Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
DR DEREK
LANGSLOW AND
MR JONATHAN
BURNEY
Mr Loughton
140. Dr Langslow, you have obviously heard the
questions we posed to the QPA, can I start with my question to
them in terms of what your understanding is of the Government's
aims and objectives of this tax, whether they have been properly
communicated to the industry and the greater interested parties
and how that compares with other proposed taxes such as the energy
tax and landfill tax and pesticides tax?
(Dr Langslow) I think that is a very difficult question
for me to comment on because I do not know what the motivation
behind the tax is beyond the fact that there are environmental
externalities which are not presently covered and action needs
to be taken. This is one of a series of taxes which has been proposed
to try and address environmental externalities. Whether or not
the Government has communicated it well, I do not know. We have
been involved in a number of ways. We have been involved in discussions
with the QPA over their package, over improvements to it and commenting
through Government to them. We have also been involved directly
with the QPA because, whatever happens, we have a large number
of owners and occupiers of SSSIs within the minerals industry
generally and we need to establish satisfactory co-operative arrangements
with those owners and occupiers. We need to try and persuade them
to improve further their environmental performance, whatever happens
on other issues.
141. You said in your Pre-Budget Report submission
to us that the package, that is the QPA New Deal package, has
the potential to tackle more issues than the tax and you therefore
welcome this initiative since you believe partnership approaches
between business and landowners are often the most effective way.
On that basis, you are against the tax and have you communicated
that to the Government?
(Dr Langslow) No, we are not against the tax. We have
remained of the view that there are a number of environmental
issues to be addressed and there are a number of ways of addressing
them, one of which is the tax. Our experience generally on SSSIs
is that we deal with 32,000 owners and occupiers of SSSIs in England
and that the most productive way of dealing with them is in partnership.
We aim to gain their support and understanding of what the special
interest is and why everyone values it and then to work with them
to look after the individual piece of land in a way which safeguards
that special interest. That may or may not involve payment from
us or some other part of Government. It may involve just their
own individual efforts, but our view is that it is far better
to have a co-operative relationship with them than a hands-off,
regulatory kind of "threaten with a big stick" relationship.
This is, apart from the fact that there would be rather difficult,
practical problems in dealing with that number of people if you
are not dealing with them co-operatively.
142. On the basis that you worked with QPA,
as you say, to fine-tune their alternative package, if it were
a choice between that package as they have enunciated it today
and in their submissions, with various "guarantees"
that it could be delivered along the lines Mr van der Byl was
saying by his members, is it not the case that you would opt for
that as opposed to the Government coming up with a broad based
tax which appears to be the only thing on offer at the moment?
(Dr Langslow) If the broad based tax did not produce
recycled funds and there was no guarantee that all the funds raised
by the tax would be recycled and spent on environmental issues,
then we would think the tax was a bad idea. The package as published
in July, is in our view, inadequate. We have pointed out to Government
and to the QPA the inadequacies and they are primarily around
some of the issues on SSSIs where we are seeking a greater commitment.
If those new requirements were put in and the rest of the package
was completed, and the targets were properly audited—and
we believe the QPA is committed to that and I think they have
made that clear today—then our view is that the environmental
issues raised by this section of the minerals industry would be
better addressed through the package.
143. What you have said in your submission does
not quite gel with what you are telling us now in that if you
have got to come down on one side of the fence, and your advice
to Government will have to be along those lines eventually, which
side is it going to be? The key thing to you seems to be 100 per
cent hypothecation and in the unlikely event that the Government
granted 100 per cent hypothecation of an aggregates tax, would
it then be your preference to go for that 100 per cent hypothecated
tax over either the current New Deal or an enhanced New Deal along
those lines? If that were the case, surely you would acknowledge
that there are going to be some disbenefits from having compulsory
tax over the voluntary agreements which the QPA has offered, and
what are those disbenefits in terms of them not feeling obliged
to do some of the things they have promised?
(Dr Langslow) With respect, there are an awful lot
of "ifs" in your question. The decision we finally take
will be based on what is actually on offer. As I have said, the
package as published in July is inadequate and needs to be improved.
That is the first point. If the Government were to offer hypothecation
and indicate how that money could be spent, then again that would
be another question to address and one would need to compare.
We are interested in the best option to address some of the environmental
issues which arise. Until we can actually see the options set
out exactly, then we cannot make that choice. I think it would
be wrong of us to make the choice on unknowns. As regards your
wider question, there clearly is some risk that if you have anybody
who is coerced. They are less likely to be co-operative, and we
would potentially lose on what I call "round the edges".
I am sure the industry will do all the things they are required
to do and they will continue to behave absolutely properly and
we have seen no sign or indication that they would do otherwise,
but many of them do extra things around the edges, and willingly
do extra things. I suspect they would be less willing to do that
if they felt they had been subjected to something which they thought
was unfair.
144. What are the examples of that? I think
I would agree with that but what are the examples?
(Dr Langslow) For example, in restoration schemes,
they are often at the moment very amenable to putting in extra
work to improve the wildlife benefits; in all kinds of restoration
schemes they are prepared to fund extra activities, they sometimes
sponsor other wildlife work, and I suspect they would be less
likely to do that if they were taxed.
Joan Walley
145. Mr Langslow, can I press you a bit further
on that? Leaving aside the issue on hypothecation, in terms of
how you would reach a decision on what would be the best way forward
in terms of SSSIs what specific further things would you like
the association to do to satisfy you on the SSSIs?
(Dr Langslow) There are several things. The first
is we want a commitment from them that they will not apply for
new planning permissions on SSSIs unless the application will
lead to no damaging effect on the special interest or there is
some judgment by Government of an overriding public interest.
Many of the SSSIs which are related to the minerals industry are
ones which are geological sites and in which quarrying can often
go on perfectly happily alongside the maintenance of the special
interest. It is not a question that quarrying is bad for an SSSI
necessarily, it depends on what it is. The second thing is that
we want, with the industry to do a review of all of the dormant
permissions. We want a commitment to that review with the aim
of eliminating those dormant permissions where they adversely
affect an SSSI. Thirdly, we would want a commitment from the operators
who own a lot of land outside SSSIs that they would introduce
management schemes on that land which would make a measurable
contribution to the nature conservation interest in the local
area. Fourthly, we would want to make sure that performance indicators
are published and are audited.
146. In respect of the Quarry Products Association
can you envisage a situation where you might be dealing with companies
who are not members of that Association and who therefore were
not party to any agreement that you might wish to see as, perhaps,
a way forward?
(Dr Langslow) There is the problem with cheats in
any system like this, that is one of the down sides of package
or partnership agreements. I think there are several actions you
can take. You can make sure that much of the use of these terms
is through public contracts. You can certainly specify within
those contracts that the bodies from which you take the material
have to have met certain standards. I think you can also shame
the industry into doing it as you can tighten the planning regulations.
There is clearly a risk with cheats. One of the benefits of the
tax is there cannot be any cheats. The QPA membership is very
wide, particularly in England. It is slightly less wide, I understand,
in other parts of the United Kingdom.
147. In terms of what you just said, how would
that tie up to the export market?
(Dr Langslow) The export market would, again, need
to be either regulated in some way—the export market is
currently quite small—or you would seek, I guess, a European-wide
regulation. There are difficulties, as I understand, on the taxation
side relating to exports as well as with the import side and making
sure that any system works adequately.
148. Can I ask, finally, how you square that
with the current lapsed discussions in respect of world trade?
(Dr Langslow) I cannot possibly comment. All I have
seen is newspaper and television reports. Clearly the economics
of the industry is such that most of the supply is likely to be
United Kingdom supply, unless, for some reason, the cost of supply
within the United Kingdom becomes so high that you supply aggregates
from outside the country. Certainly one of the things to be brought
in is some real consideration of what the environmental costs
are, what are the transport costs. It may or may not be economically
viable to bring it in from Norway or Finland but what are the
relative environmental costs between that and sourcing it in this
country. That too needs to be a factor.
Mr Jones
149. You heard the QPA answer a question that
I asked about environmental impact and SSSIs by saying that they
were only about a handful of SSSIs that there was a deleterious
effect on and for special interest possibly only one. If that
is the case, are we not using rather a huge sledgehammer to crack
a very, very tiny nut? How much information do you have on the
impact of quarrying on SSSIs and what are the results?
(Dr Langslow) I do not think I heard the QPA quite
say what you suggested but I think there is a lot of things in
principle. There are towards 700 SSSIs which are related to the
minerals industry, not all of those are aggregates sites. Of that
700 about 450 are sites of geological interest. It is unusual
if there is a conflict between the geological special interest
and the quarrying activity. Normally sensible negotiation can
solve that without any problem. It is mostly the biological sites
where there are some problems. Of that 700, 350 are disused sites,
thus about half of them are disused sites. Some of them are very
long disused, one of our best National Nature Reserves is Barnack
Hills and Holes in the north part of Cambridgeshire, which is
a wonderful limestone grassland. That quarry is eight centuries
old and the holes are now Peterborough Cathedral. There is a huge
range of issues in here. We have about 350 sites which are active
and about half of those, about 180, have some issues to resolve.
The 180 include all mineral sites not just aggregate sites. There
are about 16 or about 10 per cent where we believe there is an
extremely big problem that might lead to the need for revocation
of the planning permission eventually. Nearly all the others can
be solved in dialogue and we are steadily working away at that.
Sometimes the management is not good enough, sometimes there are
hydrological issues to be sorted, where we are working with the
Environment Agency and the quarry operators to try and solve.
150. It is three handfuls rather than one handful.
(Dr Langslow) Yes. Those are the really acutely difficult
ones where finding a negotiated solution is going to be very difficult
because it would involve the companies concerned giving up considerable
economic assets. Since they have been given permission by their
local authorities, they naturally feel they should be entitled
to use those resources.
151. Should the Government be looking at other
forms of regulation, rather than a taxation, to deal with that
level of problem?
(Dr Langslow) I think most of it could be dealt with
by regulation on those particular sites, that is quite true. That
is why I emphasised at the outset that it is a regulation-plus
matter because we need the regulation, the existing regulation
but there are also places where that could be tagged on. The minerals
planning guidance review, that is coming up, is one of the opportunities
to improve regulation.
152. You also heard me ask the QPA about why
we are taxing aggregates. They answered, particularly about limestone
quarrying, that it could be producing all sorts of different end
products. The environmental impact is on the extraction itself.
I was particularly concerned that the environmental impact of
coal open casting was at least as great, if not greater, than
that of aggregates. What is English Nature's view about that?
(Dr Langslow) That is one of the technical problems
undoubtedly with the tax, when a particular quarry produces several
different products, some of which would be taxed and some which
would not. You could, I guess, still recycle the part that is
taxed back into addressing the environmental externalities, but
you are quite right, the environmental impact is the digging up
process. Although again it is surprising how well hidden large
quarries can sometimes be in practical terms. There are nevertheless
major impacts because you have to move the aggregate stone away
and often that is one of the most difficult things to cope with.
In terms of coal, we are lucky in that most places where there
is open casting of coal are not in areas of prime nature conservation
interest and we have not had a significant issue with coal extraction
in recent years. Certainly the environmental impacts in the wider
sense are quite considerable and quite devastating sometimes,
but they have not specifically been on issues related to SSSIs.
Joan Walley
153. You seem to be making a distinction between
the special value of the SSSIs and the biodiversity issues generally.
Just a short while ago you were saying that you wanted proper
auditing of what was happening. In terms of the general undermining
of the biodiversity, is that not just as important?
(Dr Langslow) No, the special sites are the high quality
sites and generally speaking the "density of biodiversity"
is much higher on those sites. That is why our prime interest
is with them. What we are going to seek in areas outside the special
sites is to maximise the opportunities. But in terms of the land
involved in any of the mineral activities, it is minute compared
to, say, the impact of agriculture which is a far, far more significant
issue in terms of the biodiversity of England as a whole.
Dr Iddon
154. You heard the discussion we had about the
percentage figures for recycling, are you generally in agreement
with what the QPA said in reply to my question?
(Dr Langslow) This sounds like a good numbers game,
which Mr Burney will help you on I hope.
(Mr Burney) I think the interesting part of that conversation
was on the recycling figures. The Rocky Logic report seems to
suggest that there is 70 million tonnes of construction demolition
waste arising per year and, if I understood Mr McLaughlin right,
he was suggesting an ambitious but reasonable maximum target might
be to use 60 million tonnes or more of that. So in terms of the
recyclable material from construction and demolition waste, there
seems to be a reasonable consensus about the long-term target
although there is some dispute about the actual amount there is
recycled at the moment. Where there seems to be much less consensus
is on the amount of secondary materials which could be used and
we are certainly conscious of the arguments that there are problems
in the amount of these which can be used and the location of them.
There seems to be much less consensus about the amount which can
be used. Our understanding of the tax at the moment is that there
will not be a distinction between secondary materials and primary
materials in the rate of tax except for clay wastes, so that is
a consideration as well.
155. Nevertheless, do you see there is a possibility
of reducing the demand for primary aggregates significantly?
(Dr Langslow) It depends how significant is significant.
There is undoubtedly room to increase the recycling although we
are aware that there are some practical problems, less from the
nature conservation side than from the fact that the material
for recycling will tend to arise in urban areas and unless you
are going to spend a lot of money transporting it you need to
recycle it in the urban areas. That is sometimes not very popular
for those who live nearby. Undoubtedly the recycling percentage
can go up a little and I think we largely accept the figures which
have been quite widely promulgated both by independent commentators
and by the QPA that probably the 20 to 25 per cent band is about
as high as it will ever go.
156. When it came to the question of mining
waste and fly ash, I got the feeling that the QPA reckoned that
most of that material was back-filled on site and was not tipped
above ground level or transferred to another landfill site. Is
that your understanding?
(Dr Langslow) I am afraid I am not familiar with the
arguments about where the waste goes.
157. Do you think the landfill tax is at too
low a level so that it does not encourage recycling of aggregates
material?
(Dr Langslow) I do not think so. There was some discussion
in the previous session about china clay and those who have ever
visited Cornwall will have seen the huge quantities of material,
but even if it had a highly beneficial use, it is an awful long
way to carry it to South East England. So even if it has a beneficial
use, it is difficult to move around. So most of it I think will
be put back in the holes from which it came.
158. The Government have set targets for secondary
and recycled aggregates. Do you agree with what the QPA said this
morning, that they are well up beyond those targets? Have you
any feel for that?
(Dr Langslow) I do not have a feel for it. Certainly
the numbers that we have seen in comparison with European countries
suggests that they are doing quite well, but equally there is
clearly a lot of material not yet recycled and there is secondary
material not yet used. One would hope that there will be continuing
pressure to increase the proportions used. I am not familiar enough
with the building industry to know what can be done for example
in altering the specifications for construction which would enable
more of it to be used more easily or would change the economic
balance. I am afraid I do not know enough about those areas to
offer a useful comment.
159. Do you have any comments to make about
the fact that recycling of secondary aggregates has an environmental
impact in itself, for example on the rural landscape?
(Dr Langslow) Yes, the recycling undoubtedly has an
impact. One of the major ones is going to be the transport impact.
As I said, a lot of the recycled material will often arise in
urban areas, or peri-urban areas, and you need to have the recycling
plant close to where the material is generated, because you do
not want to spend a lot of time and money moving it around. The
environmental impacts of moving it are quite considerable, both
in terms of CO2 emissions as well as the more obvious impacts
of lorry movements. The road impacts and all the other things
which arise from that, will largely be from lorry movements. Because
of the nature of where recycled material arises, the chances of
involving rail transport are very limited.
|
