales or silage it will be necessary to use plastic. I cannot fathom how there is a gap of 55,000 in the context of the 75,000 on the records of Mr. Moloney's organisation in this regard.

Additionally, Mr. Moloney said 20,000 tonnes came in last year and that it was a bad year for fertiliser. I understood, however, that we fed nearly the same number of cattle last winter as we did in any other winter. How did we feed the same number of cattle with 10,000 or 15,000 tonnes less?

Mr. Liam Moloney

There is a lot of carryover material in farmers' yards, especially if previous winters were mild. The size of the market in a given year is very much influenced by the weather in the summer and not so much that in the winter.

How is it looking this year in respect of imports? Has much been imported so far? Has Mr. Moloney's organisation any inkling of how things stand?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Fertiliser costs have reduced, as the Deputy will be aware. Hopefully, then, more fertiliser will be used, which would suggest more farm plastics will be purchased. We have no idea, obviously, of what the weather is going to be like and this is the biggest determining factor. Last year, we had six to eight weeks of drought and that killed second-cut silage. This caused the market to reduce significantly.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

Other members wish to come in, but I will briefly comment first. I welcome all the witnesses. This is the third time in two years to have the witnesses before us. Regarding the €3 million mentioned in the IFFPG's opening statement, the best way to describe this is that it is like a bond to be put in place. If trouble were to be encountered in future, this money would then be used to clear the plastics around yards. Would this be an appropriate way of describing it?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes, or I suppose, in a doomsday scenario, if the scheme were to collapse, there is sufficient money to provide a service for some time to farmers.

That €3 million is not there now. Can Mr. Moloney give me an indication of the current figure?

Mr. Liam Moloney

At the end of last year, the reserve, as we call it, was around €1.5 million. It had reduced because we were collecting such huge volumes of materials at a time when recycling costs were very high. We have, though, taken corrective action this year by increasing the contribution we get from producers.

What is the timeline to ensure that €3 million bond total is reached? When does Mr. Moloney think the reserve will be put in place to ensure that €3 million is there in total?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I would say the reserves should come back to that level in the next two to three years.

Is Mr. Moloney concerned that in the so-called doomsday scenario there could be a potential that there is not enough of a reserve in place to cover what is there?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not think so. We hope to be operating in two or three years' time so we hope there will be no need to access that fund.

I will ask about recycling rates. Mr. Moloney has said there is a considerable volume involved. Over the past three years, what volume in tonnage has been collected?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The figure I have to mind is a reporting percentage from five years ago. Let us say at the moment we are typically collecting 36,000 or 37,000 tonnes. Five years ago, the equivalent figure was 26,000 or 27,000 tonnes. It has increased substantially and the recycling rate has gone up from 75% or 80% five years ago to 88% or 90% now.

I previously mentioned an issue regarding the certification that the Irish Farm Films Producer Group, IFFPG, gives to the farmer when he or she goes to the bring centre. In respect of private operators, is that certification applicable for An Bord Bia? Has that question ever been asked?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I honestly have no idea. An Bord Bia would not have engaged with us before it asked that requirement of farmers. However, because we give a receipt to farmers anyway, it is an easy way for farmers to avail of our service to prove to An Bord Bia that they have availed of a recycling service.

In 2018, the IFFPG had a scheme in place for tyres. It was a pilot scheme for picking up farm tyres and it worked for a period. Are there any proposals for anything similar or where are we going in that regard?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I think that scheme was in 2018. We ran four farm tyre bring centres on the behalf of the Department. There was funding available and on behalf of the Department we ran those four bring centres because we had experience in this area. However, our only contribution was to run the bring centres. We had nothing to do with the provision of funding. I am sure that if we were to be asked by the Department to do something similar in the future, we would do so.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

This is an issue that comes up a lot with our members. We did a survey last year to try to get a handle on it. We previously spoke with the Department and it asked us to try to get some kind of handle on where we were in respect of waste tyres. We did the survey last year. We will meet representatives of the Department next week to discuss the possibility of trying to do something similar to what was done in 2019 with regard to tyres. There is considerable demand among farmers around waste tyres. It has been a number of years since that pilot scheme. We have some information from that survey and we will be talking with the Department next week to explore the possibility of doing something similar to what was done in 2018.

Is that through the IFFPG?

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

That is with the Irish Farmers Association, IFA.

I thank Ms O'Sullivan for that clarification. I will ask for the Department's view. A previous statement mentioned the tyre collection scheme. The pilot scheme happened in 2018. The issue of the end-of-life use of tyres has been mentioned and there has been an indication that it is an important part of the Department's remit. What is the Department's view in respect of the end-of-life scheme for farm tyres and the scheme that was used in 2018?

Ms Bernie Kiely

It was very successful in 2018. We have been in discussion with the IFA and are looking forward to hearing from the IFA the results of the survey. There is no money available right now but depending on what the IFA has to say to us, we will certainly give it every consideration.

Good. Mr. Moloney, Mr. Dunne or Ms O'Sullivan might give me an indication about the board make-up, how it is set up and the structures within the board.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Is the Leas-Chathaoirleach asking in respect of the IFFPG?

I am. Perhaps Mr. Dunne would respond. How is the board formulated? How are people added to it? Who is on the board?

Mr. Tom Dunne

On the board, we have farmer representatives from the IFA. We have representatives of producers and manufacturers. The board comprises four groups. There is a farmer group, a producer and manufacturer group, a wholesaler group and a retailer group. Each of the companies must become members. We are a member organisation. All the contributions are member contributions. Member money is put into the company to run the scheme. Each of those groups elects its representatives on the board. Two come from the group of manufacturers, two from the group of retailers, two from the wholesalers and two represent the farmers. That is how the board is made up. I am an independent chairman. We also have two independent people, one of whom represents the environmental sector and another who is independent of the plastics business to give the perspective from the outside. That is the make-up of the board. We operate on a consensus basis. We all agree on what fees should be coming from the producers and how they operate. We also have an accountant as part of the system to oversee the financial side of things. There is discussion and agreement at the board level about how the scheme is run and financed. The board is obviously very interested in the long-term security of the business.

It is a very difficult business. As the committee knows, it has been difficult for years. We are in for the long haul. It is important for our members and the farmers that people can come in and out of the business as the price of plastic fluctuates. However, we are here for the permanent long haul. It is important to farmers to have a system in place that is robust and can take all the storms that are coming. We are quite confident that we have good financial structures and the support of all the members. It is important to remember that our company is a member company. All the money that is being collected, any fees or levies, belongs to the members. It is paid by the members for the recycling of the plastic. That is how the company works.

The feed-in amount is obviously set at board level. Mr. Dunne has explained that retailers and manufacturers are involved. Am I right in saying there is more emphasis on the commercial side of activity rather than the farming side in the make-up of the board? Would that be a fair conclusion?

Mr. Tom Dunne

In what way does the Leas-Chathaoirleach mean "more emphasis"?

I am asking in respect of the make-up of the board and the balance between farming representatives and representatives of the commercial activity of manufacturing or retailing plastic.

Mr. Tom Dunne

We do not have votes on the board. It is consensus based so everybody must be satisfied and must be happy that the organisation is working for them. We are very conscious that costs are kept low. We are a not-for-profit organisation. We must have a reserve in place. It is a requirement of our permit that we have a reserve in place to buffer against difficult situations. When and if a value comes back on the plastic, whatever is surplus to our requirements is given back by way of reduced costs. That has happened previously. It is our responsibility to protect the company. We have to remain solvent so our finances have to be strong. We have to be resilient. However, at the same time, we have to keep the costs low.

Is Mr. Dunne concerned with last year's figure? There was a considerable loss and the reserve probably fell to 50% short of where it should have been. The plastic market will be suppressed for the next 18 months at a minimum. Has Mr. Dunne genuine concerns about where things stand at the moment?

Mr. Tom Dunne

Is the Leas-Chathaoirleach asking about concerns for the financial-----

The financial implications.

Mr. Tom Dunne

-----implications for the company? I do not have concerns. We have put structures and systems in place. I am confident we are robust in that area. We delayed for a year in increasing the costs because four unusual events that were out of our control happened one after the other. In the normal run of events, we should have had a break with the weather or something but it was just one thing after the other. With that in mind, we held the costs as low as we could until it was clear that we needed to make the change this year. There is no issue.

The company is financially very sound and there is no risk for that in future. It would be reckless for us to put it in a position where it would be anything else.

I ask about this year's plastic collections. Mr. Moloney mentioned the dry year and we all suffered as a result, trust me. If I read it correctly, a reduction in volume is likely. Will the amount of plastic going through the system have a financial effect?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We are predicting that our collections will be down a bit this year because 20% less plastic was sold last year and the winter was reasonably good although a bit wet for the last few weeks, meaning that cattle went in later in the autumn. We expect we will be a down a bit, but we do not expect this to impact our finances negatively because the bulk of our income comes from the producer contribution. That will largely also be determined by the weather this summer. If growth conditions are good, the market will grow. If growth conditions are very difficult, we might see it plateau at the same level as last year.

I will go back for one more round.

It has been wrecking my head to think that us as individuals, counsellors, Government or any agency would actually hire someone and give them 100% of a grant or a levy and be happy with only 70% of a return. Outside of this situation, I cannot think of anything else that even comes near it. Deputy Kerrane asked earlier about last year and Mr. Moloney said there was an 88% collection rate. That was fine. Senator Paul Daly broke that down and said it equates to 2 million bales. When Senator Paul Daly questioned him, he started talking about 88% of the 70%. Was there 88% collection overall last year or was it 88% of the 70%?

Mr. Liam Moloney

It was 88% overall, the target was 70% so it was-----

What was collected in 2020 and 2021?

Mr. Liam Moloney

In 2021 it was 90% and I cannot remember the figure for 2020 off-hand. I would say it was something in the region of 80%.

That is still another more or less the 10% that Senator Paul Daly was talking about so that was 4 million, along with the year before that is 6 million bales that are unaccounted for. The Irish Farm Film Producers Group is getting 100% of the levy. I do not accept what Mr. Moloney says that nobody gets 100%. They are getting 100% of the money. If I ask someone to build a house and I am giving them 100% to build the house for me, they do not go away after just putting up the walls and I have to cover the other 30%. The Irish Farm Film Producers Group is getting 100% of the levy. I am blaming the Department here as well. With that amount of plastic that is still around the place, surely someone, either Mr. Moloney's company or the Department, should be responsible to make sure that that plastic is removed out of the countryside and not be stacked up in farmyards or in sheds. If Mr. Moloney were to ask me to do a job for him and he gave me 100%, would he expect me to leave it at 70% or would he expect me to finish the job? I will put the same question to the departmental officials.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I would say we are doing our job very well. As the Deputy knows, the target is 70% and we are hitting an 88% to 90% level. We have a policy of collecting as much as possible over and above-----

I know the target is 70%. This is where I blame the Department. The Department should not be giving 100% of a levy and asking somebody to do 70% of the work when there are other people out there.

Mr. Moloney also mentioned that they had hit 88% or 90%. How often has that been achieved over the past five years?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We achieved 88% last year. The highest we have done is 90% which is an extraordinary recycling level for a plastic waste stream. No other plastic waste stream in the country comes anywhere near that. We have always exceeded the 70% target going back over the years. It is just that we are exceeding it by a very considerable margin at the moment.

I do not accept that 70% is acceptable in the first place when someone is getting 100% of a levy. That is 30% of plastic that is left out there. Independent operators are doing this and getting none of the levy. Over 2 million bales are being left there every year. When Mr. Moloney has replied, I want to ask what the Department is doing to ensure that plastic is being removed from the countryside.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Before Ms Kiely comes in, let me say that an 88% to 90% recycling level is an extraordinarily high recycling level. It indicates that the glass is 88% to 90% full, which to my mind is a very positive situation. We would love to get the remaining 10% to 12%. We do all we can to get that plastic in, but a small number of farmers do not engage with the service for whatever reason. However, we would love to get that plastic in. If we get it in, we will send it for recycling.

Regarding our funding, as the Deputy heard from the discussion earlier, everything we get we spend - and some more for the past few years. Last year we ran at a deficit of €600,000. There is no surplus money. Everything we get is spent on collecting the material, recycling it and also ensuring that we have an adequate reserve.

Is Mr. Moloney saying the Department is not giving him enough in that 100% to get the other 30%?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The Department does not give us any finances; we are self-funding. Our money comes in purely from our members and from collection charges to farmers. We spend all that money and sometimes some more on-----

Can Mr. Moloney not see the craziness of giving someone 100% of a levy and only asking them to collect 70%?

Mr. Liam Moloney

No, I do not see that craziness.

Mr. Liam Moloney

The scheme by any measure is operating very successfully. We are doing way over and above the recycling target, which is an extraordinarily high target for a plastic waste stream.

The Irish Farm Film Producers Group may be hitting a high target but 30%, 12% or 10% is still being left out there.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Yes.

What is the Department doing to ensure that the remaining 10%, 15% or 20% is not being left out there and is being collected?

Ms Bernie Kiely

It is important that this scheme is adequately funded in order that whatever tonnage comes in, which has been legitimately put on the market and had a levy paid on it, is recycled. The scheme needs to have that capacity there and we are satisfied that it does.

According to Mr. Moloney, the levy is not high enough because they only have enough to collect 70% of it. Therefore, the Department needs to give him more money if it wants that other 30% collected.

Ms Bernie Kiely

As Mr. Moloney said, we do not give him any money. This is money from producers, which is derived.

The farmer is going to have to pay more. It leaves the farmer-----

Ms Bernie Kiely

The Department does not pay anything; the taxpayer does not pay. This is about the producers of plastics paying for the responsible management of the plastic at its end of life. The important thing is that whatever plastic is presented legitimately is accepted and recycled. The success of the scheme has to be acknowledged. The plastic is not just collected but it is actually recycled and made into other products which, in itself, is a considerable achievement because a lot of plastic, for example through household collection, would not end up being recycled. The recycling of farm plastics is a standout success in that regard. The target is 70%; it is not a limit. The scheme has achieved and continues to achieve in a very robust and resilient way. Farmers are by all accounts very satisfied with the service that is provided.

What is the Department doing to try to ensure that the rest of that plastic is removed?

Ms Bernie Kiely

We do not know whether that plastic continues to have silage in it. It could well still be in that stage of its life cycle and is still in active use. We do not know that. We do not have any evidence that there is a problem with plastic on farms being stockpiled. The local authorities are providing that enforcement piece around the permitted storage sites. They do their job. They are going about their business. As Mr. Moloney described, they have a compliance officer on the payroll in the scheme and part of his job is to work with contractors to ensure compliance in farmyards. All the evidence suggests that things are working to a very high degree of success. We think it operates well and provides a good service.

I am glad Ms Kiely does because I do not think there is any sense here that we are getting value for money when that much plastic is being left around the country.

Normally I would say that Deputy Martin Browne has already said what I was going to say and I will not rehearse it, but I will rehearse it because it needs to be said again.

The question is as much for the Chair as it is for the Department and the IFFPG. Where do we go from here? As a member of this committee, I am not comfortable. I probably will be told that this committee's duty is to hold the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to account for an oversight in the Department and this is not the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I will pre-empt that answer. As an administrator, one of the answers of Mr. Moloney to Deputy Kehoe, when the Deputy used the analogy of me and him or one of us disappearing off the radar, as it were, was that they would not chase farmers to recycle. I do not blame Mr. Moloney for that. He is a businessman and he is trying to keep a company afloat, even though it is not for profit. If I were paid to do a job for somebody, I would not go chasing them to know why they are not asking me to do it.

The IFFPG is legal and above board. Do not get me wrong. I am not accusing anyone of anything illegal because the company has its contract and its licence which states it only has to reach 70% but is being paid for 100%. I cannot get my head around it. The company does not seem to care or know where the balance - be it 10%, 20% or 30% - is. Is it in the bog holes of Ireland? Is it buried? Is it blowing around the bushes? This involves the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. That Department is saying it does not chase it up and maybe the farmers are putting it in their recycling, in their wheelie bins. Maybe there are 2 million bales of surplus silage being made every year. I would say it will be sold cheap next year. I will have a bit of that, if we are building up 2 million surplus bales of silage every year. We were importing a couple of years ago. There was a fodder crisis. The answers do not stack up.

It is flawed. It is bordering on - I do not know whether I can use the word - illegal. We are charging somebody for a service, we are not providing the service and we do not care that we are not providing the service. We have no follow-up. What I am hearing here all evening is that we do not know where the balance of the product that we have been paid to recycle is and we do not care. It is okay from IFFPG but I cannot believe that is what I am hearing from the Department. The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications has responsibility for the environment. There is the equivalent of 2 million bales of plastic per year unaccounted for out there in bog holes, buried and blowing around the place and the Department does not care. The Department is quite happy to reissue IFFPG's licence, as it has for the past 20 years, and 2 million more bales next year will be unaccounted for. Do we care about the environment?

It is the farmers who are paying for this. It is the farmers who are getting hammered every time I turn on a radio about every angle of the environment, not only plastic. The farmer is being charged when he or she goes in, as it were. The farmer is being charged a levy that is going straight to IFFPG to recycle the plastic and it is not being recycled.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I can only repeat what I have said already. There is an 88% recycling level being achieved at present by a compliance scheme that does not cost the taxpayer.

I am talking about the 12%, and I said it from the start. Everybody is talking about the 70% to 88%. I am talking about the 12% to 30% that there is no obligation to do but yet for which IFFPG is paid. As Deputy Browne said, I do not know of any other instance in the world where somebody gets paid upfront 100%, to use his analogy, to build a house or whatever, and everybody seems to be happy if that builder walks away and gives him up wall plates but no roof on the house - only 70% of a house. A Department and a company with a board of directors cannot see a problem with that. That is the problem. Mr. Moloney is not getting me. No one can seem to see the problem I am raising. That is the bit I cannot get. I know a gun cannot be put to people's heads to make them recycle but the Department at least has a responsibility to know where the other 12% of that plastic is. Is it in bog holes? Is it getting buried? Is it getting burnt? Nobody seems to care because they are paid. Why would they care? If they could stick to their 70%, they probably would be even twice as happy because they would have 30% more profit because they are getting paid for 100%. It is the fact that nobody cares or nobody is asking the question. It is a flawed system and something has to be done about it. I will go back to the committee to know what we are to do about it.

Mr. Liam Moloney

If I may reply to that, any scheme that is achieving an 88% to 90% recycling rate is not a flawed system.

It is if you are getting paid for 100%.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Excuse me-----

As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, if a holding company or the Department was collecting the money from the producers, I would accept 88% as being a brilliant figure and then, at the end of the year, the Department would release 88% of the money to IFFPG. When IFFPG is getting 100%, 88% is a great figure from IFFPG's point of view but to me it is not. There is 12% gone missing that IFFPG is paid for.

Mr. Moloney, without interruption.

Mr. Liam Moloney

As I say, an 88% recycling level for a plastic waste stream is absolutely extraordinary. There is no other scheme in Europe-----

I am not arguing that.

Mr. Moloney, without interruption.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Excuse me, if could have the floor for a second.

I will chair it, thank you.

Mr. Liam Moloney

Thank you. An 88% recycling rate is an extraordinarily high recycling level. There is no other farm plastic recycling scheme achieving anywhere near that level of farm plastics waste. The amount of funding we take in from our members and farmers is necessary to achieve that level.

With regard to the 12% of farmers who are not using the service, we would love them to use the service. We are engaging with the farming community all the time so that we can get more farmers in using the service. We are advertising as hard as we can but we do not want it to be a system whereby farmers will be penalised if they do not use the service. We want a continuation of the very successful approach we have had to date. We have made the services convenient, reliable and as cost effective as possible to the farmer. That is why we have so many farmers coming in year on year and why we are achieving such a high recycling level. As I say, if we can get more farmers using the service, we would be absolutely delighted with that.

I never argued once. A total of 88% is a fantastic figure when it comes to recycling any commodity, particularly plastic. I have been talking about the 12%. Quite possibly, my question is more appropriate to the Department. What is the Department doing about that 12% that is out there in the bog holes of Ireland?

Ms Bernie Kiely

We have had no reports that there is farm plastic in bog holes around the country. If anyone has a report they want to make to ourselves or to the local government enforcement services, I would encourage them to do so.

I have been told here it is not in the bog holes. The question is, where is it? It is an accumulating 12%. It is 2 million bales this year. That will be 10 million bales in five years. It has to be somewhere. That is the question I have been trying to ask. Maybe I am not phrasing the question properly. It will be the equivalent of 10 million bales in a five-year period and the Department does not seem to want to know. Where is it?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The Department has to look at the evidence that it has in front of it. The success of the scheme in getting 88% of the materials back at any given time into the recycling system and to provide that service to farmers who repeatedly express their satisfaction with the scheme shows this is a successful scheme. The Department is always concerned that the material is going in the right place. That is why the scheme exists in the first instance. That is why the Department invests so much in oversight and governance and why the Government invests so much in the enforcement services.

There is absolute concern and absolute conviction that the environment must be protected. We are pleased that in this scheme, we are working with farmers and farmers are working in co-operation with producers to ensure the materials they use are being returned for recycling successfully.

I will ask Ms Kiely again. When the licence expires in 2025 and on its renewal, would the Department perhaps see merit in it collecting the levy itself and only paying, from a holding company or some such entity, for what is recycled? We are all getting bogged down because we are talking about the 88% or what I assume is a one-off because it is the best year ever. According to my information, there were years when 70% recycling was not even reached, there were years when 70% was just reached, and there were years when the rate was in the 80s. We are talking about best case scenario here from the Department's perspective. A lot of money was paid by farmers for a service that was not provided, perhaps through the fault of farmers for not turning to services, but the plastic that is unaccounted for and still paid for is the issue I have. Would Ms Kiely consider, on the back of this debate, reviewing the model when the licence comes up for renewal in 2025?

Ms Bernie Kiely

In 2025, we will certainly take account of the factors that are pertinent at that time.

I agree on reaching the target. What percentage is it?

Mr. Liam Moloney

The target is 70% and we did 88% last year.

If we could get more than 88% of our citizens recycling it would be fantastic. I have to be very critical of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications here, however. If a farmer has slurry or unwanted dirty water or whatever running out of anywhere, I can assure Ms Kiely that the Department comes down on him or her like a tonne of bricks. The Department has clear evidence that there are thousands of tonnes of plastic not being recycled on a per annum basis. It does not know where it is. It is not doing anything about it. Somebody has questions to answer here. I am blaming and absolutely putting it 100% on the Departments door. Has the Department ever checked with each local government area in regard to any inspections carried out to see where farm plastics are going?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The Waste Enforcement Regional Lead Authorities and the local authorities are the ones charged with inspections.

Ms Kiely is not answering my question. The question I asked her, as someone with responsibility and as a very senior official in the Department, was whether the Department has ever asked the local authorities if they have carried out any inspections regarding farm plastics.

Ms Bernie Kiely

That is a part of their job already. That is an ongoing part of their portfolio of tasks.

I am asking the question as to whether Ms Kiely or anyone within the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications has ever asked any of the local authorities whether they have carried out any inspections. It is either "Yes" or "No".

Ms Bernie Kiely

Yes. We have ongoing engagements with the Waste Enforcement Regional Lead Authorities and local authorities which oversee the enforcement activities of the local government sector.

What evidence has come back that there is plastic being stored on farms?

Ms Bernie Kiely

None. To my knowledge, they are looking at the permitted sites. They are acting on reports. I am not aware of them going onto farms. I am not sure that is within their remit. I am sure if colleagues within the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine inspection service come across anything problematic, they would take action.

As the Deputy has heard, Bord Bia seems to have introduced this requirement to have certification of responsible management of end-of-life plastics, which will help drive more farmers to return their plastics. We are very pleased with the co-operation from farmers in managing the plastic and using it properly for what it is there for and then storing it until they get to bring it to a bring centre or have it collected. Really, we have not had any complaints that any farmers are acting outside the system or doing anything irresponsible with plastic.

I genuinely believe the Department is failing in its responsibilities when it comes to this. It is hard to say that, but it is failing in its responsibilities. It really is. Somebody has to take responsibility. I do not believe Ms Kiely is taking responsibility. She is handing it over to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Somebody in the Department is failing in their responsibilities.

I will ask Mr. Moloney a question on the independent collectors. Irish Farm Films Producers Group is totally funded by the levy.

Mr. Liam Moloney

The levy on collection charges.

Mr. Moloney gets no money from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications whatsoever for any part of running his business.

Mr. Liam Moloney

That is correct, yes.

With whom does he do his advertising and promotion of his collection points and all of that? Does he get any funding from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications to do that?

Mr. Liam Moloney

We would fund that from our own resources. Our advertising campaign is something we would look after and fund that ourselves.

That is an absolute failure on the part of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications that Irish Farm Films Producers Group does not get some form of funding to advertise its collection points or some promotional campaign on the importance of farmers getting rid of farm plastics or something like that. That is a complete failure on the part of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Can I come in there?

Ms Bernie Kiely

Again, this is all part of producers taking responsibility for the material they put on the market. In terms of the approval the scheme has, there is a requirement on them to use some of that funding towards promotion. We are, therefore, very alive to the real need for the scheme to be promoted to farmers. However, just because we do not provide funding does not mean that we are not supportive. We provide joined-up communications from our PR department and other organisations across the circular economy network to ensure the good work of the farm plastics scheme is promoted and held up really as a model for other schemes to emulate.

The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is applying funding to promotion regarding fly tipping and everything like that. I cannot understand why it cannot provide some minimal funding to advertise in the farming papers, be that agriland.ie, Irish Farmers Journal or the national farming media or local papers regarding this. It is a total failure on the Department's part. I ask Ms Kiely to look at this issue.

From Ms O'Sullivan's point of view and from an Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, point of view, what is the satisfaction level of farmers? What feedback does she get on farm plastics through her organisation? I ask her to be honest.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

There is no issue with that-----

I am sure she will be.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

I have to say that overall for farmers it is a regular service. It is very well advertised and local. It is there and provided on an annual basis. They know in and around when it is going to happen. Overall, it is very positive because there is that consistency. Obviously, price is always an issue with the farmers. There is always that, but they know it is a consistent service. It is there all the time for them and it is very well advertised locally. I know there is the focus on the 12% or 10%. That is really positive in trying to improve where we are. We have seen farmers going more and more to the bring centres. They are more regular. It has now become a part of things. Things like the Bord Bia requirement are encouraging that yearly movement of farm plastics. These are all very positive.

We have seen how we went from 90% to 88%. There could have been a number of reasons but we are seeing that consistency of in and around the 90%. That has grown over the years. One would hope we will see that growing again with farmers and that the bring centres will continue to reach those levels and improve on that. We have seen farmers engaging more and more. It has become more regular. As an organisation, we are always trying to promote it and make farmers aware of it. To have that consistent service is a huge benefit to farmers as well as knowing that it is local and that there is not a huge issue with getting there. It is guaranteed as a simple transparent process with a weighbridge. It is very transparent. They are very happy with it overall. Obviously, they would like it to be cheaper but that is just the nature of it. They know it is an organisation on which they are represented and that it is not for profit.

I have two brief questions, one of which is for the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. On the independent collectors, where is the transparency or fairness in that they are not being awarded some of the levy?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The provision of collection services is a matter for Irish Farm Films Producers Group, not for the Department. Irish Farm Films Producers Group has to procure a service for itself and it does so through a procurement process. It is a competitive process. That is an operational matter for the scheme.

Okay. Mr. Moloney might comment on that. I have one further question for him after that.

Mr. Liam Moloney

The funding we get through the levy is there totally to be spent on the scheme and to ensure we can continue to achieve the results we are currently achieving.

Private collectors have the opportunity to engage with us through our contract and tendering process. The next one will be held at the end of next year. We would tell anyone interested in working in this area to please submit a tender, and we will be more than happy to consider it.

I have a further comment, if Mr. Moloney would like to respond. If he does not, that is okay. We have meetings here once per week with many different witnesses and organisations. I always become concerned when we get negative emails and phone calls about witnesses or an organisation before they come in. I am not sure why there is so much negativity towards his organisation, but it is out there. I have received six or seven emails this evening from groups and individuals. They asked me to put a number of questions, some of which I have put to Mr. Moloney. He has answered them. However, the amount of negativity out there towards this organisation is concerning. I am unsure how the organisation can promote itself in a better light. That is up to the organisation and its board to reflect upon. I have been a member of this committee for over three years and I can only recall three or four occasions when people made an effort to contact me or other members. There is something wrong somewhere, that the board and the chairman has to reflect upon. It might be messaging or the organisation being more proactive in its advertising, but it is concerning. I am only reflecting what I have received. This is not my personal opinion, but I concern myself when I get negative emails and messages about an organisation. There are also some questions I could not ask.

Mr. Liam Moloney

There is always scope for improvement when it comes to promoting the organisation. The best way we can promote ourselves is by continuing to achieve the verifiable results we are achieving. That is the best way we can promote our services.

I have one question for the Department. It has been mentioned a couple of times,and there has been an emphasis on the fact that the 70% target has been exceeded a number of times. That is really good internationally, and we are almost at the top of the class in Europe in terms of recycling. That point has been made. This is a question for the Department as it is over the legislation. It has looked at international recycling levels, so it can say Ireland is top of the table in Europe. Is there any other situation in an EU country, or anywhere else in Europe, where the levy is set up as it is here?

Ms Bernie Kiely

I could not say that. Mr. Moloney might know from his knowledge of operations in other member states. If he does not, I can establish it and come back to the committee.

Mr. Liam Moloney

I can handle that. The other schemes fund themselves by various means. Some fund themselves by a producer contribution. Some use the model we use, which is producer contribution and a charge to the farmer. It varies from one country to the other.

Do they get 100% of the levy and their target is less that? Is that the case in other EU countries?

Mr. Liam Moloney

Absolutely. There is no recycling compliance scheme that has been given a target of 100%. That is not happening. Challenging targets are set but they would in the region of 60% to 75%.

In my enthusiasm to get going I forgot to wish the best of luck to my constituency colleague, Deputy Kerrane. Deputy Carthy also worked well with us on the committee and he should be praised for it.

I have a question for the Department. The committee, the Department and the dog on the street know that a few independent contractors have been pushed outside the system for one reason or other. Last year the Department put out a contract and moved a large amount of plastic from an independent contractor. That contract was won by Bord na Móna, or Advanced Environmental Solutions (Ireland) Limited, AES, or whatever it is called - the plastic crowd. The levies were paid on this plastic. That is the bottom line, but someone else is benefiting from it now, namely, the IFFPG. Plastic was brought into this country, which for one reason or another was sent to the local place. A levy of €160 per tonne was paid on that plastic. It is not the new rate because it is going back a few years. Why has the Department not done something to rectify and regularise that situation to get everyone in line?

Ms Bernie Kiely

Anywhere the levy has been paid, it would be in the farmer's interest to return it to the scheme where the levy has been paid in benefit.

That is not necessarily so. Hold on. There is nothing written on anything telling a farmer where he has to go with it. The farmer paid the levy. If Joe Bloggs down the road has a licence to take plastic, will I go to Joe Bloggs or will I go to a bring centre 20 miles or 25 miles away? The IFFPG said there are four in Ireland in different places and, in fairness, it also comes to marts. The levy of €160 per tonne for every tonne that came in was paid by the people who brought it into the country. The IFFPG has it. It is in their arse pocket, or in their company or whatever. The Department is refusing to do anything to resolve this situation. Considering that it has got involved and moved one situation, why does it not regularise the rest? It can then put out a ruling, or send a letter to every farmer telling them they need to bring it to a Department-approved bring centre. This particular case is historical and the Department has done nothing about it. It has been let sit there.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Any collector with a permit is entitled to collect that plastic and deal with it appropriately within the terms of its permit. It is its prerogative to offer that service at a price they can manage.

Someone else drew the €160 per tonne.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Nobody is obliging the independent contractor to collect that plastic. They are collecting it in the knowledge that they do not have access to the levy. They are doing it on the basis that they can charge the farmer the price by which they can recycle the plastic.

If there are 4,000 tonnes at €160 per tonne, is the Department happy for that to be collected by somebody else and to leave this mess here for the time being? The Department needs to wake up and see where it is going in this plastic scenario. There are a few at the moment that need to be resolved. It is fine if the Department wants to put out new stuff after that, but it should bear in mind that the farmers and importers have paid somebody else €160 per tonne. If there are 7,000 or 8,000 tonnes, that is approximately €1 million that the IFFPG has received into its account for something it will not have to touch, and will not touch at the moment.

The Department will answer, without interruption.

Ms Bernie Kiely

The system is set up so there is a comprehensive, reliable and stable service for farmers. It is set up in order that when the levy is collected, there is a reliable service that can guarantee the material will successfully go to recycling. If somebody wants to operate outside that system, there is nothing to stop them doing so.

The more people who use the scheme, as it is set up, the more optimal the outcome is for everybody.

The Department is happy. If a person is outside the scheme, why would someone else get the money for that, when it is being imported? Why would the levy for 3,000 or 4,000 tonnes go to somebody else? The Department is happy to stand over that and to allow a situation where there are a few operators that are not operating but there is a heap of plastic. People are basically in a quagmire and yet at the same time the Department puts out a contract for one last year and does not seem to be bothered about resolving the issue for the rest.

Ms Bernie Kiely

My understanding is that the case last year was taken by a local authority that took away the plastic and there are enforcement proceedings under way.

That is not correct.

Ms Bernie Kiely

In terms of what is going on, when somebody pays €160 at the point of purchase the potential is there for that material to be brought back into the system. So, yes, it has to be paid at the beginning, and the responsibility and the liability has to be carried for that material to come back into the system.

Where is that written?

Ms Bernie Kiely

If an independent collector chooses to enter that market at a point in time post-levy, so without the support of that levy, then that is their prerogative.

What Ms Kiely said is not written anywhere. Ms Kiely said that once a collector is outside the scheme, then they are not entitled to anything. First, it is not written anywhere that a farmer must go to X, Y or Z collector. Second, what Ms Kiely said is not factually correct. Her Department paid the price of the procurement. She said a "local authority".

Third, I question Ms Kiely's latter statement about legal proceedings.

Ms Bernie Kiely

We provided the funding, and that is for sure.

Ms Bernie Kiely

After that, it was done at a local level.

Ms Kiely's Department provided the funding. Why does her Department not resolve the other few issues around the country and then write down the terms and conditions? There are no terms and conditions on how this should have been done, which is a bad position for her Department. The committee needs to meet to compile a report that we can forward to the different Ministers because what is going on at the moment is a sham.

Ms Bernie Kiely

I again confirm that the Department gave money to the local authority to clear out the site. The evidence very clearly shows how the scheme operates. It operates transparently and successfully. It is there in black and white. There is a lot of material on the website of farm plastics that shows the accounts every year, recycling rates and where the material goes, so I cannot accept that the Department is failing in this regard.

We could discuss this matter back and forth all day, so forget about it because I am sick of this.

Is the plastic which allegedly comes from the North recycled through the system? If so, what is the tariff? How does that plastic become part of the figures?

Mr. Liam Moloney

If we can identify the plastic-----

Does Mr. Moloney need a code to-----

Mr. Liam Moloney

Exactly. If we can identify that the plastic has not had the levy paid on it then the charge is double for the farmer. That is the system that operates at our bring centres and at the farmyard. We have a label code traceability system that allows us to trace the movement of the plastic. If we feel that a farmer has bought unlevied plastic or we have doubts, then a double charge can apply.

How much is that applicable? How often does that occur? What is the tonnage and value?

Mr. Liam Moloney

I do not have that information to hand. Typically, we find that the market is between 90% to 95% compliant. The overwhelming majority of farmers not only bring in a label code but they bring it on the paperwork from their local co-operative or local agri merchant.

Please provide the committee with the exact figure.

Mr. Liam Moloney

We can check that out, yes.

My next question is for the Department. The group collects plastic. One could argue the point that the less it collects over the 70%, then the more it costs. You could argue that is not happening. I am baffled that the Department is not fully engaged in a PR service around this. The more successful this is, and there are environmental impacts and everything else, the better and it benefits everybody. For very small money the Department could do something really significant here. Potentially, anything around 4,000 tonnes of plastic goes missing every year, which is a significant volume of plastic. There is potential that we could gather up that plastic by having a really good, solid campaign spearheaded by either the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine or the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. I ask the Department, which will look at the tyre issue next week, to come back and look at this issue as a real win-win for the environment, farmers and the service.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Yes. The compliance scheme does a lot of promotion in its own right. Earlier some of the witnesses described the local promotion that happens, which is effective in getting a high turnout. It is a requirement of our scheme that the producer or organisation use some of its funding towards the raising of awareness. Quite apart from spending money on the scheme, we are absolutely behind it in terms of soft-power promotion using our Minister or anybody else to promote engagement. We would be delighted to work with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to promote the scheme further across our networks.

I do not know if the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications is the right man but we can come back to that argument.

Has the Department ever done a professional audit that compared the tonnage of plastics that have been sold in this country with the tonnage collected? Taking into consideration the good works that has been done by the group present and other private operators in the last few years, does the Department know how much plastic is out there? There are stories that some plastic is in silo bales and some has been stored. Does the Department have a figure for the amount of plastic that has not been collected?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The scheme is best placed to give that kind of an estimate given the requirement for it to take that information from producers of what is placed on the market. It is the one who have the most reliable data on what is out there. Obviously anything leaving the country must gain approval from the frontier shipping office. There is data but it is probably located in different places. We can look at this with the scheme. We can look at how that material can be accounted for. The scheme is required to conduct an audit.

Is that not self-regulation? The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is the oversight body nationally and has a huge remit. To ask the scheme to come back with its audit is appropriate in a way but the Department is the entity, so I assume the latter has the levers of power to gather information on where the plastic came in and how much has been recycled and then give an estimated figure. I know that it is not going to be good news but please estimate how much plastic is out there so we have a decent indication of the work that is required to make sure we can gather that up. The big thing for us, as an industry, is that we are sustainable. However, the industry is not sustainable if we are leaving 4,000 tonnes of plastic behind every year, and that is a key issue for this committee.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Certainly whatever the scheme puts to us is subject to verification.

We would use all other agencies at our disposal to verify what the scheme would come back with. It would have to stand up. We need to be careful about creating an impression that plastic is out there creating a nuisance, when we really do not have evidence of that.

I call Senator Paul Daly, who will be the last contributor.

On a point of clarification, I want to revisit the final interaction between Deputy Fitzmaurice and the Department. I want to get my own head around the issue of the stockpile to which he referred, or to the issue of the yard, or whatever one wants to call it. The Department funded the local authority to have that recycled or removed. That is what I picked up from the conversation. In other words, the taxpayer funded it.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Correct.

Would the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications not have thought that rather than burdening the taxpayer with that bill, to pick up the phone to the Irish Farm Film Producers Group, IFFPG, to say there was plastic for which it has a levy to recycle and to ask it to recycle it?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The waste was the property of an independent contractor who had taken it into the yard, having charged-----

No, irrespective of how it got there, it was still plastic on which the recycling levy had been paid and in turn collected by the IFFPG. Yet, the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications went and used taxpayers' money to pay for it. I will not go into the history of the problem, but the Department could have gone directly to the IFFPG. It was its duty because it had been paid. Did the Department not think it would have been more prudent at that time, rather than getting the taxpayer to pay for this on the double? The farmer, who is a taxpayer, had already paid. Would it not have been more prudent to pick up the phone and to ask the person who had been paid to recycle that plastic to go and do it?

Ms Bernie Kiely

The priority was to secure the safety of the local environment if a hazard had been identified by the enforcement authorities. They looked for our support in clearing the site. That was our priority at the time.

Yes, but the Department has a contract or licence agreement with the IFFPG to recycle plastic. It is collecting the levy on the plastic. The levy was collected on all that plastic. Irrespective of where it came from or how it ended up where it did, the levy was collected on it and it was paid to IFFPG. Would it not have made common sense to pick up the phone, to say that there was a yard full of plastic that the IFFPG has already been paid to recycle, and to ask it to go and recycle it, rather than involving a third party at an expense to the taxpayer?

Ms Bernie Kiely

There is no requirement under its approval that would oblige it to take charge of the plastic that was collected by an independent collector.

Yet, it was still plastic on which it was were a levy to recycle. Does Ms Kiely accept that?

Ms Bernie Kiely

I would probably have to defer to the scheme, because I do not know how one would verify that that plastic had attracted the levy or whether the chain of accountability had been broken at that stage. We do not know what farmers had paid to have it removed by the independent operator, or where that levy went.

That is irrelevant. It is totally irrelevant to the circumstances of the case and of how the plastic got to where it did. The bottom line is that this was plastic on which the levy had been paid by the farmers for recycling. That levy had been paid to the IFFPG. Why did the Department not pick up the phone and say to the IFFPG to go and recycle this plastic which it had already been paid to recycle? Instead, the Department used taxpayers' money to pay a third party to do it. I cannot stand over this - any of it.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Ideally, the contractor who took the money from the farmer to take the plastic for recycling would have recycled it in accordance with the terms of his waste permit. He obviously took the payment under that-----

No. No, I am sorry for interrupting Ms Kiely. I said that the circumstances of the plastic in question, where it was and how it got there, are not up for debate here. The point I am making is, irrespective of who bought it or collected it from farmer, or whether or not they got paid by the farmer to collect it, the bottom line is that it got to where it was and it was becoming an issue. However, it was still plastic on which the levy was paid to be collected and forwarded to the IFFPG. Yet, it was not asked to deal with that issue and the plastic. If that contractor did not exist, that plastic would have all been brought to a collection point, so it would have had to deal with it anyway. It just got there through a different process. However, it was still plastic on which the levy had been collected and paid. Yet, rather than asking it to recycle it under the levy it had been paid to do so, the Department involved a third party and paid taxpayers' money to that third party. In other words, there was a double payment for the recycling of that plastic. Does Ms Kiely not see the point I am making?

Ms Bernie Kiely

I do, but at the same time, my understanding of how the scheme operates is that the farmers are given a code at the time they buy their plastic. They use that as part of the return system when they are making a further payment to have it collected. Therefore, if that chain was broken, it would have been outside the IFFPG's system. There is no requirement on the IFFPG to take responsibility for plastic that is under the responsibility of an independent contractor.

Okay, I accept that.

Ms Bernie Kiely

Our priority was to secure the environment locally.

I accept that. Therein lies proof of where the system is flawed.

I thank the Senator. As there are no other contributors, I thank the Department, the IFFPG and the staff of the Oireachtas for their time. Before we adjourn, the next meeting of the committee will be held on 26 April at 5.30 p.m., where we will deal with the issue of the cost of fertiliser. Since there is no further business, I adjourn the meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 8.17 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 April 2023.
Barr
Roinn