§ Mr. George Walden (Buckingham)I am extremely grateful to have a chance to take part in one of these highly elusive debates—so elusive that one beat of a Whip's heart or one spoonful too many of watercress soup in the Members' Dining Room, and the moment is passed.
I am particularly glad that the debate will be answered by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is on the Front Bench, because they both share my concern about gravel extraction and all that it involves. They are both neighbours of mine and, although they are constrained in their public utterances by ministerial office, we concert on these matters and I hope to have a sympathetic hearing if only for that reason.
I do not want to be a NIMBY negativist. I want to be positive and constructive, but I must begin by outlining what seems to me to be an unacceptable situation. In huge swathes of north Buckinghamshire people are in danger of having their lives blighted and the countryside is in danger of being irretrievably scarred by the operation of gravel diggers.
Where did we start? It is interesting to look back at a report by Sir Ralph Verney in 1976 which he recalled in a letter published in The Times about a year ago. I shall quote from it because it recalls where we started only a few years ago. Sir Ralph Verney wrote:
the County Council as mineral planning authority should be mindful of the fact that when we planned the building of Milton Keynes, their Committee of which I was Chairman imposed a condition that no permissions should be granted west of the M 1 for gravel extractions for the building of the City. This decision was fully endorsed by the London and Home Counties Regional Planning Conference and there was never any question of County quotas for extraction as has been suggested by the developers.That is where we started a few years ago. Where are we now?The village of Chackmore in my constituency is a charming quiet village quite close to Buckinghamshire in the environs of the historic grounds of Stowe. It is incredible to believe that an application was put in for gravel extraction within hundreds of yards of that village. It was fought, but it was only after a campaign in the national press that the application was withdrawn. Not everyone has the pulling power, in terms of media interest, of Stowe school, or the support of the National Trust.
The village of Mursley in my constituency—a tranquil and ancient village—is similarly threatened. Once again, there is a proposal to extract gravel on a huge scale within a few hundred yards of the school, which will destroy the environment of the people who live in the village.
Mr. Kenneth Tucker, the leader of a campaign against the threat to Mursley, is not a nimbyist, but a highly energetic and informed man, who takes this matter extremely seriously and looks beyond the confines of his own village. He has pointed out that gravel extraction so close to that village would lead to dust, traffic, noise and danger to the water sources. There would be consequent damage to the environment of neighbouring villages, notably Drayton Parslow.
Those are two examples, but there are more. The villages of Thornton, Beachampton and Thornborough 897 are faced with a similar threat. They lie in an especially picturesque stretch of the Ouse valley. To give an example of the complete insensitivity to landscape with which these applications are made, gravel extraction in that area would run against the convent of Thornton which is a retreat and a teaching centre, and is set in a splendid and isolated landscape, as the nature of the convent requires. That is an example of total insensitivity to the lives of local people, and to the nuns, which can creep into applications for gravel extraction.
It is important to remember that places like the Ouse valley are close to the town of Buckingham and to the larger agglomeration of Milton Keynes. Not only the villagers would suffer; so would the inhabitants of those large towns, for whom that area is one of the closest recreation centres.
Other examples affect my constituents. One is at Finmere, which is over the frontier in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister. Another is in the village of Passenham, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, whom I am glad to see here tonight. Any gravel extraction there could affect the lives of my constituents in Stony Stratford.
A sudden pattern of gravel extraction proposals has developed in north Buckinghamshire in recent years, since Sir Ralph Verney pointed out how damaging it would be if that were to happen, partly as a consequence of the contruction of Milton Keynes.
We seem to be caught in a vice on this matter. We seem to be in a position where we have to despoil the countryside to improve the built environment; we have to blight the lives of rural residents to improve urban areas, housing and roads. We seem to be in a position where people who live in urban areas and who might want to seek a little tranquillity in the countryside at the weekend will find dust, noise and gaping holes in the ground in the villages that I have mentioned. It seems to me to be in everyone's interests to re-examine the whole question of extraction of aggregates and the implications for the environment.
The present arrangements appear to be neat and logical. They depend upon a system which reminds me of some of my experiences in Communist countries where I had the mixed fortune to live at one time. Those arrangements are based upon a quota system and upon rather inflexible national planning. One only has to look at the ugly acronyms associated with the process, such as RAWP and SERAWP, to get the feeling that it is an irresistible process which has lost all touch with the lives of ordinary people.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows better than I, the arrangements depend on co-operation among the minerals industry, local authorities and representatives of the Department of the Environment. There is the south-east regional aggregate working party, the regional aggregate working party and the national co-ordinating group, which is chaired by the Department of the Environment and comprises working party chairmen, representatives of the aggregates industry and other Government Departments. That all sounds neat and immaculate as a piece of planning machinery, but, in practice, it has become completely divorced from the results on the ground. It is all very well to have RAWP and SERAWP 898 and means of co-ordinating them, but something has gone alarmingly wrong with the whole bureaucratic structure when it ends up in a serious proposal to place a gravel extraction pit next to a school, a convent or Stowe school.
I am not chiding my hon. Friends the Ministers in the Department of the Environment for the situation, as they know, because I have raised the matter in the House before and have had discussions with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), about it.
The Department of the Environment has been rather forthcoming in reply to my representations. In case it forgets how forthcoming it has been, I shall take this opportunity to remind it.
In his letter of 4 February to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South promised to take increasing account of the possibility of alternative sources of aggregates, in other words of slag and such like, rather than digging it from the ground. I also know that the Department of the Environment has spoken to Mr. Peter Smith, an expert on the subject, who happens to live at Chackmore in my constituency—one can see what a wealth of informed and serious people I am fortunate enough to have in my constituency. I am grateful to the Department of the Environment for listening to what Peter Smith has to say.
On the day of my, sadly abortive, Adjournment debate two days ago, the Department of the Environment, I am sure by coincidence, answered a written question on the subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). In that reply, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment spoke of the
forecasts of the demand for aggregates for the next 20 years"havingbeen prepared by independent consultants.He went on:The Government are publishing the forecasts now so that the environmental implications of the rising demand for aggregates can be fully considered. These are a matter for serious concern. The forecasts do not mean that the demand must be met from new sources of land won aggregates. Nor do they mean that targets are set for production by the minerals industry.Later, in what was an important statement, the Minister went on:The Government will expect the industry to make greater use of alternative sources of supply. These include the potential from marine dredged sand and gravel; the greater use of materials such as china clay, sand and colliery minestone; and the increased exploitation of waste and recycled materials including power station ash, blast furnace slag and crushed concrete. We shall also consider the contributions that can be made from coastal super quarries. The Government have research in hand to examine all these options.At the conclusion of what was an immaculately drafted reply, the Minister said:Mineral planning authorities should have regard to the statement made by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) in July 1989 which made it clear that MPG 6 should be implemented as a matter of priority".—[Official Report, 7 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 401–2.]As we know, MPG 6 is the document that is causing the present problem and under which the applications—I have described them as grotesque—have been made in my constituency.The aggregates industry is literally consuming the country.899 Those are not my words. I would not use such fiery rhetoric. They are the words of Dr. John Adams of University College, London in a document entitled "Determined to Dig", which was published this month. I hope that the Government will take serious note of that very serious document, because it shows that the problems that my constituents are encountering will be encountered increasingly across the country. Dr. Adams states in that document:The principal objective is achieving adequate and steady supplies of aggregates. The second, subordinate, objective is the best balance of the social, environmental and economic costs that must be paid to achieve the first.He hit the nail on the head there, because that is precisely the imbalance into which we have got ourselves.Mr. Peter Smith of CAGE—the campaign against gravel extraction—to whom I referred, gets to the heart of what happens to be for me a local problem but which is a much wider national one. After much study of the matter, Mr. Smith believes that the Department of the Environment is in danger of managing the land quarry gravel market to ensure an excess of supply over demand which results in an artificially low price. That is no doubt done with the best of intentions, to support the construction industry, and we appreciate the importance of that industry.
However, Mr. Smith points out that gravel is 40 per cent. cheaper today than it was in 1970. The result is that the low price prevents the use of reprocessed waste materials such as ash aggregates and limestone, which could provide 50 per cent. of aggregate demand. It also inhibits the production of alternatives such as crushed rock and sea gravel. He goes on to point out that the central planning forum for the south-east region is the south-east regional aggregate working party, to which I referred, where delegates from the Department of the Environment, local authorities and gravel companies decide where and how much gravel will be quarried. The costs of that organisation are met from local authority funds. The organisation is, therefore, a private group, and while it meets not exactly in a clandestine situation, its minutes are secret and I understand that ash aggregate manufacturers are not represented on it. I shall be happy to hear the Minister contradict that, but it is my information.
If that is so, it seems odd for a Conservative Government to be operating what is, in effect, a type of price cartel to support a particular industry and to prevent environmental conservation from playing its full part in the decisions that are made. Those may appear to the Minister to be serious charges, but the situation, as Mr. Smith sees it and as I understand it, is serious in environmental terms.
If it were just a matter of gravel and sand extraction, it would be bad enough, but since in this industry one thing leads to another, yesterday's noisy gravel extraction is today's stinking, pestiferous waste pit. I could make a whole speech about the problem of waste pits in my constituency. I have an extremely large one at Calvert, and the local people, notably at Edgcott and Calvert, have lived with that huge pit for years. It takes much of London's rubbish. They have developed a reasonable relationship with Shanks and McEwan Limited, which operates the pit, and historically, basically because of the clay in the area, the pit has been there for a long time.
900 But whether it is gravel or waste pits, I do not believe in the equality of misery. The fact that many people's lives are already blighted or their environments have been ruined by the existence of gravel pits in south Bucks is no reason to extend gravel pits to north Bucks. Rather, it is a reason to ask what can be done to prevent the suffering that has occurred and damage to the environment being spread northwards or to parts of the country outside my constituency.
The same is true of waste pits. There have been in my constituency, alongside the applications for gravel extraction, a disturbing number of applications recently for waste pits, notably at Bierton, on the outskirts of Aylesbury, which already suffers from a serious traffic problem, which I hope will soon be resolved by a bypass. To impose a waste tip on that area and on its attractive landscape would be an example of vandalism. The proposal has been refused, but is still under appeal. Other attractive villages such as Aston Abbots nearby could be affected.
In yet another part of my constituency, at Great Brickhill, a totally unsuitable application was made to extract sand and fill up the hole with waste. I was glad that when I took up the matter on the Floor of the House and then personally with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South, he told me in his letter of 4 February that he would examine the possibility of guidance in order to prevent waste pits being established within a certain distance of villages.
We know from the time that such questions occupy on the Floor of the House that the Government are environmentally active. I hope that I have made it clear in my remarks that I appreciate the serious and positive response that I have had so far from the Government. The problem is, quite simply, that, although the Government are moving in the right direction in the longer term, the threat to my constituents and those who live in Mursley, Thornton and Beachampton is immediate. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to take an urgent new look at the situation that threatens to tear up the landscape in my constituency and perhaps in other parts of the country and to blight the lives, not only of my constituents, but of many people throughout the land.
§ Sir David Mitchell (Hampshire, North-West)With the leave of the House, I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said about the problems of gravel extraction and to refer to an example that illustrates the case that he is presenting. Conclusions can be drawn from his speech and from the example that I shall give.
In my constituency is the attractive village of Mottisfont. It is close to the River Test and is in an environmentally sensitive area. Therefore, of all the areas where one would expect planning consent for gravel and hoggin extraction, that is one of the least likely. However, a planning application was made, was refused by the local authority, went to appeal and has now been granted. When I objected to that planning application on behalf of many of my constituents, I tried to discover why planning permission was granted in an environmentally sensitive area of substantial beauty, beside one of the foremost environmentally attractive rivers in southern England. The 901 environmentally sensitive area policy is designed to ensure that the landscape is not damaged by changing farming methods. If the landscape is dug up to create a huge pit, that is the equivalent of changing farming methods, so I presumed that planning permission would be refused in the circumstances that I described. However, when I followed through the council's reasons for granting planning consent, I found that the key reason was the policy of counties being largely self sufficient in the provision of gravel, hoggin, sand and other building materials of that nature. The Government should review that policy urgently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham gave examples from Buckinghamshire where that policy has had an unsatisfactory effect on his constituents. The case that I described in Mottisfont is highly unsatisfactory to my constituents. It is common sense that, when the Mendip hills have thousands of tons of gravel, hoggin and a perfectly good rail system, there is no logic in continuing the policy of counties being self sufficient in those materials.
Will the Minister look carefully at the principle of requiring a degree of self sufficiency within a council? Would it not make more sense for gravel, hoggin and other construction materials to be brought in from other areas where extraction does not damage the environment and where the rail services are such that it can be done perfectly economically and to the great benefit of the environment in the county that will not be dug up?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)With the leave of the House, may I say that through no fault of his own, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) missed the Adjournment debate in his name on Tuesday, for which I suspect the Chief Whip has much to answer. I was determined that my hon. Friend should have the opportunity to express his concern to the House and that he should have a constructive reply.
My hon. Friend explained his concerns about minerals and waste disposal sites with characteristic eloquence and reasonableness. He knows that I share many of his concerns, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). We have had a number of discussions about concerns on the impact of sand and gravel extraction and landfill sites in Buckinghamshire and adjoining counties. I am pleased to be able to respond to this debate to make it clear that the Government share his concerns about the impact of minerals extraction on the countryside. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government's current thinking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is fortunate, as am I, to represent a constituency that contains much attractive countryside. Within his constituency, the county of Buckinghamshire, and in mine, the county of Oxfordshire, and in other counties such as Northamptonshire and Hampshire, there are important mineral resources, particularly of sand and gravel. Because of that, it is not surprising that conflicts arise over the desire to protect the environment.
Those concerns are exemplified by the great many objections which I know have been made to the 902 replacement Buckinghamshire minerals local plan. As my hon. Friend said, that plan is currently being debated at a public local inquiry which has just started. I know that he will appreciate that, against that background, I am unable to comment on the sites that he has mentioned. However, I am confident that the inspector will weigh up all the evidence put to him in a careful and thorough manner before making his recommendations to Buckinghamshire county council, which is the mineral planning authority for the area.
The Government recognise that the environmental impact of the extraction of minerals for construction purposes is a matter of considerable and understandable public concern.
The announcements that we made last week in interim development orders signalled our determination to drive up the standards of the minerals industry. Those old planning permissions cause much public concern, and the amendments that we intend to table for the Planning and Compensation Bill will, first, require IDOs to be registered within six months of commencement of the Bill's provisions, which I expect to be two or three months after Royal Assent. Secondly, in the case of sites dormant for two years before 2 May 1991, they will prevent working from the beginning until the permission has been registered and a scheme of operating and restoration conditions has been submitted and agreed. Thirdly, in respect of working sites—those where working has taken place within the last two years—they will require a scheme of conditions to be submitted for the approval of the mineral planning authority within 12 months of the date of registration. There will be no compensation for the cost of complying with any of those conditions, which will impose far higher environmental standards on the minerals industry than at any previous time in our history.
Those tough new proposals are part of the Government's general approach to environmental questions, following the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance". The consultation exercise on IDOs shows that there is widespread public concern that the minerals industry does not always operate with sufficient regard for the environment. We take those views very seriously. Nevertheless, I believe that the vast majority of firms operating in the minerals industry have a realistic approach. I believe that they recognise the need for far more stringent environmental standards to be adopted in future, and that the Government's proposals fit naturally into their general context.
My hon. Friend referred to the guidelines, MPG6, which were issued two years ago on the provision for aggregates. We are reviewing this current guidance to ensure that it is up to date and takes full account of the increased environmental concerns.
The first step is the preparation of a long-term forecast of aggregates demand. Demand for aggregates is generated by a proper and natural desire for improvements in the standard of living. That means improvements to our transport infrastructure, especially roads and railways, and improvements in hospitals, housing and water quality. That will be a particularly important factor as we play our part in negotiating and then maintaining rising European Community standards. However, the Government recognise that the environmental consequences of meeting this demand for aggregates must be very carefully 903 examined and weighed. A forecast of projected long-term levels of demand provides a useful starting point in those considerations.
The forecasts, which were commissioned from independent consultants, were published on Tuesday. They show that, with steady growth in the economy, the demand in England and Wales could grow to between 421 million and 490 million tonnes a year in the next 20 years. That represents an increase in demand of 4 per cent. each year, below the level of growth experienced in the past 40 years. I must stress that the forecasts do not represent Government plans, and are not targets for production which the minerals industry must meet. It is important, therefore, that they should be considered as defining a problem rather than providing a solution.
We regard the environmental implications of the forecasts very seriously, and intend to conduct a full and open debate on the planning and environmental issues they raise. The questions to be considered will include whether the present policy of ensuring a steady supply for the construction industry remains appropriate, as much as the length of time over which guidelines are needed for sensible planning. Before any new guidelines are issued, the Government will want to hear from the industry what practical steps it intends to take to improve its environmental performance and its standing with the public.
We have asked the regional aggregates working parties to consider the medium and long-term implications of the forecasts on their regions. We are seeking their advice on how demand in each region might be met and the extent to which their region can contribute to the requirements of other regions. They will, of course, have full regard to the environmental consequences of increases in the extraction of land-won minerals.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the need to increase the use of materials which are alternatives to primary aggregates. I share that opinion, and the Government made it clear in the environment White Paper that they want to see an increase in the use of waste and recycled materials, including secondary aggregates such as china clay, sand, colliery minestone and slate waste.
We also want increased exploitation of waste and recycled materials, such as power station ash, steel and blast furnace slag and crushed concrete. At present, the use of those materials is less than 10 per cent. of the current production of aggregates. That must increase, and I hope that the industry will show that it can be achieved.
We commissioned research last year to establish the extent of those materials and to identify the steps needed to achieve an increase in their use. We expect the report to be published later this summer. It has already clearly identified that there are considerable stocks of alternative materials which are suitable for use in construction. It has also recommended a number of steps which could be taken to increase their use. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully examine the report during our review of the aggregates guidelines to see what the Government might do to promote the increased use of such materials.
My hon. Friend mentioned the valuable report which Peter Smith has produced. I know that my officials have held useful and interesting discussions with Mr. Smith and I congratulate him on his work.
I should also like to advise my hon. Friend of some other research initiatives which we have commissioned to examine other possible sources of supply. One project, 904 which has just started, is examining the possibilities offered by large-scale coastal quarries, such as that at Glensanda in Scotland. It will examine the potential areas of supply, which include Scotland, and indeed Ireland, Norway and the Iberian peninsula. The consultants will also investigate the environmental and economic consequences of providing aggregates to the south-east from such sources.
My hon. Friend will be aware that marine-dredged sand and gravel are a particularly important source of supply to the south-east of England. We have already undertaken two research projects to identify the extent of the resources that could be available, and we have a continuing programme that will provide a comprehensive view on resources. There are, of course, environmental considerations which affect the extraction of marine material, and I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that those will not be overlooked as we investigate the opportunities offered by that source.
§ Mr. WaldenI have been extremely heartened by what my hon. Friend has said so far, which seems to put new emphasis on the positive points that the Department of the Environment has already come up with. Will my hon. Friend add one further point? Will he draw to the attention of county councils the fact that, given that the Department of the Environment intends to take what sounds like a radical look at the current position, they should not rush into granting planning permission for quarries which could go ahead and perhaps slip from the net of a new and perhaps more positive review?
§ Mr. BaldryAs I made clear in the introduction to my comments, I fully appreciate and share my hon. Friend's concerns. No doubt he appreciates that county councils, as mineral planning authorities, have to have regard to the guidance which they are given and, in determining applications, have to balance the conflicts which arise, understandably, over the need on the one hand to extract sand and gravel and the desire on the other to protect the environment.
It is of course important that there should be careful use of aggregates and that there should not be over-specification in construction use. We have started further research, which will examine the specification of aggregates used in construction to see if action needs to be taken to help eliminate any unnecessary or excessive use of this valuable natural resource.
The Government recognise that it is essential to continue to raise the environmental standards in the minerals industry. That is why we commissioned Groundwork last year to undertake a study of the environmental performance of the industry. The report was recently published, and a copy is in the Library. It has made a number of recommendations on the steps which the industry could and should take to achieve higher standards.
These include the implementation of a system of corporate environmental management, including site appraisals, regular monitoring of performance and periodic environmental audits. It is particularly important that all employees in the minerals companies should realise that they have a responsibility for the environment in which they operate. Companies must recognise that they need to act as good neighbours; I am sure the Groundwork report will be invaluable as they work towards this end.
905 As part of our overall approach to drive up standards, we intend to follow up the Groundwork study with a pilot initiative in two counties close to my hon. Friend's constituency—Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. With funding from my Department, Groundwork will be able to visit a number of current operational sites and recommend the steps which the company in question should take to improve the site concerned.
We are also conducting other research initiatives which will lead to higher operating standards at minerals sites, and we shall shortly be issuing draft guidance on noise, a matter which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about.
As my hon. Friend and the House will recognise, the current public local inquiry in Buckinghamshire has prevented me from saying more about Buckinghamshire itself. My hon. Friend made his own points in his own way, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), and they can be assured that they will be listened to carefully. However, I hope that I 906 have been able to demonstrate beyond any doubt that we understand the widespread public concern about minerals extraction. We are determined that the minerals industry will in future operate in an environmentally responsible manner. The adoption of high standards is in the interest of operators themselves. We shall certainly take very careful note of the points which my hon. Friend has made as we review the aggregates guidelines.
The review will be conducted in an open and public manner. We shall welcome views on the forecast and the implications for the environment, and these will be taken into account as draft guidance is prepared. There will be a full public consultation exercise on the draft guidelines in due course.
I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that we take these issues extremely seriously. I welcome the opportunity of being able to comment to the House on the progress that we are making.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Nine o'clock.