JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 2008

Waste Management: Discussion.

Vice Chairman

Members will recall a request from Deputy Hogan to allow a presentation by the Irish Waste Management Association on waste collection and its concerns on that activity. We also received a request from Repak to discuss its concerns about waste management. I am pleased to welcome both groups to the meeting. We will hear their presentations separately.

I welcome officials from the Irish Waste Management Association. I thank them for attending. The format will involve a brief presentation from the association on its findings followed by a question and answer session. Before the witnesses commence, I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Kells to commence his presentation.

Mr. Jim Kells

We, in the Irish Waste Management Association, are happy to have the opportunity to address the joint committee today. We wish to present some of the views of the association and to outline the position in waste management in Ireland. I invite Mr. Robert O'Shea to make the presentation.

Mr. Robert O’Shea

Members have a copy of the presentation. I will try to keep my contribution as short as possible and I will run through it very quickly. We will answer any questions members may have at the end.

Our main aim is to develop a waste management sector that is recognised as a professional and well-regulated industry. We became affiliated to IBEC in 1999 so we are coming up to ten years of affiliation. Our members operate across the board in terms of the collection, recycling and treatment of waste. They collect both hazardous and non-hazardous waste, commercial, industrial and household waste. They provide a range of options to deal with waste. We are also associated with the European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services.

When the association was initiated in the 1990s, the majority of waste was collected and managed by local authorities. Since then, the private sector has become an important part of the industry. Some of the challenges in the past included awareness, regulation and enforcement. A lack of options was available for the treatment of waste. We have moved on considerably from that time. Currently, the private waste sector is an established part of the waste management industry. We play a vital role in terms of treating and managing waste. We collect almost all commercial waste and approximately half of household waste. We are also involved in many other areas. The most obvious one is perhaps WEEE and end-of-life vehicles, but we also deal with scrap metal and hazardous waste. We are involved in waste across the board.

Waste is one of the most regulated industries. Regulation was one of the key issues in the early 1990s. There is greater consumer awareness about waste and the environment in general. We have had to change in terms of how we are regulated and in our response to the market. The amount of municipal waste in 1998 was in excess of 2 million tonnes and that rose to more than 3 million tonnes in 2006. The private waste sector is responsible for more waste than the total managed by both public and private operators in 1998. We are a vital part of the waste management sector.

The level of rules, regulations, legislation and policy has developed considerably since the early 1990s. As an industry we must constantly keep up to date with the various demands from the regulator and consumers. A recent Forfás report showed the Irish market to be worth €560 million. It indicated the sector was considered to have a high growth potential. It is interesting to note that the main barrier Forfás identified was a lack of clear Government policy.

We are becoming an increasingly more professional and regulated industry. As an association, we constantly try to get recognition for the fact that we have moved with the times and that we are an essential element of the waste industry. Before I consider the challenges facing the industry and the economy as a whole, I must refer to the considerable success we have achieved. We do not talk about that often enough. In many cases the private sector has operated in partnership with the public sector. We are proud of achieving those targets and we should communicate that to the public. It is necessary for us to show we have reached those targets and that we can do it again, if we are provided with the correct policy framework.

The first challenge relates to national and EU targets. We need to be aware of the new waste framework directive on recycling targets. That is another benchmark that we will need to achieve. We can achieve it in partnership with the public sector. The landfill directive is one of the most immediate issues and that will become prominent in the next couple of years. We have achieved the targets to date and we expect we will be able to achieve the new targets. Policy needs to reflect the changing targets and increasing demands, but we are confident we can achieve them.

The second challenge I have identified is unfair competition and regulatory uncertainty. We are making a considerable investment in a market where there is uncertainty in terms of regulation but where there is not a level playing field. For example, local authorities are not required to go through the same process as the private sector. The environment fund is a significant fund made available to the public sector, which is funded by money accrued from the landfill levy and the plastic bag tax. We have the expertise and if we had access to that fund we could make good use of it and achieve other objectives. That is a significant issue for the private waste management sector. The unfair competition and regulatory uncertainty impacts across the industry and that affects the economy in terms of the cost of waste disposal for businesses in this country. The impact is also felt in households.

Effective co-ordination and value for money links back to the idea of regulatory uncertainty. Waste collection permits were recently introduced that have new requirements allowing regional and multi-regional applications for a single permit. The associated costs are approximately €10.4 million. The high-level group identified that we could make significant savings with the new regulations. I believe that is possible, but unfortunately the way in which the permits were introduced makes it more difficult to achieve cost savings. One member had to complete more than 8,000 rows in an Excel spreadsheet to complete the application for a permit. That is a drain on resources from a private sector viewpoint, but also for the public sector which has to process those applications and permits. If we can work together earlier we can avoid such issues coming up, but when they arise they can be dealt with appropriately. It is a practical example, something that has affected our members and is a real cost to business in the industry, trying to abide by these regulations. We have moved forward, in terms of having a smaller number of authorities to deal with, but we need to improve further to realise savings.

The last challenge I have identified relates to the consumer. We have to respond to consumer demands. Consumers are becoming more aware, not just about waste but in terms of environmental issues across the board. Everybody talks about carbon footprints and so on and people are becoming more aware of the waste they produce and where it will go and so on. We have to be able to respond to that and I believe we are doing so. We provide a service across the board, an integrated management system. We are involved in all aspects, from collecting materials at the very start to final treatment and disposal. We need to keep the customer happy, and therefore we are constantly trying to respond to our consumers' demands. We need to keep them on board and promote the message in terms of recycling waste.

To take up those challenges we must address some of the key issues outlined previously, for instance clear policy objectives, responsibilities in relation to regulation and in particular the division between service provision and the regulation. We do not believe a regulator and service provider should operate as matters stand. Despite that, the sector is worth more than €500 million to the economy, and this could be improved. There are options. It is identified as a growth industry, so we can work on that.

To bring matters up to date, the next presentation will deal with this in more detail, but I want to touch on the recent collapse in the commodity prices and recyclable markets. That issue was raised a couple of months ago, towards the end of October. Since then we have met a number of times, as an association and within the wider industry. We have also met with the various Departments and enforcement agencies and are working with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to try to find solutions. I will stop here, because I have taken up sufficient of the committee's time. My colleagues here have practical experience of all the issues that I have briefly outlined.

Vice Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Shea. Does anybody else want to add anything? I shall take questions from Deputy Bannon.

Deputy James Bannon

I welcome the representative of the Irish Waste Management Association and thank him for his informed presentation. Our environment is our future and it remains generally in a reasonably good state, representing as it does, one of our essential assets. Mr. O'Shea referred to a problem that has cropped up for many counties, namely, markets for waste or recycled products. I understand several companies operating in Ireland are exporting to Sweden, and this has proven to be very costly. There does not appear to be much of a market for recycled products at present here in Ireland. There is a collapse in international commodity prices, too, which is quite alarming as well as the closure of many of the markets for Irish recyclables. Perhaps he might deal with those issues.

Another issue is that of the challenges to be met and Mr. O'Shea talks about waste permits. Speaking to councillors, I find that some local authorities appear to have lost the run of themselves as regards waste permits. I know of a young couple who proposed to move a clay foundation on a greenfield site from one location to a hollow at the other end of the field, and had to get a permit to do it. Despite this being only normal clay, it was classified as demolition or construction waste. That was a step too far. Some discretion should be given in areas such as this because they give rise to problems and there is a general feeling abroad that we are gone mad on regulation, to put it mildly.

People might recall there was controversy in County Longford several years ago at the closure of a landfill site by the courts. What monitoring takes place of the closure of landfill sites at present around the country? A great number have been closed over the past 25 to 30 years. Are they still being properly monitored as regards emissions and so on in the interests of public safety? Those are a few issues that, perhaps, might be dealt with.

Also of concern is the lack of clear Government policy on the whole issue of Irish waste management, as highlighted by Mr. O'Shea in his presentation. Perhaps he might elaborate on that also.

Vice Chairman

Does anybody want to respond? I shall take Deputy O'Sullivan.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I, too, welcome the presentation from the Irish waste management industry. Waste management is an enormously important industry at present. It is of concern to everybody and creating problems for a great many people. I support private involvement in it as opposed to local authority involvement because this gives better value for money. However, I am concerned that appropriate regulation should be in place and we shall have to get proper directives from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in this regard.

Activity in this area is somewhat loose. How many members does the Irish Waste Management Association have? There are many operators who are not members of the association. Might it be possible to bring everyone into the picture rather than having three or four different strands within the industry? In the event, it would be much easier to regulate the industry if there was one representative umbrella body rather than many diverse groupings. That is something that should be examined and perhaps the Department could issue a directive on that.

I am also concerned about the roll out of waste collection in peripheral parts of the country. On the one hand the local authority is doing work that perhaps is not attractive for the private sector. That is another concern I have, coming as I do, from a rural area. I should like to know how the best synergy might be achieved as between private interest and local authority.

The lack of clear Government policy was mentioned. Perhaps that could be explored further. Will any directive emanate from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as regards this, and perhaps the IWMA might indicate what its priorities are in this regard, and how it believes this area could be dealt with? The other issue is one I have often considered, namely, that of scrap metal waste, in which I am sure some of the association's members would be involved. For the future, I can envisage job creation through having this metal processed as they do in other countries. What are we doing in this regard? I know we do not finish such waste in this country but I would like to know what we do with it and what it costs to get it to wherever it is processed. Is there a possibility of doing this processing here and creating jobs in that sector? Perhaps the delegation would have ideas in this regard.

As I said, if we could get thinking together on this situation and get all the strings together, we might achieve positive results. I would be interested to hear the delegation's view on those points.

Mr. Jim Kells

To deal with the question on recycling, the recycling market throughout the world has collapsed at this time. One of the main places in the world where these recyclables went was China. The market has gone from significant figures, roughly €100 per tonne for some of the products, to zero or less than zero. This is something over which we in Ireland have no control. We are an island economy and it is something that impacts from abroad. A number of measures should be taken, and one we would suggest is the use of the environment fund.

The market is as it is. There is a huge problem for our members because heretofore there was a value in the product when, for example, the blue or green bin was sorted into the various elements such as cardboard, tin and aluminium. This material had some value but that value has now gone and in many cases the waste has a negative value because there is huge cost in the sorting of those materials. Many operators have invested significant sums in developing waste handling systems within their own operations to sort out these recyclables. This whole market has changed and what was a relatively profitable process is now unprofitable.

A point was made about the membership of the organisation. The IWMA is open to all contractors who abide by the regulations. We welcome most contractors, whether they are members or non-members, because most abide by the regulations. Some of them would be very small operators but they would abide by the regulations. However, I am sure there are some few operators out there — they are not our members — who are not abiding by the regulations. This is a problem for us as well as for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the EPA. We would say it is very important that the law be enforced in this area to ensure the proper operation of waste collection and waste management is carried out.

I will pass over to Ms Heavey on the question of landfill.

Ms Margaret Heavey

On the regulation of closed landfills, there are three types of landfill that fall into this category. The first is the case of landfills that closed since 2001 when the EPA commenced licensing landfills. These are subject to the terms of their waste licence, so there is a very strong regulatory framework in place in regard to their closure and the management of the aftercare period for those landfill sites for 30 years or more post-closure.

Second, the required monitoring regime is set down by the EPA and is tied into the waste licence for historical landfills operated by local authorities prior to 2001. There is also EPA regulation or guidance in place and an obligation on the local authorities under the Waste Management Act to identify such sites, put them on a register and have plans in place for their remediation.

Finally, there is the issue of the sites that are in place because of the illegal disposal of waste. Again, there is Government guidance in the section 60 notice that was issued by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2005, which seeks to pass down the cost of remediation of these illegal sites to the landowners in question and the people involved in the illegal activity. Overall, there is a quite a lot of regulation in place in regard to closed landfills.

Deputy James Bannon

Some of these landfills were never sanctioned. What happened? There was a disused quarry or bogland. People began to dump in these places 30 or 40 years ago and the local authorities then got on the bandwagon and also dumped on those sites. Many of the sites were not constructed properly and are an environmental hazard. How long will it be before they can be deemed safe after they are closed?

Ms Margaret Heavey

That is a difficult question. It requires full and proper assessment, proper site investigation and ground water testing. The rules around this have been published by the EPA in recent years. The responsibility is with the local authorities to identify such old sites, in many of which, as the Deputy said, they have been involved over the years. Many of the sites are small. From my experience, many of the older closed landfills throughout the country would have served small villages and towns. It is a matter for the local authorities and the framework is there for the sites to be identified. The private sector waste industry would certainly like to see those sites cleaned up. This affects all of us, and affects the image of waste management.

Deputy James Bannon

There is no knowing what was dumped at these sites over the years. Asbestos and other hazardous waste could have been dumped. Unless there was a thorough investigation, the local authority would not know what they contain.

Ms Margaret Heavey

We agree with the EPA that the local authorities need to first identify those sites, arrange full investigation of the facilities and undertake proper risk assessments to determine whether they constitute a risk, which they may not. However, if they do, they should be managed in the appropriate fashion.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I thank the Irish Waste Management Association for attending and thank Mr. Robert O'Shea for his presentation. One of the issues Mr. O'Shea raised was what he calls unfair competition. He said the growth and development of the industry has been restricted and that he was looking for a level playing field. I want to put the other side of that argument.

It is the local authorities which have lost ground. As the witnesses said, the local authorities controlled most of the waste management collections until the 1990s and had a monopoly in the industry until that period. They have lost huge ground and the example was given that 50% of household waste is now collected by private industry.

Another aspect is that local authorities have a public service duty in regard to the collecting of waste. They are not making money out of this and are not making profit for shareholders, directors or managers. They have other responsibilities and what money they make goes into the mix of local authority responsibilities, which are huge. They are facing cutbacks now following the budget. Private industry is also badly affected, as has already been outlined. It is important that the point is made. The fact is that great amounts of money have been made by the private waste management sector, or else it would not be in the business. That does not exist for the public sector, so the witnesses are not comparing like with like when they talk about a level playing field. The public sector is not about making profit, but has a responsibility to the public as stakeholders.

The waste management sector is a very regulated industry and the witnesses have stated that there is a need for even more regulation. There are strategic issues related to the management of waste. We must decide how much waste goes to landfill and whether we incinerate waste. We pay EU fines and we try to keep our carbon emissions low. The witnesses have mentioned that in order to level the playing pitch, the private sector should have access to the environmental fund. Would that in any way relate to the profit of the private sector? The witnesses have spoken about the collapse of the markets, but when one goes into business, that is the way it works. One either makes a profit or makes a loss. Why should taxpayers' money be used to bail out the private sector companies? When they are doing well, they make a profit, but they want an environmental fund to help them when they are making a loss. What do they mean by using the environmental fund? Is there enough of it to cover the private sector as well as the public sector? How do we ensure that is not just a way to keep profits up, or that it is not going into the pockets of those who invest in the industry?

A few weeks ago in the Dáil, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and I were talking about the need to develop an industry at home for recyclable waste, so that we are not exporting it. We have been exporting a great amount of waste, including 90% of certain types of waste. What is the industry doing about developing an infrastructure here so that we could manufacture stuff from recyclable waste? What is the industry doing about research and development in waste management and green technology?

Senator Paudie Coffey

I will try to be brief. I was not here for the presentation because we had two votes in the Seanad, but I have a copy and I have looked through it. I welcome the witnesses here today. I also welcome private involvement in the waste management sector. I do not believe we would have achieved the targets we have met without the involvement of the private sector.

In their presentation, the witnesses mentioned unfair competition. There is a perceived conflict between the public and private waste management sectors and the witnesses might acknowledge this. Is it fair to say that the local authorities are not operating on a level playing field either? They would claim that they must operate the various waiver schemes and that they have a public obligation to provide for those who are less well off. The private sector waste management companies would not have to allow for that overhead. That is a concern for elected representatives and for anybody who represents those affected by poverty. Local authorities would also argue that they provide bring banks and bottle banks free of charge to all consumers, which is an additional overhead.

Some people have already spoken about the remediation of landfills. Local authorities are dealing with this issue and I do not think the private operators have those same obligations, although I am open to correction. The local authorities have to remediate landfills and run waste collection services from their environment budget. They would argue that this is a big disadvantage when they are balancing their books. Private operators would have used many of those landfills over the years.

We all understand that paper, plastic and so on are all commodities on international markets. When the recent waste management crisis hit home, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated on radio that the private waste sector has done quite well out of waste collection. That is not a good enough response because commodities go up and down, and they are now at their lowest ever level. I am sure private sector companies have made profits in the past, so have they built in a safety net to have enough in their budgets when the price of commodities drops?

There are major challenges for the waste management sector. Government policy is not co-ordinated. There is no clear direction or policy. All the regional waste management plans are in place and each region is doing its own thing, but the Government is not looking at a co-ordinated approach. If each of these regional waste management plans were implemented, we would have incinerators in every region. That sends the wrong messages to consumers and to investors in the sectors. They do not know what will happen next because there is no clear direction from the Government. I asked for a national debate on this issue in the Seanad on a number of occasions, but unfortunately my calls have fallen on deaf ears. Before the crisis goes any further, that debate has to happen. As stakeholders in this sector, the Irish Waste Management Association will have much to say about it.

There are opportunities in the waste management sector and Deputy Tuffy referred to them. Why must we export almost all of our waste? If we got our heads together and developed the critical mass between the Government and the private operators, we could create markets in Ireland for some of the waste that is generated. We will not be able to deal with it all, but we need a co-ordinated approach and I would welcome the opinion of the witnesses on this. If we get a clear direction from the Minister, we can at least see the opportunities that are out there.

Mr. Conor Walsh

Deputy Tuffy made a point about the involvement of the private sector. The private sector got involved in waste management when the local authorities started to back out of many rural areas around the country, where the service was considered to be uneconomic. Private contractors at the time — it was about 25 years ago — took up the reins and started charging people for the service. It was not very popular locally to be charged by the private guy, but the private guy had the neck to go in and do it, and he made some money out of it. The local authorities tended to hold onto the more profitable urban areas, where the economy of scale existed. However, the private sector has brought many efficiencies to the industry and, on equal terms, the private sector will win against the public sector because it is generally more efficient.

There is much talk about profits in the private waste industry, but my experience is that profits are at about 7% to 9%, which is the same as most other businesses. Profits are made, but jobs are lost if they are not made. Jobs are certainly being lost in the current climate.

With regard to the debate on the public and private sectors, many good points have been made about funding of public service obligations, the waiver system, bottle banks and civic amenity sites. As an industry, we have not been invited to discuss such matters and this meeting has been our first chance to so do. The landfill levy is worth €50 million a year while the waivers cost €25 million a year. The landfill levy is due to double, treble or possibly quadruple in the next five to seven years. The money is available for waivers, bottle banks and civic amenity sites and to subsidise the recyclables. As for the crisis in which we find ourselves, money from the landfill levy will be there to support all of those initiatives.

As an industry, however, we have been frustrated to date because when the landfill levy first was introduced, its purpose was to support capital grants for facilities. I personally applied for capital grants for three facilities. However, I was told then that the industry did not have access to the fund. It was to go to local authorities only and would be used for capital grants and enforcement. When enforcement came down the track, people in the industry reacted positively because they thought all the dodgy operators would be locked up in jail and those in the legitimate industry would benefit. However, this did not happen. Operatives in the legitimate industry were regulated in every way possible by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the local authorities and most recently by the vets. Enforcement has focused entirely on the legitimate industry and has allowed many things to go unnoticed. While we are all in favour of enforcement and of money from the landfill levy going to enforcement, it must be co-ordinated and the industry must be regulated by someone other than our competitors, namely, the local authorities.

There has been talk of a regulator on the part of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which has not been advanced any further. In our submission on this proposal, we asked that the EPA should be the regulator because it already is involved. It knows the industry and has the expertise. People in the agency have been working there for a long time and know what they are doing. We would be happy to be regulated by the EPA but not by either the local authorities or an independent third body. I hope this answers a couple of the questions raised.

Mr. Brendan Keane

I wish to make a couple of issues in respect of the issues raised. I concur with Mr. Keane. I have been in the industry since 1985 or 1986, at which time the local authorities had total responsibility for waste and they managed it all. There was little or no co-ordinated waste collection by private industry and the operation of landfills was carried out by the local authorities. Before the enactment of the Waste Management Act 1996, more than 150 landfills were being operated nationwide and that number now had been reduced to the low 20s. It had fallen to approximately 55 by 2001 or 2002. Greenstar was the first company to develop a private landfill in Ireland and it has taken industry a long time to enter and develop that sector.

As for responsibility for the old landfills, I do not believe the industry has a responsibility in this regard because it was the local authorities, rather than the industry, which put most of the material into them. There is now a strategy in place on the part of the EPA, under the hazardous waste management plan, to assess these sites. I refer to another point raised by Senator Coffey on the local authorities making a profit from this area. First, the Irish Waste Management Association is in favour of the local authorities remaining involved in the waste management sector and it is that involvement about which we are in discussion. As for the profit side of things, I can give members a typical example whereby in 2002, Cork County Council was taking in sludge for landfill at €400 a tonne. When we entered the industry, we were able to incinerate that material in Germany for €275 per tonne. While one might state the local authorities were not in it for the profit, they were making a great deal of it while thus engaged. One of the foundations of the IWMA is that while we are in the business of profit, we also are in the business of providing a service to both industry and the public. Although local authorities have an important role in this regard, we want them to work with us in providing that service for people.

I refer to the change in the recycling market. A critical item in this regard is that the public must not decide to not put recyclable materials into their green bin. It has taken ten years to get them to this point and it is very important to help them to continue to do so and to segregate those materials that are truly recyclable. I do not refer to materials that are halfway or possibly recyclable, but to those materials for which technology exists today to handle. While no one particularly wishes to ship material to China, that is where this market is available. However, that market probably is now gone forever or if not, it has gone for a long time because the Chinese are not turning this material back into plastic products to sell to us, as no one is buying such products. This is the point at which the whole thing has flattened out.

We must be ready to deal with this market as it changes and develops. Like the banking crisis here, this happened a lot faster than anyone could predict. We have a problem and we need to try to sort it out. Industry is losing money at present and while Senator Coffey made a point in respect of provision for market changes, such changes have been extremely dramatic. Yes, money was has been accrued. I can tell members that the price of ferrous material was up at €350 per tonne in July but two weeks ago, I was sending it out free of charge. While that example pertains to a particular commodity, in the plastics and other industries the public frequently are paying in their black bins for what comes out of their green bins. In reality, companies are making losses on that green bin at present but continue to collect such material. As one cannot expect this to continue indefinitely, something must be done to ensure the viability of recycling is maintained in this market. Consequently, while we are not looking for all the environment fund, we seek strategic investment of that fund into some of the ideas the industry has put forward. I refer to initiatives that the market does not consider will work commercially at present but would be in favour of, were some grant aid or support forthcoming.

The issue was raised about what can be done in respect of recycling in the domestic sector. Our strategy is quite simple. We will not be able to recycled many of the materials in question in this market because the end use of such materials does not take place here. However, we can add value to such products in Ireland by bringing them up the value chain. In other words, one should not simply bail plastic and send it to our friends in China. Such plastic should be torn apart into its component parts and sent in particular streams to those recyclers in Europe who are closer to us and where markets are available for such materials. Wellman International imports plastic to Ireland. It is the largest importer of plastic in the world and has been operating in County Meath for many years. It brings PET material from all over Europe back to Ireland. Strategically however, Ireland is neither big enough nor has sufficient PET to bring to a single location to operate a site at which one might wash and prepare such material. This constitutes part of the market forces that affect us. In addition, the European Union clearly states that one cannot prevent the movement of material outside or within the European Union, if it is going for recycling.

Consequently, it would be extremely difficult to come up with a reason to keep it all here at an additional cost of €10, because neither members nor their constituents wish to pay €10 more for their bins. People are voting about what they wish to do with their waste materials. If the waste management industry, as represented by the Irish Waste Management Association, serves them better, that is the way the market will shift.

Someone made a point on waiver schemes, which we perceive to be a social welfare issue. Industry is quite happy to pick up waste from those who cannot afford to pay, provided that someone else provides the money to so do and it should come from social welfare. The local authorities should not use money from everywhere else to cover this issue, rather than getting it from its appropriate source, namely, the social welfare system. These are a couple of the main points.

Mr. Jim Kells

One other point was raised in respect of the collection of waste in remote rural areas. When a county council first ceased to collect waste, the provision of waste collection services by the private sector was immediately more extensive than those provided by the local authority. While I am not saying that this is still the case across the country, the private sector provides waste collection facilities that, in most areas, are better than those provided by local authorities.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Are any companies in the waste management sector going under, as is occurring in other sectors?

Mr. Brendan Keane

Yes, companies are going under. A number of small operators are having a difficult time. While they were making money in certain markets earlier this year, they are now accumulating losses. Immark has let 24 people go because material is being exported. Some small operators are leaving the sector, but there will probably be a degree of consolidation.

A situation must be viewed in terms of what supports for proper waste management structures are viable. It cannot be a two-man or three-man operation. It must be linked with facilities that can reprocess material properly. It is not being done by hand. Fewer but larger companies handling the household sector will emerge over time while some smaller operators will be squeezed out of business. The IWMA represents almost 90% of waste collection companies, both small and large, but the feedback from our smaller members is that times are tough.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Regarding sanctions, I acknowledge that every operator operates under a licence and strict regulation that brings its own challenges. Can the IWMA sanction any of its members that breach their licensing conditions or does it stay away from the question completely?

Mr. Jim Kells

In the case of a serious breach, the person would be asked to leave the organisation.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Have our guests ever needed to do that?

Mr. Jim Kells

Not yet.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Has no member ever been pushed out of the organisation because of breaches?

Mr. Jim Kells

The courts have not pointed out any breaches by our members.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Not by the IWMA's members.

Mr. Jim Kells

I am sure that some members have had minor breaches. For example, certain points might have been made against them by the EPA, but those would have been minor in nature. To my knowledge, none of our members has had serious breaches since our establishment.

Senator Paudie Coffey

As an umbrella group, the IWMA does good work in the private waste management sector. It is important that, if there are serious breaches on the part of its members, there should be some sanctions outside the licensing system. The IWMA is trying to achieve the highest standards and efficiencies and it wants its members and consumers to have the fullest confidence in it, for which reason I have asked my pointed question. If people have made serious breaches, I assume that the IWMA would consider banning them. If such people operate within the organisation, there should be a system of sanctions.

Mr. Jim Kells

That is the case if a breach is considered to be serious.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

Senator Coffey asked the question that I was going to ask. Do our guests regulate themselves and what resources do they invest in regulating their members?

Deputy Tuffy touched on the matter of unfair competition. Local authorities claim that private operators take the lucrative, heavier business, such as hotels, and tend to leave the rest. The reports from both sides are conflicting. Our guests state that they handle the most unprofitable side whereas the councils claim that they handle it. Perhaps clarification from some source would be helpful.

I would like everyone to work together. The indication by the delegates that they want to work with local authorities is important. From the customer's point of view, competition is vital. I was not answered when I asked how many members are in the organisation or are covered by its umbrella. Are there set rules and regulations to a tendering process or is it an open tender?

Mr. Jim Kells

We have 24 or 25 members, representing approximately 90% of the private waste management industry. All waste companies are regulated by the local authorities and the EPA. There are collection permits, waste facility licences and so on.

It may not have come across in this discussion, but local authorities do not require a waste facility licence or a waste collection permit. Obtaining planning permission for a facility in the private sector takes longer. Despite the considerable amount of time and investment involved, success might not lie at the end of the tunnel. Local authorities do not need to apply VAT to their collection or waste management services.

Vice Chairman

I thank the IWMA for its presentation and attendance. I welcome the officials from Repak and invite them to take their seats. The format of the meeting will involve a brief presentation by our guests on their findings followed by a question and answer session.

Before they begin their presentation, I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite our guests to make their presentation.

Mr. Adrian Goodrich

I thank the Vice Chairman and committee members for affording us this time. Dr. Hetherington and Dr. Bacon will be our presenters. Dr. Hetherington will briefly outline Repak's background and what it has done in the past ten years. As mentioned in the previous presentation, he will move on to the turbulent times in the international markets that we now face. He will speak about some of those issues and give the committee the rationale behind Repak's commissioning of Dr. Bacon to do a report, which members either have or are in the process of receiving. Dr. Hetherington will then hand over to Dr. Bacon and take questions. We hope to do the presentations in approximately 20-25 minutes.

Dr. Andrew Hetherington

I thank the Vice Chairman and members of the committee. As Mr. Goodrich stated, it is good of them to give us this opportunity to address them. I will not take much time, as it is important that we deal straightaway with Dr. Bacon's report, which points the way ahead and offers some solutions to a number of serious issues.

Repak was established in 1997 as a partnership between business and Government. The Repak model is a tripartite partnership comprising industry, Government and citizens. It is a national scheme and it follows the models in place in virtually every other EU member state. We facilitate recycling at the national level through subsidies. Believe it or not, we subsidise the bring banks to which one member of the committee referred. For a number of years, we have subsidised the collection of material from bring banks. Our funding comes from industry on a producer responsibility basis. We are a not-for-profit organisation and we exist to ensure that Ireland meets its international obligations.

We have observed several landmark years since our establishment. In 2001, a recycling target of 25% was achieved. The target was increased to 50% in 2005 and that was also achieved. This year is the most recent landmark year, with a target of 60%. However, this year's goals also include specific targets for various types of material. We are on course to achieve these targets.

Recycling volumes are increasing yearly. Members will agree that the increase in awareness of recycling since 1996, when I first came here, is phenomenal. I recall that when we made the 2001 targets, the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, commended us but did not believe we would achieve the 50% target. We achieved our targets because people bought into the partnership model and wanted to do the right thing. This is why it is important to realise that real problems have arisen. It is not just that operators are losing their profit margins; many are losing money on everything they do in this area. They can only continue on that basis for so long. Householders play a key part in the system and this is why we are doing everything we can to find a solution. Taking the matter to its logical conclusion, businesses will take the hit as quickly as they can because their first losses are their best ones. Giving materials away rather than stockpiling them is better from the perspective of incurring costs and maintaining stocks. The next question a business must ask itself is whether it can continue practices on which it is losing money and the answer is usually "No". That is how householders, consumers and voters are affected.

Although we have been successful in hitting our targets, we also have a problem with enforcement. Only 60% of the tonnes placed on the market in the Republic are contributing to the system, which means the law is being broken in respect of 40%. After 12 years, enforcement remains poor. If the law breakers were paying into the system, they would contribute a minimum of €10 million. That money could be useful in the current climate. As our model was set up to pay out only on proven recycling, we can only fund tonnes which we can audit. Therein lies the current problem because recyclers are not accepting this material and it is either sitting there or places that can recycle it are being sought around the world. Not only has income decreased significantly, therefore, but getting rid of the material has also become a major problem in itself. While the model under which we operate is the right one, it requires us to pay by results because the EU will only accept Ireland's figures where they can be verified.

In addition to subsidising collection, we implement a wide variety of recycling programmes, including recycling week, green Christmas and Easter appeals. We fund the national spring clean and have announced sponsorship worth €1 million for the green schools campaign. We also support the tidy towns competition and many other initiatives. We have set up a best practice programme to help industries reduce the amount of packaging they place on the market. This is difficult because economic growth is reflected by an increase in packaging and it has been almost impossible throughout the EU to break that link.

We have commissioned Dr. Peter Bacon because he considers he is the best in his field. He has a strong reputation for analysing what people should do when there is a disconnect in the market. The turmoil which the Irish market is currently experiencing came upon us incredibly quickly. One month, top dollar was being paid for all the material that could be collected, and the next, material was being refused or accepted for free. Dr. Bacon's report is intended to bring clarity and a reasoned response to the current market situation and its implications for us all. In the time he was given, he has produced a substantive piece of work. His terms of reference were to examine the current market conditions and their detailed implications for waste management services, contractors, householders, local authorities and Repak. He was also asked to identify the policy interventions that merited further examination, particularly where a balance can be found between costs and benefits. I ask Dr. Bacon to address the committee.

Dr. Peter Bacon

I will cut straight to the chase because much of what is contained in the report has been addressed by other speakers. The handout which has been circulated to members contains several charts which pinpoint August as the month in which the collapse occurred. With the exception of glass, which is a relatively minor element, this collapse was very dramatic across all the categories we examined. Several speakers adverted to this collapse but the charts reveal its speed and depth.

The effect of the collapse on the packaging sector, which is a primary concern for Repak, was to knock €40 million off peak top-line revenue for recyclers. Recognising that prior to the peak the market was already frothy for these commodities and taking an average figure over the preceding three years as the sustainable level for this activity, the reduction in revenue was €20 million. Including newspapers, which are not considered as packaging waste, the figure increases to €90 million. That may have implications for the members of this committee, who have a particular interest in households. What does that mean? It means that if one was to try to recover that loss in revenue, €24 would be added to a bin charge. There is no doubt that is coming down the track because the newspapers will be read and disposed of. They will rot because the supply will be stockpiled. I do not know what the profitability is of the waste management industry or the sub-sector concerned with recycling but I would bet my Christmas presents that it cannot absorb a €40 million hit off the top line.

I am interested in the comments of the waste management industry in respect of consolidation. There is no doubt in my mind, considering various sectors of the economy, that a shock like this is not much different from the kind of shock that the financial services sector is looking at because of the speed with which it has occurred. There will be rationalisation and destruction of the emerging recycling industry.

Two issues arise; there is the environmental matter of what to do with the stuff, as it will continue to pile up, and there is the matter of how to pay for it. I will not enter into a debate about public or private sector, as the economy will have to pay for it either through the consumer, the producer, the Government, the industry or a combination of all these.

Part of the problem alluded to is that operators are selling a commodity in terms of recyclate. One can think of beef on the hoof. Less than 1% of paper and approximately 12.5% of plastic is recycled within Ireland. We are commodity exporters and the markets are gone. The emerging industry here is consequently crucially threatened.

Processing is not viable at current levels — the report details sterling terms and they have deteriorated accordingly on conversion to euro — but if it is to continue, additional sources of revenue must be found. I have outlined the magnitudes involved and highlighted what they would mean for households with regard to newspapers. Adding €24 to a bin in a year is an 8% increase, and absorbing €20 million to €40 million in industry will be a significant challenge. In the meantime there is the risk, depending on how quickly adjustment takes place in the industry, of material going uncollected if firms go bust.

In terms of action, the first recommendation is to restrict stockpiling. Stockpiling has already begun to occur and it should be restricted, particularly with regard to material that will deteriorate in storage; this is primarily paper. Hence my point concerning newspaper. I have come up with the environment fund as a deus ex machina and the specific recommendation is that for a period of six months it will subsidise by half the additional cost of taking out that material and getting it to the UK for incineration. What else can be done with it? The alternative is to stick it into landfill at an even greater cost.

The cost of that for six months will be €4.5 million to the environment fund. Why was the six-month period chosen? One of the features of the industry is that collectors have six-month contracts. If costs are to rise, they have no possibility of recouping revenues by passing on charges for six months. I have made another recommendation that if the landfill levy were to be increased, it should be done with a six-month lead-in period to give the industry an opportunity to adjust.

A big effort must go into exploring alternative EU markets for recyclates and strategic alliances. Some points were made by previous speakers about how to add value to the recyclate material. I do not have the answer but my recommendation is that what is missing is a cost-benefit analysis of what would be entailed in creating that kind of value-added industry, and what can be done in an economy as small as Ireland's in terms of adding value and finding export markets that will basically have to be reinvented from now.

That piece of kit is not available anywhere, or at least I was unable to find it. That is a medium term issue. It is easy to recommend——

Vice Chairman

We have a problem in that there will be a vote in the Dáil in a few minutes. The witness may continue and Senator Coffey can continue the questioning when we are gone.

Dr. Peter Bacon

I will deal with the other areas. The point has been made about streamlining and enhancing the compliance model. Effectively, newspapers are outside this and must be brought within it, possibly by having a Repak 2. Repak made the point itself that there are firms outside the system that must be brought in.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I thank the representatives of Repak for attending today's meeting of the Oireachtas joint committee.

Vice Chairman

Perhaps a Deputy might want to ask a question before going. We will suspend in one minute.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I specifically mention Dr. Bacon as this is a very welcome report from the delegates and Repak examining the impact of the recent price collapse. There is an issue concerning the awareness of this crisis from top to bottom. I am not sure the Government realises the extent and the implications of this crisis. I know ongoing debates and meetings have been held with the Minister and departmental officials but this crisis is a serious challenge across the economy and businesses. This debate will help achieve that realisation, which must filter through the system. I continue to call for a national debate on waste management.

Dr. Bacon outlined short-term, medium-term and long-term targets. Stockpiling is not a viable long-term solution as it is really just storing the problem. It is a quick reaction to the unfolding crisis. Sending the waste away will cost an additional €130 per tonne if we are to go to landfill and €50 per tonne to go to incineration in the UK or otherwise. That will bring serious burdens on——

Vice Chairman

We will have to go but the Senator can continue asking questions.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Will it be on the record?

Vice Chairman

Yes. Perhaps we should suspend and come back as soon as possible.

Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 5.25 p.m.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I thank Repak for its presentation and Dr. Bacon for his report.

The case is outlined very well in what we heard today. We are in a very serious position. I am not sure that the people to whom it matters most are aware of it. We must convey what we heard this morning to the Minister and do so very speedily. I suggest that we have the Minister present at the next meeting to discuss this situation with him. I have no reason to disbelieve what I heard this morning. From the points of view of the industry, Repak and Dr. Bacon, it is important. The warning bells have been sounded and it is very important that we get to work on this quickly. Perhaps at the first meeting next year we might have the Minister present in order to outline the seriousness of the situation.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I second Deputy O'Sullivan's proposal.

Vice Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. We shall put forward that request.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I seconded the proposal because this is an urgent matter. This is an exercise that must be undertaken for the sake of the economy, namely, bringing awareness to all our consumers and business people. Operators and local authorities are well aware of it. Repak is well aware of it. This will be one of the most serious challenges in 2009.

For years, Repak played a key role in building up and reaching targets, as did the local authorities, the Department and the private operators. Up to this we focused on increasing our recycling rates and securing efficiencies. We did that quite admirably in recent years. Now we are a victim of our own success. With the collapse of the international markets we are faced with a serious crisis in how to deal with all the waste that has been collected. The focus has rightly shifted to how we must deal with it, as a matter of viability and sustainability. If these issues are not dealt with and dealt with quickly, serious challenges lie ahead.

Dr. Bacon made recommendations that the environment fund should be accessed to address this problem in the medium and short term. Will we ask for a renewed focus on reducing packaging? We have heard of this and have spoken of it over many years. There have been awareness campaigns and other efforts. There was a project in the UK — I may be corrected if I am wrong — called the Courtauld Commitment. Major retailers such as Tesco and Sainsbury's signed up to a commitment to reduce their packaging by 10% by 2010. Why do we not have something similar in this country? We are coming into Christmas and we know we will have a problem dealing with the amount of packaging coming into our markets. Why can we not be more immediate and urgent in trying to focus on that area? We could act reasonably quickly and try to enforce reduction in packaging by all the major retailers.

Repak has a role in this. I would like to hear its comments in order that, as a committee, we can make recommendations to the Minister and his officials. We must focus on that. Rather than merely look for funding, we must also come up with solutions. Reducing packaging, especially on new products, is an issue on which we should focus. I would be pleased to hear what plans Repak has in this regard because the situation is urgent.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I wish to ask Dr. Bacon about the proposal to subsidise the half-cost of sending material to the UK to be incinerated. He said it would cost €4. 5 million of the environment fund and would cost that sum again to the industry. Who would pay the €4.5 million?

Dr. Peter Bacon

The cost would be approximately €4.5 million from the environment fund and €4.5 from the industry. It would be 50-50.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Would that be done through Repak?

Dr. Peter Bacon

I do not know.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Should it not be by way of a loan? Does Dr. Bacon believe it should be by way of a subsidy?

Dr. Peter Bacon

The material is going to pile up. The Deputy's colleague made this point. We know that 22% of packaging waste arises between November and January. This will occur next month. The material will be there then and is there already. I will not use the word "emergency" but we require urgent action to prevent stockpiling from occurring. When material is stockpiled some of it will deteriorate and the cost of getting rid of it rises after deterioration. The best thing is not to allow it stockpile in the first instance.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Has the Minister made any response to this request?

Dr. Peter Bacon

I made a recommendation.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

There is no news on that. I met Repak which made a presentation that explained how the targets worked and how they had been met. I appreciate the work of the company. However, my concern following the meeting was that the system works against preventing waste. If I enter a supermarket and there is a sign indicating it works with Repak, the waste may not be returned and there is no incentive. The supermarket pays money which is invested in recycling. I cannot see how the system works in favour of preventing waste. I realise this is a difficult question and the delegation may not wish to answer, but is the model involving Repak and the division of the industry into private and public sections sustainable? Should we re-examine the model in light of the economic situation?

Dr. Peter Bacon

Is Deputy Tuffy asking me?

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Anyone may answer the question.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

One of the speakers referred to 60% compliance and 40% non-compliance. Are those comprising the non-compliant group unable to recycle because they are not on a collection route, or are these industries that have not registered with Repak? Who makes up the 40% non-compliant group? Is it possible that many people will go out of business and that they will not collect and stockpile because it is too costly?

Newspapers are not categorised as packaging, but what category do they fall under? The amount of newspapers delivered to shops and retail outlets is unbelievable. The volume returned the following morning is approximately 50% of what was delivered. Is anyone addressing this, or has anyone contacted the printers to inform them too many newspapers are being circulated? I live close to a large landfill site which has no recycling facilitates. Is there any policy of recycling at large landfill sites, or is there some reason for the absence of such a policy?

Vice Chairman

Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned the over-supply of newspapers. Members of the Dáil suffer from an over-supply of material. I have a fish box in my office full of magazines received only this term which will never be read. One does not have time to read them, only to glance at them to see what they are and then pass them on. That occurs in every office in the Dáil every day. The volume of material we receive is ridiculous.

Dr. Andrew Hetherington

The Vice Chairman makes a good point. The Minister has taken some action. Almost as soon as taking office he challenged us to help him put in place an Irish version of the Courtauld commitment. We have been working with Retail Ireland, the retailer's trade body, and the Department to try to put in place this agreement. The committee will appreciate this is not easy. One difficulty which surfaced in the discussions with some of the politicians was the difficulty whereby large supermarkets could not simply instruct Kellogg's that they do not want goods one way, but another. One of the large retailers made the point that the Irish market, including North and South, is approximately the same size as the market in greater Manchester. We cannot meet top management in these companies, because we are not large enough. We liaise with middle-range buyers. It is very difficult for our economy to try to introduce initiatives which differ from the intentions of these companies.

However, because of the Courtauld commitment and agreements in other EU countries, change is occurring and there is much emphasis on the redesign of packaging. We are almost at the point of announcing an agreement with Retail Ireland that will initially involve the six largest retailers. The agreement will benchmark the current packaging and then agree production, prevention and reduction targets. This is a significant step forward. We have initiated training courses for industry involving best practice, prevention and minimisation. If we cannot force the large suppliers to change their ways, at least we can ensure our buyers are very aware of the alternatives, and that they do not simply order what they have always ordered. They may inquire if they can buy goods in a pouch instead of a box which already contains three types of packaging. We believe we are making progress in this area, but perhaps not quickly enough.

A question was asked concerning the appropriateness of the Repak model. Let us consider our work. We charge businesses based on the weight and type of packaging they place on the market. If that is not a key driver to reduce the weight and the most expensive types of packaging, then I do not know of another. The model works and it is a key driver. People do not wish to see their bills increasing every year. We believe the model is correct. However, there is one aspect in which the model is falling down and this brings me to the point made by Deputy Fitzpatrick. Up to now we have had 60% of businesses paying for 100%. By and large, it is a case of the big businesses paying for everyone else. That is fine if everything is going well. However, the economy and the big players are having a dreadful time now and they are not prepared to tolerate paying for their competitors. That aspect of our work is not sustainable.

We do not blame local authorities. They do a good job, but they are obliged to operate in so many different areas and it is easy to believe it is possible for them to become conflicted. They provide a collection service, an oversight service and a permit service. We fund the local authorities and, therefore, they are suppliers to us and we work very well with them in that sense. However, they are also the enforcers and we fall out with them in that area. We wish to hold them to account. We wish to know how many visits have been made and how many prosecutions taken. We provide them with names of people who do not comply with the law, which is difficult for them. Only one other country in the EU, namely Italy, allocated that responsibility to the local authorities. It lasted for three years. It did not work and the responsibility was withdrawn and given to the Italian environmental protection agency. Dr. Bacon produced the same recommendation independently of us. He suggested the business of enforcement should be given to another body. We do not blame the local authorities. We believe there are too many calls on a very limited resource in terms of enforcement.

We agree with the comments on newsprint. This is a difficult matter and there is no law covering newsprint. When one tries to encourage the proprietors to volunteer, they feel threatened and can threaten us in return. They maintain they are already heavily taxed and that no other country in the EU imposes taxes on them to ensure they return their materials and recycle them. However they forget to mention that in most other countries there are voluntary agreements in place, whereby proprietors agree to pay an amount of money per copy. These agreements involve one cent or a fraction of a cent for every copy. We have made good progress in taking back unsold newspapers. However, that is not where the problems lies. It lies in my dustbin and those of others. The problems lies with what occurs to the vast bulk of these materials when we are finished with them. They are put into the green bin. We do compositional analysis to ensure that we are not funding that, but such organisations are piggy-backing on our infrastructure, which we fund. We believe they should be making a contribution. In a small economy like our own it would give a lot more resources to fund the system.

Deputy Fitzpatrick asked if it was possible to do things with landfill sites, but unfortunately it is not. The economies of scale are just not there. We have proposed over the years that there should be what one would call exemplar projects, recycling parks where we pre-treat material. We have always believed that we should never be totally dependent on others. Whilst there is no prohibition in sending this material, particularly within the EU, there is also the proximity principle which means that one should be doing what one can. One should not be sending all one's waste or rubbish; one should be looking after the bits that one can. We are sadly lacking there. We have lost the components that we had, such as Irish Glass Bottle Recycling and the Smurfit paper mill. With very little effort we could have got some of that equipment and put it into a high amenity site. We could have used them as exemplars for schoolchildren, letting them see what can be made from these projects. It is still not too late.

We should have a certain base level of infrastructure, but it will require money. In the good times it may require a little money, but in times like now it will require significant funding levels. That is what is happening all over Europe, however. Those countries that have their own infrastructures are not as badly placed as we are.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

On the last point, could Repak do something about developing an infrastructure? Could it put some of its money into that? The Minister said that over a few years he will put aside €13 million to examine new markets and develop an indigenous industry. If Repak has money it can invest, why not put some of it into developing an infrastructure here?

Senator Paudie Coffey

With regard to the Courtaulds commitment in the UK and Ireland's position, I do not accept that a small country like Ireland cannot get agreement as a matter of urgency, especially with the crisis we are currently facing. The UK has had this commitment in place for a number of years and it seems to work. Many of the major UK retailers also operate here. I accept the point that an agreement is near, but I would be more confident if there was a timeframe for it. All stakeholders must take cognisance of the fact that we are in a crisis.

I am amazed to hear that the top people in these retail companies do not even want to meet Repak. The Minister should be aware of this issue. If they will not meet Repak as a stakeholder, the Minister may have to legislate to make them come in here. If they want to trade in this country it should be a priority for them to co-operate with any organisations concerned with waste reduction. The situation has become serious, so it needs to get that priority. The time for talking is over; we need action and a clear response.

Listening to Dr. Bacon and others, it is clear that the economy cannot afford this waste crisis. That is the nub of the matter. If we talk and prevaricate about this for months, the crisis will only get worse. That is where this committee's role comes into play. We should respond to this crisis more effectively and efficiently. If nothing else, we should be able to co-ordinate the approach of the various stakeholders in responding to the crisis.

Perhaps we could help the Minister in his work because we all agree he has huge challenges. He needs to address the committee and admit there is a challenge. He should also tell us how he is planning to respond to this crisis. We will then start to make the necessary progress. If we keep talking about it and doing our own thing on an ad hoc and unco-ordinated basis, as has been the case in recent years, this crisis could bury us. Unless we respond quickly, all the good work over the last ten to 15 years on waste management will go down the drain.

Mr. Adrian Goodrich

I welcome the response from members of the committee. We commissioned the Bacon report because we did not believe the matter was getting the airing it deserved. It has taken Repak ten years to get to 720,000 tonnes, have 2,500 members, and get an education programme to bring the next generation to where it is now with all the campaigns. Imagine bins not being collected in January because a collector goes out of business. That is why we commissioned the report and why we want to move it forward as fast as possible, jointly.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I am sorry but I must attend the Seanad for another vote. I wanted to hear the response but I will pick it up from the Official Report.

Dr. Andrew Hetherington

I agree with virtually everything that Senator Coffey said. I hope Mr. Martin can give us some idea of when this agreement is likely to be signed.

Mr. Declan Martin

I agree with Senator Coffey that it has taken a bit longer than might have been expected. We were looking at it possibly being signed in mid-summer, but I am assured both by my colleagues in the Department and with Retail Ireland that we are very close to signing it. I would be very surprised if we do not have an agreement in place by early in the new year, and an announcement to go with it.

Vice Chairman

We are coming to a conclusion and there is a vote in the Dáil also.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

What about the question of putting money into developing an infrastructure here?

Dr. Andrew Hetherington

At the moment, our funds are not earmarked for that. Our members pay based on the type and weight of packaging they put on the market. I believe we are ideally placed to facilitate all the stakeholders and bring them together. Many of the IWMA members are willing to participate in examining infrastructural developments. There are other very large recyclers who have also expressed an interest in coming to Ireland. If there was some encouragement from the Government that it was interested as well, I believe they would be pushing on an open door.

Vice Chairman

I thank Repak's representatives for attending this committee meeting and dealing with the questions that have been raised.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 January 2009.