Conference: Legal Workshop Jenny Watts 23 rd October 2013
Conference: Legal WorkshopJenny Watts
23rd October 2013
2
Fine Talk: Trommel Fines
• United Resource Operators Consortium• Formed in response to Industry turmoil re
Trommel Fines – May 2012• Collective “Voice” for the Skip & WTS Sector • NOT – FOR – PROFIT
3
Background
• Landfill Tax – Fiscal Instrument aim to divert wastes from landfill
• Finance Act 1996 – LFT Escalator £8 until 2014
• Current charges per tonne;- £72 – standard rate- £2.50 – lower rate ‘Qualifying Material’
4
Background
• Qualifying Material Order 2011
– Group 1: Rocks & Soils (Naturally occurring)
- Ceramic Materials - Minerals (processed or prepared)
• Trommel Fines – traditionally qualified for lower rate
• Important – WTN adequately describes the load
5
Background
• 18th May 2012 - Guidance Brief: 15/12 – trommel fines do not qualify!!
• 1st June 2012 - Guidance Brief: 18/12 – lacked consultation, certainty & suitable notice period
• 15th June 2012 – meeting with HMRC: Working Group: UROC, ESA & CIWM
• 4th July 2012 – Interim Guidance –
maintained status quo
6
Interim Period • 9th September 2013 – Further Draft
Guidance
• 21st October 2013 – Informal Consultation Response due date
• 11th November 2013 – Implementation Date!
• 5th November 2013 - HMRC Meeting
7
Industry Concerns
• Lack of engagement UROC – guidance lacks clarity re “evidential burden”
• Representations from SME sector;- Landfill Operators – err on the side of caution- Skip price increases – Flytipping – LA
enforcement resources - Construction: economic recovery - Trommel Plant – no economic incentive, waste
hierarchy- LFT Escalator – achieved diversion from landfill
8
Industry Concerns
• High volume litigation – operators challenging tax assessments
• Business closure – lack of facilities, unemployment
• Local Authority SME contractors - e.g. road sweepings
• Unnecessary confusion!!
9
Evidential Burden
• Accepted that HMRC cannot accommodate all eventualities – but need to resolve the issues
• Guidance example: “fines are variable in nature and, where it is impossible to determine origin and exact nature of the source material = standard rate”
• Domestic Skips & Duty of Care WTN• HMRC cannot preclude evidence
10
Solutions?
• S42 of the Finance Act 1998 (as amended)
The Treasury must;– (a) set criteria to consider from time to time
what material is to be listed;– (b) keep those criteria and under review; and– (c) revise them whenever they consider they
should be revised.
11
Solutions?
• (5) The Commissioners must publish the criteria (and any revised criteria) set by the Treasury.
• (6) In determining from time to time what material is to be listed, the Treasury must have regard to-
• (a) the criteria (or revised criteria) published under subsection (5) and
• (b) any other factors they consider relevant.’
• ANOTHER GROUP = TROMMEL FINES???
12
Solutions?
• Process Protocol?
- Operational procedures & testing regime (TOC, LOI?)
• “incidental” – meaning?• Potential for pollution or to cause harm- Low potential for greenhouse gas
emissions;- Low polluting potential in the landfill
environment• Pilot Sites ?!
13
Consultation Response
• Clear, prescriptive, unambiguous & suitable for all parties concerned
• Extend implementation date for review and exploration of options
• Fit for purpose meaningful guidance!!
• HMRC: Emailed that due to influx and content of responses – “unlikely” to implement on 11th November!
14
Sentencing Council:Environmental Sentencing Guidelines
• June 2013• Environmental Protection Act 1990• Control of Pollution Amendment Act 1989• Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010
15
Sentencing Council:Environmental Sentencing Guidelines
Do you agree with the proposed approach taken for the other environmental offences listed?
• KBT: strongly urges the Sentencing Council to expressly include other relevant and analogous environmental offences that carry lower statutory maxima, to include;
• Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006which implements sections 55 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005
- S55(4): Breach of a dog control order (level 3)
• Environmental Protection Act 1990
- S87: Offence of leaving litter (level 4)
• serious in nature and effect as those listed
• extremely important for local environmental quality
16
Financial Worth?!Do you think the guidance on obtaining financial information is sufficiently detailed and helpful?
• Financial Means form!
• Other financial means should be requested offender’s assets;
- Property
- Cars
- Bank Statements
• Not to confuse with POCA!
17
Sentencing Factors
Do you think the approach in step three achieves the objectives of punishment, deterrence and removal of gain in a fair and proportionate way?
• Court invites the prosecutor to assist in the decision making process
• Fully appraised of all the factors of the offending e.g. Community Impact Statement
• Especially when not many environmental crime cases
18
Ancillary & Community Orders
Do you think the wording on ancillary orders in step six is appropriate?
• KBT strongly agreed: especially with reference to forfeiture of vehicles in cases of flytipping.
• Curfew
• Remedial work to restore any damage or impact on the environment - restorative justice should have a focus on work relating to environmental quality.
• No lasting damage - compensation to be paid into local environment funds for improving local environmental quality.
19
Additional Comments
Are there any further comments you wish to make?
• Work with the magistrates’ courts: highlight impact of environmental crime on LEQ
• Engagement with the Magistrate Association: specific training - JSB
• Merit in designated circuit benches dealing with environmental crime
20
Network Events
FREE to KBT Members
• Waste Review: Enforcement & Regulation
• To Enforce or Not to Enforce?
• Flytipping Partnership – NFTPG
21
The End!
• Questions?
• Enjoyed the 2013 KBT Conference
• Safe journey home – See you next year!