Forum topic: Incinerator opponents to demonstrate as minister orders more scrutiny of £1.2billion project

A splendid lead vocalist, perhaps best enjoyed towards the end of the 19 minute public meeting before the CCTV plug was pulled https://camden.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/669792

The deputation, which kicked off these proceedings, angled in on the inappropriateness of re-electing the NLWA chair for a 14th (fourteenth) consecutive term; and we had one councillor highlighting the succession issue of board members. Such key items have previously been raised on PGC.

The recorded session ended with one councillor making a claim – via a question – that the NLWA board were more accountable than equivalent commercial incinerator operators. (The new incinerator is expected to be the UK’s only one run by a public body.) I reflected and consider that view as highly suspect:

- If accountable to commercial shareholders, would the cataclysmic failure of the Pinkham Way attempt, with its costs of circa £40m; a related £50m goodwill issue, which remains outstanding over a decade later (and is a major cause of the ongoing audit hold ups); plus related loans of which have been rolled over into the 2050’s and 2060’s been nodded through and also left the leadership team in situ in a commercial world?
- Would incinerator build costs, said to be 20-40% higher than market equivalents, been accepted?
- Would ever rising waste forecasts, with their direct influence on plant size and hence capital needs, challenged at the time as being completely inappropriate, and subsequently shown to be exactly that, been nodded through?
- Would a commercial operator, subject to market discipline and scrutiny, promoted two conflicting arguments as get out of jail cards, without consequence? (See attached letter).
Would a (very) long-running recycling target of 50% so massively missed been all but ignored for consequence?
- If you plan to bring the recycling approach of all seven boroughs into line to better recycling output and then do nothing, would nothing follow?
And so on. I suggest the commercial equivalent would be much more accountable for its failures.

The councillor's implication was that local taxpayers ensure the accountability via the ballet box. And there lies a fundamental misunderstanding because no one votes for NLWA members in local elections; the NLWA is a public body separate to the seven councils.
It was said some years back the NLWA believed they were accountable to no one; that changed and reports now say they are accountable to Parliament, but regular scrutiny does not happen. The current efforts facilitated by one local MP, prompted by StEIN, is the first example of Parliamentary oversight. Certainly, there is no evidence of local scrutiny being undertaken, or accepted by the NLWA when requested by a council.
The equivalent commercial element of the NLWA, its operating arm, London Energy Limited (LEL), also has its own board and MD, and some directors in common. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the NLWA. I wonder how some specifics of accountability sits there: for example, what happens in the new incinerator world if (NLWA) waste forecast prove to be optimistic, meaning feedstock has to be imported at higher cost, or is not available at all. LEL would carry the operational and accounting risk and costs. Resultant costs are passed on to north London councils, LEL possibly becomes loss making. Who takes the bullet for that failure? If you don’t know where to point the gun you don’t know where accountability lies and without clear lines of accountability decisions inevitably are sub optimal, if taken at all (see eg recycling).
In this waste group, accountability and governance are inextricably entwined, and occur without scrutiny. Were the NLWA to release the currently secret EY report we may be able to see just how bad things have been.

To do? Cap the NLWA chair’s term at a max of 6 years; ensure succession plans and training is in place for members; scrutiny to fall to a committee of the seven councils with members being outside of the NLWA board (parts of which look a little too executive-like in their modus operandi) ; clarify and publicise accountability between NLWA and LEL for key issues and targets, and track them; LEL chair, although not necessarily all directors, to be independent of NWA.
And a lot more transparency. This is a £1bn plus piece of national infrastructure with climate, social and health implications, as well as budget choices affecting us all. It needs to be run in a manner reflecting that and certainly not believing you are accountable because taxpayers vote for you. As I said, we don’t.

Note: As originally published, this post erroneously stated that "The equivalent commercial element of the NLWA, its operating arm, London Energy Limited (LEL), also has its own board and MD, and the same chair". This sentence has now been amended to read "The equivalent commercial element of the NLWA, its operating arm, London Energy Limited (LEL), also has its own board and MD, and some directors in common".

Excerpts from two recent letters to the Islington Tribune raising important questions about the legitimacy of the North London Waste Authority and its relationship with the seven London boroughs who theoretically have control over and most certainly do pay for its enormously expensive and climate-busting projects.

Letter from Jeremy Maher

Letter from Ben Griffith