This second session is an engagement with witnesses on the deposit return scheme, DRS. Having agreed to undertake this meeting to discuss the scheme, I now wish to welcome the following witnesses to the meeting: Mr. Ciaran Foley, CEO; Ms Gillian McCann, chief regulatory officer; Mr. Tony Keohane, chair, Re-Turn; and Ms Sara Orme, national president and owner of Daybreak Delvin, and Ms Flora Crowe, vice president and owner of Crowes of Sixmilebridge, Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association, CSNA. They are all very welcome.

I remind all in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent or are switched off. Before I invite opening statements, I advise everybody of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite the witnesses to make an opening statement to a maximum of five minutes. Once the opening statement has been delivered, I will then call members of the committee, in the order they indicate to me, to put their questions, with non-members at the end. The committee operates a rota system, which provides each member with an initial five minutes to engage with our witnesses. It is important to note that the five minutes are for both questions and answers and, therefore, it is essential for members to please put their questions succinctly and witnesses to be succinct in their responses. Please note that the duration of this meeting is limited and, therefore, the times must be strictly adhered to, so I ask everyone to be focused in their contributions.

I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to appear before them today. I would also like to acknowledge the presence of representatives from the CSNA and express our gratitude to them and the wider retail community, along with our other members, for the crucial role they have played in helping to make the deposit return scheme in Ireland a success. My name is Ciarán Foley, and I am chief executive of Re-turn. I am joined by Tony Keohane, chair of Re-turn, and Gillian McCann, chief regulatory officer at Re-turn. Before addressing the operation and performance of the DRS, I will briefly set out who we are, what we do, and how we are funded.

Re-turn is the operator of Ireland’s deposit return scheme. It was established by producers to meet their obligations under the Single Use Plastics Directive, including targets for the separate collection and recycling of plastic bottles. Re-turn is not a State body. It does not receive Exchequer funding and operates on a not-for-profit basis. Our role is to run the national scheme within the framework set for us, and to do so effectively, transparently and in line with our licence and regulatory responsibilities.

The scheme itself is straightforward. When a consumer buys an eligible drink in a plastic bottle or can, they pay a refundable deposit. When they return the empty container, they receive that deposit back. The purpose is to increase the collection and recycling of containers, reduce litter, and ensure that high-quality material is collected so it can be properly recycled.

Ireland is among the highest consumers of plastic bottles and cans in Europe, with more than 1.9 billion placed on the market annually. Before the scheme was introduced more than half of these bottles and cans were not being recycled. Thanks to the introduction of the DRS, more than 800 million additional bottles and cans, every year, are being recycled which otherwise would have gone to landfill, incineration or worse, ended up as litter.

The scheme provides a dedicated return route for bottles and cans. It increases capture rates, minimises contamination and protects material quality. That matters because plastic bottles and aluminium cans are high-value materials and require carbon-intensive processes to produce. Re-turn’s role is to operate this national system, co-ordinating producers, retailers, return point operators, logistics providers, recyclers and consumers.

The scheme is funded through producer fees, the sale of recyclable material and unredeemed deposits. It does not rely on public funding. As a not-for-profit organisation, all funds are reinvested into operating and improving the scheme, including collection and processing, retailer handling fees, return infrastructure, logistics, technology, public education, compliance and administration.

Unredeemed deposits are an expected feature of deposit return schemes, particularly in the early stages as consumer habits develop. They are not profit. As return rates increase, unredeemed deposits decline. Re-turn will invest any surplus unredeemed deposits in supporting Ireland’s circular economy. We are engaging with Government on how best to support long-term circular economy infrastructure, including domestic recycling capacity.

Ireland currently does not have a facility capable of fully recycling polyethylene terephthalate, PET, plastic bottles back into food-grade drinks containers. The scheme now provides the scale and quality of material needed to support such a facility. Developing domestic recycling capacity presents a significant opportunity to reduce reliance on exports and strengthen Ireland’s circular economy.

Since launch, the scheme has established a nationwide return network of approximately 3,800 collection points. With strong public participation and support from retailers, more than 3 billion bottles and cans have been collected through the scheme. The impact on recycling rates has been significant. PET bottle recycling has increased from approximately 49% prior to the scheme to over 90% today. Material quality has also improved substantially, with PET collected through the scheme reaching quality levels of up to 98%. This level of quality, above 95%, is needed for bottle-to-bottle recycling.

We are particularly proud of the extent to which communities across Ireland have used the scheme to benefit their good work. More than €940,000 has been raised through the reverse vending machine, RVM, donation feature for charities and community organisations nationwide, with a further €515,000 generated through the return for children initiative for six national children’s charities supporting over 160,000 vulnerable and seriously ill children.

Overall, more than 5,200 organisations have registered to use the scheme to fund local projects.

Re-Turn's purpose is to operate the scheme effectively and transparently in support of Ireland's recycling and circular economy objectives. We are committed to continuing this work, to listening to feedback and to improving the scheme as it matures. We are happy to take members' questions.

I wish members a good afternoon. I thank the Chairperson for inviting us to provide to the committee the perspective of the CSNA of the deposit return scheme.

I want to make it quite clear our criticisms are based on how the scheme appears to be incapable of allowing our sector of approximately 1,000 retailers to recover their costs. It is not intended to criticise the scheme and its primary objective of providing for a cleaner environment. The members I as president and Ms Crowe as vice president represent understand the scheme is supposed to be cost neutral for retailers, though obviously none of those working in Re-Turn or in the logistic companies that transport containers from our stores work without compensation, nor should they. None of the companies and suppliers we engage to supply and maintain the machines provide their services without charge. Retailers provide space on their property for the scheme to work, ensure the machines are in clean and working order, deal with unwanted litter and wait for weeks to be compensated for deposits that we honour as they are presented by the consumer, while receiving 2.2 cent per container as compensation. It is just over two years since the scheme was launched and it is very obvious to the majority of our members that have a reverse vending machine the fees and grants paid by Re-Turn do not come anywhere near covering our real costs. This is known to Re-Turn, yet a recently concluded review still sets the handling fee at 2.2 cent per container, a figure that will never provide recompense us for our costs.

We would like to draw to the attention of committee members an analysis, which I have provided, that we have done to show the very substantial differences in the way the new scheme in the UK and Northern Ireland treats small- and medium-sized participants compared with our scheme. The UK scheme has clearly selected a two-tiered model complete with grant availability that we would say adequately and responsibly compensates small and medium retail outlets. Re-Turn has asserted the handling fee of 2.2 cent will cover "reasonable costs incurred in handling returned containers". Our costs are not limited to the cost of acquiring the machine and, for many, the cost of providing a bespoke external shelter. These are capital investments we believe should have been approved by Revenue for the accelerated capital allowance scheme but are not, and all tax relief is spread over six to eight years rather than in year one of acquisition.

Our ongoing costs relate to labour, electricity, cleaning, consumables and maintenance contracts. Details of all these are contained within the analysis. While retailers receive assistance by way of grants, neither these nor the handling fees manage to provide the necessary compensation that would ensure a cost-neutral status. We have managed to provide an accurate assessment of most small and medium business costs in relation to the DRS and trust that the committee will see our concerns are real. Re-Turn says that there will be another review on handling fees when the grants finish in 2027 but by that time our retail members will have incurred very large deficits due to their participation in a scheme designed for societal good. We have very real concerns that there will be an exodus of containers from the South to the North once the scheme there gets up and running. This is based on the sterling differential on the flat 20 pence deposit for all cans and bottles as opposed to the 15 cent charged for smaller bottles and cans in our scheme. While this will lead to an increase in unredeemed deposits here, it will create further difficulties with meeting our collective targets of 90% if products are travelling North.

The local authorities are charged with policing compliance with the scheme, which at this juncture needs prosecution of those players selling non-compliant minerals into styles of outlets in the fast food, night-time economy and ethnic stores sectors. We are in the most competitive market in Ireland but none of us want to see people getting an unfair advantage through flagrant disregard of our laws. My colleague Ms Crowe from Sixmilebridge, Clare, and I, from Delvin, Westmeath, will be happy to answer any questions members may wish to ask. I thank the Chair for the opportunity.

I invite members in the order they have indicated to engage with the witnesses.

I thank the witnesses. How many are on Re-Turn's board and how many staff does it have?

There are 12 members of the board, which includes producers, retailers and independent directors. Four are independent, including the chair.

We have 59 staff.

How many of those have expertise or experience in the disability sector?

I will refer that to our chief regulatory officer, Ms McCann.

We have recently employed an accessibility officer specifically to focus on the programme, which has been live for the last two years. There are another four people. I sponsor the accessibility programme and have done since December 2023, when we first heard from disabled people they were anticipating challenges in operating or working with the DRS. We consulted the National Disability Authority at the time. It advised us to form an advisory group. The advisory group consists of scheme stakeholders, including retailers and drinks producers. The Minister is represented by the Department. Mr. Foley is the CEO and we sought nominations from three different national disability organisations, two of which came from disabled persons' organisations. They then appointed an independent accessibility consultant and have run a nine-month national consultation.

We now have three live work streams within Re-Turn. The first is focused on accessibility within the retail environment. In June we published accessibility guidelines, which were designed with disabled people, in order to lay out the steps in the customer journey that would make a meaningful difference to their engagement with the deposit return scheme. We have a work stream focused on the usability of the reverse vending machine itself and a work stream about making information and communications more accessible. There are a series of people within my team, including Mr. Shane Quigley who is here, leading that programme and we have been complemented very recently by Emily Smith, our accessibility officer.

Okay. I thank Ms. McCann. Re-Turn has approximately 3,800 collection points. How many of those are accessible?

There are many aspects to accessibility. During the consultation, we invited the DPOs to nominate people from across the different disability categories, such as mobility, physical impairments, visual impairments and intellectual disabilities. The results of the work streams that have been put in place to deal with the challenges and the barriers that were articulated are basically seeking to make the infrastructure nationally more accessible. From a wheelchair accessibility perspective the machines we use in Ireland are the same ones used across Europe. We were the 15th country to deploy a deposit return scheme; there are now 20. Essentially they are the same machines. Where retailers might have invested in a number of machines-----

I do not mean to be rude but the clock goes very quickly. How many of the 3,800 machines are accessible?

Many of the retailers will have chosen a lower in-feed slot for their machines where they have several machines available. Bulk machines-----

Can I take from this there has been no audit? Has there been an audit of the accessibility?

One of the recommendations that is coming out of the retailer guidelines is for retailers to publish the features accessible across a number of different disability and impairment categories that are available on their machines.

One of the statutory requirements of this scheme is that it is accessible to all. The previous Minister of State, Ossian Smyth, was very specific about that in this committee during the previous Dáil. He said "... it is a legal requirement that participants in the scheme make sure their return point operations are accessible to everybody in the community".

Two years into operation, however, with quite a large number of staff and a very large operating budget available to it, Re-turn still cannot tell me how many collection points are accessible. While it is good that Re-turn is on that path, the guidelines Ms McCann talks about are voluntary. They are only guidelines. There is no mandate for any of these measures to be in place.

Retailers already do a fantastic job in supporting customers on journeys through their stores. They have the accountability for accessibility irrespective of-----

Again, people with disabilities want to be able to do this themselves. They do not want to have to press a button to get someone to come out and help them. The machines need to be accessible. Six or seven per cent of people have limited visibility. Twenty-two per cent have a disability of one type or another. The fact is that we have 3,800 machines in operation in circumstances where there are no statutory requirements or there is no compulsion to make them accessible, and not just for wheelchair heights but for people with hearing limitations or visibility issues. I cannot understate the impact that has on people. It is good that Re-turn is on a pathway - I have raised this a number of times - but it is now two years since its first operations. The company has a large amount of money available. It should be making sure that the machines being put into these retail outlets are accessible to everybody and that every person can return these bottles. The fact that this has not been done yet is-----

Do the witnesses want to comment on that?

I really appreciate the questions from the Deputy, because this is really important. I sit on the board of the European DRS and we are really proud that Ireland is leading the way. If you look across the 15, as it was, now 20 countries, many are visiting Ireland to see what Ms McCann and the team have done because it is remarkable. The fact is that we are working with the DPOs and listening and understanding. It is great to see that we will lead that progress. We are on this programme and we fully intend to help everybody to get their bottles and cans back to us.

Listening and understanding is very valuable, but the machines need to be accessible. That is the fundamental thing.

We are all working together on that.

If people are coming from Europe, it would mean that the bar is very low in Europe. If the witnesses cannot even tell me how many of the 3,800 machines currently in operation are accessible, that is a huge problem and demonstrates a blind spot. I have concerns about that.

I entirely agree with Deputy Whitmore. In terms of the witnesses' next appearance before the committee, it would be useful if they provided an update. Perhaps they might even be able to provide one in writing to the committee, because this is a very important issue. I am broadly very supportive of the scheme, and the figures the witnesses have given are quite welcome.

Mr. Foley spoke about us generating our own circular economy. Re-turn has indicated that it is now at 98% quality and so on. The witnesses might provide a timeframe as to where the circular economy stands and the ability to reuse bottles and other materials.

Mr. Foley mentioned being on the European board. The second issue I want to raise is interoperability. I have raised this before with product around Europe. We have differences around UK product that suddenly finds itself here and cannot be recycled, but even when people are travelling, it should be more interoperable.

I totally understand the work Re-turn has done with charities and communities, but a lot of the environmental work is being done by local Tidy Towns groups. I would love to see a situation whereby when I am returning my bottles and materials, the option is on the machines to be able to provide support to my local Tidy Towns group or whatever. I am one of those who is old enough to remember collecting bottles and stuff for the scouts locally. I know there is a lot of that community work being done, but I would like to be able to have that. I ask the witnesses to respond to those three specific questions.

I thank the Deputy for those great questions. Five minutes will not really do them all justice, but we will do our best.

In terms of the timeframe on the circularity, prior to the scheme existing, there was never enough material in one place to make it financially viable to build an rPET plant on the island of Ireland. Realistically, we needed to get to about 60% redemption in order to make that possible. We are well past that now, so we have got on with it and started the process. We are currently in tender. We need ministerial approval to get that signed off, so we cannot give a definite timescale. However, we know that there is probably an 18-month lead time with some of the equipment.

In discussions with the Minister, has there been any indication?

Yes. We said that on the happy path, shall we say, we could get to potential appointment by the end of this year to know who we would work with to build the plant. Then, as I said, there is at least an 18-month lead time. Depending on who wins the tender, there may be planning considerations, etc.

So it is not unrealistic to think that by 2028 or 2029, it should be operable.

That would be our ambition. I might pass to Ms McCann again for the second question.

On interoperability.

Yes.

Specifically, we have had a lot of engagement over the past few years with Northern Irish and UK officials regarding interoperability of the scheme that will go live in October 2027. More recently, Exchange for Change, which is our equivalent, has appointed its team. Two weeks ago, we had its senior operational team in Ireland to discuss the extent to which interoperability and material exchange across the borders is possible and the conditions for that. Ms Orme mentioned the different deposit level, which introduces some complexity, but our aim in working with the UK is to share our learnings, maximise recycling and ensure that both schemes are successful, that we minimise stock leakage but that we retain the financial viability of both schemes.

I ask Ms McCann to give me a realistic timetable for this if I buy something in Belfast and bring it to Dublin, or if I am on a flight.

They are going live in 18 months' time. Two weeks ago, we committed to working through the extent to which interoperability will be possible. Over 30,000 people cross the Border every day. There is already stock leakage across the Border without a DRS in play. Again, Ms Orme mentioned-----

I am just conscious of time. My final question was about how I can donate locally.

Great question. The Deputy will be aware that we work with the six children's charities through Return for Children at major events, which has worked really well and raised over €500,000. There is a charity option now on 1,700 of the 2,800 machines. It is up to the retailers to decide what charity, cause or local community they put on, so that is who the Deputy would need to talk to if he wants to get Tidy Towns on there. The 5,200 community activities that have signed up with us, including Tidy Towns, are where the power of this scheme is really coming through, and we share the Deputy's desire for Tidy Towns. They have been huge supporters of us, obviously-----

I appreciate that this is at retail level, but I ask Re-turn, as an organisation, to work with the Tidy Towns organisation nationally-----

Absolutely.

-----to do it and to encourage it. As an environmental scheme, they are a core organisation.

It is a perfect fit. I agree. We are already working with a lot of them but we absolutely give that commitment. We would be delighted to work with them.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us. Re-turn is a scheme with good potential. It has been very positive in its introduction, and it is something we need.

My first question is to the CSNA. It relates to the machines. How many of the CSNA's members have taken out the machines on the back of financial feasibility?

At present, we are not aware of anyone taking them out. We are only just over two years into it, and the cost is really coming to light now. Many of us went into this scheme because we believe in the whole circular economy. We want to bring this into our communities. Nobody wants to drive 25 km to the nearest machine. That is why a lot of us brought it in. At present, no one has taken it out. Our fear is that after the year three, when the grant finishes and people have that bigger cost every year, what will happen at that point to machines and for our communities.

In terms of the grant paying for the initial capital element, is the CSNA forecasting that it would be paid for after three years or is there still an outstanding financial element?

No, that would not cover it. The grant was €12,000 across three years, but the machine costs €15,000 or anywhere up to €30,000 if you put it outside. As regards our running costs, as the Deputy can see from our opening statement, we estimate that €9,000 goes on labour alone in the context of cleaning and emptying machines, doing paperwork, checking invoices and repayment in the third week of the second month. A great deal of work goes into it.

We pay for all the paper rolls for the receipts. We pay a maintenance charge of €1,000 a year on the machine.

How many years would Ms Orme forecast for a machine to have paid for itself?

We would probably be looking at year five.

I will ask the same question of Re-turn. How many years does it envisage from its calculations?

The experience around Europe is that they run for six to seven years. It obviously depends hugely on the volume of takings. For the lower volume retailers they could last up to ten years.

I just note from the opening statement there was no mention of unredeemed deposits. What is the current amount in financial terms?

There was a mention of it. I explained how the-----

Was it €500 million?

So, for 2024 it was €66.7 million and for 2025 it was €60 million. If I could, I would like to-----

That is €120 million in two years.

If I could, I would just like to take the opportunity to explain how the scheme is structured.

It is €120 million.

If Deputy Clendennen will bear with me I will explain how the scheme is structured. The normal way that a deposit return is funded is through three forms of revenue. We get producer fees from producers who pay for every bottle or can that they bring to the market.

Yes, the manufacturers.

Under the regulations we own the material, so we get income from the sale of materials and then there is an element of unredeemed deposits.

Mr. Foley has not included handling fees in that.

Handling fees are a cost to us. These are the revenues.

Re-turn is charging the end user. If I have a pub, for argument's sake, I pay a handling fee. That is a revenue to Re-turn.

I am not following that point about the handling fee.

If I get an invoice from Re-turn in the morning there is a handling fee on it. That is a revenue to Re-turn.

No, we pay people handling fees. We do not charge.

So it is the other way around.

I know time is of the essence but it is really important to explain because there is a misconception.

Could I get back to the €120 million?

Could I just explain the unredeemed deposits, please?

I am under time pressure.

I realise the Deputy is on the clock. Just to explain, all across Europe and the world where DRS works, we need some unredeemed deposits to pay for the scheme.

I need to come back in.

At 90% we are at break-even.

I am conscious there has been an element of negativity around Re-turn as well. This week alone, the advertising watchdog is investigating complaints about bin raids, the admin burden and so on. We have not seen Re-turn's accounts for this year yet so I am not too sure where it stands from a financial accounts perspective. Last year there was a reference to €1.1 million for five executives. What is that this year? What was it for the following year, 2025?

I do not have that number but it would be similar.

So €1.1 million for five executives. If we have a problem with feasibility at retail level and considering that the unredeemed deposits are as high as they are, should we be leveraging those in some way to try to assist the CSNA from a financial perspective?

If I could just come in on the salaries - the €1.1 million to the five executives - there is no link between that and unredeemed deposits.

I appreciate that. I did not insinuate that there was.

I am sorry. I thought the Deputy did. I picked up that there was a connection but there is no link whatsoever.

To be clear, I never made that insinuation.

They play no part whatsoever in the payments.

I am very conscious of the time so I would like to get answers to the questions.

Again, it is a great question. The fact is at 90% redemption, which is what we forecast it to be-----

Should we be using this leverage to assist the CSNA?

I would like to explain why we have to manage the scheme the way we manage it. At 90% redemption, which we forecast we will hit in 2029, the scheme will be break even. We need that element of unredeemed deposits. At current handling fees, producer fees and the sale of material we know we are getting to a break even point.

But we have a scenario where Re-turn is at break even and then we have a lack of viability so it does not add up.

We carried out a very thorough review. We had all of the retailers in Ireland in a room to talk about the costs. We asked them to give us their data. We carried out a fully independent review by DRSI International which is steeped in experience in this field. We had it authenticated by EY and the outcome is that it was fair and transparent. We worked very closely with all of the retailers, including the CSNA. We put in an appeals process. We are happy to sit down with anybody who thinks it is not break even after all of that work and we will run through their individual store and say how we think we could help them to break even.

This is the Deputy's final question because we have to move on.

Just on the matter of transparency, in the case of pubs there is a threshold of 20 bags that can be collected at any one time. That frequency is not so regular. They are at the mercy of Re-turn in the sense that when they go into a hopper they get their response. Is there any transparency around what is rejected in the scheme in regard to cans that are taken off the premises but are then rejected in the scheme? Essentially, they do not get refunded for them.

The CSNA referred to-----

Can they get that report?

Yes. There are certain products that are not in the scheme. They are the ones that get rejected. Any product that has the logo and the bar code will be accepted through the machine.

Do they get feedback? In the case of publicans, are they expected to know every single barcode? Does Re-turn provide that feedback?

Not at all. We have a white list of every single barcode that is in the scheme. No producer should be selling any product that is not in the scheme. That is how this works. Obviously there is an element of fraud.

So Re-turn can provide that information.

Yes. Again, we would love to talk to them if they have some information.

Okay.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. As somebody who does the weekly shopping and heads down with the bags of cans and bottles to the supermarket I hate the scheme. I have met Mr. Foley and spoken to him. I accept that it is increasing recycling but it is a pain in the neck having to go down and finding the machine is full or there are two machines in Dunnes where I do my shopping and they are waiting to be emptied. It is just a pain in the neck. You have to clean the bottles. I always recycled. I really think it is a pain. As for having things for charity, why should consumers have to be guilted into giving money to charities? Call me a communist but, Jesus it is just so annoying. The consumers are paying upfront for this and the people who are fulfilling it in the local communities, in particular small retailers, have to wait months to be paid.

Our main money comes in the middle of June. We pay out a deposit on 1 May and we get reimbursed that money in the middle of June.

Could Re-turn not have managed this properly? Could it not have done this better? Initially, when it was first mentioned, there was a digital model proposed by the Irish Waste Management Association instead of the Re-turn scheme. Has any consideration been given to that as opposed to this way where shops have to provide large areas in their stores for these machines and they are waiting to get money back? I have spoken to GAA clubs that are looking to get these machines in. It is costing them €20,000 and they are not going to make their money back for three or four years. The scheme is so badly managed.

I am not exactly sure what the question is. The scheme has been a huge success. We are now recycling 800 million bottles and cans that were not recycled prior to the scheme. That is why, all over Europe-----

It could have been done if we were able to recycle in our ordinary bins.

Deputy Cronin should let Mr. Foley finish his contribution.

We were recycling in our ordinary bins and we were on 49%. This is why all across Europe, every country now is implementing DRS, because there is no way to get to the 90% target without the DRS.

Our research, which we do very regularly, says to us that 78% of Irish people see the scheme as a very positive intervention. I am really disappointed that Deputy Cronin does not like it, but 78% of people see it as a positive thing. Some 87% of people class themselves as returners and 96% of people have used the scheme. We are absolutely delighted and extraordinarily grateful to the retailers but also the public for how they have adopted the scheme. It is inaccurate to say it is being done badly.

Mr. Foley can show his gratitude a bit better to the small retailers by paying them promptly.

Again, we carried out the review. We genuinely believe that it works with the grant scheme in place. Probably the smaller volume retailers are among the best in Europe in terms of the handling fee when we include the grant. I fully accept the CSNA's point that when the grant goes away there may be a challenge, which the UK has addressed through a tiered fee. We have already said that we will carry out a further review once the grant has gone away. We have to manage a multiple-----

I also want to thank an Teachta Whitmore for bringing up an issue. We were all contacted by a member of the disability community, a constituent called Frankie. Re-turn just did not think this through properly. I thank Deputy Whitmore for giving so much time to that because it saved us all a lot of time.

She should be given a few extra minutes in the next slot.

She got extra minutes.

I thank the Chair very much. I appreciate that.

The Chair should give her a few more because I think we all wanted to bring that up. We have all been contacted by people with disabilities who cannot reach the machine. Their kids want to reach the machine and they are hanging out of trolleys. Anyway, I do not like the scheme. I also read in the supplementary information the witnesses sent us in that unredeemed deposits are a core component of the funding model used by Re-Turn as they are in most deposit return schemes. Is Mr. Foley saying that Re-turn gets to keep the money that is not returned as well and this is revenue for Re-Turn?

Obviously, we want everybody to bring their bottles back, so we are-----

Where is the incentive if Re-Turn is getting it already?

We do not want the money. We are a not-for-profit organisation. We have been appointed by the Government to run and administer the scheme. We are not here to make any money. What we are saying is that unredeemed deposits are a normal part of a deposit return scheme and they are part of the system. At 90%, we recognise that we need that 10%. We pay VAT on unredeemed deposits. It is an ironic challenge that there is this misconception that we are awash with money or we have all these unredeemed deposits. Everything we do every day, every reason we get out of bed in the morning, is to try to increase redemption rates, which will reduce the unredeemed deposits. What we have seen with the reaction of the Irish people is that we are confident that we are going to get to those numbers and as I said earlier, we will be at a break-even point for the scheme overall if we get to 90% by 2029.

There is a problem about the North having a different refund model. I get up every day to unite Ireland, and if Micheál "John Bull" Martin would get out of the way, perhaps we could get that done quicker. How is this going to work when there is a different deposit scheme in six counties of our island? Mr. Foley was worried about more-----

Mr. Foley might be very brief on that because we have other speakers.

We have already discussed it. We are working very closely with Exchange for Change and it broadly based its scheme on what Ireland did in terms of governance. It has been working closely with us for up to two years now. We will make sure it is as seamless as possible. As the Deputy quite rightly said, there are different currencies and different rates so it is going to be complex from an interoperability point of view. By working very closely with the UK, we are hoping we will make it as seamless as we can for customers.

Mr. Foley rightly said that the 2.2 cent came from Europe, but the Deputy has to remember that our running costs as small business owners are much higher in Ireland than the rest of Europe. We have two additional bank holidays compared to Europe and we have sick pay days. I am sure that if the Deputy looks at the figures we gave the committee for running costs, it is quite obvious that we are running at a loss. The 2.2 cent might be correct but our running costs are much higher than Europe.

I thank everyone very much. I would also like to keep it tight as the clock goes very fast. I want to focus on retailers first and then I want to go back to the DPROs. I thank Deputies for bringing it up as well. The executive pay versus retail hardship line I want to touch on is that RTÉ has reported that five senior executives at Re-Turn were paid €1.1 million last year, but Re-Turn is telling over 1,000 CSNA members that there is no money to raise a 2.2 cent handling fee. How can it justify that order of priorities to a shopkeeper? I worked in a Spar shop for five years. I was a manager in a Spar shop for five years - two years, actually; I did not get straight up. How can Re-Turn justify that? Would it commit to a pay freeze for senior management before asking retailers and SMEs that are struggling with energy costs to absorb the cost?

I will address the salary bit. I have already partly answered that question. We are funded by the producers fee and the sale of material, as Mr. Foley has explained, and a small element then of the unredeemed deposits. We have a very strong governance code and we follow the governance code for schemes such as these. Within the board, we have set up committees and one of those committees is on remuneration.

That is great but Mr. Keohane is not answering my question.

It is a way of saying that we have strong control and governance over the pay of everyone. The €1.1 million the Deputy mentioned includes pensions, healthcare, etc. We have to make sure we attract the right people to run a scheme of this complexity and this seriousness.

Again, Mr. Keohane has spent one minute and he has not answered my question. I just want to know whether Re-Turn would commit to or examine a pay freeze for senior management before asking retailers who are struggling to absorb this cost comparable to the UK.

I will let Mr. Foley answer the question on the retailer handling fee, which has been thoroughly investigated. However, I assure the Deputy that we have very strong governance and we have benchmarking around what we need to pay our people right across the board.

I appreciate that. I have a minute and a half with no answer. Can the witnesses please answer?

We have already said that the review process was extremely thorough. It was signed off by our fees and contracts committee and our board, where the CSNA is fully represented. Crucially, we have also said that there is an appeals process in place. If there is any retailer who, after all of that examination, still believes they are out of pocket, we want to sit down with them. We want to work through the issues to see if we can support them. We have got to manage the funds extremely carefully, however, and we are very happy. That is why we put the appeals process in place.

I appreciate that. I want to discuss the cash pile and the not-for-profit contradiction because I have been hearing people confidently talk about it. Re-Turn is obviously a not-for-profit organisation, but there are tens of millions of unredeemed deposits. I know Re-Turn has to keep them until someone maybe has a stock pile and is going to come back. At what time does an unredeemed deposit stop being the consumer's money and start being Re-Turn's?

It is two months before we can take it to the PNO.

However, Re-Turn gave retailers a one-off €3.2 million grant. Why was it a one-off and not a permanent increase to the payer container fee?

The grant was originally introduced as a €6,000 grant to help them to get the scheme set up and purchase the machines. It was €3,000 in year 1 and then €2,000 and €1,000. After discussions with the retailers, particularly with the CSNA, it was agreed to double that grant to get to €4,000, €4,000 and €4,000. As we have said a number of times, we are happy to review that further once the grants run out.

I appreciate that. I am one of the 78% who are in support of the scheme

Great.

When we are in these committees, people always go on and on because we want to get answers. We are in here as elected representatives. Norway pays retailers more for using compacting reverse vending machines, RVMs. Obviously, people in Ireland are coming around, as Mr. Foley said, but we are not doing as well percentage-wise for returns as other countries. Why does Ireland's fee model reward but not reward scale? Mr Foley calls these schemes world leading, but what do they do that the EU is looking at that Norway is not doing?

Our 2.2 cent is in line with Europe but when we add the grants on, that is where lower volume retailers benefit very much in Ireland. That is why we decided to try to get as many retailers involved as we could and, thankfully, they have adopted it, hence the 2,800 machines and 3,800 return points. I am sorry; what was the second part of the question?

It was about the percentage of other return schemes across Europe. What level is Ireland at overall in return of deposits given? Mr. Foley might correct me if I am wrong, but Norway is in the high 90% range and we are at 68%.

No, we are at 78% moving to 79%-----

I am sorry; I knew there was an eight.

-----after two years.

What are we doing differently? What can we do there? While I have Mr. Foley, in ten seconds, I will refer to Electric Picnic and festivals across Ireland. We saw a great initiative at St. Anne's Park where the returned bottles were given to St. Anne's farm. Has Re-Turn designed for the summer festivals an easier way for those who will be drinking in fields to return their cans and donate them to, say, Clontarf Tidy Towns or Beaumont Hospital?

We have indeed. Unfortunately, Clontarf Tidy Towns is not there but we are working, obviously-----

Or Artane Tidy Towns or Beaumont Hospital.

Inside Electric Picnic, it is Return for Children. We allow GAA clubs to come into the campsites, where I know my kids will be contributing. I think Meath camogie raised €15,000 last year-----

People can bring a bag of cans.

What is Re-Turn planning for Electric Picnic, which is one of the biggest festivals?

Okay, Deputy, this is the last question.

It is just for Electric Picnic. There are a large number of tents left there. We are talking about the circular economy.

We are going to have a huge presence. We collected over half a million bottles last year. We are able to double that this year. If the Deputy comes along, if he is there, he will see the Re-Turn presence everywhere.

I would not be a festival goer myself-----

The Deputy will ask his friends.

-----but I look forward to seeing the donation to Tidy Towns.

I thank our witnesses. I have a couple of quick questions because I have to get into Seanad. The success of the scheme is going to be based on the easy access of consumers to be able to bring the bottles to a locality. The small independent retailers are absolutely critical to that. We are seeing right across the country that many of them are in a precarious situation in any event and we are seeing a lot of them close. There is a review to be conducted in 2027. Could this be brought forward? These issues need to be resolved as a matter of urgency. Is that something that could happen?

First of all, I have to say I am a huge supporter of the scheme. It is a great success and it is absolutely vital in terms of taking plastic off the market and putting recyclables back into reuse.

I just have that one question. Could that review be brought forward as a matter of urgency?

I thank the Senator for the question. We have just spent the best part of a year carrying out the review. We have committed to carrying out another for the end of 2027. This is why the appeals mechanism is so crucial. That mechanism is open now. Any retailers who feel they are not getting to a cost-neutral position just need to write to us. We would be delighted to sit down with them or even to visit their store to understand why that is not the case. However, all the data provided by retailers and all the scientific analysis we have carried out says that retailers are currently being appropriately compensated. We absolutely sympathise with smaller independent retailers given the challenges they face in other areas but the deposit return scheme is designed to allow retailers to break even. We believe we are achieving that. If anybody disagrees, we invite them to talk with us. We have a meeting with the CSNA next Wednesday. We are delighted to have the chance to sit down and understand a bit more about what we have heard about today.

I see Ms Orme shaking her head. She would probably dispute that.

I just wonder if Mr. Foley's organisation has the manpower to accept 1,000 appeals. Our members did take part in that review last year but they were not happy with the outcome. The running costs are clear to see. Our 2.2 cent is going to be 5p across the Border. Our Northern Ireland counterparts are going to get 5p for every return. They are getting €2,000 of a grant after the first three months. They are not being made wait a year to see how many bottles they have collected. There might be an understanding that retailers are happy. A proportion of retailers are probably happy but we are here on behalf of the 1,000 retailers we can prove are not making money out of this. I am sorry; nobody wants to make money but we want to break even. We are not in a cost-neutral situation. I have outlined the costs. A machine costs €15,000 or up to €30,000 if it is put outside and we are getting 2.2 cent a unit. The maintenance contract fee is €1,000 a year. That is up to 50,000 units. Most of our retailers would not reach that figure in two months. It would take them two to two and a half months to get that volume of bottles through their machine. It takes two and a half months' worth of returns to pay the maintenance contract. There are then the wages, the electricity and all of the other bits. It is very important that Re-turn revisit this sooner than 2027. We cannot wait until three years have elapsed and suddenly find ourselves at the end of the fourth year before there is agreement on what we are going to do next.

I agree with that.

I am one of those low-volume retailers. I am only doing 220,000. My handling fees for the past 12 months were just shy of €5,000. The cost of leasing the machine alone comes in at €3,600. I have to pay for Wi-Fi and I have to pay wages. We reckon that it takes an hour and a half a day. Even if I take the grant of €4,000 I received last year, my operating costs were over €13,000 so I am making a loss of €4,500 a year. After year three, the grant just drops off. In our eyes, the grant is just a sticky plaster that is going to drop off after year three. We put a serious amount of work into the latest review but it was totally disregarded. We did not get an increase in the handling fees. We got a very small grant but, again, that is just a sticking plaster and does not address the underlying issue, which is that the handling fee does not cover our costs. A review is required now, not in 2027. We do not accept that we were listened to in the last review

I agree with that. This is about the future of our town centres as well. It is hugely important.

My second question is on the issue that was raised about disability. We may have discussed this before. Some were seeking the use of simple graphics on screens for the benefit of people with intellectual disabilities and that has been taken on board. That is important in addressing the issue of accessibility.

For the past six months, we have been working on screen design with disabled people, the reverse vending machine providers and the accessibility consultant. With the RVM providers, we are about to roll out new standardised screens that address the use of images, text size and colour contrast from a visual impairment perspective and simple instructions that are easy to read for people with an intellectual disability. Those concerns have fed into that.

I have a quick final point. It relates to non-refunded deposits. The impact of plastic on nature, water and rivers has been profound over many decades. Could consideration be given to the introduction of a dedicated fund for nature restoration projects to be drawn down by community projects? Tidy Towns has been mentioned. It might be worth giving some consideration to that.

We have committed to investing any excess unredeemed deposits in the circular economy. We are working closely with the Government and the Minister to decide what initiatives to invest in after the plant, which we hope will come about.

I welcome our witnesses. I empathise with Deputy Cronin's approach to all of this. I am also one of those people who always recycled. I still do. I wash all my plastic receptacles and make sure they are clean and dry before they go into my recycling bin. However, Deputy Cronin and I are clearly not representative of the vast majority of the population. The figures provided today absolutely bear out the need for the scheme. It is absolutely extraordinary that 800 million bottles and cans are being recycled every year. That is a huge amount. From an environmental perspective, we can all agree that this is a really important scheme. It is now about getting the details of the implementation right. Deputy Whitmore and others have raised legitimate questions about the accessibility of the machines for those who have certain disabilities. With a view to remedying that, machines are available that can cater for people in a wheelchair. Were they available at the time this scheme was first implemented? Does Re-turn know what it would cost to remedy these issues, replacing screens, putting in more accessible and lower RVMs, and things like that? Do the witnesses have any figures on that?

The roll-out of the new screen design is going to happen centrally. There are only five or six suppliers. I apologise; I cannot remember which is the right figure. One got bought. That can be done centrally across the 2,800 reverse vending machines. It does not have to be done individually. It is already part of the programme. The RVM suppliers have been working with us on the programme to standardise screens since last September. The cost will not be significant.

Who will pay for it?

We have not got to that stage yet. Work on the screen design has been going on without any charges being discussed. It will not be a significant cost. Reverse vending machines with a lower slot height are available within the ranges that were available to retailers to select from. In general, one type is selected when there are multiple RVMs in a location, such as in bigger retailer stores. The capacity of the machine bin is lower as a result of the lower slot height. The machine suppliers are very aware of the feedback from disability organisations and individuals across the past two and a half years. They have that in mind for future machine designs. It will be on replacement of machines that these changes are made. The machines cannot be modified to drop the slot height. The slot height on the bulk machines is lower.

In the context of our discussion about the difficulties retailers are facing with the affordability of the scheme, it is important that the burden of replacing these machines as that becomes necessary.

If I want to change the charity button on our machine, our RVM supplier would charge me. I have no doubt that, if changes or modifications are required to improve accessibility, the cost will be passed on to us. That is why a lot of smaller retailers might not have the option to donate refunds. That is cost we would have to pay through increased redemptions. We need Re-turn to step up to the mark there because we cannot take on any more costs. I have no doubt that the RVM suppliers will push the cost back on us.

I thank Ms Crowe for that.

In terms of the appeals process Re-Turn brought in, what could the outcome of an appeal be? What is possible? If Re-Turn staff attend someone's shop and figure out that the scheme is not cost neutral for the owner, what can be changed?

Anything is possible. It is really important to recognise how extensive the review was, involving all the data from all the retailers. I felt it was a brave move to ask the whole retail community to go into one room to discuss the scheme. We had lawyers present to ensure that no competition rules were contravened and so on. The retailers were very honest and open, as they always are. When we opened the portal, we received a huge amount of data. We have to work off averages, obviously, and the grant scheme is there to support the lower volume retailers. The review mechanism is absolutely vital, particularly as we want to understand the situation. It feels a bit strange to be on opposite sides of the table today because we are so grateful to these guys for doing an unbelievably good job. The fact they have 1,000 machines in operation makes accessibility for the Irish people so much better.

It is our job to make sure retailers continue with the scheme. We might be able to carry out a review and show where efficiencies could be improved. If that is the case, it would be fantastic. If something comes out of the process that was not considered in the review, which would be surprising given the extent of the input we had, we absolutely are there to listen and to rectify it. We need to encourage these-----

I apologise for interrupting, but I am almost out of time. Is Mr. Foley talking from a monetary perspective? Might a grant be given or potentially other financial remedies?

Anything is possible. We are never closed to possibilities. Our job and this scheme are all about stakeholder engagement. As we keep saying, we are a not-for-profit organisation. We are only interested in recycling. If the retailers are telling us there is an issue we need to deal with, we will listen and, obviously, we will want to deal with it. Everything is up for grabs.

I thank Mr. Foley.

Gabhaim míle buíochas leis na finnéithe as teacht anseo inniu. Mr. Foley said Re-Turn is a not-for-profit organisation, but there are 59 people working for it, many of whom are very well paid. Some of their incomes are not publicly discussed, as far as I understand. There are incentives in terms of income within the organisation. Mr. Foley mentioned that there is a popularity to this, but it is also the case that €4 million is spent every year on publicity. To a certain extent, that is a lot of positivity purchased. Anybody who had €4 million available would be able to influence public opinion significantly.

Am I right in saying that 66.7% was the unredeemed figure for 2024?

The amount was €66.7 million.

My understanding was that the actual amount was €103.2 million, with the figure of €66.7 million being an estimate at the time, and that an indication was given that this estimate would be reviewed at the end of the year to see whether there was any change. Was there any change?

No, that continued. That is the lag we talked about in terms of the two months. The figure is accurate. The figure for unredeemed deposits in 2025, which will be in our next annual report, was €60 million. That is proven to be accurate.

Is Mr. Foley saying the estimate that was made in 2024, namely that the end figure would be €66.7 million, was spot on?

It was not spot on because it moves up and down every month, but, given-----

How accurate is it?

It is very accurate. It moves in time. We worked with PwC on the best way to establish that in our accounts and when we should move it to the profit and loss statement.

Very few people make such accurate estimates.

I am not saying it is 100% accurate but it was accurate.

This is important because, as I understand, Re-Turn's VAT is paid on the amount it registers. If the figure were out by €10 million, the VAT would change.

It really is not that difficult to forecast. Our redemption rates are moving very consistently. I can almost tell the Deputy what we will get for the next week. It is €4.2 million on a Tuesday and it goes to €5 million at the weekends. It is just a calculation because the unredeemed deposits are done purely based on redemption.

Would Mr. Foley be able to indicate, not now but if it arises, about any deviation between the estimate and the reality?

We report all of that in our annual report. It will all be there.

Why exactly does Re-Turn want to have VAT removed from the millions of euro in unredeemed deposits?

We do not want to have VAT removed. The VAT on unredeemed deposits was discussed, as would be expected, at the start of the scheme before we were involved. The question was asked as to whether we should pay VAT on unredeemed deposits. The result, following inquiries to the Commission, was that there should not be VAT on the actual deposit but that there should be VAT paid on unredeemed deposits. That is perfectly acceptable to us and that is how we now administer the scheme.

My understanding was that it was an objective originally. Was it never an objective?

My understanding is that it was a question. I was not here at the time but I understand it was a question that was asked to see how we should proceed.

Mr. Foley mentioned on David McCullagh's radio show that the containers are not recycled to the same standard in the normal bins as they are by Re-Turn. However, it was also stated on that show that this was not the case and that in ordinary recycling, containers are recycled to the same standard. Does Mr. Foley accept that now?

No. We must be very careful on this point. I commend the Irish Waste Management Association and the waste companies. They made the point I made, which is that we go bottle to bottle and they do not. They say they can go bottle to bottle. To correct that, if material is kept separately collected, which we do through a deposit return scheme, then it does not suffer from contamination. That is what I am saying. We achieve a recycling quality of 98%. If the material is put through the green bin, the quality will be lower. It could be brought back to bottle to bottle eventually but an awful lot of processing and costs would have to happen to get there. That is why we have a deposit return scheme and it is why it is so important that the quality that comes out of the scheme is the best.

Mr. Richard Shakespeare has stated that bin scavenging is turning our capital city into a bomb site and that there is a massive cost to it. Is Re-Turn paying that cost?

No. Contextually, the scheme has been very successful in terms of the ambition to improve littering levels across Ireland. We see that independently reported everywhere. Our beaches are the cleanest they have been in 25 years, with a 55% reduction in littering of these containers. We are working very closely with Mr. Shakespeare and Dublin City Council to understand what we can do to support them. We recognise that bin rummaging happens. The vast majority of people who do it act in a very respectful way, but there are certain pockets around Dublin where improvements are being made. We are working with the council to see how we can support that.

My final question is for Ms Orme. How much does she reckon businesses are losing on average as a result of the scheme? What do they need from Re-Turn in terms of the 2.2 cent given per bottle to be able to break even? It is uncomfortable that on one side of the table are people who, it has been reported, have shared in significant remuneration, and, on the other, we have the people who are doing the work at a cost to themselves in a sector that is already being hammered in terms of income.

The calculations we have provided show that if a retailer has a machine that is getting the grant of €4,000 and handling fees of €5,500 were coming back from Re-Turn, that is €9,500 in the door but it would be costing us €15,000 a year to run that machine. We are looking at a deficit of €5,500. We did a comparison between the system here and the one in Northern Ireland. Under the proposed scheme, if 250,000 units per year were processed in Ireland, the retailer would get the €9,500 I mentioned, while retailers in Northern Ireland would get €15,000. Over the course of three years, the small retailer in Northern Ireland will be €19,000 better off. That money is not in the retailer's back pocket but he or she would have €19,000 towards that additional €5,500 a year. They will have made slightly on it and would be nearer to that break-even point. They will be much more fairly treated in the North from day one of the scheme. It will not be the case as obtains here, where two or potentially three years later, we are looking back at how we can look after retailers.

Gabhaim buíochas le Ms Orme.

I have a couple of questions. Listening to what the CSNA representatives are saying, it seems the issues are, in effect, to do with the operating costs and specifically the 2.2 cent charge that is set on a per-container basis. We want to keep the smaller operators in business. Even from a climate perspective, they are close to people and do not require a car trip. That is a major advantage for people recycling their material. Would Re-Turn consider a pricing scheme based on a stratification of volumes whereby smaller retailers would have a bigger charge for the first 1,000 units, with a reducing charge thereafter? The bigger outfits are protected because they are operating at scale. We want to keep the smaller retailers in business. Does Mr. Foley have any thoughts on such a model?

In effect, that is what the grant does. Ms Orme referred to the 5p charge that applies in the UK. If retailers take 100,000 containers in Ireland, they will get the 2.2 cent per unit but also €4,000 on top of that, which is the equivalent of 6.2 cent per container.

That is exactly what it does.

Regarding the review process, we were very mindful. We were the first scheme to introduce grants. The CSNA has done a comparison with Northern Ireland. We did a comparison with 15 other countries, and we were very generous with our grant scheme for the very reason that we wanted the smaller retailers to get involved and provide convenience.

Looking forward, what was said was absolutely the case. We coached the UK scheme on much of what it has done. Its tiered fee makes a lot of sense to me. If the grant were not available, you would have to look at something like that. That is only fair. It would not be fair not to do so. While the grants are in place we feel people are protected.

The grants are not rolling indefinitely, however.

They are not rolling indefinitely, but that is why we have been very clear that we will review the matter again. An assumption was made that we would just do away with them. We need to work with the retailers to make sure that whatever we do is fair and keeps them motivated to do the job they are already doing.

Would the model not be better if that was built into the transaction cost, so that it would operate by itself rather than-----

It could be. It was much simpler to help the retailers get up and running through the grant process. The review process probably came at the wrong time because the grant deviates from the norm. If a tiered fee were the right answer once the grants disappear, we would be more than happy to sit down and discuss that.

On something totally different, Mr. Foley mentioned recycling and a recycling plant. From my perspective, that would ring alarm bells in terms of waste management and the commercial sector. Re-Turn would effectively be at risk of going into competition with commercial recycling operators that may have plans in this area in the future or may have plans at present. I do not know. Does Mr. Foley have any concerns about that or comments on it?

The scheme and the new regulations coming under the packaging and packaging waste regulation, PPWR, are all about getting the product back as close as possible to its original state, with the proximity principle in place, as near as possible to where it is currently used.

Working with the producers is the right thing to do. Producers will work with the recyclers. However, the whole industry can work with us to make sure circularity does not exclude anybody. Ultimately, the goal is to get our producers to take the material back, bottle to bottle, up to seven times. That is what circularity is about.

The environmental benefits, which are what we are really concerned about, will always trump the commercial considerations. We always behave in a transparent and collaborative manner, so we would be happy to work with recyclers. The producers do not do the recycling, so somebody has to do it. We hope that would keep the recyclers in the loop.

Would Re-Turn not have any concerns about competition in that regard?

No. We have had a lot of legal advice and are working closely with the Government. We are constantly checking with the Commission, but we are satisfied that what we are doing will be legal.

I thank Mr. Foley. We will have a second round of questions. We will keep contributions to two minutes because we are tight on time.

I want to return briefly to the salaries mentioned in the paper. The figure was €1.1 million for five executives. Is that figure for base salary, or does it also include benefits?

It includes pension and health insurance.

Executives have their health insurance covered.

In those figures, yes.

Do any other staff members have their health insurance paid?

Yes. There is a health programme.

Is that for every staff member?

Yes.

What do the costs of that add up to?

We do not have that figure.

Would it be normal operating procedure or normal HR procedure to have healthcare covered?

Yes. As I explained in response to an earlier question, the remuneration committee seeks relevant evidence from across the marketplace and from sectors and industries in which we are trying to attract or retain people. That is to make sure we are market relevant to get the right people.

Does Re-Turn provide cars, other forms of insurance or anything like that?

No.

The marketing budget was €4.6 million. Re-Turn spent more on marketing than it did on staff costs in 2024. Does Mr. Foley know what the marketing cost was for 2025?

I think it was €6.8 million. This has to be put in perspective. This is a national infrastructure change. Unlike with the smoking ban or the plastic bag levy even, we are asking people to do a job. In countries around Europe, people were quite used to bringing back bottles and containers. Ireland had got out of the habit many years ago. The coaching from around Europe shows it is vital to educate and to continue to promote the scheme to reach 90%, which is obviously what we want to do.

That seems like a very large increase. I would have thought most of the marketing would happen at the start of the scheme. The reality is that people will be at a loss. If they do not bring the bottles back, they will be financially disadvantaged, so there will be an incentive for them to return them anyway. It seems like a huge amount of money to spend on marketing a statutory scheme.

Somebody mentioned Norway earlier. The scheme there has been running for more than 20 years and it still spends more than we do on marketing. It is really important to keep people motivated.

The Deputy said that people will get their money back. We are at approximately 78% or 79%. We recognise that the last 10% will involve the hard yards. Educating people and doing things such as what we are doing today, talking about the advantages over mixed dry recycling, talking about on-the-go element and explaining that we are not-for-profit and are only here to invest in recycling, is a tough job. We will have to keep doing it and keep educating people. We anticipate that the existing levels of marketing will continue for a number of years before we get to-----

Does Mr. Foley believe he will keep seeing increases to the same extent?

Final question.

It is quite a large-----

No. I would not expect to see further increases. It will stay around the current level.

I will be somewhat tongue-in-cheek and say that if Re-Turn manages to make all the machines accessible, it will see an increase in return rates as well. That might be an alternative way of doing it.

We are working hard on that.

I wish to follow up on the €126 million in unredeemed or unreturned deposits. What are the plans for that generally? In terms of making the machines accessible and financing that, could this fund be used?

Again, we have to be careful. Unredeemed deposits are higher at the start of a scheme because redemption rates are growing, but costs are also higher. We had to repay start-up costs and loans, put the infrastructure in place and, importantly, build up a contingency reserve fund of €27.5 million.

When the scheme settles down, if we reach 90%, as I keep referring to, that is the level at which we break even. VAT of 23% is also paid.

Have some things been paid for from that fund already?

Absolutely.

It is not accurate, therefore, to think that there is €126 million lying there.

That is the myth. Currently, we have approximately €12 million in available cash. We hope to have approximately €30 million by the end of 2027. We intend to invest that money in the rPET plant. Unredeemed deposits are a normal part of what we use. We are often asked what would happen if we reached 100% redemption, because we would not then have the money. Producer fees would have to be increased. We expect that, at 90%, the scheme would be at the appropriate level.

It has been used for operating costs.

It is constantly used, as it is all over the world. It is part of the model.

This question is for the CSNA. There was a point in its statement expressing real concern that there would be an exodus of containers from the South to the North due to the different deposit return rates. Does Ms Orme envisage that, particularly in Border areas, people will go north of the Border?

We operate convenience stores. I have a forecourt as well. As matters stand, there is already a lot of cross-Border activity involving cigarettes, vapes and coal. That is not being examined, and this will be the same. If groups or people collecting cans suddenly realise that they are worth 15 cent in the South but 20p in the North, which is approximately 22 cent or 23 cent, it will have an effect. If people have them in bulk, of course they will go across the Border to the North. That will affect our effort to reach a 90% recycling rate. It will also affect our members in Border areas who have these machines and have operating costs but may potentially have fewer cans going through them.

I am glad Re-Turn is trying to address what is going to happen and whether cans from the North can be returned here in the South. I do not know how many years that will happen for, but it is a concern. There is already a lot of leakage across the Border involving all the products we sell in our shops.

Ms Orme is right. The way in which we can mitigate the amount of movement across the Border is with a country-specific barcode. We have already maximised the number of our 13,500 barcodes, and 85% of the volume is covered by ROI-specific codes. We are in discussion with the UK team. We had the Minister, Mr. Muir, with us on 10 June, and we had a similar conversation on interoperability, but also on protecting both schemes and minimising the number of international barcodes that can move and be redeemed across borders.

As someone who comes from a very rural area, I believe this is a scheme that deprives rural communities in a sense. We are relying on things like the orange bins being registered, and I understand the need for the promotion of that. Essentially, we are expecting villages to go to towns to drop off. The retailers have a very important part to play. If €6.8 million is being spent on national advertising, that works out at nearly €2,400 per machine, or 12,000 bottles per annum, taking an average of 20 cent. Would it be better to have some sort of campaign with the retailers to drive that footfall locally rather than relying on expensive national media advertising and maybe have more localised campaigns directed at a different consumer in one part of the country rather than another? Would that be a more cost-efficient way? Is it something the witnesses have looked at?

It is a great question. We do a lot of local promotions and local advertising. The 5,200 community activities that have signed up for this scheme are doing a fabulous job. Our best return rates are in rural areas, so they are definitely doing something right. Again, we are grateful to the retailers for making that so accessible by having those return points everywhere. It is a great suggestion. It is something that we do, and definitely something we will continue to do.

The rural areas act out of necessity rather than choice. They have no machine in their area, so they have no choice but to travel.

I constantly visit Waterford, where my dad is from. People go shopping and, thankfully, they are making it part of their habit to bring their bottles back when they do.

We talk here about the circular economy element, and we are reusing. I have discussed this with Mr. Foley in the past. If I go into a primary school now, every kid has their own water bottle, yet we are not putting in water fountains. In order to reduce the dependency on plastic, should there be an intervention from Re-turn to introduce water fountains in every town and village?

As part of the new regulations, PPWR reuse is certainly a major focus. We are hoping to have some money to invest in the circular economy. Working with the Minister and the Government, that is one of the priorities. We would be delighted to look at that and get involved in rolling it out.

I propose that we publish both opening statements on the committee website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for coming here today to discuss the scheme. We are out of time, so we will hold our private element of the meeting next week. The meeting stands adjourned until 12.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 July, for an engagement on plug-in solar with witnesses.