Meeting with the deputy prime minister : vehicle emissions : government response / Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
1997
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Meeting with the deputy prime minister : vehicle emissions : government response / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    16/36 page 8
    Lord Kirkwood contd.] of these matters will be discussed in our White Paper because we have to make those changes. We now have a legal target of greenhouse gas emissions to take into account, and I think the public are in the mood for fundamental change, and Iam in the mood to give it to them. Lord Jenkin of Roding 27. When the previous Chancellor announced that the landfill tax should be hypothecated towards various forms of helping the pollution problem, this attracted wide interest and was a major breach of what had hitherto been an absolutely immutable Treasury doctrine about hypothecation. I wonder whether it would be part of your advice to his successor to try and introduce this in other areas, perhaps in the field of transport? (Mr Prescott) Can I invite my colleague to respond to that? (Mr Meacher) I can remember, Lord Jenkin, so many times in’ the past when I was asking you questions and it is a pleasure now to have the opportunity to reply to one of yours! Can I start by saying that the Treasury, neither in the present Government nor in any previous Government, and I suspect in any future Government, has not generally accepted the case for a general hypothecation of taxes, and as I say I am not really expecting that situation fundamentally to change. But I do think there is a case for either presenting or securing the acceptance that one should look at a measure of hypothecation in some cases. I think the windfall tax is an obvious example and one which I think has been widely accepted. Another, which is certainly a direct form of hypothecation in the environmental sphere, is the non-fossil fuel levy. But, of course, you mentioned the landfill tax and in our view that is a good example of how to achieve some—in order to avoid this contentious word hypothecation— earmarking or recycling of revenues to the environment without hypothecation. It is not hypothecated because the companies do contribute some money and the Government does not control the expenditure by the Environment Trust. This clearly has real benefits. The Treasury is content with it—which is always an essential condition for happy government—the companies are tied in to the Trust and the Trust does have a stake in environmental work. So we do regard the landfill tax as a good model on which to proceed in this field. We are looking at its application in other areas. The Chancellor did mention in his first budget that we were looking at a charge for water pollution and we have made it clear that the question of the possible use of revenues which are raised in this area for worthwhile expenditure, including in _ the environment, is an issue which is open. So we think the case for some revenues from green taxes being used on the environment is a strong one and it is one which we would like to develop within Government. Of course there are alternatives, in the case of the landfill tax it was a matter of recompensing some of those who had to pay it by a reduction in Kingdom, their business taxes, national insurance contributions for employees, or of course there is always a case for helping the poorer sections of the community in terms of reducing the charges to the lowest paid consumers. Those are the other alternatives. In general it is a good example and it is one we would like to develop. Lord Howie of Troon 28. Getting away from hypothecation, which I would like to see applied to distilleries by the way, but that is another matter! In the Chancellor’s Green Budget, did he not hint at a tax on quarrying? As someone very interested in the construction industry this greatly interests me, since aggregates are important in concrete and so on. I wonder if you could tell me just a little bit about what was in the Chancellor’s mind or what you think might be in the Chancellor’s mind? (Mr Meacher) Even if I knew what was in the Chancellor’s mind I am absolutely prohibited from revealing it, but as it is I do not know what is in the Chancellor’s mind other than the fact that he has made clear that one of the areas, and it seems to me for very good reasons, he is looking at is the whole question of the use of virgin aggregates. From an environmental point of view there is a case for giving an incentive for greater use by the engineering and construction industry of secondary aggregates. I am sure that behind his notice that he has given that he is looking at this is his wish that greater use of secondary aggregates, less despoliation of the environment by primary quarrying, is certainly something that we should in general support. That does not mean to say, of course, that primary aggregates will not continue to be quarried, of course they will, and of course they will continue to make a contribution, but we should not rely exclusively on primary aggregates and they should not be the first resort in terms of building. I think it is to get that balance right that the Chancellor is looking at this, as they say, economic instrument rather than tax. 29. I see. But, of course, the Chancellor must be aware that secondary aggregates have been in use for at least 150 years or so, there is nothing new in this and in fact some people regard quarrying as rather nice. (Mr Meacher) I am sure quarrying has great advantages, particularly for the construction industry and those who are employed in it, but it equally does have serious offsetting disadvantages in terms of the impact, sometimes on areas of outstanding natural beauty in the green belt as well as in other areas. No-one is suggesting that this is a novel practice. All one is saying is that we need to look again at the balance and the economic rationale between the use of secondary and _ primary aggregates. I think the Chancellor’s concern is to shift the balance of economic interest in favour of secondary and to some extent against primary. 30. Let him not go too far. (Mr Meacher) I note what you say.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3