After giving Gordon Brown's budget a “cautious welcome”, the ESA said that the government needed to be clearer about its Landfill Tax plans. Responding to the government's announcement that rates of landfill tax “will need to be increased significantly in the medium term as part of the mix of future policy measures”, the ESA said that it needs to know as soon as possible what the increase will be so that it can plan and invest in the necessary recycling infrastructure.
Chief executive of the ESA Dirk Hazell, said: “ESA has for some years publicly anticipated that the government's thinking would evolve in this way. However, the industry does need to plan its
investment decisions some years in advance. Therefore, if the maximum environmental benefit is to be extracted from future increases in the Landfill Tax, the UK's waste management industry needs to so know as soon as practicable of fiscal and regulatory incentives to invest in recycling infrastructure.”
He added: “Our industry is unusual in anticipating investment of 0.5 to 1 billion a year indefinitely in British jobs and infrastructure. We fully appreciate why the government wishes to delay an announcement until the PIU waste project has reported, but we urge the government to make its firm intentions for the Landfill Tax clear at the very earliest practicable opportunity thereafter and in any event before the 2003 Budget.”
Peter Jones, development director for Biffa, also called for the increase to be made public as soon as possible. He said: “This is two steps forward and one step back. The industry needs certainty. It is to be hoped that that they will come to a resolution on this as soon as possible – no doubt the mantel now passes to the PIU study which seems to suggest the Autumn. We live in hope.”
Mr Jones criticised the government for refusing to give price and market led guidance “despite evidence that the price floor created by landfill at 15 tax is well below the entry price for more sustainable substitutes”.
He said: “Our industry has the managerial systems, preparedness to invest in proven processes and transparency to deliver on these objectives – but still government does not act. Even worse one presumes it will continue to throw good money after bad in the form of hundreds of millions of pounds of subsidies – often to hopelessly inefficient and poorly implemented solutions.”
Subscribe for free