Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15360
- 15379)
15360. Mr Binley: I have two questions,
Mr McLaughlin. They are relatively simple. We are facing some
very sizeable projects over the coming years: the Olympic Games,
Sustainable Communities, Crossrail itself—to say nothing
of the airports. I wondered whether you feel that aggregates supply
is going to be capable of keeping up with that size of project.
(Mr McLaughlin) I do. Aggregates
are being used increasingly efficiently, due to a number of reasons:
design of construction projects are being less material-intensive,
if I can put it that way (for example, we build thinner roads
now and use less aggregates) and I think there is an increasing
use of alternative materials such as recycled materials.
15361. I wondered if you would mention that.
Do carry on.
(Mr McLaughlin) Consequently,
we believe that there should be a supply that is satisfactory
to meet demands. There is a mineral planning process which is
under review at the moment, as it happens, and that is about trying
to ensure that the mineral planning process provides a reasonable
and balanced supply of materials to meet future needs. One would
hope that that would meet that objective. In terms of recycling
(just picking that point up) the industry has doubled its recycling
rate in the last 15 years or so. We are now probably not far off
the practical maximum of recycling; we are using nearly 70 million
tonnes of recycled materials a year and I expect the maximum might
be about 80. We have got the highest recycling rate of any country
in Europe.
15362. Second question: because there is a growing
reaction to ruining river valleys and so forth, people want to
protect their environment, more particularly when they see recycling
as a possible answer. It is reckoned, depending on which expert
you choose, that we could recycle between 30% and 70% of our requirements,
and certainly more than we are doing at the moment. We are being
hindered by a lack of investment rather than a restraint brought
about by recycling itself. I just wonder how much the industry
really considers local recycling of aggregates and how much that
would impact upon your need to shift aggregates the number of
the miles you are talking about.
(Mr McLaughlin) First of
all, as a matter of policy, we, in our statements to the erstwhile
ODPM on planning policy, have always made the point that recycling
is the primary source of supply, and that the supply of new aggregates,
virgin aggregates, comes in after that. That is government policy.
So the way the planning system works, it looks to maximise the
supply of recycling materials and kind of fill in the gap with
new materials. Clearly, with recycled materials one can only use
them as they arise, and as they are largely construction and demolition
based it very much depends on the amount of construction and demolition
that is happening. I think, as I said, we are not miles away from
getting pretty close to a maximum on that; if one looks at the
activities of the Government's recycling agency, WRAP, which has
an aggregates arm, it is interesting they are now looking more
at projects which actually improve the quality of the recycled
material rather than the quantity. In terms of relationship to
the London market and Crossrail implications, recycling is actually
a very mature activity in London, because obviously it is an urban
area and things have been knocked down for years, and so there
is quite an infrastructure, including an infrastructure operated
by our members. Also, in terms of the Crossrail supply, the sources
of aggregates into London are principally rock which is principally
coming from Somerset and, to a lesser extent, from the East Midlands
and Leicestershire. The sources of those materials are regarded
as strategically important, hence I believe those will be protected,
as it were, in terms of the planning system, but certainly it
has to coincide with a maximum use of recycled material.
15363. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you,
Mr McLaughlin. You have made the point. Ms Lieven?
Cross-examined by Ms Lieven
15364. Ms Lieven: Mr McLaughlin, have
you seen the transport working group report, the one carried out
for Crossrail?
(Mr McLaughlin) By the "working
group", do you mean the—
15365. The Timetable Working Group.
(Mr McLaughlin) I have seen
extracts from it, yes.
15366. Can I have it put up please at page 14
because, so far as growth is concerned, if we just look at the
top paragraph on page 14, and I think the Committee has already
seen this passage, it says, "The initial stage of the freight
RUS work has been to take forecasts from rail freight users and
potential users together with the rail freight operators and to
put these together to create a single forecast for different route
sections".[26]
The fact is that we have taken into account growth and freight
growth in particular in reaching the conclusions in this report,
have we not?
(Mr McLaughlin) What levels of
freight growth have you taken into account?
15367. Well, the railway operators, including
EWS and Freightliner, were on this Working Group, yes?
(Mr McLaughlin) They were,
yes.
15368. They fed into the growth forecasts which
were then used in the work, yes?
(Mr McLaughlin) Yes.
15369. So presumably they will know the likely
levels of freight growth.
(Mr McLaughlin) Well, I
think they forecast what has been described to me as "organic
growth". Now, I am not quite sure what organic growth is
other than an assumption that it is 1 or 2% growth per annum,
but certainly there was no request for us to put information into
that exercise directly. My concern is that in a forecasting exercise
one does not just want a central forecast, but one wants a degree
of sensitivity to assess what happens if the forecast in this
case is higher than anticipated.
15370. Just so the Committee can understand,
are you producing any evidence that the growth forecasts in this
report were wrong or are you just generally saying that you have
a concern that there is going to be a lot of aggregates growth
and it has got to be taken into account?
(Mr McLaughlin) I have not
done a precise forecast, but, as I say, we did not feed information
directly into this exercise and my concern is that it does not
take sufficient account of the potential growth.
15371. You say it does not take sufficient account,
but I am sorry, Mr McLaughlin, can you just help me as to where
your evidence for that is because I have a report which says that
it has taken into account growth, it is a group that includes
EWS, Freightliner and other train operators, and it concludes
that there is sufficient capacity for growth on the Great Western
and we know that a lot of the freight on the Great Western is
aggregates, and you come along and say, "There's not enough
capacity for growth", so I need something to look at in a
bit more detail if you have it.
(Mr McLaughlin) What I have
said is that there may well be a central forecast of organic or
modest growth and that is a central forecast which is based essentially
on the assumed growth of the aggregates market. The point I am
making is that if one looks at the development potential in the
Thames Gateway and London which has not been the subject of a
detailed forecasting exercise, I have some concern that the demand
will be higher than that forecast and what I would like is for
that to be tested in a forecasting exercise so that we can get
some idea about where the constraints actually happen, if the
constraints are going to happen. If I could take the point that
forecasting is uncertain, if the economy falls off then clearly
all the forecasts are not going to come to fruition anyway, but
I would like to see some evidence of this sensitivity analysis
so that we can have some reassurance as to at what point we will
have constraints on our ability to use the network.
15372. I understand your concerns, Mr McLaughlin,
but it is not possible for the Committee to test those concerns,
is it?
(Mr McLaughlin) No.
15373. You are not producing anything which
says, "The Timetable Working Group has presumed 3% growth,
but we think it will be 6% growth", or any such evidence
which the Committee could base a conclusion on, are you?
(Mr McLaughlin) No, but
I think it might be reasonable in my presentation to the Committee
to make the point that we are concerned, as the development process
and the information about the Thames Gateway are developing, that
there may be an underestimate of demand. I am not saying that
that will definitely happen, but I think it is reasonable that
the exercise actually looks to see where the constraints might
take place.
15374. Have you done any analysis in relation
to the Timetable Working Group conclusions as to what proportion
of the growth that was taken into account was aggregates growth,
so how your concerns that there will be greater aggregates growth
relate to the Timetable Working Group conclusions?
(Mr McLaughlin) I have been
informed that there was an aggregates growth assumption of organic
growth.
15375. As far as the capacity for growth of
aggregates is concerned, the Timetable Working Group Report is
looking at paths, is it not?
(Mr McLaughlin) It is indeed,
yes.
15376. In terms of whether there is capacity
for more aggregates to go on the railway, it is necessary not
just to look at whether there is capacity for more paths, but
also whether the paths that are there at the moment are being
fully utilised.
(Mr McLaughlin) Indeed.
15377. Because it is a fact, is it not, that
at certain times quite a high proportion of potential paths for
freight are not actually used? It is obviously going to depend
from time to time and from route to route.
(Mr McLaughlin) I am not
the expert on timetabling and the way in which paths are calculated,
but my understanding is that there is spare capacity because the
supply of trains is not consistent. It is not like a passenger
service where your trains are timetabled every quarter of an hour.
The supply of trains on a weekly basis reflects the demands. The
trains only travel when they are full up, they do not wait for
passengers, hence you need a bigger level of spare capacity or
headroom than you would do with the passenger network.
15378. If, for instance, one discovers on a
particular route, at a particular time of year or whatever that
there is only 60% usage of the paths that are available, then
that 40% is available for growth, is it not?
(Mr McLaughlin) I am not
sure that it is. The relationship between paths and absolute volumes
is something I am not entirely competent to comment on.
15379. I am sure you are not confused about
this, but I am keen that the Committee are clear about this. As
far as the suggestion that there is an impact from the Olympics
is concerned because obviously the Olympics will take a proportion
of aggregates, and one hopes a high proportion will be recycled,
but some will not, the Olympics obviously happen in 2012 at a
fixed point—
(Mr McLaughlin) Indeed.
26 Crossrail Ref: P106, Crossrail Timetable Working
Group (LINEWD-GEN13-014). Back
| 
