---

Badgers

3. Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): If she will propose legislation to remove badgers' protected status. [185743]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): No.

Mr. Steen: Does the Minister not accept that badgers are vermin and have no known predators? Disease is thus rampant and spreading throughout the south-west, inflicting enormous damage and losses on herds. Does he not agree that farmers are now less protected than badgers, and that the Government appear not to care less?

Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not accept that. The latest figures for Devon, the south-west and the country as a whole are slightly down on last year. The difficulty that the Government face—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands, as he is a reasonable man—is that there is an absence of scientific evidence that a particular badger culling policy would help to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. No Government would make a decision to go ahead on that basis, as was recently stated in a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is chaired by his right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): As my hon. Friend will know, all badger carcases on British roads are removed as soon as possible and taken away for analysis. Does he have figures showing what percentage of those carcases in fact have TB? Is the incidence of the disease higher in certain areas of the country, and has progress been made on a vaccine so that we can at least vaccinate the animals rather than eradicate them?

Mr. Bradshaw: We very much want to make progress on vaccination for badgers and, indeed, cattle. I have recently expressed a wish to progress scoping studies on both areas as quickly as possible, but I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that successful vaccination for both animals is probably some time away. We hope soon to have a more reliable live test for badgers, which might help if a badger culling policy were adopted at some stage. As for the road traffic accident survey, yes, there are variations across the country, as one would expect, with a higher level of TB in badgers in areas where there is also a greater prevalence of TB in cattle. I do not have the latest figures to hand, but I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House so that hon. Members can see them.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Is the Minister aware that Castle Point has one of the largest urban badger populations in the country? Of course, they can cause
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 470
 
havoc, especially to domestic property, but nevertheless the current systems for managing badgers work well. The badger is one of the most wonderful British wild animals, and we must continue to protect it.

Mr. Bradshaw: That was a statement, rather than a question, but I note the position taken by the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has had some interesting badger issues as a local constituency MP, which I think he will acknowledge have divided his constituents and divided residents of the streets where the badgers have been causing problems. There is no simple answer to the question.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the only answer is to go back to the science. The recent report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made some recommendations, which we hope the Government can respond to. We cannot ignore the fact that bovine TB is present not only in cattle and badgers, but in a number of other species, particularly the deer population, so we must take the right action, rather than precipitate action. Will my hon. Friend comment on the measures that the Government propose with regard to the problem with the deer population?

Mr. Bradshaw: We have already undertaken some research into the deer population. The interaction between deer and cattle and between badgers and cattle is rather different and of a different degree. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and other members of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Fylde for their excellent and balanced report, most—if not all—of whose recommendations the Government accept and intend to progress as rapidly as we can.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): While anyone brought up on "Wind in the Willows" or who has watched badgers at play knows that they are delightful animals, there is a pretty clear case that they are causing a great deal of trouble to our farmers. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say about putting them on the pill?

Mr. Bradshaw: Well, there is a certain amount of research from this country, and from other countries such as New Zealand that have had problems with possums, on the potential for oral contraception or sterilisation. I am afraid we have not yet reached the stage where a reliable or effective method has been found, but I am sure that many people, not least those who would like to get rid of grey squirrels, await such a contraceptive or sterilisation pill with great expectation.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

4. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab): What assessment she has made of progress towards carbon dioxide emission reduction targets. [185745]

9. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): What progress has been made towards meeting the Kyoto carbon dioxide target. [185750]
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 471
 

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The UK remains on course to achieve its Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. Provisional estimates suggest that greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 were about 14 per cent. below the baseline. The Government have a separate goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. Emissions of carbon dioxide for 2003 are provisionally estimated to be about 7 per cent. lower than in 1990.

Mr. Blizzard: Is it not the case, though, that based on the Government's own recently published energy and emissions projections, even if we meet the difficult 20 per cent. renewables target and implement all our energy efficiency policies, the 60 per cent. CO ₂ reduction target for 2050 will go off course in 2010 and will not be achieved? Should we not be looking at carbon capture and storage technology now, so that we can bridge that emissions gap and maintain security of supply? The only other option would be the nuclear option.

Margaret Beckett: I do not entirely accept my hon. Friend's analysis because, although I take his point that the 60 per cent. target is a challenging one, there are a number of trajectories that one could follow to reach it. There has always been a discussion about whether we ought to try to pursue a straight line path, or whether there is merit in back-end loading as, for example, the newer technologies become available, recognising that we may be able to make greater moves at a later date than we can at present. However, my hon. Friend is right that there is considerable interest in carbon abatement technology. A great deal of thought and study is going into it and I anticipate that we shall hear more of it in the not too distant future.

Mr. Amess: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, apart from helping to eliminate fuel poverty, has made a considerable contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions? Given the fact that, according to DEFRA's figures, those emissions have been going up since 1997, does she believe that the targets will be reached by 2010?

Margaret Beckett: In fact, the trend since 1997 has been downwards, although in the past couple of years there has been the fluctuation that I mentioned. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that attacking fuel poverty is the right course in itself. It also makes a considerable contribution to reducing emissions. I am sure that he knows, because he takes a great interest in such issues, that we are reviewing the effectiveness of the previous fuel poverty, or warm front, programmes and intend to produce proposals in a few months' time. I expect that he has also noticed that, thanks to the Chancellor's spending review, substantial extra resources have been allocated to tackling fuel poverty. We are hoping to publish an implementation plan for the new funding and the new proposals later in the year.

Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): Does the Secretary of State recognise that Conservative Members were encouraged when, 18 months ago, her ministerial
 
22 Jul 2004 : Column 472
 
colleague announced the energy efficiency target of a 5 million tonne reduction in carbon emissions? That figure was confirmed by the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, Lord Whitty. Industry was more than satisfied when the Chancellor, no less, endorsed the 5 million tonne target. The final seal of approval was put on it by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only three months ago. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why, after all this spin and hype, she has announced a target that is significantly lower? Does not that send completely the wrong signals to industry and to everyone who is trying to cope with the situation?

Margaret Beckett: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman reaches that view, but I assure him that he is mistaken. The figure of 5 million tonnes was very much an illustrative figure in the energy White Paper. It was never intended to be a goal or a target, but an initial indication of what was then thought might be possible—[Interruption.] Yes, I am conscious of the document that the hon. Gentleman indicates. Since the energy White Paper was produced, a great deal more detailed analysis has been carried out. That led us to conclude that 5 million is not a realistic figure, but 4.2 million would be. However, that is certainly not the wrong signal to be sending to business. The hon. Gentleman must have noticed that through the energy efficiency plan, we plan to make more savings as a result of energy efficiency than under the previous proposals. On the basis of that further, more detailed analysis, we think that although we may not be able to make quite as much of a saving from the domestic sector, we can make more of a saving from the business sector.

---