The criticism came after it was finally given the green light to continue operating in 2005, despite questions over its compliance in 2004.
”We are disappointed that SEPA and the EA have taken very different views on their treatment of the Peniston Plastic PRNs. We are also disappointed that SEPA did not give us the guidance we requested. “
– Edward Cooke, Compliance Link
The scheme had to wait for its 2004 activities to be signed off by regulators the Scottish Environment Protection Agency because thousands of PRNs it used to demonstrate members' compliance had been fraudulently issued.
Scheme manager Edward Cooke had claimed he had bought these PRNs – from suspended reprocessor Peniston Plastics – in good faith, without knowing at the time of purchasing that the reprocessor was not allowed to issue PRNs (see letsrecycle.com story).
Following the decision to approve Compliance Link for 2005 – a decision that SEPA has, as yet, failed to make public – Mr Cooke said a number of areas of the PRN system's regulation urgently need looking at.
He said SEPA needs to work more closely with English counterparts the Environment Agency to successfully prosecute those responsible for issuing Peniston Plastics PRNs.
Questionable
Weaknesses in the UK regulatory bodies means situations similar to Peniston Plastics may well be happening again, Mr Cooke told letsrecycle.com, suggesting that high reprocessing levels in the plastics sector seen in the fourth quarter of 2004 and first quarter of 2005 were questionable.
“The fairies have been reprocessing and exporting UK plastics packaging waste,” he alleged, “This increase is impossible.”
Mr Cooke called on the regulators to accredit reprocessors and exporters more effectively and regulate their accreditation, with public registers kept up-to-date, with the market informed of any reprocessors suspended from the PRN system.
“What chance do we stand here when you can't trust the PRNs and you can't trust the numbers?” Mr Cooke said.
He said more consistency and equality was needed in decision-making across the English/Scottish border, referring to the fact that the Environment Agency had announced its acceptance of certain Peniston Plastics PRNs over a year before SEPA's decision to accept them.
Mr Cooke criticised SEPA for effectively “invalidating” its Peniston PRNs retrospectively. This was because while the Environment Agency had said to schemes registered in England that it would accept Peniston PRNs bought before March 2004, SEPA had refused to make a decision.
Disappointed
Mr Cooke said: “We are disappointed that SEPA and the EA have taken very different views on their treatment of the Peniston Plastic PRNs. We are also disappointed that SEPA did not give us the guidance we requested on how to deal with our Peniston Plastic PRNs.”
| Related links: |
SEPA has yet to publicly explain its decision-making process over the Peniston Plastics PRNs. And it is not entirely clear whether the Agency's decision to approve Compliance Link in 2005 means the scheme did technically comply in 2004, or whether the decision merely constitutes the Agency “drawing of the line” under the 2004 problems.
It is understood that the other compliance scheme registered with SEPA with outstanding questions over 2004 compliance – Recycle Pak – has also been given the green light to continue operating in 2005.
Subscribe for free