Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 399)
TUESDAY 6 JUNE 2000
MR JOHN
MORTIMER AND
MS JANE
TOPLISS
Chairman
380. Somewhat late.
(Mr Mortimer) I beg your pardon.
Mr Gray
381. In that context, there are those who would
say that industry in general is insufficiently committed to Biodiversity
Action Plans. Do you think that is a fair criticism?
(Mr Mortimer) I think it probably is. I think we have
to separate in this debate and consideration of your Committee
biodiversity from Biodiversity Action Plans. Biodiversity, although
the term is relatively new, is something with which industry has
been dealing for many years. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan was
only published in 1994 and, therefore, in the scheme of things
is a relatively new phenomenon. I think that it takes time for
these instruments to be fully understood by the people to whom
they are primarily targeted. I think there is room for a greater
understanding and appreciation by industry of what the Biodiversity
Action Plan process means, how it works and what industry can
do towards it. I think the most important operators, or most important
players, are aware of that. As I say, I think the issue is well
understood by agriculture, it is well-understood—we have
heard—by the water industry, by the power generation industry
and by the minerals industry. These are the people who have the
major impact on the national flora and fauna.
382. If that is right, are there not two possible
solutions to industry's lack of awareness of BAPs? One would be
for the CBI—yourselves—to try and take some action
to try and encourage awareness amongst your members, and the second
might be to ask the Government to make it statutory. What merits
have either of those?
(Mr Mortimer) I think statutory measures do have their
place, though I do not think there is any evidence to suggest
that that place or that moment in time has yet come in connection
to the Biodiversity Action Plan. As I said, from 1994 to 2000
is a relatively short time and there has, in that time, been substantial
progress in implementing and, as it were, cascading down from
the national plan to local plans—whether it be at district,
county, water park or national park level. Those plans are only
now being put in place and it is now that we should be looking
to see whether industry is going to embrace those and, really,
integrate biodiversity and its contribution to the plan within
its business structure. I think the evidence is that we are. You
asked about encouraging people to do that. In my own company,
last year, my staff organised a seminar on minerals and biodiversity.
I went along and I chaired it. I have to say it was one of the
most rewarding days I have had myself, because I learnt so much.
One of the things was a very simple example of how an existing
quarry restoration plan can be adapted once you know what the
Biodiversity Action Plan says about the primary target species
and the target habitats. The classic way of restoring a sand and
gravel operation, once the landscape architects got hold of us,
was to push the topsoil back to the sides (which preserves the
topsoil, which is important), and make a lake in the middle. What
the Biodiversity Action Plan showed us was that the habitat that
was in scarce supply in that area was wet grassland, so rather
than produce dry banks and a great big wet lake, the ideal restoration
for that area is to restore it to a wet grassland, boggy area,
because that is what the snipe need as their habitat. So that
change is something which we could do. That is something we need
to get across to, certainly, everybody within the minerals industry
and other industries; that once they know what is in the Biodiversity
Action Plan they can, quite relatively easily, adapt what they
were planning to do to deliver biodiversity.
383. Let us just ask about how industry sets
about reporting biodiversity impacts. When you come to a new site,
what are you currently required to do—industry in general—with
regard to the reporting of biodiversity works? Are the standards
set by the Government high enough?
(Mr Mortimer) The requirement now is that any development
in excess of 25 hectares has to have a full environmental assessment
prepared on it prior to development.
384. Twenty-five hectares is enormous. A lot
of stuff goes on less than that.
(Mr Mortimer) I have to say I agree with you. It was,
in fact, part of the proposal which the Quarry Products Association
made to the Government in the context of the Landfill Tax, that
as part of the package of measures that we proposed we proposed
a guarantee of environmental assessment irrespective of size.
I do agree with you that 25 hectares is quite a sufficient area
to contain several species. Irrespective of that, it is widespread,
wide practice, certainly within the mineral sector, to produce
an environmental assessment before we start work. Of course, the
authorities, should they suspect that they are issues to be addressed,
have the right to insist on one even on areas less than 25 hectares.
So it is the case that almost always there is an environmental
assessment. That enables you to get that benchmark for what is
there already, and it enables the authorities to exercise the
judgment—which is very important—that we have to preserve
our environmental capital. So those areas which are very important,
from a biodiversity point of view, we should be seeking not to
develop. You can only do that if you have a thorough understanding
of what is on the ground.
385. That is what happens, and you do your environmental
assessment. However, what do the authorities do to take account
of the good practitioners and the bad practitioners—those
that do take account of what they have discovered in their environmental
impact assessment and those that do not? Is there some differentiation?
(Mr Mortimer) And the people who manage their sites
correctly adhere to high environmental standards, et cetera. Regrettably
not much. There is not much encouragement within the system to
be a high standard operator. Of course, there is, if you like,
the long-term sensor that if you fail to achieve the right standards
achieving your next planning consent may be more difficult, although,
frankly, there is not that much evidence of that. Some operators,
whose standards my company would not have supported, have subsequently
been granted consent. Again, something which the industry sought
to build into its proposals as the alternative to aggregates tax
was that we are exhorted to reach these high standards, yet Government,
as our major customer, makes no differentiation at all between
the people from whom it buys as to their environmental standards.
So the Quarry Products Association propose that the Government
should buy from companies who operate to a given set of standards,
and that could and should, I believe, include whether or not they
have produced a Biodiversity Action Programme for an individual
site from which the Government is buying materials. This is the
power that Government has.
386. Are you saying that at the moment the Government,
given it is buying minerals, takes no account of the environmental
standards set by the companies from which they are buying?
(Mr Mortimer) That is correct. The Government buys
between 40 and 50 per cent of all aggregates produced in the United
Kingdom, and it takes no account of the environmental performance
of the companies from which it buys. It was specifically that
which the Quarry Products Association proposed as a better environmental
solution.
Mrs Dunwoody
387. What was the response?
(Mr Mortimer) The Government has rejected the Quarry
Products Association's proposal in favour of introducing a flat
rate tax applied equally to all aggregates produced, irrespective
of whether it is produced from highly environmental sensitive
areas of not, or irrespective of whether the company that produces
it, for instance, has ISO 14001, EMASS, a Biodiversity Action
Plan, or has a wonderful relationship with its neighbours, et
cetera.
388. Could your suggestion have been regarded
in any way as distorting the terms of trade or contract between
the Government and company?
(Mr Mortimer) We sought legal advice on that proposal
and our advice was that it could be achieved within the European
regulations on competition.
389. It might not, but it could be changed?
(Mr Mortimer) Our view was that it could be achieved.
I have to say that the Treasury has taken a different view, but
has not yet been prepared to release the advice upon which it
formed that view. We have asked the Treasury if they would let
us see the legal opinion where it is said it could not be achieved.
After all, the Treasury has been known to not always have its
legal opinion correct in the matters of European competition,
because they are running into issues with the climate of change
levy.
Chairman: That was very tactful.
Mr Gray
390. You are allowed to be as rude as you like,
either about the Treasury or about Europe, both have reasonable
targets.
(Mr Mortimer) We do feel, as an industry, that we
have presented the Government with a very full and viable alternative
that would have addressed environmental issues and have differentiated
between good and bad. Of course, a flat rate tax cannot do that.
It has also been set at a very high level, approaching 100 per
cent of production costs there is also a very punitive tax which
may yet backfire on the voluntary work which the industry does
in this area. I hope not, but of course margins are going to be
under pressure.
Chairman
391. It could of course result in a lot more
old bricks and concrete being recycled?
(Mr Mortimer) It will result in some increase in recycling,
although the scope for the increase in the recycling of building
materials is very limited. The country already leads Europe in
terms of its reuse of building materials at around about 15 per
cent of the total consumption of aggregate. I think that can be
pushed up by 5 per cent or 10 per cent, but not much further.
Chairman: We are getting a little way from the
subject.
Mr Brake
392. What are the limits? Why are you saying
that will only be increased by a further 5 to 10 per cent?
(Mr Mortimer) The limit is that we build more than
we knock down. We are still a developing society, and so we are
simply restricted by the amount of available construction and
demolition waste, and also by the fact that any sensible constructor
now, probably the first thing they do when they occupy a site
is bring in their own crushing and screening facilities and make
sure they use the materials on site. There is no record of that
kept. The Government has no record of the amount of recycling.
Chairman: I think we had better leave that.
Mr Olner
393. I thought we were talking about biodiversity
and not the aggregates matter, but to put it on the record, the
reason I think it was not accepted was because it could not be
delivered and that was one of the problems. Can I ask, John, what
you have done in particular in the CBI on the integration of biodiversity?
You mentioned quarry products and I recognise you are an expert
on that particular part of things, but along with the extraction
there is also the processing and the transport. How do all these
things start to work into a Biodiversity Action Plan?
(Mr Mortimer) I am glad you mentioned integration,
because I think that it is crucially important that biodiversity
is integrated all the way through the process, as you say, and
really integrated within the business itself. I was interested
to hear the question from Mr Brake about how much the water industry
spent. I simply could not answer the question, neither would I
recognise it within the context of how minerals are produced as
possible to answer, because it is so integrated in what we do.
It is obvious when you are digging a hole that you are going to
disturb something, and we need to know what that is. It is also
the case that when you distribute materials, haulage routes are
important because the noise that is created and the dust that
is created can impact on sensitive environments and sensitive
habitats. It is really about the thoroughness with which the company,
the local authority and the NGOs with whom we work—the people
like the Wildlife Trust, RSPB and English Nature, the statutory
body—all work together to make sure that the full picture
is really understood.
394. Do you think the Green Ministers' checklist
on the integration point is sufficiently robust?
(Mr Mortimer) Until yesterday I had never heard of
the Green Ministers' checklist, but fortunately the CBI had and
kindly gave me a copy. I have to say that the checklist that is
in there—
Mrs Dunwoody
395. If they start off green, they do not last
very long. Some of them get quite sharp after a while.
(Mr Mortimer) The stages through which it goes are
exactly those which we would apply within industry. I think the
very thing it says is to basically preserve that critical capital
and really look at whether operating at a particular place, developing
a particular place, is the right thing to do and whether you cannot
do it elsewhere. So the preservation of critical capital is very
important. I think it is quite a good structure. How it is being
applied in Government and within the Government estate, I do not
know. I do not know how many ISO 14001s the Government has, so
that is another question, but I think it is quite a sensible structure.
Mr Olner
396. I made a note when you were talking about
the public relation benefit and the little pink flower came to
mind in answer to a question that the Chairman asked. Do you think
that the champion of conservation on a particular species is a
sensible way for business to move the whole agenda forward?
(Mr Mortimer) I think one of the problems with what
we have seen so far is that those companies who really are engaged
in the front line do not need to champion something, their resources
are going into front line conservation and front line action,
so championing for them does not seem to be the best and most
direct use of its financial resources. What we have seen so far
is a number of—and CBI members have been right up there
in joining in in this—important species taken off the list
and are receiving support. The company that I worked for for a
long time are currently looking at perhaps becoming a habitat
sponsor in an area of relevance to us. The area there might be,
for instance, reed beds, where we have, as an industry, through
restoration, the ability to create a reed bed which is the number
one habitat on the list which supports the Bittern, which is the
number one species on the list. We have a very prime role to play
in that and in the paper which I regret that you have not seen,
we site the example of a project in Cambridgeshire where we are
in the process of changing a planning consent from agricultural
restoration to the creation of a 700 hectare reed bed. This will
be the largest man-made reed bed in Europe and the largest inland
reed bed in Britain. We have that sort of ability and that sort
of commitment to biodiversity.
Mr Blunt
397. Would you support measures which required
all businesses that hold land to produce corporate BAPs?
(Mr Mortimer) I would prefer first to encourage businesses
who hold land to take biodiversity into account in their environmental
reporting. We are seeing the beginning and growth in business
reporting of the environment and I think that that is right and
proper, and some of the reports of utilities being the forefront,
as we heard, are very, very comprehensive indeed. I think the
problem is that we do not want to turn biodiversity into bio-bureaucracy.
I think that bureaucracy could kill biodiversity as much as neglect,
unless you are going to then bring in very, very extensive regulation
and legislation to ensure that these things are done. At the moment
I think there is a growing enthusiasm within industry to be taking
part in this. I think that is what we should be concentrating
on right now. If this does not work, Mr Blunt, in the next 10
years, then let us return to consider whether compulsion is the
right way to bring industry into partnership on biodiversity.
Christine Butler
398. Have you got any main recommendations,
two or three, that could actually streamline the process and make
the whole thing more simple and effective?
(Mr Mortimer) I think, speaking particularly of Biodiversity
Action Plans, there is a task to be done, and it has been mentioned
earlier this morning, about simplifying the results of those plans
into language which is easily understood by the general public
and by business.
399. Whose plans, because I think we have such
an overlap, a double accounting, going on by various bodies? Have
you a comment to make on that, so that you have one mapping exercise?
How can the public know who is doing what? How can we simplify
it? Everyone is making various claims.
(Mr Mortimer) I think that it seems to me that the
cascading structure of Biodiversity Action Plans is sensible.
I am conscious that in part there may be some overlap of those
plans where, for instance, a district council or a county council
may have their own plan. Taking the example of the Cotswold Water
Park which straddles several districts and probably several counties,
they have their own plan as well, and there is a potential for
overlap. Nevertheless, I do not think that is what we should be
avoiding, I do not think the problem is so severe. The severe
problem is that these, quite rightly, are produced with a very
high degree of expertise by scientists working for authorities,
for companies and for the NGOs. I think the problem is how we
interpret that into a way in which we can stimulate action. Someone
in my company put words to that, Action: A is acceptance of responsibility;
the C is communicating; the T is recognising what the targets
are; the I is involvement; the O—I've forgotten what that
stands for and the N is now.
|
