Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 166)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
DR DEREK
LANGSLOW AND
MR JONATHAN
BURNEY
160. May I apologise for having to withdraw
at this stage?
(Dr Langslow) You may indeed, Dr Iddon.
Mr Gerrard
161. You made very clear your view that the
tax ought to be hypothecated. Are you essentially saying that
you do not think that price signals in the tax would have much
impact or that it would have to be set at a very high level to
have any price impact?
(Dr Langslow) It does not seem to us it will have
much impact because it is largely an industry which reacts to
demand. While it might have marginal effects, and it might have
marginal effects on the use of secondary material, it will have
quite small effects in our view. The other thing is the question
whether it will make behaviourial change. The tax in itself will
not, I think it is regulatory systems which are more likely to
do that or the commitment of the companies themselves.
162. So what would be the argument in favour
of the tax? Purely that it provided some money for environmental
schemes?
(Dr Langslow) I think that would be the main potential
benefit as we would see it. If the purpose of the tax is to address
the environmental impacts in some way, which are not otherwise
addressed, you need to recycle the tax money. We would be looking
for it to be used on issues like the revocation of planning permissions
which are potentially damaging on SSSIs, on producing schemes
to manage local transport better, on providing grants for education
and training initiatives, for doing research on important issues
and so on. It is those kind of issues which we would look at the
tax to be used for.
163. You said that the impact varies from site
to site, obviously, and you have mentioned geological sites where
there might be completely different issues to be addressed from
sites which were essentially biological sites. How do you start
to measure that? In Professor Pearce's report he suggested that
phasing out seven quarries located in national parks would do
as much as a tax levied on all the rest. Is that a fair comparison?
(Dr Langslow) I am not sure I would entirely share
that view. What we would look for is what is the impact on an
individual site and how scarce is that particular mineral resource.
Is it a re-creatable interest nature conservation, for example?
Some of the sites which have resulted from sand and gravel extraction
have become very fine wetland sites of great wildlife interest
and are enjoyed by lots of people, and those have often generated
their wildlife interest over a 20 or 25 year period. So you can
say that if, for some reason, you wanted the particular land for
re-use at those gravel pits, then you could dig some more gravel
pits nearby and the interest will develop in those. So in that
sense, it is re-creatable. If you take an ancient woodland or
you take a prime piece of limestone grassland, that is essentially
un-recreatable. Once you have taken it, it is gone, it is using
up your environmental capital. We would say that is a place you
should not quarry, you should find another place to take your
mineral resources from. By looking at the individual sites like
that you can make a judgment about what the quality is of the
nature conservation interest that you might be taking. Is it essentially
irreplaceable? If it was, then you should say there are almost
no circumstances you should quarry that. One has to add in there
a potential overriding public interest, one which Government might
have. One is essentially saying irreplaceable assets should not
be taken, whereas there are other kinds that are recreatable.
One can do more imaginative things with those sites, where change
is allowable, and then you might be able to achieve the net benefit
for wildlife interest.
Mr Gerrard
164. How do you start to measure those benefits?
If we do go for a voluntary agreement you said you would like
to see indicators built in, can you give us some idea of what
those indicators might be?
(Dr Langslow) With the SSSIs, it is relatively straightforward
because what one would look to do is have an agreed site management
statement for every SSSI. That would have a series of targets
by which you would know whether or not the special interest was
being maintained. If you take other sites then you might find
that a particular plant or animal was a key feature and you take
steps to measure annually, or whatever, often in partnership with
some local interest groups, what those interests are. You can
then make a measurement about whether or not the wildlife is doing
well and you couple that to the agreed actions that need to be
taken on the site. You check the two processes. You can quite
easily do that side by side. It is not, in our view, difficult,
either bureaucratically or in principle.
165. Have you tried do any estimate of the environmental
benefits of a tax? Again, the report that was done by the QPA
said a value of 32 million was their estimate of the environmental
financial benefits; have you looked at that figure?
(Dr Langslow) Not really, no. We have not looked at
the numbers. Our concern, as I have emphasised, is to look to
seek what is the best option for the environmental interest that
we represent, that is particularly the wildlife and geological
conservation. A tax, providing the money is recycled, can buy
a number of benefits. The alternative is to go for a package where
there is a voluntary agreement with audited targets which provides
a commitment by the companies, and in effect money, because the
money is provided in other ways, a part of it is in their fund.
Doing a lot of other things will cost them money as well and that
has to be fitted in with their business.
166. If we went for a voluntary agreement what
changes do you think would be needed alongside that in terms of
regulatory regimes?
(Dr Langslow) We need to make sure that when Mineral
Planning Guidance 6 comes along, the planning issues are tightened
up so that they are consistent with the kind of actions that we
are asking for in the package. The hydrological matters are reasonably
well catered for with the current Environment Agency regulations.
There may be other issues, if you like, in the wider environmental
sphere on noise, and so forth. We would also look for some of
the transport matters. In terms of sustainability we would look
for efficiency in the way the transport system is run, so that
it minimises the amount of CO2 used per tonne moved. That would
be in addition to the specifics on SSSIs.
|
