Mr. James Fitzgerald:

To address the Deputy's last point regarding the Repak model first, in a way what has happened here has been the result of an unpredictable evolution of things since the waste management legislation was introduced. Originally, there was no market at all for farm plastics, pellets or the like. That has developed, but it was an ad hocdevelopment of the system. The evolution of the collection and recycling of farm plastics has followed an unsteady trajectory over a 15- to 20-year period. For the first seven or eight years there was no gate fee being achieved for the export of farm plastics, and the IFFPG would have had to subsidise substantially the recycling of farm plastics at facilities abroad. However, for most years in the last ten or 12 years there was a market for that particular product. We need a dynamic type of model that takes account of the market fluctuations, and possibly one that would, encompass the ideas of, perhaps, the Repak model. We certainly believe that what the Deputy said about the Repak model is true, that it would help significantly in this regard. Rather than seeing independent farm contractors or collectors as competition in the market, the IFFPG could collaborate with us in some way in order that we could achieve the one purpose, that is, to move the existing stocks of plastic and to develop into the future on that basis.

The Deputy further asked why support was not given to an Irish plant. That is a question for the people in the IFFPG, as I was not privy to the scenario in the establishment of those facilities and was only just vaguely aware that they were there at the time.

Some of these things date back seven to ten years at this point. The Deputy might put that question to the IFFPG. Have I addressed all of the questions posed?