< Previous | Contents | Next >

Reducing Landfill: A Landfill Allowance Scheme Consultation

ANNEX D: SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS IN THIS CONSULTATION PAPER

2 OVERVIEW OF THE SCHEME

Q1: Would a pilot year in 2004/05 allow further time for monitoring arrangements to be tested without undermining the aims of the scheme and progress towards targets?

Q2: Should the scheme year start on 1 or 17 July?

Q3: Are local authorities content that allowances will be allocated from the beginning of the scheme through to 2009/10? Would local authorities prefer to be given nominal figures up to 2020 that might be changed after 2010?

Q4: Should there be a review?

Q5: Is the proposed timing for the review reasonable?

Q6: Should any changes arising from the review be made in 2010/11?

Q7: Should any further reviews take place, if so, when?

Q8: Are the costs set out in the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment an accurate representation of the likely costs of the four options?

Q9: What further information about costs do respondents have?

3 ALLOCATION OF ALLOWANCES

Q10: Is method (iv) preferred?

Q11: Is it appropriate to ensure that no local authorities are allocated a higher level of allowances than in a previous year?

Q12: Is it appropriate to operate the definition of municipal wastes in this way?

Q13: How much impact will this have on individual local authorities?

4 BORROWING AND BANKING OF ALLOWANCES

Q14: Is 5% a sensible limit on the following year’s allowances that local authorities can borrow? If not, what percentage should local authorities be allowed to borrow?

5 TRADING OF ALLOWANCES

Q15: Should local authorities be able to trade allowances with other local authorities?

Q16: Under what circumstances should Scottish Ministers consider suspending trading for individual local authorities or for all local authorities?

Q17: What information should brokers be required to pass on to SEPA?

Q18: Should the Executive permit non-monetary trading?

Q19: Can respondents give legitimate reasons for allowing non-monetary trading?

6 MONITORING OF THE SCHEME

Q20: Is 63% an appropriate figure to use as the proportion of biodegradable content in municipal waste?

Q21: If this figure can be shown to be different for some local authorities should the scheme allow them to use a different figure?

Q22: Will the data collection and reporting process under a mass balance system represent a significant extra burden on local authorities? If so what are the likely additional annual costs?

Q23: Will the data collection and reporting process under a mass balance system represent a significant extra burden to landfill site operators? If so what are the likely additional annual costs?

Q24: Is it reasonable to require local authorities to provide this information within one month of the end of the quarter?

Q25: Is it reasonable to require landfill site operators to provide this information within one month of the end of the scheme year?

7 THE PENALTY SYSTEM

Q26: Does the level of the penalty reflect the principles?

Q27: Will this level of penalty act as a sufficient disincentive to prevent local authorities from breaching allowances?

Q28: Should the whole of any EU fine for breach of targets be passed on to the authorities responsible for the breach, or only a proportion of the fine?

Q29: What would be the justification for not passing on the whole of a local authority’s share of the fine?

Q30: Is this level of penalty appropriate?

Q31: Should the Executive make use of the power in the WET Act to impose penalties on local authorities which fail to provide information in relation to banking or borrowing?

Q32: Under what circumstances should Scottish Ministers consider extending the time for paying penalties or relieving local authorities from liability to penalties?

Q33: How can a local authority prove that exceptional and unforeseen circumstances caused it to breach its allowances?

< Previous | Contents | Next >