| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out carbon dioxide emission projection figures for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, (e) 2005, (f) 2006, (g) 2007, (h) 2008 and (i) 2009 on the same basis as is used for the preparation of figures for Table 1 in Section 2, Chapter 1 of the final Climate Change Programme, Cm 4913. [149872]
Mr. Meacher: Data for 2005 are published in Table 1 in Section 2, Chapter 1 of the final Climate Change Programme. Data for intermediate years are not available because the UK energy model makes projections at five yearly intervals. Intermediate years may be constructed by interpolation, but this does not add additional information and can be misleading because emissions in individual years are affected by statistical factors, including the weather and the economic cycle.
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the figures relating to carbon dioxide emissions and carbon dioxide emission projections in Table 1 of Section 2, Chapter 1 of the final Climate Change Programme, Cm 4913, differ from those in Table 1 of Section 2, Chapter 1 of the draft Climate Change Programme. [149869]
14 Feb 2001 : Column: 154W
Mr. Meacher: The carbon dioxide emission estimate for 1990 is from the UK emissions inventory and is given as 168 million tonnes of carbon in both the Climate Change Programme and the draft Climate Change Programme. The projections for years 2000, 2010 and 2020 compare as follows:
| Year | Climate change programme | Draft climate change programme |
|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 154.3 | 152.2 |
| 2010 | 153.8 | 156.3 |
| 2020 | 160.7 | 164.7 |
Most of the differences reflect revisions to UK energy projections made following the consultation process described in Energy Paper 68 (see section 1.2, page 8). The main factor influencing the projection for 2000 is a lower expectation of nuclear output together with a higher coal burn. In subsequent years higher power station emissions are outweighed by lower emissions from industry and refineries. Industrial emissions are projected to be lower than previously estimated partly due to lower estimated emissions from offshore activity. Projected emissions from land use change have also been revised downward slightly because of methodological improvements and minor updates resulting from emissions data in the latest greenhouse gas inventory. Provisional data on actual emissions in 2000 will be available in March.
Air Liberalisation
Ms Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in the negotiations with the United States on air liberalisation. [149855]
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Negotiations with the previous US Administration did not lead to an agreement. We will be pressing the new Administration to liberalise the market on terms which deliver a fair balance of opportunity to the airlines of the two sides, bringing the benefits of increased competition both to the consumer and to the wider UK economy.
A6 Bus Lane
Mr. Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the A6 bus lane in Loughborough since its introduction. [150021]
Mr. Hill: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.
Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Andrew Reed, dated 14 February 2001:
- The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the bus lane on the A6 in Loughborough.
- This was introduced on an experimental basis in March 1999. Our assessment of the scheme is very positive: there have been improvements in bus journey time reliability and car journey times at the height of the morning peak and a reduction in maximum queue lengths. Although the proposal was generally well received there were some objections. We are trying to resolve these before deciding whether or not we should make permanent arrangements for its operation and enforcement. We hope that will be around April.
14 Feb 2001 : Column: 155W
- If you require any further information in the meantime please contact David Smith, the Project Sponsor for this scheme. His telephone number is 0121 678 8054.
Central Railway (Freight Line)
Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's policy is on the proposals by Central Railway for a new direct freight line to Europe from the north-west; if he will publish the advice that he has received from the Strategic Rail Authority on this matter; and what discussions have taken place with Central Railway about the proposed line. [149840]
Mr. Hill: Central Railway has requested the Government's support for the approval of its scheme through a hybrid Bill but the company has not yet submitted details of its proposals.
The SRA is to undertake a review of Central Railway's proposals. This will examine the project in the context of our 10-Year Plan objectives and the SRA's own strategy for freight. I will follow the review with interest and make a further statement in due course, taking into account the SRA's findings.
A3, Hindhead
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the UVA consultants' report on the Hindhead A3 tunnel. [150305]
Mr. Hill: The consultant's report on the A3 Hindhead study is currently with the South East England Regional Assembly and was presented to its plenary meeting today. It will then be for the Assembly to make recommendations to Ministers, and decisions on the way forward will be taken in the light of these recommendations.
Biocidal and Cosmetic Products
Mr. Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the discussion paper produced by the Environment Directorate of the European Commission on the interface between the Biocidal Products and Cosmetic Products Directives; what timetable has been proposed for consultation on this paper; and if he will place a copy of the paper and the Government's response in the Library. [148713]
Mr. Meacher [holding answer 12 February 2001]: The European Commission is currently drafting a document in order to clarify the borderline between the Biocidal Products Directive and the Cosmetics Directive. An expert working group that includes experts from member states (including the UK) and industry has discussed it. The working document is being modified and a final version has yet to be put formally to member states for comment. It is anticipated that member states will discuss a final draft next month.
With regard to the scope of the Biocidal Products Directive, the UK policy is to encourage the European Commission to bring forward proposals concerning the interface with other Directives so that products are
14 Feb 2001 : Column: 156W
regulated under the most appropriate regime, and those required to comply with European legislation are clear about which legislation applies to their products.
Once the working document has been lodged with us it will be placed in the House Library.
Flood Plains
Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consideration his Department has given to the implications of construction on flood plains on the south coast; what his assessments are of the increased risk of flooding from such construction; what preconditions have been imposed to guarantee the satisfactory disposal of sewage, wastewater and groundwater resulting from the construction of new housing estates and service roads; and if he will make a statement. [150117]
Ms Beverley Hughes: Policy INF1 in the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) states that:
- "Development should be guided away from areas at risk or likely to be at risk in future from flooding, or where it would increase the risk of flood damage elsewhere".
The revised draft of Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk", published on 6 February, states:
- "those proposing particular developments are responsible for: providing an assessment of whether any proposed development is likely to be affected by flooding, whether it will increase flood risk elsewhere and of the measures proposed to deal with these effects and risks. It is then for the local planning authority, advised as necessary by the Environment Agency, to determine an application for planning permission taking account of all material considerations".
The disposal of sewage, wastewater and groundwater resulting from the construction of new houses and service roads can be material considerations in the determination of applications for planning permission and should also be taken into account in preparing development plans. The draft PPG 25 advises on the need for close liaison between local authorities, the Environment Agency, sewerage undertakers and prospective developers to encourage the use of sustainable drainage systems and minimise the impacts of their discharges on receiving watercourses. In addition, the Government consulted in 2000 on amendments to Part H of the Building Regulations, proposing a number of amendments related to sustainable drainage. There are also proposals to reduce the risk of
14 Feb 2001 : Column: 157W
sewer flooding by the use of the anti-flood valves and pumps from basement connections and buildings in low-lying areas.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |