Kyoto Agreement
Mr. Weir:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessments she has made of the likely growth in fossil fuel use in (a) the USA and (b) developing nations over the next 20 years; what impact such growth will have on targets set at Kyoto; and what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on the ratification of the Kyoto agreement by (i) EU member states, (ii) eastern European nations, (iii) Japan, (iv) Canada and (v) Russia. [6755]
Mr. Wilson:
The Department has made no independent assessment of the likely growth in fossil fuel use over the next 20 years outside the UK. Assessments of future fossil and other energy uses are, however, undertaken by a number of organisations, including the International Energy Agency and the US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. These organisations typically produce annual reports covering such work.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no discussions with her EU counterparts on the ratification of the Kyoto Agreement as that issue is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I understand that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol will be discussed at the Environment Council on 29 October.
Nuclear Reprocessing
Mr. Weir:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on future nuclear reprocessing capacity in the United Kingdom; what estimate she has for the volume of nuclear (a) storage and (b) reprocessing capacity that will be required over the next 30 years; how much of this capacity is currently available; how much additional capacity by type she estimates will need to be built in the United Kingdom; what estimate she has made of the (i) cost of such additional capacity and (ii) the amount of non-UK nuclear waste that will be (A) reprocessed and (B) stored in the United Kingdom over the next 30 years; and if she will make a statement. [6758]
Mr. Wilson:
The Department has made no estimate of storage and reprocessing capacity as Government policy is that the decision to reprocess spent nuclear fuel or to
16 Oct 2001 : Column: 1164W
seek alternative spent fuel management options is a matter for the commercial judgment of its owners, subject to meeting the necessary regulatory requirements.
Since 1976 reprocessing contracts with overseas customers have included a provision to return the resulting wastes back to the country of origin. Government policy remains that radioactive waste arising from overseas should not be stored in the UK. The amounts of overseas spent fuel reprocessed in the UK will depend on commercial arrangements between BNFL and its customers.
Bilking
Margaret Moran:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with petrol companies on their contributions to the cost of prevention of bilking at petrol stations. [6301]
Mr. Denham:
I have been asked to reply as I have responsibility for Crime Reduction.
We have not had direct discussion with petrol companies on their contributions to the cost of bilking at petrol stations, although officials have regular contact with the British Oil Industry Security Syndicate (BOSS) which is made up of representatives of petrol companies. BOSS has instigated the "Forecourt Watch" scheme which aims to reduce the types of crime that affect petrol station forecourts. There are 40 schemes currently operating across the United Kingdom and BOSS continues to develop new schemes in co-operation with local police services.
TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
THE REGIONS
A3 Hindhead Tunnel
Virginia Bottomley:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what implementation plan he has drawn up to (a) commence and (b) complete the A3 Hindhead tunnel; [7557]
(2) if he will make a statement on his policy on the environmental and economic implications of the proposed tunnel at Hindhead on the A3; [6474]
(3) what reports he has received from the Highways Agency concerning the A3 exhibition at Hindhead. [7556]
Mr. Jamieson:
I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews to write to the right hon. Lady.
Letter from David York to Virginia Bottomley, dated 16 October 2001:
I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A3 Hindhead Tunnel. I am replying since Tim Matthews is currently abroad on Highways Agency business.
The environmental and economic implications of the proposed tunnel were assessed as part of the study completed earlier this year into possible charging for the tunnel. I attach a copy of the table summarising that assessment. As you will be aware, Ministers accepted the recommendations of the study and the scheme was added to the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements last Spring.
16 Oct 2001 : Column: 1165W
The exhibition last month to remind local people about the scheme details was extremely successful and we received a considerable amount of useful feedback. The comments are now being considered and will be taken into account as the detailed design for the scheme is prepared. Our next step will be to appoint a contractor, next Summer, early in the planning process to help with that detailed design work. That work should lead to the start of the statutory procedures in 2003–04.
Subject to the outcome of those procedures, work could start on site in 2005–06 and take between three and four years to complete.
16 Oct 2001 : Column: 1166W
Base Tunnel Option: (BTO) vs Do-Minimum
Dual two-lane all-purpose bypass (6.5 km) incl. bored tunnel (1.7 km)
Problems: substantial delays and journey time variability on the A3 due to the traffic signals at Hindhead, the single carriageway sections either side and nearby junctions and accesses, also causing substantial amounts of "rat running" on local roads. Traffic flow 27,000 veh/day (9 per cent. HGVs).
Present Value Cost to Government: £75 million.
A3 Hindhead—appraisal summary table January 2001
| Objective/Sub-objective/Qualitative impacts | Quantitative measure | Assessment
|
|---|
| ENVIRONMENT | |
|
| Noise | |
|
| With the Base Tunnel Option significant changes in traffic noise (3 dB(12)) predicted on some 35 km of the road network, in some cases including parts of Haslemere and Liphook as well as in Hindhead. The tunnel would reduce noise levels substantially for parts of Hindhead Common, but tranquillity on footpaths near the new road north of the tunnel would be lost | Base Tunnel vs Do Min. in 2023 Properties benefiting by 3 Db(12):675 Properties dis-benefiting by 3 dB:115(12) | Net number of properties benefiting by 3 dB:560(12)
|
| | |
|
| Local Air Quality | |
|
| The assessment has been carried out for the road traffic model simulation area for links which would have a traffic flow of more than 5,000 veh/day (DETR, May 2000: Review and Assessment: Pollutant Specific Guidance, Part IV The Environment Act 1995, Local Air Quality Management LAQM.TG4(00)) | Properties where LAQ improves PM 1 0 1,567 NO 2 715 Properties where LAQ worsens PM 1 0 801 NO 2 652 | LAQ Index: PM 1 0 —249.7 NO 2 —2,702.9
|
| | |
|
| Greenhouse Gases | |
|
| The change in CO 2 is calculated over the whole road traffic model area and would be roughly equivalent to 0.012 per cent. of the total emissions of CO 2 by road transport in the UK in 1996 | n/a | +3,575 CO 2 tonnes/annum
|
| | |
|
| Landscape | |
|
| Slight beneficial impact on Surrey Hills AONB. Substantial benefits to landscape of the Common arising from inclusion of a bored tunnel and removal of the existing surface route would be, in part, off-set by substantial adverse effects outside tunnel at northern and southern ends of scheme | n/a | Slight beneficial
|
| | |
|
| Townscape | |
|
| Removal of congestion within Hindhead provides opportunity for townscape enhancement and redevelopment, including visitor 'gateway' to the Commons and Punch Bowl. These benefits would be off-set by adverse effect on southern approach to Hindhead; new route running parallel to existing A3 would create a wide road corridor with disturbance to existing mature properties | Three residential and four non-residential properties would be demolished | Moderate beneficial
|
| | |
|
| Heritage of Historic Resources | |
|
| No direct/indirect impacts on designated sites. Risk to unknown/undiscovered archaeology. Substantial benefit to historic landscape of the Common by removing existing surface route and re-establishing links with Punch Bowl, offset by adverse effects outside the tunnel | n/a | Slight beneficial
|
| | |
|
| Biodiversity | |
|
| No direct impact on the adjacent SSSIs/SPAs. Direct impact on areas of non-designated woodland and SNCI east of Hindhead, but avoiding main nature conservation interest. Beneficial indirect effects on Punch Bowl SSSI/SPA by removing existing surface route and reuniting commons | n/a | Intermediate positive
|
| | |
|
| Water Environment | |
|
| The scheme would cross two of the four streams within the corridor, one of which is of excellent quality (Begley) and the other (Nutcombe) of poor quality. Surface water measures would be needed to ensure there is no pollution risk. Existing data and boreholes indicate possible conflict between tunnel and ground water levels and underlying aquifer; without detailed modelling the impact cannot be determined, but there is a risk | n/a | (potentially) large adverse
|
| Physical Fitness | |
|
| Relatively few pedestrians currently cross the A3 in Hindhead (less than 200 a day). Reduced traffic severance in Hindhead resulting from the scheme may encourage more pedestrian and cyclist trips. Tunnel will reunite severed sections of the Common which is likely to encourage greater recreational use of the Common by pedestrians and cyclists. Dedicating existing sections of A3 to pedestrians and cyclists will also offer increased opportunities for walking and cycling | No data available on number of pedestrians and cyclists who will walk/cycle for more than, or less than, the 30 minutes a day health threshold | Slight beneficial
|
| | |
|
| Journey Ambience | |
|
| Large beneficial effect on driver stress. Large adverse effect on views from road. Slight beneficial effect with respect to traveller care (facilities) arising from the new dedicated footway/cycleway on sections of existing A3 | Over 25,000 road users a day affected | Slight beneficial
|
| | |
|
| SAFETY | |
|
| Accidents | |
|
| Substantial reductions in numbers of accidents | Accidents reduced by 27 in 2009 rising to 34 in 2038. Thirty-year reduction 919 | PVB £13 million 17 per cent. of PVC
|
| | |
|
| Security | |
|
| N/a | n/a | n/a
|
| | |
|
| ECONOMY | |
|
| Transport Economic Efficiency | |
|
| Positive NPV under both High and Low growth scenarios. Benefit/cost ratio higher than in the last study in the mid-1990s | BCR 1.6 | Users: NPV £108 million Public providers: NPV £75 million Other Government: NPV £13 million
|
| | |
|
| Reliability | |
|
| Moderate reduction in travel time variability from relieving bottleneck; would be larger but for traffic attracted (back) into the A3 corridor. Low-moderate flow | Current range of 12–32 minutes for peak period journey on Liphook-Milford section of A3 would be reduced substantially | Slight beneficial
|
| | |
|
| Wider Economic Impacts | |
|
| This sub-objective is targeted at designated regeneration areas. Nevertheless, it is relevant that South Hampshire may benefit substantially from the improved transport connection. Also, the blighted part of Hindhead should recover when relieved of major traffic flows | n/a | (potentially) moderate beneficial
|
| | |
|
| ACCESSIBILITY | |
|
| Option values | |
|
| Unlikely there would be substantial changes to the availability of transport services in the area | | n/a
|
| | |
|
| Severance | |
|
| Some relief from severance along the existing A3 from the signals (at A287) northwards, particularly around the Devil's Punch Bowl, and from the signals southwards to Crossways Road | | Moderate beneficial
|
| | |
|
| Access to the Transport System | |
|
| No change | | Neutral
|
| | |
|
| INTEGRATION | |
|
| Transport Interchange | |
|
| No change | | Neutral
|
| | |
|
| Land-Use Policy | |
|
| Across the relevant national, regional and local policies (transport, environment, landscape, nature conservation, agriculture, cultural heritage, general development and recreation), there would be equal numbers of policies affected beneficially and adversely. There would, however, be more large positive effects than negative ones, and more of the more important policies would be affected positively. The two policies that would be affected most positively are: to provide an efficient and effective road system and to reduce congestion; and to conserve and enhance biodiversity. On balance the effect would be beneficial | Sixteen policies would benefit; 16 policies would be adversely affected; five policies where effects would be neutral. All four most important policies would benefit. Ten of the 21 policies middle-ranked in importance would benefit; eight would disbenefit | Beneficial
|
| | |
|
| Other Government Policies | |
|
| N/a | n/a | n/a
|
(12) Greater than
16 Oct 2001 : Column: 1167W
16 Oct 2001 : Column: 1169W
