§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in the House the subject of the impact of mineral extraction and the tipping of waste on the environment of south Essex. I shall speak of the wider county, but obviously I have an unashamed and vested interest in the borough of Thurrock, which I represent.
I am pleased to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in his place, for he has an association with Thurrock. He was the Conservative candidate there in 1979, after which he was dispatched to, or departed the area for, other places. I welcome the fact that he is to reply to the debate, because he will recall some of the environment and geography to which I shall refer. I extend to him a sincere invitation to join me and the borough council in looking at some of those areas at a mutually convenient date.
I raise the issue because the present situation is grossly unfair to the people of Thurrock and the surrounding areas in south Essex. The area has suffered considerably from the rapacious appetite of the sand and gravel industry and from its twin industry, the disposers of waste. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should refer to some of the problems that are faced by people in the area and I shall deal with some remedies that could be prompted or initiated by government.
The first issue is the disappointment I feel when I hear my constituents blame the borough council. They do not realise that it is not the borough council's fault or responsibility. The stewardship, or control and governing, of mineral extraction and the management of waste disposal are for the county council and I am anxious to have that on the record. Indeed, the borough council has done everything possible to frustrate these continuing twin industrial problems.
The county planning authority and other county councils—I am not criticising exclusively Essex county council—are too compliant and submissive in giving way to the demands of the two industries to which I am referring. There is always a presumption that they must find from within their areas new pits from which to extract sand and gravel and into which waste can be filled. I do not accept the old maxim of TINA—there is no alternative —for there are alternatives if there is the political will to find them. Much more gravel extraction could be gained from the sea. There is the technology and knowledge to do more recycling of minerals. We require legislation and leadership from the Government.
Similarly, in the whole area of the disposal of waste, much more could be done quickly. Unhappily, only 2 or 3 per cent. of waste is currently recycled. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, now translated to Hong Kong, told a Conservative party conference a few years ago that it was his hope and intention to increase the recycling of domestic waste. He believed that 25 per cent. could be recycled by the year 2000.
I welcomed his initiative at the time, but there is no sign that we are anywhere near on target towards achieving that objective. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary may be an innocent in the matter, having recently taken on his responsibilites, but I hope that, as a result of today's 659 debate, he will look into the issue to see whether the Government can pick up on the commitment given by Chris Patten a few years ago.
The Minister ought also to be on guard regarding the vested interests in the gravel and aggregates industry which seek to dissuade those in the business of road construction and road reconstruction from recycling waste or minerals.
As for environmental impact assessments, I welcome the European Community directive that major planning applications that have a direct impact on the environment should be subject to an environmental impact assessment. Both gravel extraction and tipping have an effect on the environment. Unfortunately, the rules do not cover some mineral extraction and tipping because it is deemed to be "too small." I hope that the Government will require all gravel extraction and the tipping of waste to be brought within the environmental impact assessment requirement.
When the Minister returns to his Department, I hope that he will examine how environmental impact assessment reports are dealt with in this country. I do not believe that we comply with either the spirit or the letter of the European directive. The European directive envisaged that EIAs would be commissioned by the local authority or the waste management authority. At present, only the applicant for planning permission can commission and pay for the environmental impact assessment. With the best will in the world, the fact is that he who pays the piper must, at least to some extent, call the tune. It is a matter of public confidence.
In the case of the applications to which I intend to refer, the EIAs were paid for by the developers. That is wrong. It is inconsistent with the European directive. I hope that the Minister will consider introducing a regulation whereby only the county council or the local planning authority can commission the EIA; even though the cost will be passed on to the applicant.
My borough has contributed greatly, for many years, to the provision of sand and gravel and to the disposal of London's waste and that of other parts of the south-east of England. Fourteen per cent. of its land surface has been given over to excavation or tipping; 5 per cent. has been taken over by the sand and gravel industry. Currently, there are 25 domestic refuse sites and six for the disposal of toxic waste. We also have five out of the eight wharves and railheads along the riverside where aggregates can be brought into the county of Essex. Another proposal, which I welcome, is that there should be a new wharf at the port of Tilbury. The road pattern there will minimise the impact of additional lorry movements in the area. One of the spin-offs of sand and gravel extraction and the disposal of waste is that lorries have to go along roads that are inappropriate for heavy lorries.
Mineral extraction has caused a dramatic change to the landscape of Thurrock. There are deep chalk workings in the west of the county, in Aveley, and alien raised mounds in the east. In the west, in Aveley, close to Havering, there is a methane problem at the Aveley 1 tip and at Aveley Court. Reinstatement of sites where there are methane problems is always enormously difficult.
My constituents and I are not NIMBYs—not in my back yard. Unhappily, so much of what I have described is already there. Some of it has been there for decades. My constituents hope that I shall be able to persuade the 660 Minister to listen to what they say, which is, "Thus far, and no further. Enough is enough." This part of Essex has more than made its contribution to these two industries. We hope that when planning applications come before the Minister, or his successors, they will consider whether this part of Essex has been treated fairly. Recently, there have been a number of new threats to our environment, which is why I said that the line should now be drawn. Corys Environmental, substantial operators of landfill sites at east Tilbury marshes, wishes to operate electricity generation at Belvedere on the south side of the Thames at Bexley and has applied for planning permission to extend the life of its landfill site at east Tilbury marshes until 2017; raising the contouring of marshland to 35 m above the ordnance datum line. It would need that to dispose of the residues of 400,000 tonnes of ash that would be generated per annum by its new electricity station at Belvedere, if it is approved. I hope that that will be taken into account if and when that application comes before the Minister. It is absurd that we should be considering building mounds and altering the contours of attractive marshland on the banks of a river that the Almighty gave us, quite apart from the impact that it will have on wildlife and the ecological balance.
There is another matter that I hope the Minister will take on board. The President of the Board of Trade is the principal architect of the notion of regenerating the east Thames corridor. We have yet to see what is meant by that, but Corys Environmental has exploited that proposal in its planning application for east Tilbury. It has said that such regeneration will require a massive increase in the amount of aggregates available in the area and that regeneration and expansion in east London will require additional capacity for tipping waste. To some extent I suppose that that is true, but I hope that, in considering the future of the east Thames corridor, the Government will take account of the detrimental effects of the demand for additional waste facilities and of making holes in attractive green belt land.
The second danger facing my constituents is the updating of the county council's mineral plan. If it is approved, there will be extended extraction at Waltons lane, in east Tilbury marshes and elsewhere in Tilbury, Chadwell at Kemps farm—South Ockendon, and Ayletts. This morning, I spoke to the headmaster of East Tilbury junior school, Mr. Beynon, who told me that he and the head of the infant school had noticed that 16 per cent. of pupils suffer from asthma and chest-related complaints. In their experience, that was extraordinarily high. I ask the Minister to consider whether he can prompt some health investigation into whether dust, which comes from the Ayletts working and which is inert, is a source of aggravation to the health of children and adults in and around east Tilbury.
I am concerned that updating the mineral plan will dramatically alter the open areas of green belt in and around east Tilbury and Chadwell and will mean a great loss to a borough that is not wealthy and to which the industrial revolution and the 20th century have not been particularly kind. Green belt land in Thurrock is precious. It must be zealously guarded by the local authorities and the Secretary of State. In my small way, I hope to play a part by pressing the Minister to safeguard the green belt in the borough of Thurrock.
I shall provide some examples of the problems of the gravel extraction industry and the filling of holes with 661 waste. What I have to say relates not only to Thurrock but to the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a presumption by the industries—and to some extent by county councils —that if there is a hole, waste should be put in it. That is a great pity. Of course, there are great profits to be made from the disposal of waste. If holes have to be made in the ground for the extraction of minerals that cannot be obtained elsewhere, we should take a long hard look to see whether recreational use could be made of the pits or holes. We should also ensure that they remain environmentally attractive and that public access is not diminished because of dangers, whether through the existence of the pits lying dormant or what is put in them.
That brings me to an issue on which I hope that the Minister can comment today. Unhappily, we do not know what is put into many of the holes created by mineral extraction in Thurrock or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Select Committee on the Environment drew attention to that a little while ago. Its report stated that the Committee was
appalled at the poor standards and patchy coverageof the official statistics on United Kingdom landfill sites. It urged the Department of the Environment to develop a national landfill data base and to examine the feasibility of forecasting future landfill supply and demand in order to provide a firmer basis for a co-ordinated strategic policy on waste.That is sound advice, for two reasons. First, we should ensure that holes in the ground that have been created by mineral extraction are not automatically filled with waste and that there is a correlation between extraction and landfill. Secondly, we must ensure that sites on which waste is dumped are filled.
In a nutshell, there is a great deal of competition and there are more holes in the ground than are necessary for landfill in Thurrock and elsewhere. Firms go bust and often there are insufficient records about what goes into the holes. They are not fully sealed or capped and sometimes they are eventually reopened. That can cause enormous problems and health hazards for local residents —vermin, escaping methane and appalling smells.
Incidentally, as I have invited the Under-Secretary to come to Thurrock, I hope that he will do so on an afternoon like yesterday when there was a huge stench in and around east Tilbury. My telephone was buzzing about it. The stench is an acute problem on hot days. It is caused by the rotting minerals, dust and rubbish which have been put into pits in that area of Essex. It is unacceptable and unfair to the residents and also prejudices the value of their property.
The county council has produced a mineral plan to which I referred, but it is flawed in one important respect. There is a north-south divide in Essex. I have read the small print of the county's mineral plan and I hope that when it arrives on the Secretary of State's desk, he will pay attention to page 16 of the updated plan. He will see that the north part of Essex had more extensive research undertaken into what minerals were available for extraction and what the impact on the environment would be than was the case in south Essex. That is honkers and unfair. I shall raise the issue with the county council, but I suspect that if there is a disparity of treatment within one county about the ground rules for examining whether minerals can and should be extracted, there must be a disparity between counties.
662 The criteria applied when determining whether minerals should be extracted in Surrey might not be the same as those applied in Essex or Buckinghamshire. That is unfair. We seek leadership and guidance from the Department of the Environment to ensure parity of treatment and parity of consideration as to where it is least environmentally damaging for the gravel extraction industry digs its holes to extract minerals.
I shall cover the other matters that I wish to raise in a few moments, to allow the Under-Secretary to reply. Most of what I have said relates to the eastern side of my constituency—east Tilbury and, especially, Linford. There are also grounds for concern about an area near the boundary with the London borough of Havering where, in Romford road, Aveley, it is intended to open a new tip for dumping rubbish on a 31 hectare site, where waste disposal will take place for nine and a half years.
I do not believe that my constituents fully appreciate what that means. Unfortunately, that often happens. people do not understand until it is too late what the impact of a planning permission being granted for such a site would be on their lives. If, through this debate, I can indirectly alert my constituents to the threat, and persuade them to mount serious objections to the proposal, I shall not have introduced the debate in vain.
The local council is resisting the plan and so is the local county councillor Reg Lee. I pay tribute to him, and to county councillor Gerard Rice, too. Those two, together with councillor Barry Palmer, the sole representative of east Tilbury, have stood like Horatius and his colleagues on the bridge, resisting the rapacious appetites of the sand and gravel industry and of those who wish to tip waste in my part of Essex.
The Secretary of State should consider taking legislative powers to ensure that the environmental impact assessment reports are consistent with the European directive. County councils should be required to have joint plans, matching mineral extraction to plans for waste disposal. In fairness, district councils, too, should be more involved in planning decisions on the extraction of minerals and the dumping of waste.
Finally, the Government should consider whether there should be a form of bonding for people who wish to open and exploit tips, to ensure that when, or if, the companies go bust, the sites can be properly capped, landscaped and made safe. We should ensure that knowledge of what has been put into the tips is retained.
I am grateful for the House's time. This is an issue which is important both to my constituents and, I suspect, those of other hon. Members. We are charged with defending our constituents' little bit of green England and I do not think that it has caused any harm for the House to pause and listen to the problems of the people of Thurrock, faced with the attack from the twin industries of gravel extraction and waste disposal. I hope that my comments will also have been of some use to hon. Members who face similar problems elsewhere in south-east England.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on obtaining this 663 debate so soon in the new Parliament. As he said, I know his constituency well as I contested it in 1979, and I retain a real affection for Thurrock and the surrounding areas.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently about the concerns of his constituency and about the impact that gravel extraction and waste disposal can have on the environment. I recognise the concern about the review of the Essex minerals subject plan. The Government are committed to a development plan-led planning system for minerals and waste disposal. Arrangements introduced in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 made important changes to bring that into effect. There is now a duty on planning authorities to produce up-to-date mineral and waste plans. I understand that Essex county council is currently reviewing its minerals subject plan and its waste plan.
It is, therefore, important that there should be a full public debate to inform the preparation of the plans. I know that the review of the minerals subject plan has generated concern about the possibility that several sites in the vicinity of east Tilbury may be included in a future plan. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment further on that. However, I am advised that the review is at an early stage and that the county council has not taken any decision at present. The hon. Gentleman and others concerned will wish to discuss their concerns further with the county council. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned some specific planning applications which cause him concern. I am sure that he also appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment on any planning applications that may yet come before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The Government appreciate that the extraction of aggregates and the disposal of waste are matters of rising public concern and it may be helpful if I explain how the Government are addressing the issue. That may enable the hon. Gentleman to put the problems of his constituency in the wider context.
Present policy for the extraction of aggregates—by which we mean sand, gravel and crushed rock such as limestone and granite—is set out in minerals planning guidance note 6, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy. It was published in 1989 and we are now reviewing it. The first step in the review was the preparation of long-term forecasts of aggregates demand. Demand for aggregates is generated by a proper and natural desire for improvements in our standard of living. That means improvements to our transport infrastructure, especially roads and railways, and improvements in hospitals, housing and water quality. However, we recognise that the environmental consequences of meeting the demand for aggregates must be very carefully examined and balanced.
The forecasts, which were commissioned from independent consultants, were published last May. They showed that with steady growth in the economy, the demand in England and Wales could increase to between 421 million tonnes and 490 million tonnes a year over the next 20 years. That represents an increase in demand below the level of growth experienced in the past 40 years. When we published the forecasts, we stressed that they do not represent Government plans and they are not targets for production which the minerals industry must meet. 664 They are forecasts. It is important, therefore, that they should be considered as defining a problem rather than as providing a solution.
We have asked the aggregates industry and local authorities, plus a wide range of other interests, to consider the medium and long-term implications of the forecasts. We are seeking advice on how demand in each region might be met and the extent to which one part of the country can contribute to the requirements of other parts. The hon. Gentleman recognises that minerals can be worked only where they arise and that means that some parts of the country have to contribute to areas where there is a deficiency. We have also asked for views about the environmental consequences of increases in the extraction of land-won minerals.
We are firmly committed to the principle of sustainable development. That means that we need to look at how finite resources can be used in the most efficient way. We made it clear in the environment White Paper that we want to see an increase in the use of waste and recycled materials in line with the principles of sustainable development. Such waste materials include secondary aggregates, such as china clay sand, colliery minestone, slate wastes and construction and demolition wastes. We also wish to see greater exploitation of materials such as power station ash, and steel and blast furnace slag. At present, the use of secondary materials represents less than 10 per cent. of the current production of aggregates. We are determined that that figure should increase—and increase substantially.
It is, of course, important that there should be careful use of resources and that there should not be overspecification for aggregates in construction use, because that can limit the amount of recyclable material that can be used. Research is going on into the specifications on aggregates in construction to see whether action is necessary to prevent unnecessary or excessive use of valuable natural resources. The report will be produced shortly and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will look carefully at any proposals that will facilitate a more efficient use of aggregates.
We have taken initiatives and commissioned research to examine other possible sources of aggregate supply. In one project, we are looking at the potential for large-scale coastal quarries or superquarries such as that at Glensanda in Scotland to supply aggregates to the south-east of England. The research is examining potential areas of supply, including Scotland, Ireland, Norway and Spain. The consultants are also researching the environmental and economic consequences of supplying materials in that manner. We hope to publish the report in September.
We recognise that it is essential to continue to raise environmental standards in the minerals industry. That is why, last year, we commissioned Groundwork Associates to explore the scope for new initiatives to improve the environmental performance of the minerals industry and its report was published last year. I also warmly welcome the environmental codes of practice published recently by the two principal trade associations, the Sand and Gravel Association and British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries which represent an important step forward and show that the aggregates industry has resolved to take firm action to improve its performance in environmental standards.
The initiatives that I have outlined show beyond doubt that the Government understand public concern about 665 minerals extraction. We are determined that the minerals industry should operate in an environmentally responsible manner and I am confident that the adoption of high standards is in the interests of the operators.
Mineral extraction often provides an opportunity for waste disposal. The deposit of waste can be used in the restoration of a site to turn what might otherwise be a visual scar into an area that may be used for recreation, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is one reason why landfill is likely to remain the predominant method of waste disposal for many years to come and, in our view, it remains a perfectly acceptable option given the right local circumstances and high environmental standards.
Modern landfill techniques are highly sophisticated. Provided that best practice guidance is followed and the legislative controls are adhered to, they should represent no threat to human health or the environment.
In determining whether a site is suitable for landfilling waste, investigation must be undertaken of the geology and hydrogeology of the land and careful assessment made of the types of waste that may safely be disposed of there. The character of the locality and the likely impact of the landfill on the quality of the local environment all need to be taken into account.
The current planning legislation, including the general development orders and the environmental impact assessment regulations, provide ample opportunity for the development and control aspects of a landfill site to be taken into consideration and for all interested parties to give their opinion on proposed disposal sites.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about environmental impact assessments. All our EIA regulations fully comply with European legislation. Once planning permission has been granted for a landfill site, the operator must apply for a disposal licence under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 before operations can commence. The licensing procedure provides the opportunity for more detailed technical assessment by 666 waste disposal experts, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, to determine whether, or under what conditions, the proposed operations will be safe in the locality chosen.
Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which we have recently started to implement, will replace the 1974 legislation and introduce even more stringent controls over waste management practice. The licensing controls that will be available to waste regulation authorities under the Act will not end when the operator has finished work on the site, but will continue to bite after the site has ceased to receive waste. Once the site has stopped accepting waste, operators will be required not only to restore and landscape it but to continue to monitor and carry out any necessary works that may arise until the waste regulation authorities are satisfied that there is no possibility of future pollution arising. That may be as long as 30 years after waste has ceased to be deposited. Only then will the operator be permitted to surrender his licence.
Let me come back to waste in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that I have helped to clarify how national policy guidance is being developed to reflect increasing public concerns about environmental matters. The increased emphasis on a plan-led planning system provides the right opportunity for those wider policy issues to be fully addressed in the local context. The review of the mineral subject plan in which the county council is at present engaged will provide an open—it must be open —and informed forum for debate about matters of concern to local residents before any decisions need to be taken. I hope that today's debate will form part of that informed public debate. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that the positive action that we have taken in recognition of public concern about the impact of mineral and waste sites will ensure that the highest environmental standards can be achieved in his constituency.