Now let’s get one thing out of the way straight off the bat: I’m no lawyer. But unlike judge Lord Sandison, I did live through the shambolic chaos of DRS 1.0 and I was fairly close to the story on pretty much a daily basis for probably two years.
So to hear that the learned judge had thrown out Biffa’s claim for £50m against the government because their decision to invest millions in preparing for DRS was little more than “wishful thinking” seems a bit bizarre. He seems to be of the opinion that they took a punt on building new facilities, buying trucks and equipment and much, much more in the hope that DRS would happen – and when it didn’t? Tough luck mateys.
Biffa, if you recall, was the chosen “logistics partner” for DRS – they were the ones chosen by the Scottish Government to collect, transport and process empty containers from stores for recycling – and they had received a letter from former Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity Lorna Slater to that effect.
Biffa subsequently signed a 10-year contract with Circularity Scotland, another casualty of that period, as a direct result of that letter and spent millions as it prepared for the launch. All of this was done in full sight of the Scottish government and with its active encouragement.
In addition, it would take a good researcher a fair amount of time to count and log all the occasions that Slater publicly and often aggressively/defensively insisted that DRS would go ahead. Even when it became crystal clear behind the scenes that Scotland’s DRS wasn’t going to get the Internal Market exemption it needed to have any prospect of proceeding. Even when it was days from collapse and everyone with even a passing interest in DRS knew it wasn’t going to happen. Even then she stood up and insisted it was going ahead.
Why there was no contract in place with the government is hard to understand, but even without a formal contract any reasonable human being should have sympathy with Biffa’s plight. You’ve been chosen by the Scottish Government for one of their flagship projects. You’ve signed contracts with the appointed Administrator and you’ve ploughed millions into making it happen.
So should the fact that the government couldn’t actually get its project over the line mean that you should be left high and dry? Apparently it does. If you can’t trust Ministers in your own government, who can you trust?
It’s yet another appalling episode in the catalogue of misery and ineptitude that was DRS 1.0. It was a shameful period in the Scottish Government’s history that continues to haunt it to this day. All we can hope that is DRS 2.0 is a little better managed.
Antony Begley, Publishing Director, SLR
Biffa stiffed
Now let’s get one thing out of the way straight off the bat: I’m no lawyer. But unlike judge Lord Sandison, I did live through the shambolic chaos of DRS 1.0 and I was fairly close to the story on pretty much a daily basis for probably two years.
So to hear that the learned judge had thrown out Biffa’s claim for £50m against the government because their decision to invest millions in preparing for DRS was little more than “wishful thinking” seems a bit bizarre. He seems to be of the opinion that they took a punt on building new facilities, buying trucks and equipment and much, much more in the hope that DRS would happen – and when it didn’t? Tough luck mateys.
Biffa, if you recall, was the chosen “logistics partner” for DRS – they were the ones chosen by the Scottish Government to collect, transport and process empty containers from stores for recycling – and they had received a letter from former Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity Lorna Slater to that effect.
Biffa subsequently signed a 10-year contract with Circularity Scotland, another casualty of that period, as a direct result of that letter and spent millions as it prepared for the launch. All of this was done in full sight of the Scottish government and with its active encouragement.
In addition, it would take a good researcher a fair amount of time to count and log all the occasions that Slater publicly and often aggressively/defensively insisted that DRS would go ahead. Even when it became crystal clear behind the scenes that Scotland’s DRS wasn’t going to get the Internal Market exemption it needed to have any prospect of proceeding. Even when it was days from collapse and everyone with even a passing interest in DRS knew it wasn’t going to happen. Even then she stood up and insisted it was going ahead.
Why there was no contract in place with the government is hard to understand, but even without a formal contract any reasonable human being should have sympathy with Biffa’s plight. You’ve been chosen by the Scottish Government for one of their flagship projects. You’ve signed contracts with the appointed Administrator and you’ve ploughed millions into making it happen.
So should the fact that the government couldn’t actually get its project over the line mean that you should be left high and dry? Apparently it does. If you can’t trust Ministers in your own government, who can you trust?
It’s yet another appalling episode in the catalogue of misery and ineptitude that was DRS 1.0. It was a shameful period in the Scottish Government’s history that continues to haunt it to this day. All we can hope that is DRS 2.0 is a little better managed.
Antony Begley, Publishing Director, SLR
Share on
Read next
Real heroes wear branded polo shirts
Exchange for Change appoints senior leaders ahead of DRS
Exchange for Change publishes DRS logo requirements