Deposit return scheme (recycling) - Part 2

Why does the board not have a member of the public or a consumer advocate on it?

His head wood sound the same

Yes,Tony EH Blah blah blah all the way to the bonuses for a job well done

Naivety is not one of my failings.

You left out the company cars🚗.

It's not a charity, a quango or part of the public service.

That was suggested before and it's not a bad idea at all.

Maybe we should compile a list of suggested improvements.

Genuine question - How do you see them dealing with the excess deposits?

Here are my thoughts.

Assuming they won't adjust anything until at least 12 months after launch, I say they could have have around €80m excess deposits to deal with at that point. (assumptions below).

Now as they are 'Not for Profit' I believe the directors have a duty to reduce the mountain of cash built up from year 1 - and ensure it does not build up again.

The options they could consider are limited and will be subject to Minister Approval, please reply if I am missing any.

1. Increase the retailer fee
2. Reduce the producer fee
3. Increase the deposit amount
4. Change the deposit return separate to deposit levy (i.e. micro incentivise return)
5. Justify spending the money on something
6. "Re-turn" to the Exchequer

Given the make-up of Re-turn, if they have autonomy, option 2 is the most likely. With a close trading relationship between producers and retailers & to make it look more balanced, its very possible that a bone is thrown to retailers as well under item 1. A dividend in all but name.

Item 3 is possible but may be considered risky (if they up the deposit and the collection rate doesn't go up faster, they end up with an even bigger mountain of cash); also it may not be effective at reducing the existing mountain of cash as deposits are inherently neutral. Item 4 is a complete radical outsider, I don't see it being in any way being considered.

In the Walter Mitty world of Ciaran Foley, he says publicly that any excess funds will be re-invested in recycling schemes (or, for example, setting up a plant), and I have no doubt he would love to be sitting on such a disposable purse of money. But does he really believe a state appointed business with a €36m budget would ever be allowed spend more than 3 times that on whatever they like?

Item 6 may happen, but I wonder if a Minister can over-rule directors - i.e. unless the directors wanted to be generous to the Government, this may not happen.

Look for all the fun talk on here of nice company cars, Bikram yoga at the office, cushy expense accounts and knees-up work-dos, there is only so much of €80m you can get away with spending like that - its a colossal amount of cash that can't be assigned to 'Travel and Entertainment' ledgers. Same thing with say PR and advertising - yes, I notice they are spending much more now they have huge cash available, but €80m more - thats a multiple of Mr Blue Sky / National Lottery advertising wastage.

Workings for €80m:

DRS is intended to be self funding and projected to cost around 10% of deposits.Assume 1.8bn containers at average 20c per item, 10% of this is €36m. As is looking likely, first year returns will max out at less than 70%. If we come in around 67/68% for year one, there is going to be around €80m in excess unclaimed refunds, over and above the normal funding of Re-turn.

I know a lad that services engines for a government organisation.

I am not at all surprised that all the employees get their private vehicles serviced by him too.

Anybody remember when Advance Tyres brought Gardai to visit a factory in Manchester?

They also went to see a Manchester United game and played a round of golf.

Only the most naive of fools believes there will be no kickbacks along the way with this one.

Depends on your definition of "pocket".

It suggests dishonesty/stealing to me.

To answer your question directly, I don't know for certain.

I thought all along the plan was to re-invest any surplus in the business or related activities.

As you say they seem to have an unexpected windfall to deal with.

I don't think using that windfall to reduce the producer fees will be sustainable or acceptable to the public.

Not sustainable because when the excess money is gone they'll need to exist on a normal level of income.

Also as others have said it would be seen as feathering their own nest.

Spending on pr and marketing will be limited by the fact that there is no "product".

My preference would be to see the excess spent on improvements but with a revised plan to allow for the changed circumstances.

I hear what you are saying about one-off reductions in PF not being sustainable, but the idea would be they reduce producer fees until the cash mountain is depleted and in say 2-3 years time re-adjust again. €80m would buy 4 years at 1c PF reduction, or 2 years at 2c reduction, etc.

In reality, I think they may announce with lots of fanfare some minor scheme improvements, they may hike deposit amount too to force compliance (after any general election) but really €80m in 1 year & growing is huge and I think it will mostly be disbursed via PF reduction.

I wish someone in the media would ask Mr. Foley if he has projected the accumulated unclaimed deposits to year end and what he thinks the company should do with them. When he answers with BS about recycling initiatives ask him what sort of initiatives need €80m and if that's appropriate for a business set up with a budget of €36m.

Sick of broken machines, I now have just accepted it as a tax and throw them in the bin. Not worth the hassle

I've returned more than a few Northern Ireland bottles that my daughter keeps if there's a return logo.

Did you do it? Can we see it?

There's more chance of CEO Foley listing what actually needs fixed.

Fair play. Nice to see at least some consumers see some benefit from this scheme.

Do you understand the difference between people going along grudgingly with a scheme to get their own money back versus people who approve of the scheme and think it is doing a good job?

Would that still be a deposit then if they didn't? Or a tax? Money for old rope? Answers on a postcard.

The 90% target being a few years ago doesn't excuse Re-turn ignoring obvious issues with the scheme, issues which could have easily been foreseen even back in 2010… bulk RVMs, RVMs at council sites, people who get deliveries, people in wheelchairs, people at airports and ferry ports.