2001 - The year when biodiesel should have come on the market in the UK - stretching to 2002, when it did

Following a five year campaign to overcome the avarice of HM Treasury, the UK Budget 2001 speech of 17 March included these words spoken by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer –

"The pre-Budget report launched the green fuel challenge. Industry was invited to submit plans for new, more environmentally friendly fuels. I can announce that duty will be cut radically on alternative fuels –a further 6p per kilogram duty cut on road fuel gases with effect from 6 pm tonight, and from next April, a 20 per cent duty cut on bio-diesel (sic). To allow the new industry to plan ahead, duty on road fuel gases will be frozen in real terms until 2004." (Hansard, verbatim)

Let us examine this in more detail.  The Green Fuel Challenge drew 85 responses. The ratio of responses is very revealing –

Methanol – 1 submission                                                       Eco 2-stroke oil – 1 submission

Replacement for spark plug (!) – 1 submission

LPG – 2 submissions                                                              Hydrogen – 2 submissions

CNG – 3 submissions                                                              Additives/emulsions – 3 submissions

Ethanol – 7 submissions

Biodiesel – 14 submissions (4 specifically from fresh oil and 6 from recovered oil)

That only adds up to 34, so dear only knows what the rest had to say!  Significant is the action taken by HMG. The duty on road fuel gases (LPG) was reduced in Budget 2001 to 9p per kg.

Hydrogen, even though it only received two "votes", was classified as a pilot project in 2002 and zero rated. Emulsions received EU derogation several years ago and biodiesel received the promised 20p tax break. Obviously, the big players have the biggest say despite the overwhelming demand for renewable fuels.

That is, with the exception of ethanol.  Although it comprises nearly 45% of all transport fuel in Brazil, it is not thought worthy of attention by HMG.  The "new" technology of producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass does receive some R&D support, but not more traditional methods of production.  Strange - could HM Customs & Excise be objecting to all that untaxed alcohol swilling around the place?

One other significant phrase from the DTLR published responses – "Biodiesel – whatever the feedstock – generally provides few air quality benefits relative to conventional diesel, in terms of tailpipe PM10 emissions". What nonsense! – does up to 50% reduction in particulates emissions and non-carcinogenicity not count when considering air quality? Especially when the US EPA has found biodiesel emissions to be non-carcinogenic! Plus a significant reduction in carbon monoxide poisoning? And does not the concept of "green" include the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions? Granted, there is a 4% increase in NOx emissions, but this becomes a 4% reduction if the injection timing is retarded by a couple of degrees. This is typical of the bureaucratic ignorance with which environmentalists have to contend.

The Energy Saving Trust (which administers the funding scheme for gas and electric vehicles conversions) – is getting an extra £10m in 2002. Fuel gas sales stand at 66,000 tonnes per annum. Capital relief schemes are in place for biogas (methane, to you and me) and hydrogen projects. Nothing has been allocated to promote the use of biodiesel – even to the extent of restricting the production of biodiesel to that made from recovered oils, for which the DTLR projected production is 100,000 tonnes. What is causing this biased administrative mental block?

There was a bit of a slip of the tongue in the 2001 Budget – Gordon Brown said "20 percent" instead of "20 pence", but he did promise "from next April". Not as soon as was expected (by some 12 months!) but, given that target date, the embryo biodiesel industry could at least set up their business plans.  Some hopes!

What went unnoticed was the amendment to Mr Brown’s speech in the printed Budget Statement put out by HM Treasury, when the words spoken were amended in the text to "to be introduced in Budget 2002." (Section 6.49) A subtle but essential difference, leaving the date wide open but not noticed by anybody outside Treasury until December 2001, when it became obvious that all was not well with the EU derogation procedure.

This begs the question – "Can politicians trust the Civil Service to do as they are bid?"

In order for a member state to introduce tax reductions, the EU Commission has to be assured that it will not adversely affect other member states. The procedure, as we were about to learn, is long and bureaucratically tortuous, and responsible for the implementation was none other than HM Customs & Excise. Their first submission, following the March 17 Budget, was not until 15 June. Later, it was admitted that there had been another EU matter pending that the UK intended objecting to, so the biodiesel application was delayed so that it would not be objected to on a quid pro quo basis – bloody politics again! This is why three months went by before anything was done about it by HMC&E.

Very quickly (by EU standards) the Commission replied, sending back queries on 12 July – HMC&E did not respond until 6 September and again on 5 October, then there was another EU query on 16 October, answered by C&E on 26 November.  If you look at the time delays, it was not the EU Commission that was dragging its heels! All this is in the derogation document COM (2002) 144 final, issued by the EU on 18 March, 2002, when the proposal was put forward to allow the UK to take 20p per litre off the tax on biodiesel, which still left the tax rate at 41.38 eurocents (25.82p) per litre – almost double the Community minimum of 24.5 cents (15.29p). So why bother with all the rigmarole of EU approval?

Even this date may not have been achieved, had we not been made aware of this fact over the Christmas 2001 period. Taking the matter to the higher levels of HMC&E, a long and mutually informative telephone conversation on the morning of 7 January resulted in that person flying over to Brussels the following week to sort things out! Many other issues also emerged from the woodwork, thereby proving the point that, due to the long lead-in period given in Budget 2001, nobody had given due priority to administrative or legislative preparation. More on this later.

Budget 2002 brought in another deplorable betrayal. The Budget was delayed from March until April 17 (Gordon Brown had his own personal tragedy to contend with). Mainly due to the EU derogation procedure not having been completed, Gordon Brown then announced that the tax break would not be introduced until "the day after Royal Assent" of the Finance Bill 2002 – a further three month delay brought about by bureaucracy. So much for the promises of "rewards for entrepreneurship" – we, who had put our money where the Chancellor’s mouth was, were being severely penalised. Nobody else was going to pay the rent.

Ironically for the "fresh oil" brigade, the proposal was finally approved by the Council of Ministers (including our own Margaret Beckett MP) at an Agricultural Matters meeting on 27 June (Decision 2002/550/EC). The State Aid Commission still had to give the go-ahead, which came on 18 July – thirteen months after application was made!

Meanwhile, the House of Lords approved the Finance Bill 2002 on 12 July. Despite my plea to BABFO and the bigger players in the field, there had been no representation in either House regarding the most excessive of HMC&Es restrictions – the inability of biodiesel producers to make off-road rebated (red) fuel available – this attracts a 3.13p per litre duty rate instead of 25.82p.

Royal Assent was announced in the House of Commons at 10.18 pm on 24 July. Although Gordon Brown had ruled on the timing of the introduction – "the day following Royal Assent" – HMC&E elected to bring the new rate into force the day after that – at 0001 hrs, 26^th July, 2002.

Further frustration was that the EU derogation COM (2002) 144 was for five years, until 31 March, 2007. There is dispensation in the EU regulations for Decisions to be applied retrospectively, which means that the tax break could have been applied from 1 April, 2002. That option was dismissed early on by HMC&E on the grounds that the UK did not want to be seen to be "taking advantage" and be accused of bending the rules by another member state. In fact, John Healey MP even went as far as to reply in the House of Commons (4.7.02) that the UK would be in breach of the Treaty of Rome!! Fair play by the British, based on misinformation and at the expense of the Allied Biodiesel Industries (UK) members. How typically inept!

With Civil Servants controlling the agenda despite the wishes of politicians, the formation of an industry organisation had already become necessary.

One thing that has become disastrously evident over the past number of years has been the archaic and counter-productive Civil Service practice of job rotation. Carried out in the name of career development and allegedly "in accordance with business procedures", this comprises moving an individual on after a year or two - or even less - apparently to a randomly selected position.  Certainly, past experience, performance or educational qualifications seem to be irrelevant.

As anybody who has watched "Yes, Minister" knows, the real reason is far more subtle - it is to prevent any individual becoming too familiar with the people involved, be they politician, industrialist or Joe Public, and therefore subject to undue pressure through the relationships built up during their tenancy.  There is also, of course, the aspect of rendering the person insecure and therefore more susceptible to the influence of his/her  Civil Service superiors - the "rotation is castration" syndrome.  Symbollockally speaking, of course!

Whilst the individual concerned may (or may not) benefit from the move, it is more likely that the result is a square peg in a round hole, a completely inexperienced functionary who fails dismally to be either useful or effective until such times as a measure of the ambience has been gained.  By which time, it is time for another re-shuffle!  In the interim, little can be achieved due to the insecurity of the post-holder making them hesitant to take decisions and the need for another course of instruction.  Despite this, it is still better to adopt the term "innocence", rather than "ignorance" - a fine distinction.

Some may ask – what about BABFO? (British Association for Bio Fuels and Oils) Having been responsible for the setting up of the meeting with Stephen Timms in October, 2000, but not having won the battle for a tax break sufficient to make biodiesel from fresh oil, BABFO took the huff and adopted the attitude "let them get on with it" – totally ignoring the fact that any legislation brought in regarding biodiesel would also affect their members in the long term. They simply opted out.

Probably just as well, as none of the BABFO members were practising biodiesel producers, so the technical expertise was not there to understand the ramifications of the obstacles being thrown in the path of the biodiesel movement by civil servants. BABFO’s lobbying expertise on the Old Boy Network was formidable, but it was specifically directed towards the higher tax break objective, with the exception of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, who submitted a written question on 1 May asking what the off-road duty rate was going to be. Lord McIntosh replied that it would attract the same rate as red diesel (3.13p per litre), despite the fact that the minimum rate set by the EU for off-road use was only 1.13p (€18 per 1000 litres). But he didn’t say anything about the means of achieving that rebated rate!

One further area of confusion was that BABFO was demanding a fuel duty parity with LPG.  Now, LPG has an energy density of around 6.5kWh per litre – biodiesel around 10.5kWh. Simple mathematics, with LPG taxed at 9p per litre,  indicates a comparable biodiesel fuel duty of 14.5p per litre – a tax break of 31.3p. So, there is considerable inconsistency in their claim for "parity", then proposing a tax break of 35p or 40p depending on which submission one reads. Hardly a move towards credibility.

Another interesting aside is how incredibly little knowledge exists in either House. On 23 April, the Earl of Mar and Kellie stated –

"The second fuel to take my fancy (the first made from fresh rapeseed oil) is diesel fuel derived from waste cooking oil. This is a green fuel, but it is not a renewable one. (Oh?) It is of course a sustainable waste product, which might be seen as being even more virtuous. The source of such waste derives mostly from chip shops, which generally have a problem with regard to its disposal. Recently it has been used as an additive in animal feed, but that is supposed to have come to an end. (Then a bit about changing oil)

"These (biodiesel) industries must develop themselves. The Government could help, but they are not doing so at present. Recently the Chancellor announced fuel duty rebates of 20p per litre on the 46p duty for so-called biodiesel. This will help the producers of biodiesel, which has a small bioderived content and is largely fossil-derived fuel. That barely qualifies it as a renewable or organic fuel." (Hansard 23 April 2002: Column 191/192, if you don’t believe me!)

I count nine inaccuracies or erroneous assumptions – test your biodiesel knowledge here!

Interesting, the amount of tax that successive UK governments has reaped. The minimum EU rate set per 1000 litres for diesel fuel is €245 – UK rate is €734.3 and for biodiesel €413.8; EU rate for off-road use is €18 – UK rate €50.16 (same for biodiesel). (Exchange rates as at December 2001) In both petrofuels cases, the UK rate is three times that of the EU minimum, and the means by which direct taxation has been reduced. A cynic could accuse politicians of buying votes, rather than earning them.

HM Customs & Excise had also, as mentioned, come up with another bombshell. Sometime in the year following the Budget 2001 announcement, somebody in the Laboratory of the Government Chemist had come up with the problem that biodiesel content in red (rebated) diesel screwed up the roadside test! This reared its ugly head in the Budget Notice CE10, dated 17 April 2002 and sent out for consultation by their Environmental Taxation Development Department the following day. It took the form of banning the production of rebated (red) biodiesel or bioblends!

The significance of this is profound. The environmental benefits of biodiesel – biodegradability, non-toxicity, low emissions, etc – are best suited to locations where the use is off-road. Organic farms, inland waterways, underground, drinking water catchment and forestry areas are a few that spring to mind. These are areas where red diesel is used – rebated diesel fuel taxed at the rate of 3.13p per litre – and where "red biodiesel" would be most desirable. It is estimated that this market could be 20% of the overall demand for biodiesel.

But HMC&E were not going to let biodiesel producers service this market, for fear that some crook may launder the red biodiesel and sell it on as unmarked! The case was put by the newly formed trade organisation ABI(UK) that no self-respecting crook would buy red biodiesel for 49p a litre, launder it and sell it for 65p (the going rate for illegal fuels), when they could buy red diesel at 24p a litre and make an extra 25p a litre for the bovver! The protestation went unheeded.

In fact, of all the responses received from Industry on this "consultation" exercise, only one small point was conceded – all other protests were ignored. The best is yet to come, though!

In order to "discourage laundering", HMC&E resurrected the scheme from before when marker dyes became available – dismantled in 1967, after it had become impossibly cumbersome. This was explained in the Biodiesel and Bioblend Regulations proposal sent out for consultation on 12 July – less than two weeks before they were supposed to be in force!

In order to obtain a rebated fuel duty rate for off-road use, a user must first register with their local HMC&E Advice Office, who would then visit the premises, make sure that there were suitably segregated storage facilities for the biodiesel and that vehicles existed to use it, assist the user to set up an accounting system to account for the fuel and teach him how to fill in the (yet to be invented) form required for a refund of duty paid.

The user must then purchase the biodiesel, the producer charging the full 25.82p per litre fuel duty. Every two months, provided the sum is more than £250 (N.B. – the excess duty refund on a 1000 litre IBC supplied would have been £226.90, but this figure was reduced to £50 in the final Regulations – the only concession made to the consultation exercise), the registered user would then be allowed to claim a refund amounting to 25.82p less 3.13p per litre thus making an effective interest free loan to Treasury for a month, but the user having to pay interest for up to two months on the adverse cash flow created!

The unrealistic stupidity of this system – instigated by Civil Servants, not politicians - is beyond belief!   Strong protests have brought no real response, apart from a shrug of the shoulders – who is running this country, one may feel inclined to ask?  Yes, Minister!

Of course, the necessity for marking rebated biodiesel only arises in the UK – other member states do not mark. As at 2001, the visual dye used for marking red diesel is CI Solvent Red 24 – a distinctive tinge. The application of the proposed standard Euromarker CI Solvent Yellow 124 results in the fuel becoming a pale yellow – the natural colour of biodiesel. Another fine mess!

BABFOs failure to support the objection to producing rebated red biodiesel was deplorable and will prove to their members long term disadvantage.

The only concessionary factor is that of willingness by Policy Division of HMC&E to "carefully consider any suggestions" the ABI(UK) likes to make regarding an improved roadside test that would detect both the discreet and the visual markers, unaffected by biodiesel content. Sorry, but I thought that we were already paying for that service!

Again, negotiations are left to the little guys – the ones who care.

The next problem to be taken on board following the debacle over the derogation was the fiscal specification for biodiesel. A consultation was issued by the TET Division of DTLR (ex-DETR, now Department for Transport) on a restricted circulation basis in August 2001. The results were never published, but the DTLR proposal to adopt the EU CEN specification (not due for finalisation until October 2003) was modified to adopt a very wide specification indeed, and first appeared in the Draft Finance Bill 2002 sent out for consultation on 23 April. Not exactly an informed decision, though.

The upshot was that the fiscal definition of "biodiesel" (i.e., that material which was considered by HMC&E as being eligible for the reduced fuel duty rate) became -

"diesel quality liquid fuel that –

a) is produced from biomass or waste cooking oil,

b) the ester content of which is not less than 96.5% by weight, and

c) the sulphur content of which does not exceed 0.005% by weight or is nil."

For the uninformed, any vegetable oil is an ester in its own right – 98% or more ester content, which leaves the door wide open for SVO and concoctions made from SVO, RVO and whatever else anybody feels like putting in! Don’t look now, but the Government Response to the consultation on primary legislation stated "Straight vegetable oil is excluded because its gumming effects can impair engine performance." (June 2002) It does rather depend on the engine used, but so much for HMC&E knowledge and expertise!

So, I think it would be fair to say that HM Customs & Excise has done its utmost to place every possible obstacle in the path of progress towards the EU target of 2% biofuels by 2005, or whatever it turns out to be when agreed, and to frustrate the stated intentions of government to provide a cleaner and more sustainable environment.

But they are not the only ones.

To make biodiesel from "waste" oil, it is necessary to have access to the feedstock at a price made affordable by the tax break allowed.  In the Green Fuels Challenge, the then DETR (then DTLR, then DfT) opined that there were 100,000 tonnes of recovered vegetable oils (RVO) available. Currently, this was being processed (boiled – maybe!) and sold to processors to add to animal feed as a high energy supplement. Thereby, of course, being recycled back into the human food chain.

Highly suspect in this unsanitary cycle (the RVO containing high proportions of animal fats) was the possibility of passing on the BSE prion, which is a very robust protein, and cross-contamination.

The EU Parliament wished to ban this practice. Put to the vote, the UK came out against a total ban, on the premise that we would have no means of disposing of the waste product for four years. Nobody, it would appear, had told the BSE Division of DEFRA (which used to be the MAFF of Foot and Mouth infamy – remember?) of the move to bring about the production of biodiesel, and that one of the primary functions of the biodiesel industry would be to dispose of the RVO!

A four year delay was also applied for by Germany and Austria, who (like the UK) considered that their waste control procedures were sufficiently robust to avoid contamination. After gentle words with the BSE Division and the presentation of the simple fact that, unless supplies of RVO were guaranteed, there would be no large scale biodiesel industry and that a chicken and egg situation existed, the UK position was amended to the middle ground – a two year moratorium – and subsequently to resignation that it should be left to the decision of arbiters.

The ban, of course, would also stabilise the price of RVO – the price depending on the amount of the tax break allowed by HM Treasury – keeping the RVO collectors in business and increasing the demand for rapeseed oil to replace the RVO in animal feeds. The farmers would benefit, after all. BABFO’s comment to this (in their submission regarding the Sheffield Hallam University review of existing life cycle studies) was that the replacement of the RVO would cause additional environmental penalties in having to grow more rape to compensate! How accurate can one get when shooting oneself in the foot?

And counter-productive to the efforts of the ABI(UK)!

The proposed ban is expected to be announced in October or November 2002, but arbiters are likely to recommend a delay of only 18 months.

In the Republic of Ireland, the boot is on the other foot! The Irish government brought out the Catering Waste Act 2002 (effective October 1). However, in their previous Budget (8 December, 2001), they had omitted to reduce the tax level on Substitute Fuels, thus making it impossible for biodiesel to be made and sold in Ireland. Irish oil collectors therefore started looking for alternative markets to dump their waste across the Irish Sea on the GB mainland, and also in Northern Ireland.

The British biodiesel industry was not quite ready for them!

The 20p tax break was decided by DETR in February 2001, when RVO was selling at £130 a tonne. It was pretty fair at that time. By the turn of the year, RVO had risen to £165 – partly because of the increased demand for meal caused by the foot (hoof?) and mouth epidemic restricting cattle grazing and partly due to a drought in Malaysia (global climate change?) causing a rise in the price of rapeseed oil. Hence, by the time the tax break was introduced – July, 2002 – biodiesel producers could no longer compete with the animal feed processors.

Long term survival was necessary for the British RVO collectors so, via their trade organisations ARROW and ACORN, co-operation became more evident. The price, though, became an issue, fudged by the ready availability of Irish RVO and the fact that, following a tightening up of accountability procedures by DEFRA, there became two classes of RVO – documented and unaccountable. Producing biodiesel, no certificate of origin would be required.

Then, of course, there was the disastrously wet summer of 2002, causing low yields of cattle fodder and increasing the demand for processed animal feed ………….

A proposal for an increase in the tax break from 20p to 23p was sent to Paul Boateng MP, successor to Stephen Timms, together with a request for £50,000 to be spent on promotion and an assurance that any tax break should apply for four years from Budget 2003. Parity is the name of the game.

With a new (to the UK) industry to be set up, more problems began to rear their ugly heads. Again, DEFRA – responsible for the Environment Agency – was to the fore in bringing this to a head. Simply, they did not know what either they or we were doing!

In all innocence, Margaret Beckett MP replied in the House (1.7.02) – "The production technology for transport biofuels from UK grown crops is mature and this results in a low research spend." Totally ignoring the fact that making biodiesel from buckets of muck is technically far more demanding than making from the consistent feedstock of fresh vegetable oil, and that the industry was therefore in desperate need of support.

Statutory Instrument 2000 No 1973 – otherwise known as the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 – is based on EU Directive 96/61/EC and is, without a doubt, one of the worst written pieces of legislation ever produced. Unfortunately, it was approved by Michael Meacher MP, the Environment Minister, generally reckoned to be one of the more aware.

The original page and a half document has been expanded to 60 pages of text, tables and interpretations, produced as if in the 19^th century when journalists were paid by the word! Not only that, but the EU Directive has been cherry picked.

The greatest sin of omission is the opening statement of the EU Directive, Appendix 1  –

"CATEGORIES OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 –

1. Installations or parts of installations used for research, development and testing of new products and processes are not covered by this Directive."

Very reasonable and logical – it is difficult to define an industrial installation when it may be changed next week in the course of process development. Not so logical is the fact that this dispensation is glaringly absent from the UK version of the legislation.

Consider – commercially, biodiesel is a product new to the UK. A few dozen people have been making it for environmental demonstration or just for fun. The batch process has then to be scaled up from a few litres a week to many tonnes a day. Anybody with any experience in industry knows that this brings about significant problems and that a development phase is necessary. But not DEFRA!!

A member of the ABI(UK) network volunteered to contact all committee members of the European Environment Agency to find out how other member states had interpreted the Directive 96/61/EC.  Greece replied that it had not yet been implemented.  Germany had implemented, but allowed research for up to two years, "giving space for commissioning studies on plant and processes".  France hadn't quite got there yet, but are in favour of allowing "best available techniques not entailing excessive cost".  Apart from Northern Ireland (which was still thinking about it), that was the sum total of the responses - except for an interesting reply from the Euro EA's Desk Officer in Brussels -

"Dear Mr P - I don't have any written statements about the British "non-gold plating" policy for IPPC, but it was mentioned in public by Steve Town, formerly in charge of IPPC implementation in DETR at a conference on IPPC on 16 October 2000 in London. Kind regards, Magnus Gislev - IPPC Affairs, Environment Director-General, EC."

As a Peruvian ex-President said to his driver, when approaching a T-junction and asked for directions - "Do as we always do - signal to the left and turn to the right!"

After several months of frustrating negotiation, a meeting was held (19 June) with the head of the Air Quality Division of DEFRA in London. The reasoning put forward for the R&D concession was that "no recognition of R&D processes had been made in previous UK legislation, so why start now?"

The impossibility of the situation then became apparent – how were producers supposed to apply for a permit, when any plant layout or process details given in the application were inevitably subject to change at a later date? But this was not the only cock-up.

The Regulations define different types of installation under the Section headings. The production of biodiesel could be classified under a number of them, but the one most applicable (as defined by even the Finance Bill 2002) was Section 5.5 – "The Production of Fuel from Waste". Under this heading was one category – "Making solid fuel (other than charcoal) from waste by any process involving the use of heat." Obviously, the production of biodiesel was not included in this category, so the proposal was put to DEFRA that biodiesel should be exempt from the provisions of the regulations until such times as a General Binding Rule (a simpler, all-encompassing form of regulation to cover an activity) could be produced. Not accepted.

So, Jobsworth prevailed, and the edict was laid down that the production of biodiesel should fall under the onerous Section 4.1. Subsequently, thanks to the technical knowledge and experience of the EA Senior Technical Guidance Adviser, it was acknowledged that low emissions status should apply, which made application for a permit simpler and far less expensive – down from £30,000 to £5,000!

Still, how much should it cost to save the world?

Ironically, the pollutants designed to be reduced by the IPPC Regulations include (Schedule 5) sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, dust (particulates) and "substances and preparations which have been proved to possess carcinogenic or mutagenic properties".  These are the very emissions coming from vehicle tailpipes, which biodiesel is capable of reducing significantly.  But vehicles are specifically excluded from the IPPC Regulations!  Which means that we - as potential reducers of vehicle emissions and therefore pollution preventers - are also required to pay!  Mainly, the licence fees charged by the Environment Agency!!

(Coincidentally, just as Royal Assent was about to be granted it was announced by the Strategic Rail Authority that, due to the fact that Railtrack failed in its task of upgrading the West Coast line and Virgin Trains couldn’t run its new trains as fast as it would like, Railtrack would be fined £100m. The money is to compensate Virgin Trains for "being unable to plan in the face of such uncertainty".  Railtrack being in questionable receivership (and only valued at £500m), the money to be given to Virgin Trains will have to come from the public purse. What an indictment of government policy - to them that have, shall be given.)

Still to come –

Blending – when is biodiesel not biodiesel? Who was first?

Support from Government – zilch!

Carbon Trading – credits for reducing carbon emissions, and why The Carbon Trust couldn’t do as Mr Blair wanted.