---

21 Jan 2004 : Column 1233W

Written Answers to Questions

Wednesday 21 January 2004

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will rule out amending to 15 per cent. the Government's 2010 target for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. [148613]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The Government today published for consultation its draft National Allocation Plan for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. In doing so, we reaffirmed our commitment to our domestic goal to move towards a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide of 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010.

The UK Climate Change Programme sets out the policy framework to ensure that we meet our Kyoto target and move towards the domestic goal. We are committed to reviewing the Programme this year, which will provide an opportunity to introduce new policies and measures, or to strengthen existing ones, if the conclusion is that more needs to be done to achieve the domestic goal.

Montreal Protocol

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department is working to ensure that the UK fulfils its obligations under the Montreal Protocol. [148006]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 19 January 2004]: The UK signed and ratified the Montreal Protocol in 1987, and has since ratified the four other amendments, London (1990) Copenhagen (1992) Montreal (1997) and Beijing (1999). The Community has implemented its obligations under the Montreal Protocol through EC Regulation 2037/2000, which is directly applicable in UK law. This Regulation has put in place an accelerated phase-out programme on the supply and use of ozone depleting substances, as EU member states were keen to move faster than the Protocol. A statutory Instrument has been introduced which creates offences and sets penalties for any breaches of the ozone regulation.

Nuclear Energy

Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the audited amount of (a) plutonium and (b) uranium at each nuclear energy facility which was unaccounted for in each year since 1997. [148500]

Nigel Griffiths: I have been asked to reply.

In accordance with international practice, the inventory difference that occurs when the result of a physical inventory of nuclear material is compared with

21 Jan 2004 : Column 1234W

the book inventory is referred to as MUF ('material unaccounted for'). The difference may be negative (an apparent loss) or positive (an apparent gain). MUF is a recognised feature of accounting for nuclear material and is caused primarily by the uncertainties inherent in the techniques used to measure nuclear material. MUF figures at UKAEA, BNFL and Urenco sites are published annually by the industry. Copies of the figures published since 1997 have been placed in the Library of the House. There is no evidence to suggest that there have been any real losses or gains of nuclear material.

Oral Statements

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason she has made no oral statement to the House on an environmental matter since July 2002. [148586]

Margaret Beckett: I take very seriously the importance of keeping the House properly informed across the whole range of my broad portfolio of responsibilities.

Packaging Waste

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003 were not published until 14 January; and if she will delay their entry into force. [148980]

Mr. Morley: The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 were not published until 14 January due to delays caused by the Christmas holiday period. However, the Regulations came into force on 1 January 2004, as intended.

Protected Species

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the criteria are for designating a wild species of animal as protected. [148656]

Mr. Bradshaw: Every five years the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) advises Government on which animals should be legally protected by listing on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. JNCC reported to Government with its recommendations in September 2002, which included full protection for this species. The next stage is for Government to conduct a public consultation based on these recommendations, which will occur in spring 2004. Following this consultation, the Secretary of State will decide on the changes to be made to the schedules and these will be implemented by Statutory Instrument.

For a species to be recommended for scheduling one of the eligibility criteria in each of the Sections A to D below should be met:

A. Generally, only native (including re-established) taxa are to be considered. Taxa introduced or thought to be introduced to Great Britain by man could be considered exceptionally, with the following provisos.

21 Jan 2004 : Column 1235W

(i) the organism is endangered or extinct in its native range, and

(ii) preferably, the natural range reaches the north west coast of Europe (i.e. continental distribution extends to the Atlantic coast of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or Scandinavia; for marine taxa, the distribution includes the north west Atlantic area), and provided that

(iii) information suggests that the organism is unlikely to have an adverse impact on important native species or ecosystems.

B. The taxon must be either:

(i) established in the wild in Great Britain; or

(ii) occur as a vagrant in Great Britain and require international protection; or

(iii) be believed extinct in Great Britain as a breeding species, but be in the process of re-establishment; or

(iv) be believed extinct in Great Britain, but with the possibility that it could become re-established naturally.

C. The taxonomic status of the organism must be well authenticated. Taxa below the species level could be considered, providing they are:

(i) clearly recognisable (i.e. morphologically distinct), and

(ii) geographically or ecologically distinct.

D. The taxon must be endangered in Great Britain, or likely to become so unless conservation measures are taken, and/or be subject to an international obligation for protection. One or more of the following may indicate that a taxon is or may become endangered:

(i) it is included in a JNCC-approved British Red Data Book as Extinct, Endangered or Vulnerable (or, in Red Lists drawn up using the recently revised IUCN criteria, as Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable)]

(ii) it has been well searched for but is known from only a single locality;

(iii) it is confined to a particularly threatened habitat. The extent or quality of the habitat is being significantly reduced or is likely to become significantly reduced, thus threatening the survival of the organism;

(iv) it is rapidly declining in population, number of localities occupied or range. Indicative would be at least 50 per cent. decline observed, estimated inferred or suspected in the last 20 years, or a decline of at least 50 per cent. projected, inferred or suspected to be likely in the near future. The decline must transcend normal fluctuations;

(v) it is endangered, or likely to become endangered through being targeted for exploitation or killing for commercial reasons and/or through being particularly attractive to collectors.

International obligations apply to a taxon which is:

(vi) naturally resident and listed on Appendices I, II or III of the Bern Convention; Annexes II, IV or V of the EC Habitats and Species Directive; Appendix I of the Bonn Convention (unless derogations are in force); and/or endemic to Great Britain and included in a JNCC-approved British Red List.

TRANSPORT

Drink-driving

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has undertaken of the impact on drink-related accidents of lowering the legal limit of alcohol for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg; and for what reasons he has not introduced a lower alcohol in blood limit. [147927]

Mr. Jamieson: The Government considers that strengthened enforcement of existing controls, combined with publicity and education, is the appropriate basis for dealing with drink-drive accidents and casualties. The

21 Jan 2004 : Column 1236W

Government carried out an analysis of the possible savings in road traffic casualties from a reduction in the legal alcohol limit for the purposes of the 1998 consultation document "Combating Drink Driving: Next Steps", a copy of which is in the House Library. This estimated that a reduction in the limit to 50mg/100ml could save around 50 fatalities per year, but was based on a number of assumptions about accident causation and individual driver compliance. We have also considered more recent published research into the potential impact of lowering the limit, the results of which appear to be inconclusive.

---