MEMORANDUM BY THE GUARDIAN (DSW 11)
LANDFILL TAX AND THE LANDFILL TAX CREDIT
SCHEME
INTRODUCTION
Around January 1999 The Guardian became
aware of widespread concern as to the functioning of the Landfill
Tax Credit Scheme. Although much of the "evidence" at
this stage appeared to be anecdotal it became clear that certain
issues were of major concern. We have identified these as:
1. The competence of ENTRUST as highlighted
by:
1.1 The enrolment of the Environmental Bodies
and the approval of projects that appear to be in conflict with
the Landfill Tax Regulations.
1.2 The role of Board Members and their activities
in relation to the Waste Industry, Environmental Bodies and various
consultancies associated with the work of ENTRUST.
1.3 A lack of available funding to environmental
initiatives compared with Tax Credits allocated and approved by
ENTRUST.
1.4 A culture of secrecy with a lack of transparency
and accountability.
1.5 The domination of ENTRUST by the waste industry
and too close a relationship between ENTRUST and certain elements
within the industry.
2. The inappropriate role of companies and trade
associations within the waste industry as epitomised by:
2.1 The setting up of Environmental Bodies under
the influence or control of individual companies, an alliance
of two or three companies, or trade associations such as the Environmental
Services Association and the Energy from Waste Association.
2.2 The use of Landfill Tax Credits to influence
planning decisions, the formulation of waste strategy policy or
the awarding of contracts by Local Authorities.
2.3 The use of Landfill Tax Credits for the
direct benefit of the donor company.
2.4 Undue influence over the work of ENTRUST.
3. The policy and practice of Local Authorities
in relation to:
3.1 The use of Landfill Tax Credits to replace
Local Authority expenditure commitments.
3.2 The payment of "third party" contributions
in a manner aimed at influencing the allocation of Landfill Tax
Credits.
3.3 The awarding of contracts containing obligations
as to the use of Landfill Tax Credits.
3.4 The setting up of Environmental Bodies under
the influence and control of a Local Authority or a group of Local
Authorities.
4. The use of public money, Landfill Tax Credits,
to advance the interests of individual companies, Quangos, Agencies,
and other organisations outside the influence of democratic control.
Whilst recognising that the Treasury does not define Landfill
Tax Credits as public money, preferring to describe it as "tax
foregone"[38],
we see Tax Credits as public funds in that they need to be subject
to the same scrutiny as expenditure of any other tax collected
by government. Concern in this area is highlighted by:
4.1 The setting up of an Environmental Body
as a department within a company.
4.2 The provision of "third party"
funding by public or semi-public bodies.
4.3 The accessing of Landfill Tax Credits by
government funded agencies and Quangos on a major scale.
5. The apparent unawareness of Ministers of
significant areas of concern with regard to the Landfill Tax Credit
Scheme and the perceived inability of senior civil servants to
challenge the entrenched influence of the waste industry in relation
to matters associated with the Scheme. The attention of the Minister
of State and the Select Committee is drawn to:
5.1 The Government's response to the Committee's
report on The Operation of the Landfill Tax[39].
5.2 The statement by the Under Secretary of
State for the Environment that 10 per cent of money awarded to
Environmental Bodies was a voluntary contribution from landfill
operators[40].
5.3 The inability of the Economic Secretary
to the Treasury to provide answers to Parliamentary Questions
without asking ENTRUST to provide information direct to the MP
posing the questions and, in particular, the assumption made by
the Treasury that landfill operators pay the 10 per cent contribution
to Environmental Bodies required by the Landfill Tax Regulations[41].
The Guardian therefore instigated an investigation
into the working of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. This has drawn
upon the knowledge and experience of individuals, companies and
organisations involved in the waste industry as well as environmentalists,
technical experts in the field of sustainable development, MPs,
councillors and Local Government officers.
The investigation, although initially concerned
with the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, was extended to include non-payment
of Landfill Tax, distortions to the Government's waste strategy
caused by the improper use of Landfill Tax Credits, the ineffective
application of statutory responsibilities by the Environment Agency
and inadequate measures taken by the Courts even when legal action
is successful.
The Guardian investigation was aided enormously
by the information contained in the Thirteenth Report of the Environment,
Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee (HC150). However,
we have concluded that a number of witnesses, particularly ENTRUST,
provided far less information to the Committee than was necessary
for a comprehensive examination of the operation of the Landfill
Tax. The inappropriate approach of ENTRUST to the Select Committee
is highlighted by the statement that:
"There has also been concern expressed about
Landfill Operators `controlling' landfill tax credits particularly
by the Select Committee on the Environment. Much of that concern
was probably based on a lack of understanding about how the Landfill
Tax Credit Scheme operates and ENTRUST is endeavouring to ensure
that Members of Parliament are fully informed in future."[42]
The same document proceeds to argue that landfill
operators should help to shape regional policy but that it was
necessary to ensure that:
"Landfill Operators control of their Landfill
Tax Credits is not compromised."
We therefore urge the Select Committee to re-open
its investigation of the operation of the Landfill Tax. It is
hoped that, in the event of a resumption of the Select Committee
Inquiry, technical expertise will be made available to the Committee
from sources independent of ENTRUST and the Environmental Services
Association.
In presenting this information to the Minister
of State and the Select Committee we wish to emphasise our belief
in the principles that lay behind the introduction of the Landfill
Tax and the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. There are many excellent
initiatives funded by the Scheme. The potential for its future
is extremely positive but The Guardian investigation leads
us to believe that such a future is dependent upon urgent action
being taken by Government and HM Customs and Excise.
This dossier is presented to the Minister of
State for the Environment and the Environment, Transport and Regional
Affairs, Environment Sub-Committee for urgent consideration.
Copies of this submission have also been forwarded
to HM Customs and Excise, the National Audit Office and the Audit
Commission.
Recommendations throughout this submission are
directed towards the Select Committee, HM Customs and Excise,
the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. However, we
would welcome action being taken by the Minister of State for
the Environment that, in certain instances, would subsume action
requested from the statutory bodies noted above.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Guardian investigation leads us to
recommend the following immediate action:
A comprehensive inquiry into the
competence and propriety of ENTRUST by HM Customs and Excise and
the National Audit Office with the suspension of ENTRUST pending
the results of the inquiry. The attention of the Minister of State
and the Select Committee is particularly drawn to:
Environmental Bodies that are
representative of the worst practices;
The role of Board members and
their activities outside of ENTRUST. Particular attention is drawn
to:
Board Chairman, The Earl of Cranbrook
"Independent Consultant"
and Board Member, Dr Marion Carter
Board member, Roger Hewitt
The inability or unwillingness
of ENTRUST to carry out its regulatory responsibilities, to implement
its funding obligations, or to maintain its independence from
vested interests in the waste industry.
The replacement of ENTRUST with a
regulatory body committed to transparency and accountability and
an immediate review of the Landfill Tax Regulations. We would
suggest that a new regulatory body membership include Government,
the voluntary and community sector, local government, technical
experts, and a representative of the waste industry. The examples
of good practice identified by The Guardian investigation
provide a pool of reputable individuals and organisations from
which expertise could be drawn.
An investigation by the Audit Commission
into those Local Authorities identified as using Landfill Tax
Credits to replace LA expenditure, having imposed contractual
obligations upon landfill operators and others in the waste industry
related to the use of Tax Credits, having provided "third
party" funding to influence or control Landfill Tax Credit
allocation, and those involved in the setting up of Environmental
Bodies under their control. The attention of the Minister of State
and the Select Committee is drawn to a number of Local Authorities
that are representative of those involved in the manipulation
of the Landfill Tax Regulations:
Merton London Borough Council
The London Borough Councils of
Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Hammersmith and
Fulham
The County Borough Council of
Neath Port Talbot
Peterborough City Council
The setting up of a Task Force to
tackle non-payment of Landfill Tax. The Task Force needs to include
HM Customs and Excise, the Environment Agency and, above all,
Local Government Environmental Health and Planning officers. Particular
attention needs to be paid to the present inadequacy of the legal
system to prevent non-payment of tax and subsequent dumping of
waste at unlicensed sites. The attention of the Minister of State
and the Select Committee is drawn to:
Lynemouth Bay, Northumberland
Brickett Wood, Hertfordshire
Valley View Farm, Hertfordshire
Dumplington, Manchester
32,000 unlicensed sites identified
by Ecotec for the Environment Agency
An urgent review by the DETR of planning
consents granted for landfill sites or their extension and approvals
of contracts or planning consents for incineration schemes. Such
a review requires particular attention to be paid to the use of
Landfill Tax Credits in order to achieve support for such schemes
at a community and Local Authority level. The attention of the
Minister of State and the Select Committee is drawn to:
An investigation by the National
Audit Office into the role of Quangos, Government Agencies, and
Government funded bodies that have accessed, or enabled access
to, Landfill Tax Credits through provision of "third party"
funding from the public purse in an inappropriate manner. The
attention of the Minister of State and the Select Committee is
drawn, in particular, to:
An Inquiry by the Environment, Transport
and Regional Affairs Committee Environment Sub-Committee into
the relationship between landfill operators and Local Government.
The attention of the Minister of State and the Select Committee
is drawn to:
Onyx Environmental Group
Viridor Waste Management
An Inquiry by the Environment, Transport
and Regional Affairs Committee Environment Sub-Committee into
the use of Landfill Tax Credits by Quangos, Government Agencies,
Government funded bodies and companies other than landfill operators.
The attention of the Minister of State and the Select Committee
is drawn to:
The Building Research Establishment
Going for Green and The Tidy
Britain Group
WRc Waste Research Limited
CORDAH Research (member of the
BMT Group of companies)
EVIDENCE
The Guardian investigation is presented
below.
In all instances The Guardian is prepared
to provide further evidence where this is available but it must
be emphasised that, in certain cases, confidentiality has been
guaranteed to those providing information. No payment has been
made to any source.
In addition to this dossier and the information
published in The Guardian as of 5 April 2000, Dispatches
broadcast evidence on 6 April 2000. This material is available
for the consideration of the Minister of State and the Select
Committee if this is felt appropriate.
The examples of manipulation of the Landfill
Tax Credit Scheme and the cases of Landfill Tax non-payment are
presented as examples of much wider abuse throughout the UK. The
specific cases identified are symptomatic of a much wider problem.
From Yorkshire to East Sussex, from Cheshire
to East Anglia, we have encountered abuse of the present system.
We have been inundated with information that has been impossible
to include in this submission. We have not commented on the situation
in Scotland, other than the use of Tax Credits to build an access
road to a landfill site, although major concerns have been brought
to our attention in relation to the use of Landfill Tax Credits
north of the border.
We must also highlight the worries expressed
by many involved in practical, community based initiatives that
association with our investigation could lead to the withdrawal
of much needed funds. Some evidence, therefore, has been provided
to us on the understanding that, at least for the present, sources
remain confidential.
We also draw the attention of the Minister and
the Select Committee to fear within some local communities, subject
to local illegal dumping. The involvement of serious criminal
elements in this practice must not be underestimated and we have
interviewed people who are extremely concerned that their names,
addresses, or photographs may be published.
ENTRUST
Environmental Bodies
At the beginning of 2000 there were nearly 1,900
Environmental Bodies (EBs) enrolled with ENTRUST. Less than 800
had received Landfill Tax Credits. As of December 1999, despite
£230 million having been "contributed by landfill operators"[43],
only £90 million (less than 40 per cent of monies allocated)
had been spent on projects.
The Guardian investigation identified
five different types of EB as determined by their history and
the control exerted over their decision making process:
Environmental initiatives, often
community based, with a history of activity compatible with objectives
for EBs as laid down in the Landfill Tax Regulations 1996[44].
Well established national organisations
already working in the area of sustainability and having objectives
compatible with the Landfill Tax Regulations. These organisations
have benefited from the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and, in certain
cases, work with major landfill operators to run schemes providing
funds for other Environmental Bodies.
Environmental Bodies established
under the control or influence of landfill operators and/or Local
Authorities with the sole aim of accessing Landfill Tax Credits.
Environmental Bodies established
by landfill operators and/or Local Authorities, in partnership
with the voluntary, community and business sectors, aimed at accessing
Landfill Tax Credits to tackle issues covered by the approved
objects laid down by the Landfill Tax Regulations.
Environmental Bodies established
by "third parties" ranging from a Plc to Government
funded agencies.
In providing details of specific Environmental
Bodies it becomes evident that this history and structure primarily
determines access to Tax Credits.
We suggest it would be appropriate for the Select
Committee to investigate the precise allocation of Landfill Tax
Credits as per different type of Environmental Body together with
the reasons why such large sums of money are being held in a limited
number of EB accounts.
We urge HM Customs and Excise to investigate
the control of well funded Environmental Bodies by landfill operators,
the reasons for less than 40 per cent of Landfill Tax Credits
having been spent, and why more than 60 per cent of enrolled Environmental
Bodies have not received funding.
We recommend the National Audit Office, within
the context of a comprehensive investigation into ENTRUST and
Environmental Bodies, specifically examines the reasons for less
than 40 per cent of allocated Landfill Tax Credits having been
provided to approved projects.
Global Wildlife Trust
This is one of four EBs to have ENTRUST enrolment
revoked and is currently subject to a criminal investigation.
On 24 March 1999 Tony Colman MP asked the Secretary
of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for information
as to how much had been awarded to Global Wildlife Trust under
the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. This written question was referred
to ENTRUST for reply by Patricia Hewitt MP, Economic Secretary
to the Treasury. This Environmental Body had received approval
from ENTRUST for 91 projects and had been awarded £3,101,540.
ENTRUST replied to Tony Colman MP in a letter dated 23 April 1999
stating that enrolment had been revoked on 14 April 1999.
On 1 October 1999 seven people were arrested
in connection with an alleged fraud centred on Global Wildlife
Trust.
Whilst recognising that the present investigation
being carried out by the Serious Fraud Office requires that certain
matters are sub judice we would post the following questions as
worthy of inquiry by the Minister of State and the Select Committee:
Why was enrolment of Global Wildlife Trust revoked
on 14 April 1999 and was the timing in any way related to the
PQ asked by Tony Colman MP?
What did the Grant Thornton Chartered Accountants
report say about the activities of Global Wildlife Trust to the
ENTRUST Board on 25 November 1998? Was this report connected to
the decision to revoke enrolment of Global Wildlife Trust?
ENTRUST was involved in the transfer of projects
operated by Global Wildlife Trust to "Environmental Preservation
Initiatives", another one of the four Environmental Bodies
to have enrolment revoked in 1999? Why was the need to revoke
the enrolment of Environmental Preservation Initiatives not identified
earlier than September 1999?
Landfill Tax Credits from 41 landfill operators
had been approved by ENTRUST as early as spring 1998.
What safeguards did ENTRUST put in place to
justify the awarding of such large sums of money to a private
company, limited by guarantee without share capital, that was
only incorporated in July 1997? Although established to access
Landfill Tax Credits, it is as described as a general commercial
company.
To what extent did ENTRUST check the nature
of the various relationships with such reputable bodies as the
RSPCA, WWF, Countryside Commission, the Royal Botanic Gardens
at Kew and the Zoological Society (claimed by Global Wildlife
Trust as "in association with").
It is normal practice for an Environmental Body
to automatically take 10 per cent off all Landfill Tax Credit
contributions to cover administration costs?
The then Chairperson of the Education Select
Committee, Margaret Hodge MP, launched Global Wildlife Trust's
"Environmental Education Agency Programme" (EEAP) in
December 1997. The project had been approved by ENTRUST in March
1997.
In addition to £800,000 from Cleanaway
Ltd, for the Environmental Education Agency programme, we are
aware of £400,000 being donated to Global Wildlife Trust
via Viridor Waste Management. Although we are aware of 41 landfill
operators providing Landfill Tax Credits to Global Wildlife Trust,
it has been impossible to assess the level of funding from each
operator due to the refusal of ENTRUST to make such information
public.
We recommend that the Select Committee investigate
the history of Global Wildlife Trust with particular reference
to its relationship with ENTRUST.
We urge HM Customs and Excise to widen the current
investigation into Global Wildlife Trust to encompass the role
of ENTRUST and the report on the Trust by Grant Thornton Chartered
Accountants.
EB enrolment revocation
In addition to Global Wildlife Trust, ENTRUST
has revoked the enrolment of three Environmental Bodies for what
the regulatory body describes as "the bodies' failure to
meet their obligations under the scheme." [45]
These are; Stanmer House Preservation Trust, Hove, East Sussex
(31 August 1999); Environmental Preservation Initiatives Ltd,
Northwich, Cheshire (30 September 1999); Business Environmental
Association (BEA), Holbrook, Derbyshire (date unknown).
We are unaware of the total funding received
by these EBs but an indication of the Tax Credits involved can
be assuaged by the following:
Environmental Preservation Initiatives received
£1,269,200 from Viridor Waste Management[46].
Stanmer House Preservation Trust received £50,000
from Viridor Waste Management[47].
BEA received £380,000 from Biffaward[48]
We have not investigated these Environmental
Bodies although we are aware that Environmental Preservation Initiatives
took responsibility for those projects previously run by Global
Wildlife Trust.
We consider it may be of value for the Select
Committee to obtain information on these bodies, particularly
Environmental Preservation Initiatives.
We believe HM Customs and Excise should investigate
the allocation of Landfill Tax Credits to those Bodies having
had their enrolment revoked and the extent to which the Tax Credits
have been spent in a manner outside of the Landfill Tax Regulations.
Canford Environmental Ltd
This Environmental Body, described by Companies
House as a "general commercial company", was incorporated
in December 1996.
The business address for the EB is Whites Landfill
Site, Arrowsmith Road, Wimborne, Dorset.
Canford Environmental Ltd receives major funding
from two landfill operators, W H White Plc and William Tracey
Ltd. We are also aware of £20,000 received from Biffaward[49]
and understand that Woods Waste, Blackpool provides funding.
"A complaint has been filed at Companies
House due to the lack of accounts on file for the company"[50]
There are 10 directors of the EB:
Richard Douglas Watts (Company Secretary). Mr
Watts is Company Secretary of W H White Plc.
William Edward Riddle. Mr Riddle is one of the
three directors of W H White Plc and the sole shareholder.
Jonathan Walter Pursall Fryett. Mr Fryett is
a director of W H White Plc.
Richard Christopher Harding. Mr Harding is a
director of Estates Resources & Management Ltd. The one other
director of this company is W E Riddle. Mr Riddle, Mr Harding
and Woodlands Manor Estates Ltd own all the shares in Estates
Resources & Management Ltd. R D Watts is Company Secretary.
Woodlands Manor Estates Ltd has two shareholdersR
D Watts and W E Riddle. Two of the three directors are W E Riddle
and J W P Fryett. R D Watts is the Company Secretary.
Mr Harding is also a director of Canford Magna
Golf Ltd, a subsidiary of Estate Resources & Management Ltd.
A further directorship held by Mr Harding is
Lulworth Enterprises Ltd. The only other director of this company
is, again, W E Riddle and the Company Secretary is R D Watts.
This company is a subsidiary of Estate Resources & Management
Ltd.
Martin Edward Ross. Mr Ross is a director of
Tower Property Management Ltd, a subsidiary of W H White Plc.
Company House information as of March 2000 still registers this
company as a subsidiary of W H White Plc and a company of which
W E Riddle is a director but it is also recorded as having been
dissolved in 1993.
Initial investigation of the relationship of
Mr Ross to Mr Riddle appeared to end with Tower Property Management
Ltd being dissolved. However, Mr Ross is a director of one further
company, Minchella (Sea Fry) Ltd. Upon investigation it transpires
that the freehold property owned by the company was sold to the
W H White Retirement Benefit Scheme, that Mr R D Watts is the
Company Secretary and that the only other director is a Mr Daniel
Riddle of the same address as Mr W E Riddle. This company is not
identified via other company searches or directorship searches
associated with W H White Plc or Mr W E Riddle.
Michael Tracey. Mr Tracey is the major shareholder
and one of three directors of William Tracey Ltd.
Doctor D W Telford. Dr Telford is Managing Director
of the Factor Ten Company.
Professor T W Tanton. Professor Tanton is a
university professor from Southampton and, as far as we know,
has no links, beyond his EB directorship, with the "donor"
companies.
A C Sampsom. Mr Sampson is a solicitor from
Newmilns in East Ayrshire. We are unaware of any links he may
have with either of the "donor" companies.
Adrian S Gunner. Mr Gunner is the General Manager
of Canford Environmental and a former officer of Bournemouth Borough
Council.
The composition of the Board of Canford Environmental
Ltd has been approved by ENTRUST and would therefore appear to
be within the Landfill Tax Regulations. However, the DETR, when
launching the scheme, stated that in relation to Environmental
Bodies,
"They would be separate legal entities at
arms length from the landfill operators who contribute to them
and controls would be such that contributing landfill operators
would not be able to achieve any exclusive commercial advantage
from their activities."
HM Customs and Excise say that the Landfill
Tax Regulations[51]
prohibit control of an EB by one or more landfill operators.
As of February 2000 Canford Environmental Ltd
had received ENTRUST approval for 20 projects. The attention of
the Minister of State and the Select Committee is drawn to two:
The design, construction and monitoring of the
operation of a rural road which is the access road to Barkip Landfill
Site, Ayrshire.
The road, 700 metres in length, was funded by
Landfill Tax Credits made available through Canford Environmental.
The donor company was William Tracey Ltd and the landfill site
for which the road provides access is a William Tracey site. William
Tracey Ltd constructed the road in conjunction with North Ayrshire
Council Roads Department. The "waste" from the road
that required reconstruction as a result of damage caused by excessive
lorry movements to and from the Barkip landfill site was deposited
at the site. William Tracey Ltd provided the recycled/reclaimed
aggregates used in the road construction. Although William Tracey
Ltd claims the road to be a public highway, it is accepted that
use is exceptionally rare other than HGV's entering and leaving
the landfill site.
The company responsible for monitoring the performance
of the new road carried out the transport survey on the basis
of data from landfill site recordsan average of 104 movements
per day. One of the aims of the monitoring exercise was to,
"Establish the road usage level in order
to be able to compare it to a public road." [52]
The company responsible for "bringing the
project together"[53]
was "Factor Ten".
The project was approved by ENTRUST under Landfill
Tax Regulation 33 (2)(c)
It is our understanding that the use of recycled/reclaimed
aggregates cannot be described as research and development or
even as innovatory.
"In 1989 it was estimated that only 10 per
cent of aggregates used in construction came from secondary and
recycled materials. But research has shown that these materials
could contribute further to the overall supply of aggregates."
[An annexe provides a summary of materials and their location]
The Guidelines go on to state, "At present the largest use
of waste materials is for bulk fill. DOE Circular 20/87 sets out
Government policy on the use of alternative materials for road
fill and asks planning authorities to identify alternative potential
sources of suitable fill for trunk road scheme." And further
that "Local Highway Authorities also need to make greater
use of waste and recycled materials in their road construction
projects."[54]
The use of Landfill Tax Credits benefited a
landfill operator, William Tracey Ltd, and a resource management
company, Factor Ten. Both companies are represented on the Board
of Canford Environmental Ltd.
We have been unable to identify the sums of
money involved in the "road project" or the Canford
Park Arena although it appears that the materials for the road
cost £88,900[55]
with a saving of £32,380 compared with the use of virgin
materials.
We also find that CORDAH Research (environmental
management consultants), the body responsible for the monitoring
and operational experience of the road, is also an Environmental
Body.
No criticism is made of WS Atkins (Project Managers),
as we understand the company was employed on a purely commercial
basis.
We urge the Select Committee to investigate
Canford Environmental Ltd, the role of W H White Plc, the links
between Canford Environmental Ltd and ENTRUST, and the direct
benefit accrued by William Tracey Ltd through use of Landfill
Tax Credits.
We recommend that HM Customs and Excise carry
out an investigation into Canford Environmental Ltd with particular
reference to W H White Plc and William Tracey Ltd.
We suggest it may be appropriate for the Audit
Commission to examine the relationship between Canford Environmental
Ltd and North Ayrshire Council.
Canford Park Arena, a new sports and country park
facility, Dorset
This is a major development that will provide
sporting, country park and events facilities. The partnership
responsible for the development consists of Canford Park Sports
Ltd, Woodlands Manor Estates Ltd, the Borough of Poole, Bournemouth
Borough Council, and Canford Environmental Ltd.
Facilities include; five full size football
pitches, two junior pitches, two mini soccer pitches, one cricket
pitch, a jogging track and "fitness stations", adequate
resources and space for concerts, music festivals, circuses, exhibitions
etc and "ample car parking".
Canford Environmental Ltd produces publicity
material and the General Manager is given as the contact for further
queries.
ENTRUST have approved a Canford Environmental
Ltd project entitled "Canford Park Sports Pitch Developmentdevelopment
of new multi-sports arena."
Canford Environmental Ltd is involved with the
Borough of Poole and Bournemouth Borough Council in relation to
other ENTRUST approved projects.
The Canford Park Arena partnership consists
of two companies closely associated with W H White Plc or its
directors and two local authorities. It would appear that Landfill
Tax Credits have been accessed for mainly commercial purposes.
Following an examination of records[56]
held at HM Land Registry, details of which are available for perusal
by the Minister and the Select Committee, the land being proposed
for this major development is identified as being owned, in the
main, by W H White Plc, Estate Resources & Management Ltd
and Woodland Manor Estates Ltd. The exceptions to Title Absolute
being held by either W H White Plc or Estate Resources & Management
Ltd are one site, part of which is to be transferred from W H
White Plc to Poole Borough Council (notified to HM Land Registry,
9.11.99) and a second part of a site, that is currently owned
by the Borough Council of Poole and the Borough Council of Bournemouth,
to be transferred to Woodlands Manor Estates Ltd (noted 21.12.99).
This "approved project" is likely
to result in major financial returns to those involved, and benefit
W H White Plc, Estate Resource & Management Ltd and Woodlands
Manor Estates Ltd. The project benefits those that control Canford
Environmental Ltd and appears to be outside the Landfill Tax Regulations.
We urge the Select Committee, HM Customs and
Excise and the Audit Commission to investigate the relationship
between interested parties associated with the Canford Park Arena
development, in particular the benefits likely to be accrued by
W H White Plc and/or directors of this company as a result of
exploitation of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. We would further
suggest that the role of Canford Environmental be examined as
the "post-box" for Ebco, the ENTRUST appointed body
to "represent" Environmental Bodies.
Cheshire Environmental Services Ltd
In defining responsibilities of Environmental
Bodies in relation to contracts ENTRUST is quite clear,
"Contractors are selected by the Environmental
Body, according to its own rules but ENTRUST expects that contracts
for significant sums of money would only be placed after an open
tender competition and evaluation. Indeed, whenever there is a
possibility that a contributor, or any other registered person,
may receive a contract from an Environmental Body, then the Environmental
Body is required to hold an open tender competition, with the
low-bidder winning the contract."[57]
ENTRUST further state,
"Where members of an Environmental Body
are interested in a contract, then the Environmental Body will
be expected to be scrupulously objective in selecting the contractor(s).
It must be noted that the Regulations forbid contributors benefiting
and similar rules apply here. Furthermore, Directors/Board members
with such an interest, will be expected to abstain from participating
in relevant discussions and decisions."[58]
Despite statements by, and guidance from, ENTRUST,
the absence of a strong regulatory body, combined with the lack
of clarity in the Landfill Tax Regulations creates enormous difficulties
in determining what is and what is not permissible, particularly
in relation to benefits accrued.
This EB, a private company, has a nominal share
capital of 1,000 shares of £1 each. As of 7 March 2000, 100
shares had been issued with the shareholders being: Peter Jack
Barsby (25), Norman John Brown (25), Joe Frizell (25) and Trevor
William Frizell (25). The Company Secretary is Mrs A K Frizell
and the four directors are the shareholders.
The contact for Cheshire Environmental Services
is given as N J Brown[59]
but at the address identified by Companies House as that of Joe
Frizell. Mr Barsby is the representative of 3C Waste.
Frizell Tipping Ltd is a private company owned
by Trevor William Frizell and Mrs A K Frizell. The directors are
Trevor William Frizell and Joe Frizell. The Company Secretary
is Mrs A K Frizell.
We understand that Cheshire Environmental Services
Ltd was set up with Landfill Tax Credits made available through
3C Waste. This company has now been taken over by Waste Recycling
Group but Tax Credits from the Former 3C operations are believed
to continue to go to Cheshire Environmental Services as a result
of agreements reached prior to the takeover.
Cheshire Environmental Services Ltd is responsible
for 12 projects approved by ENTRUST. These include the extension
of a school car park, the repair of a football group stands, and
a number of "land reclamation" schemes. One of these
schemes is described as "Land reclamation, Sandiway, Cheshire"[60]
It transpires that this reclamation project
relates to a site consisting of a B and L Transport depot and
associated land. The site is to be redeveloped with 137 residential
dwellings, as approved by Vale Royal Borough Council. "The
site includes an area, formerly a sandpit, which has been infilled
and levelled. As part of the development it is proposed that the
existing landfill be removed off site and replaced by imported
engineered materials"[61]
"P E Jones (Contractors) Limited are the
site owners, Cheshire Environmental Services Limited are the Employer.
The Principal Constructor is McAlpine Civil Engineering and the
Resident Engineer is ENSR."[62]
Cheshire Environmental Services Limited is also described as "The
Main Contractor for all site operation"[63].
3C Waste is the company removing the waste from
the site to one of their landfill sites. We are informed that
this contract was won through a tender process and that ENTRUST
were informed of the procedures adopted.
As of November 1999 a total of 167,000 tonnes
of waste had been removed from the site with a completion date
anticipated as May 2000[64].
We have been unable to obtain adequate information
on this Environmental Body due to the lack of public records made
available by ENTRUST.
It is worth noting that "To date, less
than 5 per cent of the projects approved have been within the
category of reclamation, remediation or reuse of land. Nonetheless,
they represent approximately £50m in approved projects"[65].
We recommend that the Select Committee and HM
Customs and Excise investigate the use of Landfill Tax Credits
in relation to brownfield land remediation.
We call upon the National Audit Office to carry
out an inquiry into the funding of Environmental Bodies and the
expenditure by such Bodies.
THE ENTRUST BOARD
Roger Hewitt, Board Secretary[66]
Mr Hewitt is the Managing Partner of Michael Hewitt
Associates, the company that provided management consultancy and
commercial services to Global Wildlife Trust. We understand this
company was paid a fee of £25,000 but are unable to confirm
this payment. It may be that Mr Hewitt declared this payment to
the ENTRUST Board. Mr Hewitt is one of four Members of the Board,
including the Chairman, with direct pecuniary interests in the
waste industry over and above any financial benefits arising from
the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. Mr Roger Hewitt is a former Group
Chief Executive of Shanks & McEwan.
The ENTRUST Chief Executive, in a telephone
conversation with The Guardian, said that Mr Hewitt had
resigned as Board Secretary in mid 1998. He also confirmed that
Global Wildlife Trust had paid a fee of approximately £25,000
to Michael Hewitt Associates.
Dr Marion Carter
Dr Carter is described as an independent consultant[67]
and is a Board member of the Environmental Services Association,
the trade association for the waste industry. M J Carter Associates
is also represented on the Board of the Environmental Services
Association Research Trust (ESART), a well funded Environmental
Body. M J Carter Associates conducted the initial scoping study
for the first £3.5 million of Landfill Tax Credit funded
research to be financed by ESART. M J Carter Associates acted
as technical advisors to the Environment, Transport and Regional
Affairs Committee Environment Sub-committee inquiry into the operation
of the Landfill Tax. The Chief Executive[68]
of the ESA, in commenting upon unprecedented volumes of legislative
activity, states that, "particular note should be made of
the outstanding contribution made by Dr Marion Carter".
Earl of Cranbrook, Chairman
The Earl of Cranbrook is employed as the Chairman
of the Environmental Advisory Board of the Shanks Group. His association
with the waste industry was highlighted by the fact that he chaired
the ESA 1999 Annual Conference in his capacity as Chairman of
ENTRUST.
Concern was expressed by Friends of the Earth
as long ago as September 1996[69]
in relation to domination of the ENTRUST Board by those with interests
in the waste disposal industry and associated fields. Of particular
concern in 1996 was the Earl of Cranbrook's then remuneration
of £7,000 a year from Shanks & McEwan and £21,000
from Anglian Water, the role of Roger Hewitt as a past Chief Executive
of Shanks & McEwan and treasurer of the Institute of Waste
Management, and the position of Peter Neill as Chief Executive
of the ESA.
The domination of the waste industry has been
strengthened since 1996 with the appointment of Marion Carter
in October of the same year. Of the nine Board members of ENTRUST
two were Board members of ESART as of April 1999 including the
then Chief Executive of the ESA, Peter Neill. Two further Board
members are closely associated with, in one instance still employed
by, a leading waste management company that provides the Chairman
and Treasurer of the ESA Board.
It was announced that Peter Neill had stepped
down as Chief Executive of the ESA in April 1999[70].
Mr Neill is now Chief Executive of Lancashire Waste Services.
Even with regard to public documents published
by ENTRUST, the interests of the waste industry appear to be foremost.
In response to the question, what are the incentives
for Landfill Operators to make contributions? [The assumption
is made that the Tax Credits belong to the operator and not the
taxpayer] ENTRUST replies,
"better prospects of getting planning permissions
for new landfill sites"[71].
In response to the question, Why should landfill
operators contribute? ENTRUST has been even more forthcoming in
their recognition of the waste industry's interests,
"If the scheme is made involuntary, operators
will lose the freedom to direct or influence where the money is
spent".
"Many landfill operators already donate
quite large sums into the localities in which they work which
cannot be off-set against Corporation or other Taxes. Much of
this money is for purposes covered by the Landfill Tax Regulations
and they can, in principle, also get Corporation Tax relief as
an off-set on their out-of-pocket part of the contribution (ie
the 10 per cent)."
"Client LAs may well make contributions
a requirement in their contracts"[72]
Whilst welcoming ENTRUST's publication of a
Register of Director's Interests we are concerned as to the difficulty
in obtaining the Register and the specification by ENTRUST that
"inspection is open to bona fide enquirers"[73].
In the interests of transparency, particularly
in relation to actual or potential conflicts of interest, it would
seem appropriate for pecuniary interests of Board Members, in
relation to ENTRUST, Environmental Bodies, the waste industry
and consultancies associated with the waste industry, to be registered.
Although it is known that ENTRUST pays £120
per day to Ebco members when they are on Ebco business, there
appears to be no record as to the level of payments to ENTRUST
Board Members or even when and if it was decided to provide remuneration
to the Board.
It is generally recognised that the participation
of an ENTRUST Board member in an Environmental Body could be of
benefit to the working of ENTRUST as well as to the EB. However,
if such a combination of interests' results in pecuniary gain
to a Board member or unfair advantage to the EB, such interests
must be seen as of a conflicting nature.
We draw the attention to the Minister of State
and the Select Committee to the following Environmental Bodies:
Environmental Services Association Research Trust
Ltd (ESART)
This EB was established by ESA with the majority
of the Board (9) consisting of landfill operators (4) plus the
trade association (ESA) representative.
M J Carter Associates was also represented on
the Board of the EB. Peter Neill was a member of the ESART Board
as of August 1999.
The relationship between ENTRUST and ESART is
epitomised by the ESA announcement[74]
that it had established a working group, with the ENTRUST Chief
Executive as a member, to develop a best practice code for landfill
operators making a donation to Environmental Bodies. This contrasts
sharply with the response of ENTRUST to a project approval application
from a well established national voluntary sector EB, with the
support of a major landfill operator, to carry out a scoping study
to establish a database covering environmental project funding.
In this instance the applicant was informed that a meeting is
to be held to examine the possibility of creating a directory
of projects and therefore ENTRUST are unable to approve the project.
We understand that the proposed meeting was at the behest of ESA.
Environmental Services Training and Education
Trust Ltd (ESTET)
This EB was established by ESA. Peter Neill
was a member of the ESTET Board as of August 1999.
Anglian Water Environmental Partnership
Anglian Water Plc established this Environmental
Body as "an independent company set up in September 1997
under the Landfill Tax Regulations 1996."[75]
The information contained in the annual review and summary financial
statement of Anglian Water for 1999 makes little distinction between
the work of the EB and the work of the company. The note that
"the partnership gave more than £50,000 to projects
in the Anglian Water region" is an integral part of the Managing
Director's report on environment and community.
Lord Cranbrook was a Director of Anglian Water
until 22 July 1998. No information is provided in the reports
for 1998 or 1999 as to how independent the EB is from the company.
The Prince's TrustBro
This EB had received £403,186 in contributions
and £93,420 in transfers from EBs as of April 1999[76].
At that time Board Member, Dr Neil Caldwell was Director and Company
Secretary of the EB.
Landtrust
This EB had received £1,131,295 in contributions
and £23,799 in transfers from another EB (Biffaward) as of
April 1999[77].
Board Member, Donald Reid is a member of the Technical Advisory
Panel to Landtrust.
Global Environmental Community Trust
This Environmental Body has 54 approved projects[78].
Councillor Martin Doughty is a Board Member.
Derbyshire Environmental Trust
This Environmental Body has 90 approved projects[79].
Councillor Martin Doughty is Chairman of the Board.
Derbyshire County Council (The Leader being
Councillor Martin Doughty) received £66,000 from the Onyx
Environmental Trust[80].
Landfill Tax Credit allocation£250
million, where did it go?
By the beginning of 1999, 20 Environmental Bodies[81]
had been visited in order to verify expenditure. A further 200[82]
"verification" visits were made between April 1999 and
publication of the ENTRUST "Achievements Report" for
1999.
Reference has already been made to the fact
that less than 40 per cent of Tax Credits allocated have actually
been made available for approved projects to spend. Of the available
money Environmental Bodies having had their enrolment revoked
have spent at least £5,530,000.
Of further concern is a lack of knowledge within
ENTRUST of the source of certain funds or the EB having received
the Tax Credits.
We are aware of a community based Environmental
Body that registered with ENTRUST but was unable to obtain Landfill
Tax Credits. In November 1999 the EB received a phone call from
Lodge Service Management Ltd, the company contracted by ENTRUST
to audit EB accounts. The company wished to look at the EB accounts
on the basis that the organisation had received £65,000 in
September 1998. It is understood that the request for a visit
only arose because Lodge Services were already visiting other
Environmental Bodies in the area. The phone call was the first
indication of £65,000 being available.
The funds had not been applied for and had not
been received.
Upon contacting ENTRUST for clarification, the
EB was informed that it was unusual to audit such a simple transaction,
that the funds may have gone to an EB with a similar enrolment
number as a result of "digital error" (as this had occurred
before), and that "you may never know what has happened due
to confidentiality clauses."
Not only were ENTRUST unaware of which Environmental
Body had received the £65,000 but also had no idea as to
from where the money had originated.
We recommend that the Select Committee carry
out an investigation into the competence of ENTRUST.
We recommend, in the interests of transparency
and accountability, that a Register of payments be kept covering
Members of the ENTRUST Board and Members of Ebco. This Register
to include payments from ENTRUST, Environmental Bodies, the waste
industry and consultancies associated with the waste industry.
We recommend a similar register for any successor body to ENTRUST.
We call for an inquiry into all aspects of ENTRUST
finance, in particular its management, allocation and control
of Landfill Tax Credits, to be carried out by the National Audit
Office and the suspension of the ENTRUST Board pending this inquiry.
THIRD PARTY
FUNDING
It is accepted by ENTRUST[83]
that third party funding (payment of funds by a body other than
the landfill operator) to release Tax Credits was not brought
within the Landfill Tax Regulations until 1 January 2000.
ENTRUST, as of January 2000, state "A third
party must be independent of EBs. It cannot be another environmental
body or an organisation corporately associated with an EB."[84]
HM Customs and Excise, in commenting upon third
party funding, have stated,
"Concerns were also expressed that this
was contrary to the perceived intention of the schemethat
site operators should contribute from their own pocketsand
that there were insufficient safeguards preventing third parties
from directly benefiting from the activities of environmental
bodies they had funded."[85]
It is of concern that third party funding was
allowed to become common practice during the period prior to 1
January 2000 without the practice being covered by Landfill Tax
Regulations.
Examples of third party contributors benefiting
from their donation are provided in other sections of this submission,
particularly local authorities. Unfortunately we are unable to
identify most third party contributors and ENTRUST are unwilling
to publish any details of payments.
The Landfill Tax Return[86]
submitted by landfill operators to HM Customs and Excise does
not identify whether the operator or a third party has paid the
10 per cent.
The assumption is made that the operator makes
a donation and then claims 90 per cent rebate of Landfill Tax
from HM Customs and Excise. This assumption arises from the original
aim of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme that, in return for various
benefits, the 10 per cent was to be paid by the landfill operator
without any thought of funds being obtained from a third party.
One assumes that third party funding can only
be identified within the accounts of the landfill operator and
there are concerns that third party funding could result in financial
gain to the operator or, in certain circumstances, double tax
relief on one donation.
In taking a notional donation of £100,000
from a landfill operator to an Environmental Body, with the company
paying the 10 per cent, the following is likely to apply:
90 per cent tax rebate £90,000
Net cost to the company £10,000
Corporation Tax relief under gift
aid £3,100
Total cost to the company £6,900
If a third party contributes the 10 per cent,
the landfill operator still claims tax relief on the 10 per cent
"donation". The assumption is made, therefore, that
tax is paid on the third party funding to the landfill operator.
We are unable to clarify if this is always the case and would
welcome the observations of the Minister of State and the Select
Committee on this issue.
We are particularly concerned in relation to
situations where the third party donation has already been subject
to tax relief. An example would be where the 10 per cent is provided
by a Charitable Trust, a Charitable Foundation established by
a company or where the money paid to the landfill operator had
been covenanted under Gift Aid to the third party.
We are aware, for example, of third party payments
made by WWF, the Coca-Cola Youth Foundation and Friends of the
Earth. Each of these organisations has paid money in order that
Tax Credits were released to excellent projects that without "third
party" support would have been unable to obtain Landfill
Tax Credits.
In some cases the organisation providing third
party support already has a funding relationship with the Environmental
Body applying for the Tax Credits. This funding has had to be
stopped and the payment made to the landfill operator instead.
We are concerned that such a relationship between the third party
and the Environmental Body could accurately be described as "corporate"
and therefore put such payment outside of the regulations.
A question arising time after time is why should
landfill operators have a dominant role within the Landfill Tax
Credit Scheme if they are contributing nothing to the projects
being funded by Landfill Tax Credits?
It needs to be noted that even Ebco, a body
appointed by the ENTRUST Board recognises that,
"There is growing concern at the detail
of the regulation of third party donations."[87]
In terms of the 10 per cent leverage required
to release the Tax Credits, much more is found from bodies, including
the private sector, external to the waste industry than from the
waste industry itself.
We recommend the Select Committee to examine
way in which maximum leverage is obtained through the release
of Landfill Tax Credits without allowing control to remain in
the hands of the waste industry. We would also suggest that the
Committee investigate ways in which Landfill Tax Credits could
be made available to projects on the basis of need even when 10
per cent funding may not be available.
It is further suggested that the Committee investigate
how "third party" funding was introduced by ENTRUST
without such funding scheme being covered by the Landfill Tax
Regulations.
We urge HM Customs and Excise, in conjunction
with the Inland Revenue to introduce procedures to ensure that
"third party" funding does not allow landfill operators
to benefit from Corporation Tax Relief without declaring that
a 10 per cent donation has come from an organisation external
to the landfill operator itself and has included this "donation"
in the revenue account of the company. We hope that, in the event
of third party funding continuing, a public register be available
of all those involved.
We call upon the National Audit Office to investigate
"third party" funding and the benefits that have accrued
to those providing this funding.
THE WASTE
INDUSTRY
It is made quite clear by ENTRUST that "the
aim of the legislation is to ensure independence of Environmental
Bodies" ENTRUST goes on to state that "The Board will
examine carefully all cases in which a controlling majority could
be comprised of Local Authorities or Landfill Operators."[88]
Companies
To quote Janet Manning-Shaw, the then Head of
Public Affairs, Environmental Services Association,
"There is plenty of anecdotal evidence doing
the rounds in the industry that councils are suggesting to waste
companies that if they spend money on category D or E project
(duck pond or church roof), they might suddenly find their planning
application going through a bit more smoothly."[89]
On the issue of contracts ENTRUST states:
"Councils are LOs' clients and the next
contract may depend upon contributions either having been made
or promised will be made"[90]
Yanley and North Somerset Environmental Company
(YANSEC)
This EB, based in North Somerset, received funds
totalling at least £421,900[91]
from Viridor Waste Management. North Somerset Council opposed
a planning application for an extension to a landfill site and
an Inquiry was held. The Planning Inspector received the following
letter:
"I am writing to you on behalf of the Board
of Yansec in support of the proposed extension to the Yanley Landfill
site.
The Directors of this Company would like you
to be aware that Yansec is an environmental body set up jointly
by North Somerset Council and Haul Waste in order to distribute
Landfill Tax Credits in the local community.
Since its inception in 1997 over £400,000
of this money has been committed to about 60 projects in the North
Somerset area. This is money that would otherwise not have been
spent on the local environment and is a valuable contribution
to these projects. Many would not have progressed without landfill
tax funding.
We understand that without an extension to the
landfill site the life-span on the existing operation would be
just a few years and in order to maintain its viability less waste,
on a daily basis, will be deposited that at present.
One consequence of this is that there will immediately
be a substantial reduction in the amount of Landfill Tax Credits
to finance local environment projects and when the existing site
is full no money will be available from this source. It is important,
therefore, for the landfill site to continue its activities into
the future in order that the people in North Somerset can benefit
from the substantial contributions from Haul Waste under the regime.
It is therefore for these reasons that this
environmental company supports the extension to Yanley Landfill
site."[92]
The letter is signed by Neill Pollard, Company
Secretary.
Viridor Waste Management was formerly Haul Waste
Ltd, Terry Adams Ltd, and Greenhills.
A further letter was sent to the Planning Inspector
by a local Trust that had received £28,000 from YANSEC. The
appeal for an extension of landfill was unsuccessful. We draw
the YANSEC intervention to the attention of the Minister and the
Select Committee as an unsophisticated attempt at using the provision
of Landfill Tax Credits as a means of gathering support for policies
which would otherwise be opposed. Most other examples are not
as crude or overt.
Viridor Waste Management
As with most companies, there is no doubt that
a large number of exceptionally worthwhile community based initiatives
have been supported through Viridor's use of Landfill Tax Credits.
However, this must not distract from funding that also provides
commercial benefits.
Viridor have provided a total of £10.5
million[93]
to Environmental Bodies.
Viridor gave £705,000 to the Pilsworth
Environmental Company. This Environmental Body has its registered
office in Bristol with the Company Secretary being the South West
England Environmental Trust (SWEET). Its business address is c/o
Bury MBC and this is the contact address provided by ENTRUST.
SWEET has received £643,011 from Viridor. We are not aware
of the interests or employers of the six members of the Pilsworth
Board other than Robert James Woodland who is a director of Viridor
and also a director of Ugbrooke Environmental Ltd (another Environmental
Body funded by Viridor).
The Department of Trade and Industry[94],
reporting on examples of current practice in the waste industry,
highlights a 20-year disposal contract between Haul Waste and
Suffolk County Council. As a result of trials that commenced in
May 1998 there was an additional unsegregated MRF initiative for
an initial contract period of four years. The Dti report states
that Haul Waste has provided Suffolk CC Education Department with
£200,000 towards a teacher training programme. It is not
clear if this is Haul Waste funding or Landfill Tax Credits. However,
Viridor do refer[95]
to a number of Landfill Tax funded initiatives in Suffolk including
£8,427 to Mid Suffolk District Council, £30,000 for
the Suffolk home composting scheme and £10,000 to the Suffolk
Partnership.
In a memorandum submitted to the Select Committee
it was stated, "SWEET is a wholly independent (no landfill
companies or local authority directors) environmental body, established
in December 1996"[96]
According to record held by Devon County Council[97]
SWEET was established on the proposal of Messrs Lyons Davidson,
solicitors of Bristol. The proposal was to have a Board appointed
by the solicitors with a "secondary tier of management committees
reporting to and advising the Board."
It is unclear who sits on these committees and
where decisions are taken. We suggest that the practical implementation
of transparency and accountability demands a change in such procedures.
The first project to be funded by SWEET, with
£34,000 made available through Hemmings Group Holdings Limited,
enabled "Bristol City Council to buy an eight acre inner
city wildlife site and community garden"[98]
Shanks Group Plc
The close relationship between Shanks and ENTRUST
is shown by the fact that the Chairman of ENTRUST is an employee
of the company, that the ENTRUST Board Secretary is a former Shanks
Group Chief Executive and Mr Steven Hargreaves, the Shanks Environmental
Body Organiser is on the Ebco Committee.
Mr Hargreaves although described as the secretary
or contact person for these independent Environmental Bodies,
was, until February 2000, an employee of Shanks. At one public
ENTRUST event we are informed that the Chairman of ENTRUST, himself
an employee of Shanks, asked Mr Hargreaves "which hat are
you wearing, Shanks or one of your EBs?"
The relationship between directors of ENTRUST
and the ESA is shown by the fact that Marion Carter sits on the
Board of both organisations and that Peter Neill was, until recently
Chief Executive of the ESA as well as being an ENTRUST Board member.
However the strong association between Shanks and the ESA also
requires noting. The ESA Chairman, its Treasurer and two Committee/Working
Group Chairmen are representatives of Shanks. All in all, Shanks
Group plc is rather visible within the whole sphere of activity
relating to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme.
Shanks established seven Environmental Bodies,
all based at the same address with the same contact person. In
responding to requests for funding for projects already approved
by ENTRUST these Environmental Bodies, that are supposed to be
independent of landfill operators, state that; "agreements
are subject to a final decision by Shanks."[99]
A further concern, brought to our attention
by a community based EB, is that EB Nationwide provide agreed
funding on an arrears basis[100].
This results in the project having to obtain overdraft facilities
that have to be paid for. This means that Tax Credits are contributing
to Bank profits rather than environmental initiatives despite
a surfeit of available cash in the bank accounts of a small number
of Environmental Bodies under the influence of landfill operators.
EB Nationwide is now insisting that all equipment
purchased, using Landfill Tax Credits, must be given to EB Nationwide
upon completion of the project even though such a stipulation
is not included in the contract between the independent EB receiving
funding and EB Nationwide.
It is claimed by the Shanks' EB that this is
a condition stipulated by ENTRUST. In a statement to The Guardian,
the Chief Executive of ENTRUST said he regarded this as a reasonable
interpretation of ENTRUST regulations.
Shanks have a contract with Peterborough City
Council covering waste disposal to include recycling. We are unaware
of the nature of the contract, as it is not listed in the 1999
edition of the Contracts Handbook. The 1990 Environmental Protection
Act, under which waste disposal contracts are let, does not oblige
councils to disclose this information although the vast majority
do.
A "cell recycling project" for Peterborough,
organised as a "partnership" of Shanks, Valpak and local
authorities in the area, was launched even though the Peterborough/Shanks
contract was in operation.
"The funding to purchase the boxes and
necessary vehicles to ensure the project worked totalled approximately
£500,000 and was provided through an ENTRUST approved project
of EB Cambridgeshire Ltd using donations via the landfill tax
credit system from Shanks."[101]
The most recent Shanks Group accounts are able
to report that "the losses in recycling have been reduced"[102]
Peterborough City Council, responding to The
Guardian, said that the "cell recycling project"
is a new initiative funded totally by EB Cambridgeshire. It is
separate from the 10 year contract between Peterborough and Shanks
but does use the facilities that are part of the earlier contract.
Onyx Environmental Group Plc
The Onyx Environmental Group is part of the
world-wide Vivendi group of companies. Onyx Municipal is "The
UK's leading provider of municipal environmental services, with
the experience of serving some 40 local authorities"[103]
The Onyx Environmental Trust was established
in August 1997 as an Environmental Body. The Board consists of
five Directors including the Chief Executive and the Financial
Director of Onyx Environmental Group. A third Director is Professor
Andrew Porteous, probably the leading exponent of incineration
in the UK.
As with most Environmental Bodies established
by the waste industry, the Trust has supported many excellent
projects in the broad area of sustainability as covered by the
Landfill Tax Regulations. The 1999 Annual Report states that Onyx
Environmental Group Plc provides the full 10 per cent of donations
to Environmental Bodies and that this has totalled over £500,000
with Tax Credits of over £4.5 million.
We would, however, draw the attention of the
Committee to expenditure in certain areas that appears to have
benefited the long-term commercial objectives of the company.
We have also been made aware of concerns expressed in one London
BoroughWandsworthabout the direct relationship between
waste management and disposal practices and the availability of
Landfill Tax Credits.
Wandsworth
In drawing attention to the relationship between
Onyx Environmental Group Plc and Wandsworth Borough Council we
emphasise that this is only with regard to the Landfill Tax Credit
Scheme and implementation of the refuse collection contract. Certain
aspects of the refuse collection services in this borough deserve
to be seen as examples of good practice worthy of replication
elsewhere. We refer, in particular, to the recycling collection
service.
Prior to the commissioning of the Western Riverside
Waste Transfer Station in the Borough, the GLC categorised waste
methodically (at a site adjacent to the new transfer station site)
with codes for domestic, clinical, construction, trade waste etc.
Following removal of GLC responsibility in 1986, through to 1999,
there was a failure to effectively categorise or identify trade
waste as opposed to domestic waste. Refuse vehicles entering the
Waste Transfer Station were regarded as containing domestic/household
waste mixed with commercial waste.
In 1997, when Onyx obtained the refuse collection
contract, this situation was formalised,
"Commercial waste may be collected mixed
with household waste subject to agreement on payment of disposal
charges to the Council"[104]
A formula was laid down in the contract under
which the Council determined the amount of commercial waste mixed
with the household waste. However, it is clear by examining the
experience of weighbridge operators that such a system is virtually
unworkable. It was clear that an increase of four to five tonnes
weight for the same volume of waste in a vehicle indicated an
excessive amount of trade or commercial waste that could not be
assessed accurately under the agreed formula.
To agree such a system appears questionable
as the tender document had stated,
"The contractor shall endeavour to separate
the commercial waste collection from the household waste collection"[105]
Prior to Onyx winning the 1997 contract they
held the street cleaning contract. In September and October 1995
the company was subject to a special investigation by Internal
Audit Services and by the Fraud Squad. This was prior to the Landfill
Tax but is mentioned as an indication of steps taken by a reputable
waste industry company to maximise profits.
The Investigation by the Internal Audit Services[106]
found that Onyx UK Ltd had used resources dedicated to the WBC
contract for private gain. Essentially, trade waste was being
hidden within domestic waste thereby incurring no cost to the
company but additional payments made by the local authority under
the contract with the Waste Authority. One of the most damning
pieces of evidence made available to the investigation was an
internal Onyx UK memorandum,
"Arrangements have been made to expand into
trade waste in Wandsworth. I have so far been able to absorb most
of the costs into the Cleansing Contract. I am now in need of
a computer and printer for the trade agreements and I have submitted
a Capex request form for this. Without your approval it will not
be possible to proceed further."[107]
The investigation report is available for perusal
by the Minister and the Select Committee.
Money was repaid to the Council. The Special
Investigation Report estimated that, if Wandsworth Borough Council
resources had continued to be used for private gain over the life
of the contract, Onyx would have illegally obtained in the region
of £100,000.
When Onyx UK Ltd commenced a seven year contract
covering refuse collection on 28 September 1997, the contract
included Onyx paying Wandsworth Borough Council for their commercial
waste portfolio on the basis of 40 per cent of profit.[108]
In January 1999 the Council recognised that
"the issue of unregulated commercial/industrial waste must
be addressed."[109]
This recognition arose largely as a consequence
of a 1997-98 survey carried out by the Western Riverside Waste
Authority that had identified an overestimation of household waste
by Wandsworth Borough Council in the region of 16,000 tonnes per
annum.[110]
One of the results of decisions relating to
the disposal of commercial waste being hidden within domestic
waste was the repayment of £30,100 by Onyx UK to the Council
"to cover historic disposal costs"[111]
The report from which the above information
is taken also noted that "Onyx are now revising their bulk
bin collections so that separate vehicles will collect household
waste from those collecting commercial/industrial waste which
will mean that over 90 per cent of commercial/industrial waste
tonnages will be directly weighed."
It was not until September 1999 that the Council
was able to report that Onyx "segregate domestic bulk bin
collections from commercial."[112]
There is no doubt that the difficulties encountered
by the London Borough of Wandsworth are likely to be experienced
by local authorities throughout the country. Our concerns are
centred upon a scenario where large sums of public money are at
stake within a situation in which infringements of contractual
obligations are ignored thereby commercially benefiting waste
operators. If the Council officers responsible for negotiating
or monitoring contracts are the same as those attempting to obtain
Landfill Tax Credits from the companies, whose contracts they
are overseeing, there is an understandable perception from people
external to the local authority that deals could be done to the
detriment of democratic control and transparency.
In response to a request from an Environmental
Body, based in Wandsworth, Onyx Environmental trust say it is
impossible to offer support as the Board is
"already in the process of considering a
project from the Wandsworth Borough Council which will require
considerable funding and the trust would not be capable of supporting
two major projects in the same area"[113]
We have been informed that the lead officer
from the Council involved in discussions with Onyx over access
to Landfill Tax Credits, Peter Brennan, Assistant Director Leisure
and Amenity Services, is the same person who negotiated the "refuse
Collection, household recycling and associated duties contract"
with Onyx. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing.
However, a situation such as that in Wandsworth
highlights the potential conflicts of interest encouraged by the
manner in which the Landfill Tax Regulations are currently implemented
and the allocation of responsibilities to officers that result
in the same person dealing with waste contracts and Environmental
Bodies.
John Kutner, Deputy Chief Executive of Onyx
Group and a Board Member of the Onyx Environmental Trust, in a
telephone conversation with The Guardian, said,
"Onyx Environmental Trust has only two directors
from the company on it. We always check that when local authorities
put up projects that the public will benefitif they do
not it is thrown out immediately."
"We also do have a policy of supporting
projects in the local areas where we operate as a waste disposal
company and landfill operator. Waste companies are not popular
but are necessary and we think it is good that money is put into
the local communitiesfor village halls and pondsand
people to appreciate this."
"As for our contracts I do not think for
a minute people like Lord Gregson or Professor Porteous (on the
Onyx Environmental Trust) would countenance any deals that would
be seen to benefit our business."
On Wandsworth, Mr Kutner confirmed that the
company had paid back some £30,000 over their refuse collection
contract to cover commercial waste that had been mixed with domestic
waste. He said the situation they had inherited from Wandsworth
meant that unlike other authorities the same vehicles were used
for both commercial and domestic wastewhich made it difficult
for the company.
Hampshire
"One of the largest awards that the Onyx
Environmental Trust has made is for a grant of £1.5 million
to the Portsmouth Gateway Project."[114]
Phased over a three-year period, the grant will be used to improve
the entrance to the local motorway and projects supported include
the construction of a bridge and a causeway.
Further provisions of Landfill Tax Credits via
Onyx Environmental Trust include £156,652 to Hampshire County
Council, £58,400 to Southampton City Council and £90,200
to the Hampshire Wildlife Trust."[115]
The Onyx Environmental Group is the leading
partner in "Hampshire Waste Services" which has a 25-year
contract at a cost of £28 million per annum for waste disposal.[116]
We understand that this long term contract, agreed by Hampshire
County Council in breach of a national protocol governing the
handover of responsibilities to other authorities, includes three
incinerators. This incineration programme was established in the
face of strong opposition from both a community and local authority
level but was supported by Hampshire County Council and Onyx Environmental
Group. Hampshire County Council signed the contract within three
weeks prior to the handover of responsibilities to the Unitary
Authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton.
We identify below other local authorities having
received Landfill Tax Credits from the Onyx Environmental Trust.
We do not link the payment of such credits with the obtaining
of contract or obligations contained in contracts but the perception
of such links is allowed credibility by the present situation.
Such payments are made despite the ENTRUST statement in response
to the question, "Can Environmental Bodies contribute to
Local Authority projects?"
"Not as a transfer of money (Local Authorities
cannot become Environmental Bodies); a Local Authority would have
to be contracted to supply the particular goods or services"[117]
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
"£50,000 was presented to Councillor George
Mair, Chairman of the Leisure and Cultural Services Board at the
Royal Borough."[118]
The funding was for an Ecobus exhibition centre.
The Cleansing and Transport Services Division
of Windsor and Maidenhead had been externalised to Onyx in March
1995. The refuse and street cleaning contract is worth £4.2
million per annum to Onyx.[119]
The Onyx Environmental Trust has also enabled
Tax Credits to be paid to a number of other Local Authorities[120]:
Three Rivers District Council£51,000.
Onyx has contracts worth £1,353,560 per annum with this Council.
Rugby Borough Council£118,150
Telford and Wrekin UA£72,000
Derbyshire County Council£66,000
Buckinghamshire County Council£40,000
Two further companies that have established
a number of Environmental Bodies with an emphasis on close co-operation
with local authorities are Cory Environmental Limited and Cleanaway
Ltd.
Both companies have made Landfill Tax Credits
available for a number of extremely valuable initiatives at a
community level. However, there appears to be the opportunity
for a correlation between funds expended and contracts or planning
consents that require support. We have no evidence that this has
happened but feel the Select Committee should examine their activities
within the context of a review of Environmental Bodies as a whole.
We understand that the payment of funds to a
"consultant" to advise on the setting up of an Environmental
Body, or even payments between EBs in the same building, is seen
as a well established "scam" with the current rate for
exchange of telexes being around £30. Payment to consultancies,
we are informed, is up to £1,000 per day. We believe this,
if shown to be true, is an inappropriate use of public funds and
should be prevented by an effective regulatory body.
We urge the Select Committee to investigate
the allocation of Landfill Tax Credits to Local Authorities, the
relationship between the awarding of contracts and the availability
of Tax Credits, and the control or influence over allocation of
Landfill Tax Credits by waste companies.
We believe the Committee would be justified
in reviewing the interrelationship between local authorities,
landfill operators, and Environmental Bodies set up under the
influence or control of landfill operators and/or local authorities.
We call upon the Audit Commission to investigate
the relationship of landfill operators to local authorities.
We recommend the DETR to carry out a review
of planning consents and waste disposal contracts.
We suggest that the National Audit Office examine
the expenditure of Landfill Tax Credits on consultancy payments
and "inter Environmental Body" costs.
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
Environmental Services Association (ESA)
Concerns in relation to the ESA fall into two
areas. First, its influence over ENTRUST and its role in the formulation
of the Landfill Tax Regulations. Second the actions of Environmental
Bodies under its control.
The attitude of the ESA to the Landfill Tax
Credit Scheme is highlighted by the statement that:
"It is essential to the scheme's future
success that the Government continues to allow the industry sufficient
discretion over the application of what is essentially the industry's
money."[121]
The Environmental Services Association Research
Trust (ESART) was established, as an ENTRUST approved Environmental
Body, in October 1998.
ESART was launched with a budget of £1
million[122]
and by November 1999 was tackling projects to the value of £3.5
million. One ENTRUST approved project is "research into public
confidence in the management of waste" which is described
as "conducting new research needed to fill information gaps
and developing a best practice PR guide for waste management operators"[123].
The ESART Action Plan for 2000-01 estimates Landfill Tax Credit
expenditure of about £2 million. ESART announced a major
study to look into ways of increasing public confidence in the
waste management industry in February 2000. This £75,000
project will run for six months[124]
It is recognised that research projects concerned
with the diversion of waste from landfill, that may also be of
benefit to the waste industry, are valid projects to be funded
by Environmental Bodies. However, we would question the appropriateness
of projects such as the following ESART "research" projects[125]
being funded by Landfill Tax Credits. We are convinced that such
research falls within the responsibility of the waste industry
and not within the objectives of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme.
Control of birds on landfill sites
(£200,000-£300,000)
Controlling smells (£20,000-£30,000)
A central database of information
useful to the waste management industry (£250,000-£500,000
+ £30,000-£75,000 per annum)
Responding to public concerns about
landfill including a response to a Friends of the Earth publication
on planning (£25,000)
A three month study of waste management
conferences and seminars (£10,000)
Development of an information strategy
including possible production of a newsletter for the national
press (£10,000-£30,000)
On-going funding to encourage attendance
of representatives of the UK waste industry at various European
Committees (£30,000-£50,000 per annum)
There are nine Board members[126]
of which four represent landfill operators, one is the Chief Executive
of the ESA and a further member represents M J Carter Associates,
a consultancy represented on the Board of the ESA.
The other Members are Professor William Powrie
of the University of Southampton, Tom Huntingdon of the Natural
Environmental Research Council, and the Chairman, Professor The
Lord Lewis of Newnham. William Powrie, as well as being Professor
of Geotechnical Engineering at the University of Southampton,
is Chairman of the University Environmental Body, SUNRISE.
Funding of ESART includes Tax Credits from Viridor
Waste Management (£150,000) and Biffaward (£199,756).
We are unable to report further details of funding provided to
ESART as ENTRUST refuses to disclose such information.
It is worth repeating the point made by ENTRUST
that "the aim of the legislation is to ensure independence
of Environmental Bodies" and that "The Board will examine
carefully all cases in which a controlling majority could be comprised
of Local Authorities or Landfill Operators."[127]
"ESA is the trade association for the waste
management industry, promoting its interests in the UK and abroad"[128]
The ESA established a further EB in November
1999, the Environmental Services Training and Education Trust
(ESTET) which "is expected to be the principal funding vehicle
for the industry's National Training Organisation". "ESTET's
funding was launched with an initial donation from Shanks"[129].
We are not aware of the sums involved or if
the "donation from Shanks" is actually Landfill Tax
Credits from the public purse.
The ESA is to establish the Waste Industry National
Training Organisation (WINTO) with 80 per cent of costs being
provided by ESTET. A previous attempt to access Landfill Tax Credits
for a "scheme that would have helped waste management firms
claim back the cost of training their employees"[130]
was approved by ENTRUST but halted by HM Customs and Excise. The
former scheme was organised by Enventure EB.
Under the profound headline "ESART's first
study says landfills must achieve sustainability within 30 years"[131]
the ESA announced the publication of the first study funded by
ESART's "early start" programme of research projects.
This project was jointly funded by the Norlands Foundation, another
Environmental Body associated with Thames Water.
General waste policies pursued by this trade
association can be judged by the fact that in the same publication
ESA argued against co-disposal at landfill sites being ended by
2004 and committed itself to future co-operation with the Chemical
Industries Association on this issue.
Energy From Waste Association
The Energy from Waste Association established
the Energy From Waste Foundation as an Environmental Body enrolled
by ENTRUST.
The Foundation, in its first Report and Accounts
(1997-98), shows an identity almost subsumed by the Energy From
Waste Association.
The accounts (June 1997-November 1998) disclose
income of £359,444 from three landfill operators; Cory, Grundon
and Global Environmental. There was £5,261 income from interest.
There were set up costs of £23,994 and management charges
of £31,078. Set up costs consisted of legal fees (£5,875),
graphic design (£7,760) and further management charges of
£10,359.
All management charges were paid to the Energy
from Waste Association.
Since closure of the accounting period "
a further £30,000 has been received from the Environmental
Trust operated by S.I.T.A." and "discussions are taking
place with other potential donors, at least one of whom is a local
authority."[132]
There are nine directors. The Managing Director
is also the Executive Director of the Energy from Waste Association.
Four of the directors, including the Chairman, are members of
the Energy from Waste Association's Executive.
The ENTRUST approved projects funded by the
Foundation to the tune of £215,640 appear to be a mixture
of public relations exercises and industry responsibilities. These
include:
A report on "Practical Effects
of UK and North American Recycling Programmes" [a sophisticated
attack on recycling]
Leaflets on energy from waste [standard
publications supporting the incineration industry]
An "Audit protocol for EfW plant
operators"
"Bottom ash chemistrya
review"
In examining the 21 approved projects currently
listed by ENTRUST[133]
we were surprised to identify, "London's Waste StrategyProject
to produce sustainable waste management information for the incoming
Mayor" and "Practical effects of recycling programmesproduction
of report for distribution to local authorities in the UK."
Our perception of the relationship between the
Energy from Waste Association and the Energy from Waste Foundation
is reinforced by the Association's submission of evidence[134]
to the DETR consultation paper, "A way with waste".
In this submission, the report, "Practical
Effects of UK and North American Recycling programmes" is
presented as independent with no reference to the Foundation and
the EWA.
This report, according to experts consulted
by The Guardian researchers, should not be described as
independent and is not a comprehensive assessment of recycling
schemes in the UK and North America. Recycling and composting
are seen as separate with an attempt to define recycling as only
to do with dry recyclates. The report claims that,
"For the first time we have established
conclusively that the growth in waste generation has exceeded
the capacity of both dry and wet recycling (composting) to cope
with quantities." [135]
Internationally respected data, gathered by
independent researchers, such as that published in the Franklin
Associates Reports for the US EPA, show such statements to lack
credibility. The seven US States chosen as the sample for the
research were not, unfortunately, representative or even a cross
section of the waste management strategies employed in the United
States.
Our investigation has not sought to enter the
debate of the Government Waste Strategy but we feel it inappropriate
for Landfill Tax Credits to be used in a manner that attempts
to popularise one minority industry sector view at the expense
of the Government's strategy.
"Information services", noted in evidence
to the DETR, include Energy from Waste Foundation material as
sources of information available free to local authorities. We
would suggest that the source of such material and the nature
of the funding for its production should be made clear to Local
Authorities and other bodies at which the material is aimed.
The Chief Executive of ENTRUST, in a telephone
conversation with The Guardian, said that the Boards of
Environmental Bodies set up by trade associations have a majority
of independent members.
We recommend the Select Committee to investigate
the influence exercised by waste industry trade associations,
particularly the ESA and the Energy from Waste Association, over
the formulation of the Landfill Tax Regulations and the practical
implementation of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme.
We urge HM Customs and Excise to investigate
the control and subsequent expenditure of Landfill Tax Credits
by the ESA/ESART and the Energy from Waste Association/Foundation.
We call upon the National Audit Office to investigate
the control and expenditure of Landfill Tax Credits by trade associations
within the waste industry.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
In many respects our investigation has shown
the truth of a comment made by Chris Bisland, Corporate Director,
Somerset County Council, when referring to outcomes of the Landfill
Tax Credit Scheme, that
"Stewardship of Public Funds is a casualty"[136]
It is made quite clear by ENTRUST that "the
aim of the legislation is to ensure independence of Environmental
Bodies"[137]
ENTRUST goes on to state that "The Board will examine carefully
all cases in which a controlling majority could be comprised of
Local Authorities or Landfill Operators."
However, it is worth quoting a letter from ENTRUST
when requested to intervene in a situation where a local authority
was controlling and allocating Landfill Tax Credits,
"A fundamental requirement for the contributor
is that it does not benefit from the use to which the money is
put or, if it does, then the benefit is shared; as a general guide,
if the County Councillors (who I understand from the description
are able to control the activities of the waste disposer and its
landfill sites) get a benefit as Councillors then that would be
illegal but if they only benefit as members of the community then
that would be allowed." The letter from ENTRUST goes on to
say,
"Landfill Operators are not permitted to
stipulate what their money is to be used for although, in practice,
there will sometimes be an unwritten agreement to fund only particular
projects. Provided that the project to which the money is put
complies fully with the Landfill Tax Regulation approved objects,
there is no unique benefit to the Council and the contribution
is conditional only to comply, then Council environmental projects
elsewhere in the County, implemented by enrolled environmental
bodies, are legitimate even though they might be considered to
be against the Landfill Tax Regulations' spirit." [138]
ENTRUST also state that Environmental Bodies
are prohibited from contributing to Local Authority projects except
where they are contracted to supply particular goods or services.
There is no doubt that many of the projects
funded through Landfill Tax Credits, as a result of Local Authority
influence, are admirable initiatives. The major issues associated
with Local Authority influence and control over Landfill Tax Credit
expenditure are transparency, accountability, and activity in
direct conflict with the Landfill Tax Regulations.
We draw the attention of the Minister of State
and the Select Committee to:
Devon County Council
The situation in relation to Devon County Council
is best introduced by quoting from Mr David Andrew, Assistant
Director (Development and Environment Initiatives),
"Until Devon Waste Management is vested,
the County Council is the landfill site operator within the terms
of the credit scheme and the County Council Resources Sub Committee
has established an Officer Panel comprising representatives of
relevant departments including my own, to advise on the distribution
of the credits generated by the County Council"[139]
This explanation refers to County Council control
of Landfill Tax Credits that has resulted in:
The use of Tax Credits to replace
County Council expenditure
An increase in revenue to the County
Council directly from Landfill Tax Credit allocation
The provision of the 10 per cent
contribution from Council budgets that resulted in the Council
directly benefiting from Tax Credits
Landfill Tax Credits provided to
projects as a result of established Council priorities
The setting up of Environmental Bodies
under the influence or control of the County Council
We draw the attention of the Minister and the
Select Committee to "Green House Visitors Centre Ltd"
in order to highlight manipulation of the Landfill Tax Regulations
by Devon County Council.
The process adopted by the County Council to
reduce committed expenditure and increase income through access
to Landfill Tax Credits began in January 1996.
The Council resolved that a contribution of
£29,000 from its Waste Disposal Revenue Budget be approved
towards the running costs of the Centre and that
"Consideration of the future development
of the Centre and means of funding the development be explored
by the officers"[140]
This decision led to the proposal "that
an investigation should be made into the feasibility of establishing
an Environmental Body by Devon Waste Management to include the
Visitor Centre as its principle aim" and that as "the
Green House Visitor Centre is currently funded by contributions
from the Waste Disposal and Recycling Committee and DWM"
that "it might be possible to enhance its facilities and
operations at a reduced net cost to the County Council."[141]
This proposal was agreed by the County Council.
By February 1997 it was agreed to establish
an EB as a company limited by guarantee with charitable status.
The Visitors Centre operations were transferred from the County
Council to the EB thereby saving the County Council £62,000
per annum (this being the total cost of the Centre at that time
to the CC). It was agreed that staff be transferred from the Council
to this new EB, Green House Visitors Centre Ltd, and that the
premises and contents of the Centre would be leased to the EB
at full market rent, initially for a three-year term.
It was also agree that "a contribution
of £100,000 in 1997-98 be made to the Green House Visitors
Centre Limited, 90 per cent of which to be received from the County
Council's Liability to Customs and Excise for Landfill tax as
budgeted by the Devon Waste Disposal and Recycling Committee with
the balance of 10 per cent to be funded by Devon Waste Management
from a budget already made for the purpose for the 1997-98 financial
year."[142]
We are in possession of numerous Council papers
documenting the decision making process that resulted in this
"privatisation" of a County Council resource in order
to use Tax Credits in an inappropriate manner.
By January 1998 the Council had "allocated
£250,000" in "County Council derived Landfill Tax
Credits"[143]
to the Green House Visitors Centre. Although ENTRUST was informed
of the role of the County Council early in 1998 it refused to
accept that there had been any breach of the Regulations.
The overall aims of the Council can be judged
by perusal of two conflicting statements:
"It is absolutely refuted that the County
Council has used funds inappropriately to pursue the priorities
of the Environment Department. As previously advised, the determination
of LTC bids, has been deliberately placed with the Resources Sub
Committee which is a sub-committee of the Policy Committee, and
not with the Environment Committee. It is advised by an Officer
Panel, on which the Environment Directorate is one of a number
of Departments represented, together with Devon Waste Management."[144]
As you will be aware, credits can only constitute
90 per cent of the amount provided and it falls to the site operator
or a third party to provide the remaining 10 per cent. In the
absence of provision in the waste management operating budget
to cover this, the 10 per cent contributions required to unlock
the County Council's credits have been provided from other budgets,
help principally by the County Council's Environment Committee.
In order to be supported therefore, projects have not only to
comply with the requirements of the Landfill Tax Regulations,
but also contribute to the realisation of the County Council's
overall aims and objectives and particularly those of the Environment
Committee, for which the Committee's budget has been provided."[145]
The Visitors Centre highlights, in a crude manner,
benefit to the Council by its provision of 10 per cent funding
and its control of Tax Credits. However, there are further pre-Landfill
Tax commitments that were then funded by Landfill Tax Credits
controlled by the Council.
We urge the Select Committee to investigate
the role of the County Council in its allocation of "£881,850
towards environmental projects; representing 98 per cent of the
County Council's Landfill Tax Credits available in the period
October 1996 to March 1998, together with £97,950 of required
supporting contributions, largely provided by this Committee [Devon
CC Environment Committee]."[146]
The conflict of interests and responsibilities,
left unresolved by County Council Officers and Councillors, is
highlighted by support offered by the Council to enter an appeal
against refusal of planning permission to Devon Waste Management
for a landfill site[147].
This decision was taken as the "principal shareholder of
the company and not as the local planning authority".[148]
In noting the role of the County Council with
regard to accessing Landfill Tax Credits, we refer to a decision
taken as early as November 1996 that a report be made "setting
out in more detail the potential for landfill tax credit contributions
paid to Environmental Trust to be utilised by the County Council".[149]
Once the County Council lost direct control
of Landfill Tax Credits in the County action was taken to ensure
maximum influence through the continued provision of 10 per cent
funding. It was noted that:
"Responsibility for Landfill Tax payments
and the distribution of Credits to Environmental Bodies will transfer
to the Devon Waste Management Limited when it vests, planned for
1 April 1998, and draws to the attention of the Company's Board
of Directors, the considerable benefits to the Devon Environment
afforded by the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and the Sub-Committee's
desire to see these continue to be provided in the future."[150]
It was further agreed to:
"Approve in principle the use of funds from
the budgets available to this Committee, to encourage and support
site operators to contribute their Landfill Tax Credits to Environmental
Bodies for appropriate projects in the County by the reimbursement
wholly or in part of the site operator's required 10 per cent
contribution."[151]
At the same meeting it was also agreed to accept
"£5,000 from Cornwall and Devon Environmental Trust
Ltd [An Environmental Body] towards works on the Grand Western
Canal." This implies the payment of Landfill Tax Credits
from an Environmental Body to the County Council "with similar
sums being potentially forthcoming in future years."
The Press Department of Devon County Council,
in response to a request for comments from The Guardian,
said that "it [The Green House Visitor Centre] is no longer
our responsibility."
Essex County Council
It was reported as long ago as 1997 that,
"Essex has inserted a special clause on
the 10-year contract it will award to a landfill operator to dispose
of its municipal waste. It requires the operator to make donations
only to the specific environmental body named and set up by the
local authority."[152]
ENTRUST Chief Executive Richard Sills was quoted
as saying,
"I would not like to see such clauses in
contracts. Whether bidders for landfill contracts have contributed
to the local area or promise to do so in the future is inevitably
going to be an element in a panel's assessment of the bids put
before it"
It is our understanding that not only is this
practice now well established in Essex but that it has spread
to a number of other local authorities including the County Councils
of Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire and the Metropolitan District
Council of Kirklees.
The Essex Environment Trust has a Board that
is independent of the County Council. Of the eight Members, one
is a County Councillor, one is an employee of the council (the
Secretary) and one Member is the Development Director of Cory
Environmental who sits on the boards of a number of EBs. Two unusual
conditions imposed on applicants to the Trust, and not included
in the landfill Tax Regulations, are that certain projects "must
have local financial support to at least 25 per cent of the total
cost of the project" and that,
"In respect of all applications for local
amenities, the Trust will look for a contribution to their provision
from the local parish or town council. A letter of support from
the parish or district council or other local body or organisation
can also assist an application."[153]
Neath-Port Talbot
NPT Environ Aid Limited is the Environmental
Body established under the influence of the local authority.
A meeting was held, organised by ENTRUST to
publicise various Landfill Tax funded projects in Wales. Neil
Caldwell, a Board Member of ENTRUST, was present to discuss the
issues involved, including the allocation of funding to carry
out work already committed to by the local authority. Someone
who took a contemporary note informs us that Mr Caldwell said
"it is at the margins of legality but as it is not public
money there is no need to act in the public interest."
NPT Environ Aid Limited had five Directors but
currently has four with the resignation of Mr Stuart Penny on
2 May 1997.[154]
The Company Secretary, appointed on 11 February
1997 is Mr Stuart Penny, Mr Penny is a former Chief Executive
of the County Borough Council of Neath-Port Talbot. Since 2 March
1998 he has been Company Secretary of Neath Port Talbot Waste
Management Co. Ltd.[155]
The Environmental Body is based at the landfill site run by this
landfill operator. As already noted, Mr Penny is a former director
of the EB, serving from 11 February 1997 until 2 May 1997 when
he became Company Secretary.
Mr Gwilym Richard Evans, a director of NPT Environ
Aid since 11 February 1997, is also a director of Neath Port Talbot
Waste Management Co. Ltd.
Frederick John Kingdom CBE JP, a director of
NPT Environ Aid since 11 February 1997, is an ex-councillor.
Mr Kenneth Chapple, appointed as a director
on 2 May 1997, is also an ex-councillor.
We are unaware of any responsibilities of the
fourth director, John Desmond Davies KSG, in relation to the local
authority or the waste industry.
Swansea County Council
Yet another example of Council expenditure being
replaced by the use of Landfill Tax Credits.
As with most instances in this area of manipulation
of the regulations, the use to which the Tax Credits are put is
positive. The County Council claimed it was unable to continue
its kerbside recycling scheme. It was then instrumental in providing
Tax Credits for the Wales Environment Centre, which then ran the
scheme. We understand that Landfill Tax Credits made available
for this service amounted to £130,000 per annum.
Detailed investigations have not been carried
out into the situations pertaining at Swansea and Neath-Port Talbot
or the precise nature of the contractual obligations insisted
upon by Essex County Council and others. However, we believe the
Audit Commission should mount a comprehensive investigation. We
understand that ENTRUST do not consider such actions to be in
breach of the regulations.
Merton LBC
This London Council has a 15 year contract[156],
that commenced in 1993, with A&J Bull for waste transfer and
disposal.
On 27 November 1997 a DEED was signed between
Merton LBC, A&J Bull (Southern) Ltd and Groundwork Merton,
an Environmental Body.
The Council was already committed to paying
a grant of £46,000 per annum to Groundwork Merton as core
funding until March 2001.
Under the DEED Merton LBC covenants "to
pay A&J Bull by way of reimbursement 10 per cent of any landfill
tax contribution which it has paid to Groundwork Merton, up to
the maximum of £46,000 grant to which Groundwork Merton is
entitled or such higher sum as the Council shall agree, and to
indemnify A&J Bull". It was also agreed that if the payments
to A&J Bull were less than £46,000 that the balance would
be paid to another landfill operator in order to access Tax Credits.
If this third party contribution was less than £46,000 in
any one year then the balance is to be paid to Groundwork Merton.
"Additionally the Council will seek further
sources of funding and such may be used for the purposes of the
unrelieved 10 per cent of a contribution made to Groundwork Merton,
either by A&J Bull or by any other landfill tax payer with
which the council enters into any subsequent arrangements".
A&J Bull agreed to pay up to 20 per cent of its total landfill
tax liability in respect of any contribution year to Groundwork
Merton. Groundwork Merton agreed to spend the Landfill Tax Credits
within the area of the London Borough of Merton. The DEED is valid
unitl 31 March 2001.
In 1997-98 £357,280 (including the 10 per
cent) was paid to Groundwork Merton and in 1998-99 £387,747.
Merton Council and Groundwork Merton have a
relationship that goes beyond the provision of funding by the
local authority to Groundwork. It is our understanding that there
is a corporate relationship between the two as Groundwork carries
out work for the local authority on a regular basis.
We draw the attention of the Minister of State
and the Select Committee to the statement by ENTRUST,
"A third party must be independent of EBs.
It cannot be another environmental body or an organisation corporately
associated with an EB."[157]
Western Riverside Environmental Fund
"The Fund has been established by the Western
Riverside Waste Authority, using Landfill Tax Credits arising
from household rubbish and other waste handled by the Authority's
waste transfer station at Smuggler's Way, Wandsworth. The Authority
is a joint venture by the Councils in the four Boroughs of Lambeth,
Wandsworth, Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington & Chelsea."[158]
The Fund is managed by Groundwork on behalf
of the Authority. There is no doubt that monies from the Fund
have been, and will be, used for projects that make a valuable
contribution to communities in the four Boroughs making up the
Authority.
However, the Western Riverside Environmental
Fund highlights the issue of transparency and control together
with the refusal of ENTRUST to accept there is a breach of the
Landfill Tax Regulations wherever such alleged breaches impinge
upon the influence and control of Landfill Tax Credit expenditure
by local authorities or landfill operators.
Essentially, the Fund is controlled by a Steering
Group composed of four Councillors (one from each of the Councils
involved in the Waste Authority), a representative of each of
the landfill operatorsCory Environmental and Cleanaway
Ltd, the General Manager of the Western Riverside Waste Authority
and the Groundwork Regional Director.
There is an "independent" Chair of
the Group, a solicitor.
We recommend the Select Committee investigate
the use of Landfill Tax Credits by Local Authorities and the control
exerted by Local Authorities over Environmental Bodies.
We further suggest that the Committee examine
ways in which Local Authorities can be fully involved in the Landfill
Tax Credit Scheme but in a transparent and accountable manner.
We urge the Audit Commission to investigate
the role of Local Authorities in relation to landfill operators,
the legality of imposing contractual obligations on waste operators
in relation to the availability of Landfill Tax Credits, and the
replacement of committed expenditure by Landfill Tax Credits.
We call upon HM Customs and Excise to investigate
the actions of ENTRUST in approving Local Authority involvement
in the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme in a manner conflicting with
the Landfill Tax Regulations.
THE USE
OF LANDFILL
TAX CREDITS
OR PROVISION
OF "THIRD
PARTY FUNDING"
BY QUANGOS, GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES, GOVERNMENT
FUNDED BODIES,
AND COMPANIES
EXTERNAL TO
THE WASTE
INDUSTRY
Environment Agency
Based upon our understanding of the Environment Agency
as the regulatory body for the waste industry, we expected to
find it working at arms length with landfill operators, particularly
in relation to funding issues such as the Landfill Tax Credit
Scheme. It was therefore with an element of surprise that we discovered
this not to be the case.
The Agency, in co-operation with ESART, jointly
funded an ENTRUST approved project to the value of £200,000[159].
It is recognised that the nature of the project
is of valuea pilot trial of the UK waste classification
system.
The Select Committee is aware of controversy
surrounding the life-cycle assessment toolWisarddeveloped
by the Agency. Recommendations concerning this computer software
were made in June 1998[160].
We were therefore rather surprised to find that
an Environmental Body, CORDAH Research (part of a commercial company)
had been provided with Landfill Tax Credits, approved by ENTRUST,
to carry out an evaluation of Wisard.[161]
This means that a landfill operator made Tax Credits available
to evaluate the work of the regulatory body responsible for the
waste industry in the UK.
We draw the attention of the Minister and the
Select Committee to the later section on London Waste Action and
the role of the Environment Agency in making funds available to
this EB.
The Agency also sits on the Boards of a number
of Environmental Bodies established by landfill operators, one
example being the Cleanaway Havering Riverside Trust[162].
The Select Committee is invited to consider
the potential implications of Landfill Tax Credits being used
by the Agency responsible for the regulation of the waste industry
and the participation of the Environment Agency in Environmental
Bodies established by landfill operators.
We also suggest to the Select Committee that
the use of Landfill Tax Credits, made available by the waste industry,
to evaluate the work of the Environmental Agency creates potential
conflicts of interest that are unable to be reconciled under the
present Landfill Tax Credit Scheme.
British Waterways Plc.
This company, totally government owned, had
received £1,664,225 in contributions and £70,120 in
transfers from EBs as of April 1999[163].
The company had completed, or was implementing,
50 "Landfill Tax projects" by Autumn 1999[164].
In January 1998 ENTRUST had approved 64 British
Waterways Projects[165].
We are aware of Tax Credits having been made
available by Biffaward (£10,060),[166]
WREN (£10,000), ICI Chlor Chemicals (£36,000), Smiths
& Sons (Bletchington) Ltd (£18,000), Tarmac (£100,000),
Biffaward (a further £60,000), Rugby Cement (£23,000),
and Hemmings (£40,000)[167].
According to "Landfill Credit That!"
British Waterways has a "Landfill Funding Team" of eight
people.
Mr Brian Donohoe MP raised the issue of British
Waterways during the proceedings of the Select Committee Inquiry
into the Operation of the Landfill Tax.[168]
It is worth noting the comments by Lord Cranbrook
in response to questions as to why public money should be given
to a private company that will profit from it,
"The environmental body account had to be
a not for profit making account and all the money that goes into
an environmental body account in such a way as British Waterways,
which is an enrolled environmental body, has to be scrutinised
by us, has to be absolutely separate and has to be self-contained
within that."
Are the eight British Waterways staff employed
by the Environmental Body or are they subject to employment contracts
of British Waterways?
Does an independent Board or the company determine
the policies of the EB?
Is money spent on projects that were already
determined by British Waterways or new initiatives determined
by the Environmental Body?
Is it our belief that such Bodies were not envisaged
under the original regulations.
British Waterways is expected to receive £59
million from the DETR during the present financial year[169].
In a telephone conversation with The Guardian
British Waterways Plc explained that their team of eight people
are employees of the company with the responsibility for fundraising
from a variety of sources. It was also stated that the Environmental
Body was the same as any other department of British Waterways
other than the fact that funds raised were not used for statutory
responsibilities.
London Waste Action (LWA).
"Established in 1997, London Waste Action
(LWA) brings together London's private and public sector leaders
to develop a waste management strategy for the capital,"[170]
LWA was founded by London First and the Association
of London Government with the support of the Government Office
for London. London Waste Action is an Environmental body. It has
a Board of six directorsCouncillor Lord Harris (Chair),
the Association of London Government (Councillor Len Duvall),
London First (Lord Sheppard and Stephen O'Brien), Cleanaway (Paul
Smith replaced Lord Sheppard on 21 December 1998), the Environment
Agency (Simon Read), and Wastewatch (Ray Georgeson)[171]
An informal meeting was held with Colin Roberts,
Chief Executive of LWA, on 22 June 1999. The reason for the discussion
was primarily to discuss LWA work on the development of a waste
strategy for London but questions were also raised as to our awareness
(based upon common knowledge) that LWA had approached a number
of landfill operators for Landfill Tax Credits but was having
difficulty in obtaining the "10 per cent" contribution
from either a third party or the donor company.
LWA had received Landfill Tax Credits from Shanks
and the company had paid the 10 per cent. Colin Roberts explained
that an application had been made to Cleanaway for £120,000
but the company insisted upon the 10 per cent from a third party.
A request had been put to the Environment Agency for the third
party donation but the DETR had ruled against such a payment.
Discussions then took place with the Managing Director of Cleanaway.
Money, originating from the Environment Agency but already in
the LWA coffers, was used by "laundering" (Colin Robert's
words) it through London First to Cleanaway. During a second discussion
the LWA Chief Executive denied his original words.
In a statement to The Guardian London
Waste Action Chief Executive, Colin Roberts, expressed support
for public funds being used to provide the 10 per cent third party
funding and said he saw nothing improper in using such funds.
Our concerns, drawn to the attention of the
Select Committee, are centred upon the "laundering"
of public funds to provide third party funding. We would also
urge the Committee to consider the implications of one or two
companies, to the exclusion of others, being centrally involved
in the formulation of a waste strategy with major contractual
implications for the future Mayor of London and the GLA. We also
highlight the actions of the Environment Agency, the regulatory
body for the waste industry, as being in conflict with its statutory
responsibilities.
We recommend HM Customs and Excise and the National
Audit Office to investigate the use of Landfill Tax Credits and,
particularly, the source and use of third party funding.
We draw the attention of the Minister and the
Select Committee to a number of companies that have accessed Landfill
Tax Credits. They have done so within the Landfill Tax Regulations
and there is no suggestion whatsoever that the companies have
been involved in any improper behaviour in relation to the Landfill
Tax Credit Scheme. We do suggest that the provision of such funding
is not within the intended spirit of the first "Green Tax"
in the UK.
The Building Research Establishment (BRE)
This organisation, an organisation with 300
research staff[172],
established an Environmental BodyBRE Waste and Environment.
It has at least 21 approved projects with funding of £93,330
from Biffaward[173]
(We are unaware of amounts, or sources, of other Landfill Tax
Credits). BRE was transferred to the private sector in 1997.
English Heritage
This government funded body has established
its own Environmental Body under the name, "Historic Buildings
and Monuments Commission for England."
As of March 2000[174]
English Heritage had seven approved projects, all of which appeared
to fall within the organisation's mainstream work.
English Partnerships
English Partnerships (EP) is a Non-Departmental
Public Bodythe Urban Regeneration Agency for England.
EP set up a separate charitable company, the
English Environmental Fund (EEF) established to access Landfill
Tax Credits.
We understand that English Partnerships was
prevented from providing 10 per cent third party funding to other
Environmental Bodies by the DETR and therefore set up its own
EB. The Fund is a partnership between English Partnerships, Groundwork,
Sustrans, RSNC, the National Urban Forestry Unit and the Institute
of Waste Management. We understand civil servants agreed that
£2 million of public money could be used for the "10
per cent" but this has not been drawn upon due to failures
in accessing Landfill Tax Credits.
This NDPB has taken out insurance against the
misuse of Landfill Tax Credits. It states,
"The Fund has insurance cover to protect
against wrongful use of funds and to ensure that donations are
expended properly and in accordance with the Regulations. In addition,
the Fund has secured insurance cover such that should HM Customs
deem that contributions to EEF have been expended on illegible
projects or on illegible activities, and Customs subsequently
take action to require the landfill operator to repay funds, the
cover is in place for the landfill operator to take action against
the Fund for the loss incurred."[175]
Is this an appropriate area of expenditure for
public funds?
The Guide goes on to state,
"Operated by a skilled professional team,
EEF therefore offers a simple effective route for landfill tax
payers to make donations to environmental projects, at no net
cost to the donor." And further that,
"The 10 per cent reimbursement transaction will
always be enacted outside the Fund, to ensure that the fund is
working within the Regulations for EBs."
English Partnerships received approximately
£225.5 million during the financial year 1999-2000.[176]
WRc Plc
WRc Waste Research Limited is the Environmental
Body established by WRc Plc. This company undertakes a wide range
of applied waste management research and consultancy work for
industry and government. The company has offices in Spain, Hungary,
Belgium and the USA. It is a well-established commercial operation.
Papers circulated by WRc Waste Research Ltd,
with the added bonus of a freepost reply envelope, state that,
"WRc Waste Research Limited is looking for
research projects to fund under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme."[177]
The Environmental Body, enrolled by ENTRUST
is,
"Part of the WRc Group" that is described
as "a leading European research, technology and consultancy
company, employing over 350 people" with their experience
described as in "the fields of water, wastewater and environmental
management in which we have over 70 years' experience."[178]
CORDAH Environmental Management Consultants
This company is a member of the BMT Group of
companies. Its corporate profile states,
"We have offices in Aberdeen and Edinburgh
with project and training experience in the UK, Europe, Middle
East, CIS countries, Africa, South and Central America, India,
Asia and the Pacific."[179]
It is a well established commercial enterprise.
CORDAH Environmental Management Consultants
set up their own Environmental Body, CORDAH Research, enrolled
by ENTRUST. As of March 2000, this EB had 15 approved projects[180]
including an assessment of "Wisard" and the monitoring
of the Canford Environmental Ltd access road.
Going for Green and the Tidy Britain Group
The Tidy Britain Group is primarily funded by
government, receiving £2.5 million under the DETR Single
Grant Programme[181]
(1997-98). The organisation and the DETR were criticised in 1999
for funding activities "outside the statutory authority under
which the grant had been paid."[182]
The Tidy Britain Group spends more on fundraising
than any other charity in Britain, defined by fundraising costs
as a percentage of donated income98 per cent.[183]
Total income for the year ended 31 March 1997[184]
was £4,464,000 which includes £2,767,000 from the DETR.
The Group also have a trading company, ERCU Ltd, that gives its
profits to the Tidy Britain Group£56,000 in 1997.
In 1998 the Group had an income of £7,625,333[185]
which includes £2,567,000 from the DETR and £171,178
from ERCU.
A company, Environmental Campaigns Limited (ENCAMS)
was established in January 1998 through which DETR funds are received
for both Tidy Britain Group and Going for Green.
The accounts make no specific reference to Landfill
Tax Credits and it is impossible to identify to what extent this
private company and registered charity benefited through the Landfill
Tax Credit Scheme. The Annual Report for 1997-98 noted that,
"Funding for Eco-Schools came this year
through the Landfill Tax rebate scheme. Sita Environmental Trust
has provided its generous support, with the Coca-Cola Youth Foundation
acting as the third party sponsor." Cleanaway is also noted
in the Report as a "Partner" as is Onyx.
Professor Graham Ashworth, Chairman and Chief
Executive of Going for Green, stated,
"Thanks to Landfill Tax generated sponsorship
from Biffaward in partnership with Tesco, Going for Green was
able to announce the development of a million pound educational
initiative."[186]
However, in studying the detailed accounts of
Going for Green total income is given as £4,764,337 of which
£3,002,225 is "benefits in Kind" and £1,500,000
a grant from the DETR[187].
There is no record of the £1 million from Landfill Tax Credits.
We do not in any way question the probity of
Going for Green but are perplexed at the impossibility of establishing
an audit trail for the expenditure of such a large sum of money
from the public purse. ENTRUST refuse to provide information on
funding from landfill operators to Environmental Bodies that in
any way identifies the donor or the recipient. It is therefore
necessary to study many landfill operators' reports and annual
reports of Environmental Bodies to obtain any accurate and detailed
information on the finances of bodies such as Going for Green
and Tidy Britain Group arising from the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme.
Groundwork
Groundwork receives around £6.6 million
per annum from the DETR[188]
but in April 1999, as a result of a report from the Comptroller
and Auditor General, the DETR had decided to bring forward a financial
management and policy review of the organisation.
The Chairman of Groundwork states that, "The
introduction of Landfill Tax offers significant potential as a
means of adding value to Groundwork by ways of partnerships with
landfill operators and Local Authorities. An example is the partnership
with UK Waste which will bring in £2 million of new funding
to our regeneration work."[189]
The accounts for 1996-97 show an income of £11,270,437
of which £7,272,164 is from the DETR, £517,843 from
"London/SRB" and £32,000 from MAFF. As with Going
for Green and the Tidy Britain Group, details of Landfill Tax
Credit revenue are not identified.
In the Annual Report for the year ended 31 March
1998 the Chairman reported that,
"In July the Deputy Prime Minister announced
that Groundwork's grant will increase by more than £3 million
over the next three years."
The Director's report for the year ended 31
March 1998 identifies £6,336,041 as grant income from the
DETR and a total of £6,675,000 secured for 1998-99. The report
states,
"It is expected that further increases in
incoming resources will be achieved for 1998-99. A key factor
is the Landfill Tax funding which will generate significant income
for 1998-99 and beyond."[190]
The total income for Groundwork for the year
ended 31 March 1998 was £14,311,861 of which £6,336,041
was from the DETR and £2,102,168 from "London/SRB"
but, again, Landfill Tax Credit income is not specifically identified.
As with Going for Green and Tidy Britain Group
we are in no way questioning the probity of Groundwork but with
such potentially large sums of public money involved we feel it
appropriate for sources to be identified and the provision of
an audit trail easily followed.
On the basis of studying Biffaward reports we
identified £27,500 paid to the Groundwork National office
in 1997-98 and a total of £262,310 paid to various regional
offices[191].
These are payments made available by just one landfill operator.
We recommend that the Select Committee investigate
Landfill Tax Credits benefiting well established commercial companies,
government agencies and bodies primarily dependent upon government
funding for their activities.
We urge the National Audit Office to investigate
the use of Landfill Tax Credits by commercial companies.
We emphasise that it is perfectly legal and
in no way outside of the regulations to provide Landfill Tax Credits
to a well funded charity but we felt that it appropriate to note
the position of the National Trust:
The National Trust
The National Trust is the wealthiest voluntary
organisation in the UK with an annual income of £166.2 million.[192]
The National Trust is an Environmental Body.
We are unaware of the total funds received by the Trust but it
has obtained £33,600 from Biffaward[193]
and has a total of 93 approved projects[194]
together with a further three run by the National Trust for Scotland.
AWARENESS OF
MINISTERS AND
THE ROLE
OF CIVIL
SERVANTSA CAUSE
FOR CONCERN
In examining the response of the Government
to the Committee's Report into the Operation of the Landfill Tax
we were particularly surprised to read the following:
"In relation to Waste Management Licensing
exemptions and planning controls on developments involving landfilling
and landscaping that;
"Local Authorities already have adequate
powers to maintain planning control over these operations"
and that environmental protection authorities "have the technical
competence to deal with such matters"[195]
We draw the attention of the Select Committee
to our evidence related to Hertfordshire, Northumberland and Manchester.
We particularly emphasise the lack of support received by local
authorities from various national agencies having responsibility
in the area of licensing exemptions and planning control.
In response to recommendations from the Select
Committee concerning transparency and accountability together
with the need to avoid potential abuse of the Landfill Tax Credit
Scheme that;
"the Government sees no reason to bar employees
of landfill site operators from serving on the ENTRUST Board.
Indeed, the Government considers it important that the Board should
have a balanced membership, including someone with experience
of the waste management sector"[196].
We concur with the Government response but,
in agreeing with the recommendations of the Select Committee,
we would highlight the domination of ENTRUST by sections of the
waste industry.
In response to the proposal that there be a
public register of third party contributions that;
"The Government sees no need to go further
by requiring that a public register be kept"[197]
In the interests of transparency and accountability
and to ensure that third party funding is provided in an appropriate
manner, we would strongly support the proposal from the Select
Committee that there be a public register.
In response to the Committee's suggestion as
to the need for a clear definition of "benefit" within
the context of landfill operators gaining benefit from the Landfill
Tax Credit Scheme that;
"Both HM Customs and Excise and ENTRUST
are quite clear about what is meant by `benefit'"[198]
We hope that our submission clearly identifies
the benefits currently being enjoyed by sections of the waste
industry. ENTRUST are aware of these benefits.
We agree with the Select Committee that a clear
definition of benefit is required but, more importantly, a regulatory
body that ensures benefits are not in excess of those allowed
by the Landfill Tax Regulations.
During wide ranging discussions with those involved
in attempting to use Landfill Tax Credits to make a positive contribution
to the Government's strategy on sustainability, we have identified
a commonly held view that, despite the commitment of Ministers,
the relationship between civil servants and the waste industry
thwarts the implementation of effective policy initiatives.
Landfill Tax and the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
provide a wonderful opportunity to reduce landfill and expand
reduction, re-use and recycling of waste but those presently responsible
for implementation of policy in both the DETR and the private
sector are, in the main, lacking in either ability or commitment
to achieve such ends.
There is a perception, whether valid or not
is a matter for the Minister of State and the Select Committee,
that the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme has been distorted by civil
servants and the waste industry despite the genuine commitment
of Ministers to the excellent principles behind the scheme.
LANDFILL TAX EVASION
Bricket Wood, Hertfordshire
Bricket Wood "Golf Course" is a 23.5 hectare
site at the junction of the M25, A405 and Lye Lane in Hertfordshire.
The site is within the Green Belt.
The use of this site has led to evasion of Landfill
Tax and environmental degradation. The history of the site, far
from being unique, appears to mirror similar "developments"
elsewhere in the UK and highlights the inability of statutory
bodies and local governmentEnvironment Agency, HM Customs
& Excise, local planning authorities and Environmental Health
Officersto act in a co-ordinated manner. It further highlights
the apparent refusal of the Courts to take effective action in
support of a planning authority, Hertfordshire County Council,
despite the commitment of substantial resources and energy to
prevent illegal activity.
In February 1995 the owners of the site, Burston
Nurseries Ltd, obtained planning permission (on appeal) for a
nine-hole golf course. This was a District Council responsibility.
Planning permission (on a second appeal) had
been granted for the use of 41,250 cubic metres of inert waste
for bunding to shield the golf course from the M25 in January
1994. This was a County Council responsibility.
The site was sold, for what is understood to
be around £400,000, in 1997. The new owner, Intrasales Ltd,
contracted Ironside Leisure Developments to carry out work on
the site. Mr Harvey Gibson, an undischarged bankrupt[199]
owns Ironside Leisure Developments.
Mr Michael Hancock, owner of Intrasales, and
Mr Harvey Gibson work together. The co-operation between the two
is shown by the fact that "Michael Hancock admitted in an
affidavit dated 18 January 1999 that Intrasales have been receiving
£20 per lorry load of waste."[200]
In October 1997 work commenced on the transfer
of inert waste to the site. By January 1998 the Council was aware
of excess waste being dumped and in June 1998 a survey identified
132,700 cubic metres as opposed to the 41,250 allowed under planning
consent.
The level of illegal activity can be judged
by the fact that in one hour on 12 November 1997 20 HGVs were
observed entering the site.[201]
In July 1998 the County Council served two Enforcement
Notices on Intrasales Ltd, Ironside Leisure Developments, and
the mortgagee, NatWest Bank. Intrasales Ltd appealed and a public
inquiry was held in January 1999. In March 1999 it was decided
that all excess material must be removed from the site within
six months. The amount of waste deposited at the site had risen
to 223,000 cubic metres as of December 1998.
During the period from the serving of Enforcement
Notices, despite the obtaining of a High Court Injunction by the
County Council in September 1998, the import of waste to the site
continued.
During observation of the site in September
1998, a person claiming to be the site owner threatened one of
the investigators and told him "it would not be healthy for
him to come back"[202].
On this day alone 70 lorry movements were noted between 7.30am
and 4pm.[203]
The nature of some of the waste dumped can be
identified from a report received by the County Council from a
haulier that had been tipping at Bricket Wood.
"During all the time he had personally been
tipping on the site (and he must have paid between £40,000
and £50,000 in all the time he had been tipping) he had noticed
a considerable amount of household waste dumped on the site. He
said that this had been tipped on the bund alongside the M25 at
its highest point, and then buried to a depth of about 30 to 40
foot. He also said that he had seen two to three loads of asbestos
sheeting tipped on the site."[204]
The County Council returned to the High Court
in January 1999 and, following a number of adjournments, Harvey
Gibson was found guilty of contempt of Court in March 1998. He
received a sentence of 28 days, suspended for two years.
Ironside Leisure Developments went into liquidation.
For two/three months no further waste was imported but the excess
was not removed. Boreholes were dug in order to identify minerals
for extraction.
Extraction of hoggin, sand and topsoil started
in March 1999. The County Council served further Enforcement Notices
to prevent this extraction in June 1999 on Mr Gibson, Intrasales
Ltd and Ironside Haulage, the company that appears to have taken
over the work of Ironside Leisure Developments.
Surveillance reports for periods between January
and November 1999 expose extensive movement of waste on to the
site and the export of minerals. Typical activity includes 56
vehicles on 5 February and 35 on 17 August with one tipper truck
making 12 journeys. On 12 and 16 November minerals were extracted
form the Bricket Wood site and deposited at the Royal Ordinance
site at Waltham Abbey, Essex[205].
During the surveillance operation in November 1999, five vehicles
were identified as depositing material at the Royal Ordinance
site at Waltham Abbey.
The County Council returned to the High Court
in October 1999 and despite Harvey Gibson's suspended sentence
he was only fined £1,000 for further contempt of Court.
On 15 October 1999 St Albans District Council
were informed by solicitors acting for Intrasales that "they
intend to import approximately 200 loads of as dug topsoil"
as "a previously employed contractor exported a substantial
quantity of top soil from the site without our clients consent
or approval" [206]
Within 10 days the Council were informed the
soil was not available and in November Mr Hancock stated he was
selling the site to Harvey Gibson for a nominal sum with the new
owner being Millennium Home and Developments Ltd[207].
The County Council served further High Court
Injunctions on Ironside Haulage, Intrasales, Messrs Gibson and
Hancock on 20 and 21 December 1999. A High Court Hearing was held
on 12 January 2000.
Mr Harvey Gibson claims he is losing £26,000
profit per week[208]
as a result of the Injunctions preventing him from transferring
topsoil from the Bricket Wood site to the Royal Ordinance site
at Waltham Abbey. The overall profits from this blatant operation
are estimated at well in excess of £1 million.
St Stephen Parish Council raised evasion of
Landfill Tax by those tipping on the site as a concern in February
1998[209],
Hertfordshire County Council has pursued Michael Hancock and Harvey
Gibson with vigour for more than two years, injunctions have been
served and ignored. The evasion of Landfill Tax, the environmental
damage, and the disruption of a local community continues.
In a discussion with The Guardian, Planning
and Enforcement Officers from Hertfordshire County Council welcomed
our investigation and explained that further injunctions have
been successfully served on Mr Hancock and Mr Gibson to require
them to remove waste from the Brickett Wood site and negotiations
are in hand to ensure compliance.
A statement to The Guardian, issued on
behalf of Mr Gibson said,
"The material deposited on to the land was
excavated earth and aggregate imported on to the site for construction
purposes. As far as Mr Gibson is aware, the council did not carry
out a survey on the land at the commencement of the development
and therefore cannot be in a position to quantify the amount that
was deposited."
Golf courses galore!
Brickett Wood is only one example of the ever
increasing number of golf courses that require the import of waste
for "landscaping". Our enquiries have uncovered a number
of cases that we suggest would be worthy of investigation by the
Select Committee, with urgent appropriate action by the Environment
Agency and HM Customs & Excise. These include:
Hincksey Heights, Oxfordshire
Kilworth Springs, Leicestershire
Lofthouse Hill, Wakefield
Hulme Walfield, Cheshire
Municipal Course (now privatised),
Sunderland
Waterstock, Oxfordshire
Potters Crouch, St Albans, Hertfordshire
We have also come across sites not described
as "golf courses" but used in a similar manner:
Finningley go-kart circuit, Doncaster
Motor Industry Research association,
Leicestershire
Widmore Fen clay pigeon shooting,
Lincolnshire
A private reservoir for a farming
company, Lincolnshire
Banbury Cricket Club, Oxfordshire
Sywell Gun Club, Northamptonshire
We have also been made aware of the dumping
of inert waste on agricultural land throughout the country. Examples
include:
Three sites in Barnstaple, North
Devon
Alderley Edge, Cheshire
Up to 120 suspected illegal sites
in Cornwall.
We find it surprising that, although the leisure
industry accepts there was over expansion of leisure centre and
golf course development in the early 1990s, an examination of
local authority planning applications is likely to show an upsurge
in proposals for golf courses and similar developments since 1997.
It is believed that "3 million tonnes of
material which would otherwise have come to properly controlled
and regulated landfill sites have been disposed of as bunding
or land raising material at golf courses, retail development parks,
sports facilities and even private residential developments"[210]
Such a major diversion of material has serious
financial consequences for those sections of the waste industry
capable of dealing with waste in a properly regulated manner.
We have been informed by the Environment Agency[211]
that they are currently studying an Agency commissioned report,
produced by Ecotec, that identifies 32,000 "exempt"
sites in the UK.
Valley View Farm, South Oxley, Hertfordshire
Early in 1999 a tenant farmer with a grazing
licence leased land at Valley View Farm. The events following
the crude practices employed by the "farmer" to evade
payment of Landfill Tax include the intended prosecution of 240
hauliers by the Environment Agency and the arrest of the "farmer"
after being found hiding under a bed by the police.
Valley View Farm was leased to a Dennis Boggins
in March 1999. By April, lorries were arriving at the site to
deposit waste and remove topsoil. The land was not being used
for grazing purposes and "topsoil had been stripped from
an area of the site and waste, in the form of inert soils containing
rubble, was being imported and deposited."[212]
"Stop Notices" were served but during
a visit by Hertfordshire County Council Officers in June it was
found that "Site Notices previously attached to the land,
informing that a Stop Notice was in effect on the land, had been
removed" and imported waste included "a large amount
of tipped material on site, including builders' waste comprising
metals, plastics, paper and rubble."[213]
It is estimated that 30,000 tonnes of waste
has been dumped on the site, in places 30 or 49 feet deep. Waste
identified includes hospital waste, asbestos and even artificial
limbs. The local watercourse is likely to be polluted and there
is a build up of methane that could eventually pose a danger to
local houses.[214]
The County Council obtained an injunction in
June 1999 but this had to be followed by successful Contempt of
Court proceedings in July.
Dumplington, Trafford Park, Manchester
In November 1997 analysis of soils to be removed
from the Great Northern Warehouse site in Manchester showed contamination
at a level requiring removal to a licensed landfill site.[215]
The analysis results are available for scrutiny
by the Minister and the Select Committee. Although there are various
guidance documents on acceptable levels of contamination (GLC/Kelly,
ICRCL, Dutch Guideline Values), the levels of contamination, in
this instance, are as determined by the Environment Agency: Interim
Guidance on the Disposal of "contaminated Soils."
Biffa Waste Services Ltd, a reputable landfill
operator with a licensed site in the Manchester area, placed a
bid for the contract to remove the contaminated waste.
The site, in the centre of Manchester, had accumulated
contaminated waste over many years and the analysis of the waste
confirmed what was already common knowledge. The removal and containment
of such waste requires specialist facilities, adequate resources,
and proper health and safety controls. Biffa, as a leading company
in this sphere of work, were surprised not to win the contract
but were even more surprised that none of their major competitors
did either.
Biffa therefore determined to identify the company
that had obtained the contract. In the words of Peter Jones, a
Biffa Director,
"This is a price-driven market and therefore
if it has not gone to a regulated site, we find out where the
stuff goes. We make it our business to. We follow trucks from
specific sites to end destinations"[216]
It was found that a local company, known in
the vernacular as a "muckshifter", by the name of Manchester
Tippers Ltd was removing this contaminated waste. The contaminated
waste was being taken to Trafford Park at a site, adjacent to
the Trafford Centre, where a golf driving range is under construction.
The driving range is also next to a watercourse. It is understood
that the contract was agreed at a cost 80 per cent lower than
the costs estimated as valid by Biffa.
Biffa informed the Environment Agency and wrote,
placing on record the levels of contamination.[217]
A reply from the Agency stated,
"The situation has been investigated with
the result that the Agency is satisfied that the arrangements
put in place by the developers comply with the requirements of
the Duty of Care legislation."[218]
During the period between the information being
passed to the Agency and their response, at least 9,902 cubic
metres[219]
of contaminated waste was moved from the Great Northern Warehouse
site to Dumplington.
It should be noted that the documents, Controlled
Waste Transfer Notes, from which we obtained information as to
the minimum level of contaminated waste deposited at Dumplington,
are intended to provide evidence to the Environment Agency as
to from where and to where contaminated waste travels. At a charge
of £18 per Note the Agency is provided with an income of
approximately £20 million per year so that waste can be traced
and controlled.
The Environment Agency, despite being informed
of the nature of the waste prior to its removal from the Great
Northern Warehouse Site, responded to questions about knowledge
of the dumping at Trafford Park as follows.[220]
Q: Did you know that this was going into the
ground at Trafford Park?
A: Not until later.
Q: Why not?
A: We don't really police those sites, we've got
no money to do it.
Q: But contaminated waste went into that site and
you didn't know.
A: We knew later and we investigated it.
Q: But for a month, this material, which exceeded
your own limits, went into the ground at Trafford Park and you
had no idea. That can't be right.
A: That's true.
Q: They could have put anything in there. It could
have been pure arsenic and you wouldn't have had any idea to this
day.
A: That's true.
In a further description of circumstances surrounding
the transfer of this waste, the Environment Agency stated,
"You asked about waste being deposited on
the site of construction of a golf driving range at the Trafford
Centre. In this case, Playgolf Holdings Ltd notified the Agency
of its intention to deposit waste on the driving range site under
Schedule 3, paragraph 19 of the regulations which essentially
relates to the re-use of construction material in other construction
work" and further that,
"Information on the source location of waste
is not required by the Agency (except in the specific regime which
applies to movements/disposal of "Special" waste)"
with the further comment,
"licensed waste disposal activities are
subject to initial application fees and annual charges, which
cover the costs of the Agency's regulatory inspections. In the
case of exempt activities, there are no less however, so resources
are more limited in this area"[221]
In a statement to Dispatches on 7 March
2000, Manchester Tippers Ltd said they were not available for
further comment but in a telephone conversation with The Guardian
Mr John Walsh, representing the company, claimed that the waste
dumped at the site adjacent to the Trafford Centre was not contaminated.
He based his claim on waste analysis commissioned by Playgolf
(Holdings) Ltd, the developers of the site at which the waste
was deposited.
Morrison's, the company demolishing the site,
and Playgolf, the company developing the range, said they acted
properly when the waste was moved.
"When it reached Trafford, we carried out
twice weekly tests, which suggested contamination below the Agency
limits. We are satisfied we acted properly."
We urge the Select Committee to consider a situation
whereby the emphasis of an "explanation" from the Environment
Agency, as to whether contaminated waste was dumped on a site
next to the Trafford Centre, centres on reasons why important
tasks cannot be carried out rather than how effective action could
be implemented.
We particularly draw the attention of the Committee
to comments by the Environment Agency that their inability to
carry out their statutory responsibilities arises from lack of
funds. The income to the Agency from Controlled Waste Transfer
Notes alone is more than £20 million per annum and it is
our understanding, as well as many people we have spoken to in
the waste industry, that funding is not the issue. It is a matter
of expertise, technical ability and political will.
Lynemouth Bay, Northumberland
The Northumberland Coast is an area of high
environmental value for both recreation and conservation. Lynemouth
Bay is situated approximately 3.5 kilometres north east of Ashington.
It is south of the Cresswell SSSI and north of Beacon Point, which
forms part of the Newbiggin Shore SSSI.
A local haulage contractor, Victor Thompson,
has a licence, granted by the Crown Estate Commissioners to collect
"sea coal" from the beach and an agreement, that originated
with British Coal but carried on with RJB Mining, to collect colliery
washings from a flume taking coal materials from the local pit
to the sea. The company owning the land upon which this activity
takes place is also a company belonging to Mr Victor ThompsonMouldshaugh
Farm Ltd.
"In recent years significant illegal activities
have taken place at the site which have effected both the amenity
value of the area and caused pollution. Considerable quantities
of materials comprising of househole, commercial and industrial
waste have been deposited illegally at the location. Many of the
incidents reported to the Environment Agency have involved wastes
which could not be traced to any original source.[222]
To facilitate the movement of vehicles, Victor
Thompson has imported a considerable amount of demolition rubble
to the site. 25 to 30 wagons of waste per day are often deposited
in the Bay[223],
hundreds of tonnes per week.
Mr Thompson insists he is building a road to
ensure his coal slurry business can survive. In April 1998 the
Courts agreed that he had the right to do this and accepted Mr
Thompson's argument that he did not dump waste on the site.
Professor John Knapton, an expert on road construction,
examined the site.
"It's not a road at all. The shape is all
wrong. The materials are wrong. He has used every type of material
that is entirely unsuitable for a road. There is none of the material
I would choose to build a road with. The reason, of course, is
because this is simply a rubbish tip."[224]
Although Mr Thompson has been building his road
for a number of years, most of it is washed away to sea each evening
thereby requiring more waste to be dumped, free of Landfill Tax,
the following day.
In response to a petition of 500 letters sent
to the DETR, about the dumping of waste, in December 1997, local
people were told,
"I must make clear that the Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions has no power to take
action directly or to oblige others to take action in this matter."[225]
The Environment Agency tried to justify their
inaction by writing,
"Certain activities involving controlled
waste are exempt from Waste Management Licensing under Regulation
17. In particular Paragraph 19(1) of Schedule 3 states:
The storage on a site of waste which arises
from demolition or construction work or tunnelling or other excavations
or which consist of ash, slag, clinker, rock, wood or gypsum,
if
(a) the waste in question is suitable for
use for the purpose of relevant work which will be carried on
at the site; and
(b) in the case of waste, which is not produced
on the site, it is not stored therefore longer than three months
before relevant work starts.
Sub section (4) states:
In this paragraph, "relevant work"
means construction work, including the deposit of waste on land
in connection with
(a) the provision of recreational facilities
on that land; or
(b) the construction, maintenance or improvement
of a building, highway, railway, airport, dock or other transport
facility on that land"
The letter goes on to say that,
"The onus is on the operator to supply details
as to how they will operate in compliance with the terms of the
exemption rather than the Environment Agency being in a position
to authorise the operation."[226]
The Agency wrote again saying,
"I can confirm that demolition wastes deposited
at the site for the purposes of construction, repair or maintenance
of roadways or other transport facilities (with or without planning
permission) is permitted under the above legislation [EPA 1990
Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994]. This does not preclude
any other regulatory body taking enforcement action under their
relevant legislation."
In relation to mining waste, the letter goes
on,
"such wastes are outside the Agency's control.
However, I shall raise the matter with MAFF and Wansbeck District
Council who are the regulatory bodies in this instance. The Environment
Agency is working closely with the other partners of the Lynemouth
Bay Project to secure a sustainable solution at the above site.
I understand your concerns regarding the long term erosion of
material into the sea, but it is proposed to remove the most toxic
elements from the site altogether. I can assure you that this
Agency will continue to monitor activities at the above location
and will take enforcement action if deemed appropriate."[227]
Local people continue to be faced with numerous
excuses (with appropriate back up of quotes from regulations)
as to why action cannot be taken. The Courts refuse to act and
co-ordination of multi-agency activity appears to be non-existent.
The environmental degradation continues and Northumberland County
Council will now be using up to £2 million of European and
English Partnership funds to purchase the land and carry out decontamination
of the site.
The irony of this situation is that it may be
Landfill Tax Credits that are used by English Partnerships to
fund the remediation of the site.
We recommend that a Task Force be established
to investigate avoidance of Landfill Tax and that the Minister
of State and the Select Committee consider ways in which this
could be implemented.
It is our understanding that sufficient powers
exist for non-payment of Landfill Tax and the associated environmental
degradation to be reduced if not eliminated but that effective
co-operation needs to be established between the statutory bodies
involved.
We highlight, in particular, the need for HM
Customs and Excise to work with the Environment Agency, local
government Planning Officers and local Environmental Health Officers
for action to be meaningful.
We must also note a concern, made clear to our
investigation on numerous occasions, that the Environment Agency
appears to be lacking in technical expertise and commitment, rather
than financial resources, when dealing with the waste industry.
DISTORTIONS TO
THE GOVERNMENT
WASTE STRATEGY
It has been made clear on numerous occasions
that the Government identifies increased recycling and composting
as central to its waste strategy. Obviously this is within the
context of the waste hierarchy with the greatest emphasis being
on reduction and re-use as part of an integrated approach to waste
management.
"A way with waste, a draft waste strategy
for England and Wales" is quite clear in stating, "The
Government reiterates its support for the waste hierarchy, within
which recycling and composting should be considered before recovery
of energy from waste"[228].
It is not within the scope of our submission
to the Minister and the Select Committee to comment upon the fierce
debate concerning incineration but we understand that this aspect
of waste management is below the options of reduction, re-use
and recycling within the waste hierarchy.
An indication of the contribution required to
be made by the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme to the Government's
waste strategy was highlighted by Chris Mullin MP, Under Secretary
of State for the Environment,
"We would like to see a greater proportion
of funding going into projects which promote more sustainable
waste management practices, such as recycling and composting.
We have now amended the regulations to make explicit provision
within the approved objects for recycling and the development
of markets for recyclate."[229]
We would add the simple fact that for the first
two years of the present Government, during which time the draft
waste strategy for the UK was being discussed, the USA increased
its national recycling/composting industry by an extra 26.3 million
tonnes.[230]
This is an amount equal to the entire UK national household wastestream.
It should also be noted that in the USA less waste was sent to
landfill and incineration in 1996 than in 1984.
Despite changes to the regulations now being
in force, ENTRUST has not added a further category to those objectives
required to be covered in an Environmental Body's constitution.
No encouragement is provided to those Bodies seeking approval
for recycling projects and such activity is required by ENTRUST
to fall under Category (c) of the regulations dealing with research
and development.
Whilst supporting the "maintenance, repair
or restoration of a building or other structure which is a place
of religious worship[231]
we are rather surprised to find such an objective specified within
the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme when recycling, for example, is
not.
By allowing the waste industry, particularly
trade associations, such a dominant role in the formulation and
implementation of the Landfill Tax Regulations, the potential
expenditure of £100 million per annum is doing little to
contribute to government objectives.
The dangers posed to the Government's waste
strategy is highlighted by the use of Landfill Tax Credits to
popularise incineration or to develop a best practice public relations
guide for waste management operators whilst allowing the bulk
of £250 million of Tax Credits to remain unspent. This compares
with the statement by the Community Recycling Network that,
"The amount of landfill tax money available,
the £250 million mentioned, is sufficient to provide first
class kerbside recycling services for every household in the country.
This would still leave some spare to fund proper market development
for recycled products and for public waste education and awareness-raising
to drive recycling and waste reduction rates to a level comparable
with the rest of the western world."[232]
In many respects the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme,
although successful in relation to a limited number of sustainable
development projects, has channelled funds to companies and projects
with a vested interest in the production of waste. We specifically
refer to the Environmental Services Association and the Energy
from Waste Association.
Whilst recognising that Landfill Tax Credits
are not, and should not be, solely aimed at projects working to
achieve government policy, there is no doubt that overall government
strategy should be enriched by the implementation of such a scheme.
If this is to be achieved, control of the Scheme must be taken
away from the waste industry.
We recognise that the Treasury is committed
to the Scheme, but only as long as it is external to the public
spending programme. This was highlighted by Ms Patricia Hewitt
MP, Economic Secretary to HM Treasury,
"The differentiation we are making is one
between a public spending programme, which in the case of an environmental
public spending programme would be led by the Department of the
Environment, and a private spending programme which is designed
in this particular case to get the private sector involved in
environmental issues."[233]
However, as implemented at the present time,
the Scheme is being used by local government and government funded
agencies to thwart the regulations as they apply to public versus
private expenditure and by important sectors of the waste industry
to thwart government policy in relation to the development and
implementation of an effective waste strategy.
In the interests of "joined-up government"
and effective implementation of policy we would suggest a radical
re-think involving DETR and the Treasury, as to how the Scheme
is taken forward. Such a re-think, has obvious implications for
future "green taxes" as well as the Landfill Tax.
Despite uncovering, what appears to us, a horrific
situation in relation to certain aspects of the United Kingdom's
first "green tax", we also came across examples of good
practice and practical initiatives, within the commercial and
voluntary sector, that give rise to optimism.
We would appreciate the Minister of State and
the Select Committee examining these as well as the examples of
abuse referred to earlier in this submission.
INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENTAN
ISLAND OF
HOPE!
Our investigation took us to many parts of the
UK where we came across many examples of good practice in relation
to waste management. One such scheme is the Isle of Wight, the
first county to initiate a fully integrated waste management contract.
The contract, covering recycling, collection and disposal, is
between the Council and Island Waste Services, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Biffa Waste Services Ltd.
There are 61,000 households on the Isle of Wight,
generating 36,000 tonnes of waste every year. It is estimated
that a quarter of this is organic waste, capable of being composted.
Probably the most remarkable element of the
Integrated Waste Management Scheme is the compost plant. It is
the first of its kind outside of North America and has the potential
for handling 60 tonnes a day. Waste buckets have been provided
to households and these are collected as part of the normal domestic
refuse collection. Organic waste taken to the Civic Amenity Sites
is also fed into the compost plant. Organic waste is transformed
into compost within 14 days.
In addition to the composting, there is a kerbside
newspaper and magazine collection service (to be expanded to include
glass and textiles), a glass collection service covering public
recycling sites as well as commercial outlets such as pubs and
restaurants, a "confidential waste collection", and
a programme of education to win people over to the principles
of sustainability. There is, obviously, a long way to go but the
objective of the scheme is encompassed by "reduce, reuse,
recycle."
41 per cent of domestic refuse is already recycled
although this does include a small-scale energy from waste plant
that is being converted to include maximum resource recovery facilities
prior to incineration. This plant provides sufficient power for
500 homes on the island. One of the major achievements of the
project is a substantive increase in recycling of materials deposited
at Civic Amenity Sites. The aim is to achieve an overall recycling
rate of 50 percent by 2001.
The expected lifespan of landfill capacity on
the Island has been increased from 12 to 15 years with the aim
of zero landfill thereafter.
The major issue of direct concern to our investigation
arises from the monitoring of this scheme, the assessment of lessons
to be learnt for application elsewhere, and the dissemination
of information from any monitoring or assessment exercise.
The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme provides a wonderful
opportunity to assess such a scheme as that implemented on the
Isle of Wight. But for such an assessment to be valid it must
be, and be seen to be, independent of the parties involved. In
reality, the funding for the monitoring/assessment of the scheme
had to be provided by Biffaward, the scheme organised by the RSNC
but funded by Biffa. The Isle of Wight County Council provided
the 10 per cent third party funding.
No matter how independent or thorough the assessment
of the integrated waste management scheme is, it cannot have the
authority of an independently funded assessment. No other landfill
operator would fund such a monitoring exercise as if it was seen
to be successful there would be a negative commercial effect on
the company providing the funding and if the assessment was less
than positive it would be seen as bringing commercial benefits
to the company involved in making Tax Credits available.
The Landfill Tax Regulations as they presently
stand prevent their use in effectively monitoring an integrated
waste management scheme such as that on the Isle of Wight.
Although there is room for improvement we also
welcome the methodology employed in relation to the use of Landfill
Tax allocation in that the body primarily responsible for distribution
is the RSNC. It would appear that those projects receiving Landfill
Tax Credits are also those envisaged as appropriate in the regulationsThe
Ventnor Botanic Gardens and the red squirrel.
TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE ALLOCATION OF
LANDFILL TAX CREDITS A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO SUSTAINABILITY
Although this submission has, primarily, highlighted
manipulation of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, and inappropriate
work of ENTRUST, we have encountered many examples of good practice
in relation to the allocation of funds actually distributed.
One positive contribution to the Landfill Tax
Credit Scheme is that of Biffaward, which is run by the RSNC.
Although we identify this scheme as positive and an example of
good practice, there are certain criticisms we would make, primarily
arising from the Landfill Tax Regulations and their interpretation
by ENTRUST.
The main reason we were drawn to look at the
Biffaward scheme was the transparency of where money is being
allocated, the sums actually distributed and the methodology employed
in deciding between competing applicants. We are also pleased
to see, that although the landfill company does not always provide
the 10 per cent funding required to release the Landfill Tax Credits,
the percentage and total amount of third party funding is identified
in the publicly circulated report on the scheme. It appears that,
in most instances, Biffaward also identify 10 per cent contributors.
It would be a further positive step forward if all third party
funders were identified as a matter of normal procedure.
It is not within the scope of our submission
to comment on the merits or deficiencies of particularl projects
funded through the Biffaward scheme. In fact certain criticisms
made earlier in this submission relate to organisations and projects
supported by Biffaward but we are also able to identify projects
that capture the essence of the principles behind the Landfill
Tax and the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme from the material published
by the RSNC and Biffa.
RSNC have provided a selection of material covering
a wide range of funded projects that is available for perusal
by the Committee if so desired. Rather than look at individual
projects, whilst recognising and welcoming the central feature
of a number of projects we have examined as being diversion of
waste from landfill, we would highlight the following positive
aspects of Biffaward:
A statement by Biffaward that,
"We are seeking to reserve a significant
proportion of our funding flows for applications which focus on
the sectoral opportunities for sustainable waste management: and
that a core assumption is,
"An understanding of the opportunities for
landfill diversion"[234]
The use of external assessors to
evaluate project applications.
A standard evaluation procedure drawing
upon the experience of DETR grant schemes
Project progress reports for funded
initiatives
Publication and wide distribution
of an annual review of the scheme.
In an interview with The Guardian investigation
Michael Singh, Director of Operations at the RSNC, said,
"The legislation which introduced the scheme
didn't anticipate the possibility of project duplication nor did
it offer guidance with regard to achieving value for money. It
assumed an extensive knowledge of grant giving and an understanding
of sustainable development issues, which was clearly not apparent
in most cases. This doesn't mean that the scheme is no good, but
it does mean than that the system is flawed, which is frightening
for such a valuable source of funding directed at achieving environmental
improvement.
To overcome these deficiencies RSNC and Biffa
have worked closely to develop a strategic framework to allocate
landfill tax credits. This is reflected in our grant giving criteria
which aims to attract projects that contribute directly to achieving
the sustainable development indicators identified by the Government
as central to achieving a healthier environment."[235]
We recognise the commitment to transparency
and accountability as shown by the use of external assessors for
a number of applications and the publication of information identifying
the projects funded. However, for a scheme to be seen as open,
we believe the 50/50 balance of the Board between RSNC and Biffa
Waste Services still provides too great an influence for the waste
company involved. We would suggest that one representative from
the company making the Landfill Tax Credits available is more
than adequate for any funding scheme.
A FINAL COMMENT
"The aim of the Trusts initiative is to
promote sustainable waste management practices for the future
and remedy the consequences of unsustainable practices in the
past, Trusts would be non-profit distributing bodies within the
private sector. They would be funded from contributions from landfill
operators, who would receive a 90 per cent rebate on their contribution
from the landfill tax, up to a maximum of 20 per cent of their
landfill liability. They would be separate legal entities at arms
length from the landfill operators who contribute to them, and
controls would be such that contributing landfill operators would
not be able to achieve any exclusive commercial advantage from
their activities."[236]
If the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme can be brought
back to the essence of the principles contained in this statement
from the DETR, the changes would mark a significant step forward.
We believe the potential exists to take a much
greater step forward and transform the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
into a transparent and accountable funding regime capable of making
a major contribution to sustainable waste management in the United
Kingdom.
In conclusion we offer a number of suggestions,
drawn from comments made to us from people throughout the UK,
as to possible changes to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme that
could bring about a new effective regulatory body and a procedure
for distributing Tax Credits that contributes to sustainable development,
reinforces other government initiatives, offers value for money,
and is both transparent and accountable.
We would suggest that the uses to which Landfill
Tax Credits are put be limited to:
Practical projects covering reduction,
re-use and recycling
Educational and training initiatives
in relation to sustainable development with an emphasis on waste
issues
Initiatives contributing to the creation
of new and stable markets for recyclates
Remediation of brownfield sites where
such remediation does not contribute to an increase in land value
benefiting an individual or a private company
The creation of jobs through the
establishment of recycling and re-use initiatives within a perspective
of social and economic regeneration at a regional and local level.
An agency dealing with the regulation and distribution
of Landfill Tax Credits would have specific objectives with regard
to recycling rates, diversion of waste from landfill and the creation
of jobs.
The new body responsible for regulation and
distribution of Tax Credits, perhaps even based upon the structure
developed by ENTRUST, requires the participation of different
Divisions from the DETR, the Dti, the Social Exclusion Unit and
government departments dealing with regeneration and the New Deal.
This does not mean a new bureaucratic labyrinth but it does mean
the practical application of joined-up government. There is obviously
the need to include, in a central role, the voluntary and community
sector and local government together with a process whereby the
Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly determine how Tax Credits
are accessed in Scotland and Wales.
We suggest that the 10 per cent contribution
be abolished but that priority is given to achieving maximum leverage
with the flexibility for 100 per cent funding where appropriate.
There would appear to be no difficulty in an
independent body dealing with these responsibilities providing
that appropriate structures are in place to guarantee adequate
financial controls, value for money and transparent and accountable
distribution procedures.
A basic structure would consist of a Board of
Directors with a series of advisory panels representing parties
with an interest in achieving the objectives as outlined above.
In the interests of accountability, a formal link with the DETR
would be advisable.
Professional auditing at a local, regional and
national level linked with effective monitoring and evaluation
of funded projects would assist in avoiding the chaos of the present
situation. Elementary procedures would include a standardised
application for funds, progress reports on funded projects, the
availability of information covering decision making and allocation
of funds. There is the need to use technical experts to assess
the validity and potential of all projects.
An efficient and effective agency demands the
collection and dissemination of accurate data on the nature of
projects supported, details of recycling rates, landfill use,
waste arisings, etc.
A priority of a revamped regulatory and distribution
agency, assuming Environmental Bodies were maintained in some
form, would be to abolish those EBs currently under the control
of vested interests whether they be landfill operators, local
authorities or private companies outside of the waste industry.
These final comments are intended as the basis
for a wide ranging but urgent discussion and are in no way intended
to be prescriptive. They are a collection of principles that have
been a dominant feature of pleas for action by those we have consulted
during the past twelve months of our investigation.
David Hencke and Steve Parry
The Guardian
38 Jon Spargo, Head of Landfill Tax Policy Team, HM
Customs and Excise, "A Landfill Tax That Works?", 1
December 1999. Back
39
Cm 4461. Back
40
Answer to Parliamentary Question 84,214, 18 May 1999. Back
41
Answers to Parliamentary Questions 78,582, 78,555 and 78,556,
30 March 1999. Back
42
Letter from ENTRUST to landfill operators and others, 19 July
1999. Back
43
Richard Sills, Chief Executive ENTRUST, "Bearing Fruit"
January 2000. Back
44
Part VII 33. (2). Back
45
ENTRUST "Medial Release", 30.9.99 and 1.10.99. Back
46
Viridor Waste Management Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Review. Back
47
Viridor Waste Management Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Review. Back
48
Biffaward Review 1997-98. Back
49
Biffaward Review 1997-98. Back
50
R M Corporate Analysis Report, 27.5.99. Back
51
Landfill Tax Regulation 33 (1) (f). Back
52
Cordah presentation, Irvine 10 December 1999. Back
53
Dr D W Telford, Irvine 10 December 1999. Back
54
MPG6: Guidelines for aggregates provision in England. Back
55
Factorten presentation, Irvine 10.12.99. Back
56
Title Numbers: DT252562, DT209136, P78646, P165577, P78644, DT37689,
DT7647, DT229761, DT229760 and DT31759. Back
57
Interpretations and Precedents of the landfill tax regulations,
ENTRUST, 27.5.99. Back
58
Interpretations and Precedents of the landfill tax regulations,
ENTRUST, 27.5.99. Back
59
ENTRUST, List of Funded Environmental Bodies, 1999 (undated). Back
60
ENTRUST list of Ebs and Projects, March 2000. Back
61
ENSR Report No: 10200MS02. Back
62
ENSR Report No: 10200MS02. Back
63
ENSR Report No: 10053d10,13 August 1998. Back
64
Report to the local Parish Council, 15.11.99. Back
65
SEEDA, 31.1.00. Back
66
"About ENTRUST", May 1999. Back
67
"About ENTRUST", May 1999. Back
68
ESA Annual Statement, 1999-2000. Back
69
The Observer, 29 September 1996. Back
70
ESA Briefing. No 31 April 1999. Back
71
"Interpretations and Precedents of the landfill tax Regulations",
ENTRUST, 27.5.99. Back
72
Richard Sills, Chief Executive ENTRUST, June 1997. Back
73
"Interpretation and precedents of the landfill tax Regulations",
ENTRUST, 27.5.99. Back
74
ESA Briefing, No. 37, February 2000. Back
75
Anglian Water Plc, Environmental activity report 1998. Back
76
Answer to Parliamentary Questions-No.78582 and 78556, 23 April
1999. Back
77
Answer to Parliamentary Questions-No.78582 and 78556, 23 April
1999. Back
78
ENTRUST: Approved Projects, March 1999. Back
79
ENTRUST: Approved Projects, March 1999. Back
80
Onyx Environmental Trust Annual Report 1999. Back
81
The Earl of Cranbrook, ENTRUST "Roadshow", London 25
January 2000. Back
82
Page 14, "Bearing Fruit", ENTRUST Achievements Report,
1999. Back
83
The Earl of Cranbrook, ENTRUST, "Roadshow", London 25
January 2000. Back
84
"Third Party Funds-A Guide for LOs and EBs. Information sheet
1". Back
85
Review of the Landfill Tax, Report March 1998, HM Customs and
Excise. Back
86
HM Customs and Excise form LT 100. Back
87
Letter from Dr R M Aickin, Chairman Ebco, to an Environmental
Body, 23.3.00. Back
88
Interpretations and Precedents of the landfill tax regulations,
ENTRUST, 27.5.99. Back
89
The Waste Manager, April 1999. Back
90
Judith Jackson, ENTRUST Southern Area Manager, 4.2.98. Back
91
Viridor Waste Management, Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Review. Back
92
Letter from YANSEC to the Planning Inspector, 2.5.99. Back
93
Viridor Waste Management Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Review. Back
94
Household Waste Management in the UK, some examples of current
practice. Back
95
Viridor Waste Management Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Review. Back
96
HC150-11, page 106. Back
97
Devon CC, Waste Disposal and Recycling Committee, 18.11.96. Back
98
http://www.cheltweb.com/sweet/projects.htm 25.5.99. Back
99
Letter from EB Nationwide Ltd to an EB, June 1999. Back
100
Letter from an EB to ENTRUST, March 2000. Back
101
Packaging Today, date unknown. Back
102
Shanks Group plc, Interim Report and Accounts, 1999-2000. Back
103
Onyx publicity material, 1999. Back
104
WBC Refuse collection contract 1997, Chapter 1.8. Back
105
WBC Refuse collection, household recycling and associated duties
contract, Part 11, Section 3.5. Back
106
October 1995, Ref: CA 58K. Back
107
Memo from Onyx Area Manager to an Onyx Director, 4.5.95. Back
108
WBC, confidential Paper No. 97/338, Leisure and Amenity Services
Committee, 3.6.97. Back
109
WBC Paper No. 99/68, 19.1.99. Back
110
WBC Paper No. 99/68, 19.1.99. Back
111
WBC Paper No. 99/68, 19.1.99. Back
112
WBC Paper 99/574 (page 8.24) 7.9.99. Back
113
Letter from Onyx Environmental Trust to an EB, 31 March 1999. Back
114
The Onyx Environmental Trust, Annual Report, 1999. Back
115
The Onyx Environmental Trust, Annual Report, 1999. Back
116
The Contracts Handbook, Edition 20, 1999. Back
117
ENTRUST: Interpretation and Precedents of the Landfill Tax Regulations,
27.5.99. Back
118
Focus on The Onyx Environmental Trust, 1998. Back
119
The Contracts Handbook, Edition 20, 1999. Back
120
The Onyx Environmental Trust, Annual Report, 1999. Back
121
ESA Annual Statement 1999-2000, Chief Executive's Report. Back
122
ESA Annual Statement, 1999-2000. Back
123
ESA Annual Statement, 1999-2000. Back
124
ESA Briefing No 37, February 2000. Back
125
Summary of the Research Scoping Study (not dated but provided
by ESART in August 1999). Back
126
Letter from ESART, 18 May 1999. Back
127
"Interpretations and Precedents of the landfill tax Regulations",
ENTRUST, 27.5.99. Back
128
ESA Briefing, No.38, March 2000. Back
129
ESA Annual Statement, 1999-2000. Back
130
The Waste Manager, April 1999. Back
131
ESA Briefing No 38, March 2000. Back
132
Energy from Waste Foundation, First Annual Report and Accounts. Back
133
ENTRUST: All Environmental Bodies, All projects March 2000. Back
134
Resource Recovery: The Face of Waste Management in the Next Millennium",
September 1999. Back
135
M.E.L. report, page 1. Back
136
Chris Bisland speaking to "A Landfill Tax That Works",
1 December 1999. Back
137
Interpretation and Precedents of the landfill tax Regulations",
ENTRUST, 27.5.99. Back
138
Letter from Richard Sills, Chief Executive ENTRUST, 17.2.98. Back
139
Letter from Assistant Director (Development and Environment Initiatives)
Devon CC to a Devon Based Environmental Body, 14.11.97. Back
140
Devon CC, Waste Disposal and Recycling Committee, 26.1.96, Minute
*160. Back
141
Devon CC, Joint Report of the director of Resources and County
Environment Director to the Resources Sub-Committee, 7.10.96. Back
142
Devon CC, Resources Sub-Committee, 10.2.97. Back
143
Devon CC, Resources Sub-Committee, 26.1.98. Back
144
Letter from Devon CC Assistant Director, David Andrew to Offwell
Woodland & Wildlife Trust, 23.2.98. Back
145
Letter from Devon CC Environment Director to the Rt. Hon. Sir
Peter Emery MP, 14.4.98. Back
146
Devon CC, Environment Committee, 27.1.98. Back
147
Devon CC, Policy Committee, 22.10.96 & full Council meeting
20.12.96. Back
148
Devon CC, Policy Committee, 22.10.96. Back
149
Devon CC, Environment Committee, 12.11.96. Back
150
Devon CC, Resources Sub-Committee, 26.1.98. Back
151
Devon CC, Environment Committee, 27.1.98. Back
152
Trevor Lawson, The Guardian, 1.10.97. Back
153
Essex Environment Trust, supplementary information to applicants,
December 1999. Back
154
Companies House Annual Return, 6.3.00. Back
155
Companies House, April 2000. Back
156
The Contracts Handbook, Edition 20, 1999. Back
157
"Third Party Funds-A Guide for LOs and EBs. Information
sheet 1". Back
158
WREF publicity, 1999. Back
159
ESA Briefing, No. 35 November 1999. Back
160
HC 484-I. Back
161
ENTRUST: All EBs, all projects, March 2000. Back
162
RM Online Limited-Company search, 27.5.99. Back
163
Answer to Parliamentary Questions-No. 78582 & 78556, 23 April
1999. Back
164
British Waterways brochure, Landfill Credit That! Autumn 1999. Back
165
ENTRUST: List of approved projects, January 1998. Back
166
Biffaward Review 1997-1998. Back
167
British Waterways brochure, Landfill Credit That! Autumn 1999. Back
168
HC 105-III, Page 33. Back
169
DETR Annual Report, April 2000. Back
170
LWA Annual Report, June 1997-December 1998. Back
171
LWA Annual Report, June 1997-December 1998. Back
172
BRE website, 8th April 2000. Back
173
Biffaward Review 1997-1998. Back
174
ENTRUST: All Ebs, all projects, March 2000. Back
175
English Environmental Fund, A Guide for Donating Organisations. Back
176
DETR Annual Report, April 2000. Back
177
WRc publicity material, November 1999. Back
178
WRc brochure, March 1998. Back
179
CORDAH publicity material, December 1999. Back
180
ENTRUST: All EBs, all projects, March 2000. Back
181
Committee of Public Accounts, Fourteenth Report, April 1999. Back
182
Committee of Public Accounts, Fourteenth Report, April 1999. Back
183
Fundraising Costs, Directory of Social Change. Reported in The
Guardian 20.10.99. Back
184
Tidy Britain Group, Financial Statements for the year ended 31
March 1997. Back
185
Tidy Britain Group, Financial Statements for the year ended 31
March 1997. Back
186
Going for Green Annual Report, 1997-98. Back
187
Going for Green Ltd. Financial Statements for the year ended 31
March 1998. Back
188
Committee of Public Accounts, Fourteenth Report, April 1999. Back
189
Groundwork Foundation, Director's report and consolidated financial
statements for the year ended 31 March 1997. Back
190
Groundwork Foundation, Director's report and consolidated financial
statements for the year ended 31 March 1998. Back
191
Biffaward Review, 1997-98. Back
192
The National Wealth, Dominic Hobson. Back
193
Biffaward Review, 1997-1998. Back
194
ENTRUST: All EBs, All Projects, March 1999. Back
195
Cm 4461, Page 4. Back
196
Cm 4461, Page 7. Back
197
160 Cm 4461, Page 7. Back
198
161 Cm 4461, Page 8. Back
199
Hertfordshire CC, Document Ref: MM/SK/BF 144. Back
200
Hertfordshire CC Solicitor, 5.2.99. Back
201
Report from the Environment Agency to Hertfordshire CC, 12.11.97. Back
202
RJP Investigation Services, 5.10.98. Back
203
RJP Investigation Services Log, 10.9.98. Back
204
File Note, Hertfordshire CC, 11.12.98. Back
205
Grand International Services Ltd-surveillance reports. Back
206
Letter from Pearce Goodman to St Albans City and District Council,
15.10.99. Back
207
Letter from Intrasales to Hertfordshire CC, 18.11.99. Back
208
Witness statement to the Court, October 1999. Back
209
Letter from the Clerk to St Stephen Parish Council to Hertfordshire
CC, 24.2.98. Back
210
Peter Jones, Biffa Director, 16.2.00. Back
211
Dispatches, 6 April 2000. Back
212
Statement by Hertfordshire CC Planning Officer, 31.8.99. Back
213
Statement by Hertfordshire CC Planning Officer, 31.8.99. Back
214
Dispatches, 6.4.00. Back
215
City Analytical Services, Analysis Results, Reference 3751. Back
216
Dispatches, 6.4.00. Back
217
Letter from Biffa to the Environment Agency 12.4.99. Back
218
Letter from the Environment Agency, 26.5.99. Back
219
Manchester Tippers Duty of Care Controlled Waste Transfer Notes. Back
220
Interview with an Officer from the Environment Agency, Despatches,
6.4.00. Back
221
Fax from the Environment Agency, dated 25.2.00 to Steve Walsh,
Assistant Producer, Dispatches programme, 6.4.00. Back
222
Environment Agency position statement, 18.2.99. Back
223
Lynemouth Bay Reclamation Scheme, Notes of meeting 6.9.99. Back
224
Dispatches, 6.4.00. Back
225
Letter from Waste Policy Division, DETR 9.1.98. Back
226
Letter from Environment Agency to a local resident, 28.5.99. Back
227
Letter from Environment Agency to local resident, 3.8.98. Back
228
Part One, 2.7, page 17. June 1999. Back
229
"Bearing Fruit", ENTRUST Achievements Report 1999. Back
230
1999 Biocycle Annual Report. Back
231
Landfill Tax Regulation 33(2)(e). Back
232
Letter from CRN to The Guardian, 5.4.00. Back
233
HC150-111, page 41. Back
234
Peter Jones, Biffa Director, 15.9.99. Back
235
Director of Operations, RSNC, March 2000. Back
236
DETR press statement at the launch of the Landfill Tax Credit
Scheme. Back
|