'We are over-regulated'

---

In order to create growth the government must first understand and deal with what inhibits it, says Nigel Jackson, chief executive of the Mineral Products Association prior to the Budget.

Do you feel factors such as an overwhelming amount of regulation are stunting the industry?

We are over-regulated, both by the EU with its endless stream of directives and by national and local regulation. We have become a 'can't do' culture rather than a 'can do' culture. The cumulative impact of all regulation is a drag on enterprise, particularly employment, environmental, planning and permitting regulation.

Government tends to look at every regulation and measure as if it is a stand-alone thing: it does not consider the collateral knock-on effect or cumulative impact.

I think only industry really knows the pain of regulation because we are on the receiving end of it; the transmitting end doesn't always understand what it is transmitting.

The industry has shown commitment to the environment and biodiversity through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF), how disappointed are you that the government has chosen to cut this?

Extremely: it's a tragedy, particularly in an era which is seeking to promote the merits of 'localism'. We believe it's a massive own goal and missed opportunity and we will continue to lobby for its re-instatement in some form as soon as possible.

Five environmental organisations have joined us in calling for the government to rethink its position, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wildlife Trusts.

Are you concerned as to how feasible a 'Budget for growth' is when such drastic cuts are being made?

We are concerned in many ways. We are not convinced that 'localism' can be squared with growth. And with such huge cumulative under-build in the housing sector and evidence that the planning system will continue to under-deliver, it is hard to see how we can build our way into growth, based on what is currently proposed.

Missing opportunities to develop major schemes such as the Severn Barrage and really pushing on with replacing and developing our ageing energy infrastructure, which is needed, now seem to be very short-sighted. These sorts of projects have long lead-in times and time is running out to ensure that we have security of supply.

Our message to the government is simple: it needs to start building. Research released by the IPPR this week shows that if nothing is done there will be a shortfall of 750,000 homes by 2025.

Do not get me wrong, we do support the growth ambition. Yet there is a big difference between saying that you want growth and enabling it. The problem lies with policy, and if the government is really serious about growth then it has to understand what inhibits it. What is inhibiting it from our point of view is tax, regulation and the planning system.

Do you think the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) would work best if it is returned to businesses through an incentive-based scheme rather than to the government?

We think it should be scrapped as currently structured, it is simply a carbon tax and that is it. Without some kind of incentive-based scheme it really is just another burden. The original proposals were also flawed and I think a comprehensive review of all carbon taxation and market mechanisms is justified, rather than the piecemeal approach that has developed in the dash to 'outgreen' our competitors.

The sector is obviously committed to the government's carbon-reduction targets, but for such commitments to work is it necessary that commitments are taken on a global scale, so we do not see energy-intensive industries moving offshore?

'Carbon leakage' is happening now. The UK happily reports that its carbon emissions have gone down. The truth is we are importing more and more finished goods and their carbon is not accounted for. If you factor these emissions back in, our carbon emissions have in fact gone up.

There is no point in having half-thought-through policies which basically export our carbon footprint. It would be a disaster if our energy-intensive industries were taxed to the extent that they were forced offshore. We would not only be exporting our carbon, but jobs and valuable business too.

Would the industry like to see a commitment from the chancellor in terms of road maintenance, particularly concerning the number of potholes in the roads, due to the coldest December in 100 years?

Firstly we are grateful to the Department for Transport (DfT) for its recent announcement to inject 100 million pounds extra into repairing our roads, but this will not dent the eight-nine billion pound the Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA) estimates is necessary to get our roads in good shape. Bad roads are bad for UKplc and bad for carbon.

We also need to be sure that what gets committed for roads gets spent and not diverted. There is a real need for a planned programme for maintaining national roads; we do not want to be storing up even more problems for the future. It is questionable whether focusing on a 30 billion pound high-speed rail project for 2026 is really the right priority whilst our roads fall into growing disrepair, whatever the long-term benefits of more rail might be.