24plusnews.co.uk Rotating Header Image

What checks are in place?

Aug 17th, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

TPA supporter John Martin is worried about Norfolk County Council’s officers spending his – and other taxpayers’ – money

We all have to accept that if every single decision taken on behalf of a local authority had to have the prior approval of the Cabinet, let alone the full Council, life in local government terms would come to a standstill (please restrain yourselves, those at the back of the room who believe that this might be no bad thing). Clearly, powers have to be delegated not just to sub-committees but also to officers.

The constitution that governs Norfolk County Council (NCC), for instance, contains some pretty detailed provisions on what officers are empowered – and not empowered – to do. But the problem that I have is this. What if an officer takes a decision that on the face of it is within his other delegated powers, but the motive for that decision is flawed. Are there procedures in place to spot the problem? Is there scrutiny machinery in constant operation?

Late in 2008, NCC applied to Broadland District Council, jointly with a company named Ifield Estates Ltd, for outline planning permission for the construction of a huge business park comprising some 64,000 square metres of built development over an area of about 30 hectares just outside Norwich, together with related works to provide a new junction on the A47 road. That intended junction has become known as the Postwick Hub (for the language purists among you, in this part of the world “Postwick” is pronounced “Possick”).

So far so good. But clearly, although the planning application was made in joint names, the Postwick Hub is very much a minor and ancillary part of the overall development scheme, and it is the only part in which NCC has any interest (see below). Furthermore, there is no evidence that either the full Council or the Cabinet at NCC agreed to fund any of the costs incurred by Ifield Estates Limited in seeking outline planning permission.

Green Party councillors have now discovered that the NCC Director of Environment Transport and Waste, relying on delegated powers, sanctioned payment over a period of time of invoices totalling £170k from Mott MacDonald for consultancy work in relation to the preparation of the necessary environmental statement – in its original form running to well over five hundred pages – to support the planning application.

NCC’s interest in seeing the Postwick Hub constructed is very much a discrete one. The Postwick Hub is a key element in an entirely separate and controversial road scheme known as the Northern Distributor Road (NDR), proposed some time ago by NCC. But in the eyes of many, the NDR is a pipe dream and it may never be constructed. The Department of Transport has yet to confirm financial support from the government for the NDR.

And even if an argument could be made, on the basis of that discrete interest, for NCC to meet a proportion of the cost of preparing the environmental statement, the fact remains that a private developer still stands to benefit hugely from the expenditure of a large sum of public money, all on the say so of a chief officer at NCC. The official response from NCC, unsurprisingly, has been to state that all expenditure associated with the development of the Postwick Hub has been properly authorised. But can that be so without any scrutiny by members of NCC having taken place?

The Green Party councillors have now called on the Audit Commission to carry out an independent investigation, leading to the publication of a public interest report. Cllr Andrew Boswell had this to say:

“Taxpayers expect their money to be spent in an accountable and transparent way, with large expenditure fully agreed by councillors. I am very concerned that a sizeable sum of money has been spent by the council with benefits to a private company and only authorised by an officer. Norfolk taxpayers will think that this takes powers delegated to chief officers too far.”

I fear, however, that Cllr Boswell and his colleagues may not be successful. I understand that the initial reaction of the Audit Commission is that the NCC internal audit team might be well placed to conduct an investigation. If that is the Audit Commission’s final word, it is extremely regrettable. And it conflicts completely with the views that the Audit Commission stated in a document that it recently published entitled “The Future of Local Public Audit” in response to the March 2011 DCLG consultation. All does not bode well.

No sense of priority in county hall

Jun 16th, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

TPA supporter John Martin remains unhappy with Norfolk County Council’s approach to spending its residents’ money.

Some months ago, we endured “Norfolk’s Big Conversation”. This was the formal title given to the consultation exercise carried out by Norfolk County Council (NCC) before making a series of savage cuts in frontline services with a view to saving £155m over three years. Needless to say, the exchange was a bit one-sided and those who put in their four cents’ worth didn’t expect much notice to be taken.

One of my suggestions was that the NCC Chairman’s budget of £68k for “civic and ceremonial duties” should be scrapped. It may not amount to much in the grand scheme of things, but I find the idea of spending money on pomp – even low-level pomp – a bit offensive in these difficult times. Nothing happened, save possibly the gift of an index linked uplift for the current year.

Then, a friend of mine decided to ask a question of the NCC Cabinet at its last meeting. She was curious to know the cost to us all of the “Chairman’s Summer Reception”. The answer given was “around £4,500 this year”. That was bad enough, but the lengthy justification that was volunteered somehow made it worse. This is what the NCC Leader, Cllr Derrick Murphy, said: -

Can't let Shelagh miss a party

“The Chairman’s Summer Reception provides NCC, as it does nearly all Norfolk’s borough, district and town councils, with a unique opportunity to introduce Norfolk’s civic head to the many charities, businesses, military personnel, community groups, stakeholders, faith representatives and neighbouring county council civics (sic) who come into contact with the Chairman and county councillors during a year of office. This is a historical, civic tradition and provides a real opportunity not only to promote the Chairman’s theme for the year but is also a repayment of hospitality given and to be given by others in the year ahead.”

(Forgive me if I interject here to say that it sounds like a lot of mutual partying by the good and the great at our expense.)

“The cost of hosting such a reception, at around £4,500 this year, equates to significantly less than one penny per Norfolk resident and is exceptional value for money. I have much respect for this ambassadorial role which not only supports the traditions of Norfolk as a whole but also provides a fitting platform to showcase all that is good about Norfolk”

How many times have we heard the old excuse “This only costs each resident a farthing”? I suppose that I wouldn’t get so worked up about the £30 million that NCC is still trying to recover from the failed Icelandic banks if I simply viewed it as £35 for every man, woman and child in Norfolk. Perhaps NCC would have an easier time if it set out its annual accounts using that formula.

I suppose that we have to accept that the role of a local councillor is a very important one, and that the role of the chairman of a council is an even more important one. But we can’t afford all of this flummery, and if local authorities want it they should go out and seek sponsorship for these events, rather than dunning the public. But if they have to dun us, could they spare us the excruciating attempts at justification?

There is nothing like a good telling off!

May 17th, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

TPA supporter John Martin appears to be on the receiving end again.

Periodically, Norfolk County Council (NCC) tells me off for the number of enquiries, both formal and informal, that I make for information and the number of questions that I ask. It is clearly that time of the year. I returned from holiday to find a severe rebuke, on this occasion from one of NCC’s solicitors. I have absolutely no problem with the chap in question; he is always polite and patient with me, but I fear that the same cannot be said of those who instruct him in County Hall.

By way of a softening-up salvo, the solicitor pointed out that over a period of three years I had made 49 requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), written 19 letters and made 169 other requests for information. Phew! He estimated that the 49 FOIA requests alone had cost between £4,000 and £5000 to answer. (Like many local authorities, NCC does not record time and places an estimate of £98 on dealing with each FOIA request it receives, however complex or simple.) He also told me that if I did not discontinue my practice of copying my correspondence to all 84 elected members, NCC would consider what action it could take to prevent this. Ouch! (more...)

The fight continues – but now it is Conservative versus Conservative

Mar 31st, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

Yet another twist has come about in the long-running Norfolk incinerator saga, reports TPA supporter John Martin.

The outrageous show trial conducted by the Leader of Norfolk County Council (NCC) Cllr Derrick Murphy – fondly now referred to as “Dear Leader” – at the NCC Cabinet meeting on 7th March remains very fresh in the minds of those who were present. But it was clear that something had to happen, and happen it soon did. Enter stage left, Cllr George Nobbs the impassioned but erudite head of the NCC Labour group (of three) with a formal request to the NCC Cabinet Scrutiny Committee to call in the NCC Cabinet decision and remit it to a full meeting of NCC to retake. In a neat parallel with a judicial review claim, Cllr Nobbs alleged procedural flaws in the process. He highlighted, in particular, the NCC Cabinet’s failure to give the defendants on trial the opportunity to rebut the charges laid against them.

It was perhaps not surprising that he was shortly followed by an alliance comprising members of the NCC Lib Dem and Green groups with their own call in request. Their focus was on health and economic issues, coupled with a timely nod in the direction of localism, given the fact that over 65,000 residents had voted against the incinerator proposal in a local poll. However, the real surprise came in the form of a third call in request made by a breakaway trio of members of the NCC Conservative group, proof if nothing more that Dear Leader’s grasp on that group is weakening. Their ground was a constitutional one, namely that the decision was effectively a policy decision and so outside the jurisdiction of the NCC Cabinet.

Allow me to try to justify the title of this piece. The show trial proceedings had opened with Cllr Nick Daubeny, the Leader of the Conservative controlled King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (“KLWNBC”), addressing the NCC Cabinet on the result of the local poll that, no doubt much to the annoyance of the NCC Cabinet, he and his colleagues at KLWNBC had commissioned. He urged the NCC Cabinet not to go ahead with the incinerator project. This alone, never mind the later split in the ranks of the NCC Conservative group, was enough to herald the start of internecine warfare. But within days KLWNBC held a special meeting attended by hundreds of members of the public to decide what action to take in response to the NCC Cabinet decision. On the basis of recorded votes, KLWNBC passed four dramatic motions unanimously, all in condemnation of that decision. Those voting included the nine “twin-hatted” Conservative members of KLWNBC who also sit on NCC (a situation that some of them must now regret, despite the double allowances). To make matters even worse, one of their number was Cllr Janet Murphy, the wife of Dear Leader. Without being dreadfully cruel to the nine, it is fair to say that the forthcoming district council elections on 5th May could perhaps have triggered the odd damascene conversion.

So there you have it. Conservative lined up against Conservative, and in the background two Conservative MPs working hard also to ensure that the incinerator project does not go ahead.

The next development, however, introduced an element of anti-climax. The NCC Cabinet Scrutiny Committee duly met to consider the three call in requests. It soon became apparent that the members of the public who were to give evidence had only been provided with access late in the day to vital documents, and doubts about the legality of the meeting therefore arose. Fortunately, a motion to adjourn was narrowly pushed through and we now await a replay on 19th April. Until then, the NCC Cabinet decision remains suspended.

Now this is all very knockabout and lots of fun to watch, particularly if you hold to the old-fashioned view that party politics should really play no part in local government. But, dear readers, let us not lose sight of what this game is all about. At the heart of it is the decision, so far taken by a group of nine individuals, to award a PFI contract that will involve the expenditure of £670 million of public funds over twenty-five years to an Anglo/US consortium for the construction of a waste incinerator in respect of which there is, as yet, no evidence that will categorically guarantee an absence of any resultant detrimental impact on health and the environment. Furthermore, if that contract is entered into and planning permission is not then granted, NCC will face a compensation claim from the consortium capped at a generous £20.5 million.  This is, as they say, pretty serious stuff.

A DARK DAY FOR DEMOCRACY – A DARK DAY FOR NORFOLK

Mar 8th, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

The decision to award a £670 million PFI contract for Norfolk’s waste incinerator has been made, reports TPA supporter John Martin somewhat glumly.

Monday 7th March dawned bright, and the sun shone down on an impressive but peaceful protest outside County Hall against the proposal to build Norfolk’s first waste incinerator. But storm clouds were looming. As I rolled up to do my brief interview with BBC Radio Norfolk, I had no idea what was in store.

The Norfolk County Council (“NCC”) Cabinet meeting began with a record number of public questions about the incinerator, many of which attracted flimsy answers. (This tends to be the norm.) Then, the proposal that NCC should enter into a PFI contract costing £670 million over twenty-five years with Anglo/US consortium Cory Wheelabrator (“CW”) was considered. The proceedings began with Cllr Nick Daubeny, the leader of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (“KLWNBC”), addressing the Cabinet. He was there by invitation to present the result of the referendum held by KLWNBC.

(Regular readers will recall that the referendum attracted a 61% response, larger than the turnout in many a general election.  The vote against the incinerator was 65,516 or over 92% of those who responded. The vote for was a mere 5,173. The vote against totalled more than Henry Bellingham and Elizabeth Truss, the local MPs who have both spoken out forcefully against the incinerator, together polled in the last general election.)

Cllr Daubeny made a simple but impassioned plea for the NCC Cabinet to drop the proposal altogether. He argued that the sheer scale of the referendum vote was proof that politicians should listen to the voters. In democracies, he said, you have to take your mandate from the people, and they had made it clear that the NCC Cabinet did not have one in this case. He urged that, as a minimum, the decision should be put on hold and then passed to the full NCC Council to make with a recorded vote being taken. This all fell, dear readers, on totally deaf ears.

The debate then ensued. Well, it was less a debate, more a drive-by shooting. The NCC Leader, Cllr Derrick Murphy, from his position as chairman orchestrated an all-out assault on the objectors, Henry Bellingham MP and KLWNBC. In the role of a grand inquisitor, or a newly appointed chairman of a House of Commons Select Committee, he spoon-fed obviously well-rehearsed questions to the panel of officers present encouraging them to trash the objectors’ arguments. He chose himself to attack Henry Bellingham MP aggressively, and left his colleagues to challenge the way in which KLWNBC had conducted the referendum. Someone sitting close to me ventured the suggestion that the whole spectacle was being stage-managed. I was already thinking that I had seen performances of an equal quality when attending local amateur dramatic productions in our village hall. As a member of NCC commented to the press later, “He was acting like a man possessed”.

There was never any doubt as to the outcome. The NCC Cabinet voted unanimously for the proposal, with one member – Cllr David Harwood – abstaining. Cllr Harwood had been an advocate for the incinerator. However, as a member of KLWNBC himself, he is facing re-election in May and the referendum result may have brought about a damascene conversion on his part.

(Ironically, of course, all the parties on the stage – save possibly some of the objectors, for whom politics seems academic – are Tories. So also is David Cameron, whose “localism agenda” took quite a hit by the refusal of the NCC Cabinet to listen to 65,615 voters.)

The likelihood, of course, is that the decision to go ahead was taken the previous Friday when the sixty-strong Tory group on NCC met in the same room in which the NCC Cabinet meeting took place. (I suppose that the choice of venue at least gives it a modicum of added authority.) This would explain the spectacle of the NCC Cabinet meeting, the like of which I have never witnessed before.

It was Henry Bellingham MP who described this as “A dark day for democracy – a dark day for Norfolk”. And he is correct. At worst, the residents of Norfolk are faced with a PFI contract that will no doubt prove to be eye-wateringly painful in time. At best, they will face a huge compensation bill from CW if the project fails to get through the planning and environmental permit application stages. This leaves out of the equation the potential risk to health and the environment, if the incinerator is built. All that is certain for now is that there will be fewer Tory twin-hatters around after the May elections.

The people have spoken – and we can tell what they said

Mar 2nd, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

Against the background of more twists and turns – and no small amount of spin – TPA supporter John Martin goes back to the Norfolk incinerator saga.

Tory controlled Norfolk County Council (“NCC”) is still determined to see an expensively PFI funded incinerator built at King’s Lynn, and very shortly the NCC Cabinet is due to meet to award the contract to Anglo-US consortium, Cory Wheelabrator (“CW”). But, there has been a remarkable turn of events. Some months ago, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (“KLWNBC”) took the brave decision to spend £53k of public money on a referendum within its district to ascertain how many residents approved of the project, and how many didn’t. The result has just been announced.

The referendum, in which CW declined to take part, attracted a 61% response, larger than the turnout in many a general election.  The vote against the incinerator was 65,516 or over 92% of those who responded. The vote for was a mere 5,173. That, you may think, is the end of the matter. I fear not. There is no indication yet that NCC will take any notice of what the people of King’s Lynn have said, despite the additional fact that Henry Bellingham and Elizabeth Truss – the two local (Tory) MPs – have both spoken out forcefully against NCC’s proposals.

Some time before the referendum vote was due to be announced, CW – advised by £140 an hour PR consultants – commissioned its own research by telephone. Publishing the results of that research shortly before the referendum vote was declared, it argued that 65% of Norfolk residents generally were in favour of the incinerator. One newspaper reporter said afterwards, “This is a level of denial not seen since Colonel Gaddafi told the world that the people of Libya love him”. I had to agree with him, when it emerged that only 1751 residents had been canvassed, and some pretty weasily worded questions had been put to them.

Then more emerged. Papers leaked to the media demonstrated that there was clearly a PR-led campaign in place to devalue the result of the KLWNBC referendum. One of CW’s consultants advised; “We need to suggest that our absence from the referendum undermines the moral value of it and that it carries no legal value in any event”. (How is that for spin?) He went on to add; “We might want to offer [KLWNBC] a chance to see our research results (depending on how they look) in detail. We might extend this to the local MPs”. In a covering e-mail, another of the consultants apparently said; “We’d be more than happy to discuss a success-related bonus for this work going forward, if that is of interest”.

NCC is clearly acting very much in concert with CW. The same leaked papers also disclosed details of pleas by members of the NCC Cabinet to CW for help in rebutting arguments being put forward by anti-incinerator campaign groups, and for assistance in public meetings. Does that matter, you may ask. Well, this is the same NCC Cabinet that has argued all along that NCC, wearing its parallel hat as the local planning authority, is perfectly capable of determining CW’s planning application for the incinerator in an objective and unbiased way! It is the same NCC Cabinet that is proposing to accept provisions in the contract with CW that will oblige it to pay CW compensation of up to £20.5m if planning permission is not forthcoming!

What will happen now? On 7th March the NCC Cabinet will meet to make its final decision. (Despite the fact that this will be the most expensive contract ever entered into by NCC – should it go ahead – this is not a matter for the full council. That seems to me to be wrong.) Will it listen to the people of King’s Lynn, or will it ignore the referendum vote, suggesting that it is the product of mere nimbyism? To my mind, however much the people of King’s Lynn don’t want an incinerator in their back yard they probably don’t believe that incineration is the best answer to the landfill problem. Equally, they probably resent the idea of Norfolk being saddled with a second disastrous PFI contract.

Why might the NCC Cabinet back down? Well, KLWNBC is a Tory controlled district council, and the elections are due in two months’ time. If it does not back down, it seems inevitable to me that the Tories will lose control of KLWNBC. Already two Tory members of KLWNBC have stated publicly that they feel unable to offer themselves for re-election because of their association with a political party that has sought to force an incinerator on King’s Lynn. Such is the way in which our fate may well be decided.

ST VALENTINE’S DAY MASSACRE

Feb 22nd, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

In a sombre mood, TPA supporter John Martin describes Norfolk County Council’s budget setting meeting and its aftermath.

Sadly, it is all too commonplace now to see televised reports of council meetings at which members of the public are ejected by security guards from the public gallery. Inevitably, they will be meetings at which financial cuts are being made. It was the same at Norfolk County Council (NCC) on 14th February. The five-hour meeting started with such scenes as the NCC chairman, Cllr Tony Tomkinson, read the riot act before the ball was hardly in play.

The leader, Cllr Derrick Murphy, explained that the “Big Conversation” exercise that NCC had carried out had resulted in responses from more than 9,000 people and organisations, and told us that he and is colleagues had listened to those very carefully. This, he said, was going to be the most significant budget since NCC was formed. I noticed, however, that despite this of the eighty-four members, eleven had not bothered to turn up for the meeting. One of those was known to be ill, but what about the other ten?

The controlling Tory group was intent on passing a budget that would achieve £60m in savings over the coming year, although the central government grant cut will be less than half that, and with its huge majority success was guaranteed. (That did not stop some of the Tory members giving themselves a round of applause at the end of the meeting, a gesture that will be remembered and that some of their colleagues may well regret at the district council elections in May.)

It is not necessary to list the cuts here. They would cause no surprises. Suffice it to say, the vulnerable – including the young and the elderly – came in for a hammering. Possibly as many as 1,000 staff will lose their jobs during the year, largely those who would actually have been providing at the sharp end the services that have been cut. One member of the public sitting behind me in the public gallery wondered out aloud whether this is what we had all urged in our responses to the Big Conversation. What I want to mention instead are some of the cuts that were not made, despite a valiant try by members of the opposition groups to persuade the Tory opposition that they should be.

NCC at the moment pays out £1.1m in allowances to its members, plus travel and subsistence expenses. Some do fairly well. Cllr Derrick Murphy and his wife, Cllr Janet Murphy – who is a deputy cabinet member – receive a total of £50K between them. Cllr Iain Mackie, the deputy leader, is paid £25K by NCC. All have outside work or business interests. But despite arguments by opposition members about the need to be seen to be sharing the pain, the Tories resolutely refused to consider any reduction in allowances whatsoever.

They similarly opposed any attempts to seek agreement on the principle of asking senior officers to renegotiate their terms of employment. One chief officer’s role has recently been scrapped, but that still leaves the five remaining chief officers taking home – on the most recent figures available – £888K between them. At the top of the list is David White, the chief executive, on £263K. So much for Eric Pickles’ attempts to do something about chief officers’ pay.

Then it may be a small amount of money in comparison, but NCC awards a sum of money each year to the chairman to spend on his or her “civic and ceremonial duties”. At present, this amounts to £75K. Again, the Tories would not agree to that being withdrawn, or even reduced. Three or possibly four much needed youth workers could have been kept in employment in the former case.

As much to vent my frustration as anything else, I wrote e-mails to a number of members afterwards, including Cllr Tony Tomkinson, the chairman, asking them questions about their approach. I almost felt encouraged to do this by Cllr Derrick Murphy’s statement at the start of the meeting to the effect that the Big Conversation was not over; that it was an ongoing process. The only member to reply was Cllr Alison Thomas. She is the cabinet member with responsibility for children’s services.

I asked Cllr Thomas this: “With the cuts in the share of the budget for which you hold the portfolio, can NCC any longer justify employing a director of children’s services who last financial year was paid £175K?” She simply replied: “Yes”. I conclude, therefore, that the Big Conversation is indeed ongoing.

Sensible scientists to the rescue?

Feb 11th, 2011
by John Martin.
Comments are off for this post

Yet once more, TPA supporter John Martin reports on the latest developments in relation to Norfolk County Council’s incinerator project.

The past few weeks have been filled with gloom in this part of the world. The day when Norfolk County Council (NCC) makes it final decision – 7th March – draws ever closer. Before then, however, we shall know the result of a referendum currently being held by King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, very much at its own cost, to test the views of those who are going to be directly affected by the proposed incinerator.

Cllr Derrick Murphy, the leader of the ruling Conservative group at NCC, refuses to be drawn on the question whether NCC will take any notice of the result. If, as many suspect, it reveals widespread opposition to the incinerator, the Conservatives will need pretty thick hides to ignore it altogether. But then, that is something many of them have.

So where do the sensible scientists come in? Well, many of us have been concerned by the inaccuracy of some of the statements that have been issued by NCC in relation to the incinerator, and in particular in respect of the emission of dioxins. If local people believe those statements, then the vote will be skewed. That would be entirely unreasonable. Now a group of eight distinguished scientists have written to the local newspaper urging NCC to ensure that various statements are corrected promptly and publicly. Good for them!

Even better, enter stage left Dr Chris Edwards, a Senior Fellow at the University of East Anglia. He is an economist with over thirty years experience of teaching and research who, in 2009, gave evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on the Private Finance Initiative. He has also published a detailed case study on the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital PFI contract entitled – in my view for very apposite reasons – “Private Gain, Public Loss”. Dr Edwards has just produced his own research report on the NCC incinerator project. What does he think?

Dr Edwards recognises that waste authorities are facing higher and higher levels of landfill tax, but he considers that incinerators have become attractive to waste authorities as much by reason of the government bribe of PFI credits. DEFRA set aside £2bn in 2007 for this purpose. The NCC incinerator will attract a total of £169m in PFI credits over the twenty-five year life of the contract. But we all know that this will still leave local taxpayers finding at least £500m over that same period.

He has also looked at the sums that the preferred bidder will be spending. The actual cost of the incinerator is estimated at £150m. He believes that 85% of that sum will be financed by fixed interest capital borrowing. The preferred bidder will put up the balance, i.e. £22m. He calculates that it will then make a profit of more than £17m a year on that investment.

Dr Edwards then turns to the issue of safety. He quotes NCC as recently saying, “We have relied upon the assurances of government departments and independent agencies including DEFRA, the Health Protection Agency and the Environment Agency that well-run modern energy from waste plants are safe”. That sounds good to me. But he then points out that in Parliament in 2009, the Health Protection Agency admitted that it had not conducted health studies around incinerators, and that the DEFRA report, which dates from 2004, has been heavily criticised by the Royal Society. That doesn’t sound so good.

What was even more of an eye-opener for me is Dr Edwards’ summary of the alternative methods of avoiding so much waste going into landfill. Obviously, the primary exercises must be to reduce waste and to increase recycling, but thereafter there are viable alternatives to incineration. He points out also that the NCC incinerator would discourage both of those exercises, because NCC would be paying the preferred bidder for a minimum amount of waste to be incinerated irrespective of whether that waste was delivered.

Dr Edwards stresses that, in his opinion, the NCC incinerator project should be cancelled now before huge penalties have to be faced. NCC should go back to considering either Advance Thermal Treatment (gasification and pyrolysis) or Mechanical Biological Treatment combined with Anaerobic Digestion.

Of course, as he points out, what would kill off the NCC incinerator project would be the government withdrawing the PFI credits. I think that I am going to write to George Osborne. Didn’t he say, when in opposition, “Labour’s PFI model is flawed and must be replaced”? And wasn’t he the chap who reportedly signed a petition against an incinerator in his constituency in Cheshire?

Switch to our mobile site