Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 12. 45pm
A RECYCLING DEPOSIT scheme for plastic, glass bottles and cans is estimated to cost around €120 million, according to government sources.
In a rare move, the Labour Party announced last week that it would co-sponsor the Green Party’s Waste Reduction Bill, allowing the Bill to proceed in their Private Members’ slot this afternoon.
The bill has two main aspects. One is introducing a recycling deposit scheme for plastic bottles, glass bottles and cans. The other is banning single-use, non-compostable plastics such as coffee cups.
The proposals would see consumers able to avail of a 10c refund if they bring back their plastic bottle, glass bottle or can.
The costs
However, government officials argue it will be the customer that ends up paying, with the estimated set-up and operating costs of such a scheme coming in at €120 million.
Speaking about the Bill in the Dáil last month, Green Party leader Eamon Ryan agreed that it would come at a cost, stating that he believed the 10 cent deposit return would cost approximately €276 million.
However Ryan said funding for the scheme could be charged to the manufacturers.
“This costs the Exchequer nothing. It benefits the consumer and it benefits in terms of savings from lower landfill costs and higher effective recycling,” he said.
In the last number of years, the government said it has investigated if such a scheme would work in Ireland.
Two recent independent reports which looked at the feasibility of a deposit and return scheme in Ireland were carried out in 2009 and 2014, with both concluding the cost would outweigh the benefits.
The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment states that a 2009 report, commissioned by the then Environment Minister, John Gormely, said the evidence was not sufficiently strong to support such a scheme “because the information regarding implementation costs is not such that the costs can be said to unequivocally justify the benefits”.
However, Ryan argued there are multiple advantages for such a system.
According to the most recent Coastwatch survey, drinks container litter is the most widespread and frequent shore litter in Ireland, he said.
In other jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland, that operate such schemes, the rates of recycling for these products are in the 90%+ range.
Recycling rates
Department officials argue it would also not have a huge impact on recycling or litter rates due to Ireland already being having one of the highest recycling rates for drinks containers in Europe, with 86% of all glass being recovered and recycled.
However, Ryan cited reports, such as the EPA’s Waste Packaging Statistics for 2013, which shows only 40% of plastic packaging was recycled.
The Bill appears to have cross-party support, with Fianna Fáil also expected to back it this week.
“I think we have the numbers to get it through. Politics is a numbers game and with ourselves, and Labour, with Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil and with the Independents 4 Change all indicating that they’ll support the Bill, it looks like it is going to get through,” Ryan told reporters today.
“It is a great victory for the environmental movement… this is climate bill as much as anything else,” he added, stating that it will encourage people to recycle.
Ryan said he is happy for his Bill to proceed to Second Stage this evening, and then to draft a report to send to Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment, which will set out, in detail, the specific legislation that is needed to make his idea a reality.
This will ensure it is “done in a way that is good for politics, with the parties working together. That is what people want to see”.
“Labour is happy to co-sponsor this important legislation from our progressive colleagues in the Green Party because it makes sense,” said Labour leader Brendan Howlin.
Asked about the costs, Howlin told TheJournal.ie last week that using administrative costs as a reason to not introduce the scheme was just an excuse levelled by government.
I worked five years in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and that is the constant first script that is dusted down. I think I have used it myself more than once.
‘It’s administratively costly’ – it’s a great thing, it’s like apportioned administration, it is a phrase that very few people understand, but it is always used simply to put down a good idea. If it is not effective, why is it the norm in most other progressive European countries? We are not so unique that we are different from the Germanys, the Swedens, the Denmarks.
Cabinet approval
A statement from the department said the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Denis Naughten, is “gravely concerned” at the amount of plastic waste pollution.
However, he also has concerns with some of the aspects in the Waste Reduction Bill, “particularly over the lack of clarity about the potential costs deposit and return scheme to the Exchequer”. The statement adds:
Deputy Ryan has indicated, when introducing the Bill, that the scheme would cost approximately €276 million to operate in Ireland. A study investigating the possible introduction of a UK-wide deposit and return scheme reported that it could cost in the region of €790 million (£700 million) per annum.
Due to the lack of clarity about the potential costs on taxpayers, consumers or industry and in the absence of any assessment of the regulatory impact or effect on prices, it is understood that, subject to Cabinet approval this morning, Naughten is to table what the department describes as a “timed and reasoned” amendment to the motion, which would allow for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill between now and the end of the year.
If accepted, it is envisaged the Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment will consider submissions and hold hearings in relation to the proposal to ensure that the Bill does not give rise to any significant additional costs on the Exchequer and the consumer.
Industry concerns
TheJournal.ie has also learned that Retail Ireland has expressed concerns about the new Bill, who stated that recycling rates have improved due to efforts coordinated through the Repak organisation, which is in part funded by the members of Retail Ireland.
Repak is a not for profit company set up by Irish business and owned by its members. It charges fees to its members and these fees are used to subsidise the collection and recovery of waste packaging through registered recovery operators across Ireland.
It’s understood retailers are concerned at the potential costs attached to the development of such a scheme.
Retail Ireland also said it is concerned that the development of a new system”will merely undermine the good work done to date by the Repak organisation to bring Ireland from having one of the worst rates of recycling in Europe back in the late 1990s of around 15% of all packaging material recycled, to amongst the best today”.
Contrary to the stated aim of this measure, deposit return schemes do not fix litter problems, added the group, who said drinks containers currently account for less than 5% of street litter.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
31% of the board are women but 25% of the work force are female. Surely that signifies over representation?? What about the gender gap in prisons?
@mick wall: c’mon Mick the gender pay gap & equality program only applies to certain industries and functions with in society. The nice and comfy ones.
Prisons, construction & refuse plants etc are not in scope, ya can have them all to yourselves.. it’s the Monday to Friday C-suite jobs only please.
@Greg Daniel: agree. the gender pay gap is a myth. Why would an employer hire a man if they could hire a woman to do the same job for less money. The social welfare queue should exclusively compromise of men if it is the case
@mick wall: Since the role of choice for many/most women is home maker and nurturer, and since that role doesn’t appeal or is impossible for many/most men, it would be logical to assume that there are/will be more men in the workforce. Maybe the 50%/50% An Post management team has chosen not to see this fact of modern life because it would suggest that it already favours the appointment of women over men in management positions. They should fix that first.
Dangerous game, the best person male or female should get the job end of story this gender qoata stuff need’s to stop.
@Ciaran O ‘Reilly: The Employment Equality Acts prohibit discrimination in relation to employment on the basis of gender (and other issues). Taking a person’s gender into consideration when making an appointment is illegal.
@Earth Traveller: so how can we explain the 50/50 ratio ratio between women and men in management?
@Eric Vdc: because maybe that’s how ” the best person for the job” worked out
TheJournal really needs to wake up a bit. This article is phrased as if everybody accepts there is a gender pay gap – completely forgetting that some readers may be intelligent.
@Use Your Head: I think we all agree that every job/role should be paid a rate regardless of the plumbing of the person doing it. That doesn’t mean there will be some roles where the majority of people in them will be either men or women, they’re still going to be paid the same for the hours they work however.
There is no gender *pay* gap, there’s a gender *earnings* gap. It’s illegal to pay someone less because of their gender.
@jacquoranda: Being illegal doesn’t mean it doesnt happen
But will they……wait for it…… deliver on time!
@Keelan O’neill: Nope! Spent €10 last week, to send an important letter by Express, cos the regular post can’t be trusted. And now they’ve lost the letter! Been on to customer service twice, and still awaiting the promised callback.
So this is really just about management positions.
@Dave Thomas: Precisely. Gender equality in the boardroom is an absolute must, and they’re almost there. However when it comes to horsing a heavy bag of post around on a wet and cold Winters day it’s still viewed as a man’s job. Regardless of who does it, they’re both going to be paid the same for the same hours worked. That’s equality. Having the best person do a job instead of insisting half must be women (it never seems to be men) is not equality.
If someone you love is being operated upon, would you prefer to be told the surgeon is the best in their profession or totally equal in every way possible.
Facebook gender list, California’s gender list, the BBC’s gender list?, or are we talking just about two genders here. If it’s cheaper to have women in the workforce then surely the workforce would compromise of just women.
Work as hard and u will get paid as much there is no such thing as a gender pay gap or “we need more women in this career” if women wanted them jobs they would apply, if women worked as hard as men do they would get the job and the same pay but the fact is they just dont do the hours men do but want the same pay
What are they going to do make the women work the same hours as the men? That is the leading cause of the gender pay gap, working less paid hour than men.
Hmmm giving a person a job based on what genitals they have rather than who’s best for the job – just to hit some ridiculous quota is not only sexist but asking for trouble. Imagine if it was the opposite way around and creches had to by law have a 50 / 50 mix
Most would close down through lack of staff
Why stop at gender. An Post should weigh, measure the height of and objectively judge the attractiveness of all their employees and correlate this with earnings.
Are the people who come up with this dumb enough to assume that males and females are attracted to exactly the same types of jobs/roles and therefore expect 50/50 outcomes? Equality of opportunity is what is needed and everyone would support, but equality of outcome is incredibly discriminatory as you obviously have to discriminate to get a 50/50 outcome, by definition.
More of this silly nonsense. If they really want so-called gender equality they will have to introduce a law compelling women to stay in the workforce after they have children and deny them the right to choose to stay at home. Choice is the root cause of all this alleged gender inequality.
I’ve never seen a woman deliver mail.
This is such a disgraceful issue, women are just as good if not better than their male counterparts in every industry!
Pay them the same wage ffs!
@Bumder: They getting equal pay for equal work. Pay discrimination based on sex has been illegal since 1974. The discrepancy in earnings is due to the choices women make, not discrimination.
have your say