---

Domestic Animal Skins

Dr. Palmer: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many (a) domestic dog and (b) domestic cat skins have been (i) imported to and (ii) exported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [93618]

Mr. Wilson: The information requested is not available because the system of classification used to record trade does not separately identify domestic dog and cat skins.

Textphones

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer on 20 July 1999, Official Report, column 470, concerning textphones, what assessment he has made of the signage and accessibility of the public textphone network. [93313]

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 326

Mr. Wills: The signage and accessibility of BT public textphones is a matter for the company itself and Oftel. Many of the public textphones currently installed are at sites owned by organisations such as Railtrack or the British Airports Authority, who control signage.

Generally, BT use a recognised, distinct, yellow and black textphone sign on public textphones themselves, which marks them out among a bank of conventional payphones. BT has also produced leaflets, available from the RNID and other interested bodies, giving public textphone locations.

Multinationals

Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the definition of a multinational corporation used by his Department. [92557]

Mr. Byers [holding answer 26 July 1999]: I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Appointments

Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many appointments to public bodies were made by his Department in (a) 1997-98 and (b) 1998-99 by (i) gender and (ii) ethnicity; and if he will make a statement. [92564]

Mr. Byers [holding answer 26 July 1999]: I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

National Air Traffic Services Ltd.

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to proceed with the proposed public private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [93540]

Mr. Prescott: The Government issued a consultation paper in October 1998 outlining our preferred option for a public private partnership (PPP) for NATS as set out in our White Paper on the future of transport. We are grateful to those organisations and individuals who responded to our consultation. Their views have been taken into consideration as part of the policy development process for this PPP.

NATS' operational strengths, and their safety record, are among the best in the world but they need a wider range of management skills, and access to capital, to meet the challenges of the future, in particular the ever- increasing rise in traffic. The Government want to build on NATS' strengths, bring in new management skills such as project management expertise, improve aviation safety, secure long-term investment of £1 billion over 10 years, including completion of Swanwick and the New Scottish Centre, and retain public accountability in a strategic industry.

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 327

We have a number of principal objectives for the PPP. These are:

to maintain and build upon the excellent record of aviation safety in the UK, which was reflected in the Select Committee's recent report;

to ensure that NATS has adequate funding for investment and to provide it with the commercial freedom to develop its business within a robust framework of economic regulation; and

to maintain effective civil/military joint working of the national air traffic system for the benefit of all users and to accommodate national needs in crisis, war and emergency.

The Government are also keen to ensure that best value is obtained for the taxpayer, that NATS' employees should have the opportunity to acquire an interest in the undertaking in which they are employed and to which they have contributed so much, and to preserve the pension rights of both existing and retired employees.

The Government have concluded that NATS should be separated from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which will then become the independent, separate safety regulator of air traffic services. This separation will ensure that safety regulation and service provision are undertaken in separate organisations, as the Select Committee has recommended over many years. This will help to maintain and build on some of the most stringent safety standards in the world.

We intend to effect this new and innovative PPP through the introduction of a strategic partner who will acquire a controlling interest in NATS. The company will then become a New Partnership Company, structured to create a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors and involve the employees, airlines, and other stakeholders in a new Stakeholder Council. Subject to legislation, the PPP could be put in place by the end of the year 2000. Full details of our conclusions thus far are contained in the Government's report on the response to the public consultation, a copy of which has today been placed in the Library of the House.

Genetically Modified Crops

Mr. Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the controls on the marketing of genetically modified crops provided for in Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are applied in the absence of a marketing consent issued thereunder. [85951]

Mr. Meacher: The commercial growing of genetically modified (GM) crops requires specific consents to be issued at the Community level under Directive 90/220/EEC. All member states have an input into this decision-making process. Once an approval has been issued, it may be used throughout the Community, provided any specific conditions on use, or on types of environment and geographical areas for release are complied with.

The controls on the marketing of GM crops in the UK provided for in Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would apply to a consent issued by another member state in the same way as they would to a consent issued by the UK Competent Authority.

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 328

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the RSPB's recommendations on the plantation of genetically modified crops. [87937]

Mr. Meacher [holding answer 1 July 1999]: My Department takes very seriously the concerns of The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds regarding the commercial planing of genetically modified crops and has actively sought the advice and involvement of RSPB scientists to take forward recent initiatives to address biodiversity issues.

The RSPB have raised the concern that herbicide tolerant crops will lead to a rise in the use of broad-spectrum herbicides on fields, and that this in turn could decrease biodiversity in the fields and reduce food available to birds. My Department is spending £3.3 million on the 'farm-scale evaluation' research programme to study the effect of the management of GM crops on the abundance and diversity of farmland wildlife. This research programme began earlier this year and will last at least until 2002. The research is being overseen by a scientific steering committee that will ensure the research is scientifically robust. A scientist from the RSPB is present on this committee.

The RSPB have also raised the concern that the introduction of insect resistant crops could have an unacceptable impact on biodiversity. Again my Department takes these concerns very seriously. In October last year I announced that the industry had agreed not to introduce insect resistant GM crops into commercial agriculture in Britain for three years. Research is in place to ensure that risks posed by these crops to the environment are thoroughly investigated.

The RSPB note the possibility of GM crops cross-pollinating with wild relatives. Each application for the release of genetically modified crop is supported by a risk assessment, which is evaluated by Government experts and independent scientists on the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). ACRE consider in detail the potential for each GM crop to cross-pollinate with wild relatives and a GM crop will be granted consent only if ACRE are satisfied that the risks presented are negligible.

The RSPB hold a wider concern that the introduction of genetically modified crops could lead to landscape changes and/or changes in crop rotations. This potential wider impact of the commercial use of GM crops has been discussed in the recently published paper "The Commercial use of GM crops in the UK: the potential wider impact on farmland wildlife", published by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). Following publication of this report the remit of ACRE has been widened with the setting up of a sub-group to discuss and advise on the issues raised. This includes representatives of English Nature and the RSPB. The sub-group will review the risk assessment of GMOs to include a greater consideration of the wider biodiversity impacts which have been made possible via the revision of directive 90/220/EEC on the release to the environment of genetically modified organisms.

We agree with concerns expressed about the wider impacts on wildlife of the large scale introduction of GM crops. Until GM crops are planted on a larger scale, it is

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 329

difficult to assess accurately all the effects which they may have on biodiversity. This process must be managed carefully. The Government have therefore reached agreement with the industry on a voluntary code of practice which will strictly limit the first farm-scale plantings and ensure that we are able to monitor any effects on the environment and, in particular, on populations of farmland wildlife and only if no damage has been found to the environment. Full-scale commercial planting will not take place until the results have been carefully assessed. If these results show that particular genetically modified crops harm the environment, we have the powers to withdraw their approvals for commercial planting and we will use them.

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 July 1999, Official Report, column 367, (1) if he will ensure that no further consents are issued which allow the products of a genetically modified crop trial to enter the food chain; and if he will take steps to establish the fate of the products of genetically modified crop trials where consents were given for them to enter the food chain; [91251]

(2) which company or companies were given consents to use the products of genetically modified crop trials as animal feed in (a) August 1994 and March 1997 in respect of genetically modified oil seed rape and (b) April 1996 in respect of genetically modified maize; what were the locations of these trials; and what information concerning these trials and the consents given to use their products as animal feed was made available to hon. Members and the public, prior to the crops being grown. [91252]

Mr. Meacher: No genetically modified (GM) crops are currently being grown for food, feed or processing in the United Kingdom. Any future applications for material of a GM Crop trial to be used as food or feed would be subject to a scientific assessment of risk carried out on a case-by-case basis.

The two consents in respect of GM oil seed rape mentioned in my earlier reply had approval for the meal from the trial crop to be used as feed, but the material was not in fact used in this way and did not therefore enter the feed chain. Both consents were issued to Plant Genetic Systems NV and the trials took place at NIAB, Cambridge in 1994-95 and at Inkwell, Bedfordshire in 1997-98.

The GM maize referred to in my earlier answer has Europe-wide approval under Part C of Council Directive 90/220/EEC for agricultural use leading to animal consumption. The consent for the trial was issued to Sharpes International Seeds Ltd. covering six sites: Boothby Graffoe, Lincolnshire; NIAB, Cambridgeshire, Dartington, Devon; CWS/Gainseed, Cheshire; NIAB, Winchester, Hampshire; and Great Dunmow, Essex. Of these, only material from the site in Cheshire was ensiled to use as animal feed.

All information on releases of GM crops, apart from that considered commercially confidential as set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 5 May 1999, Official Report, column 390, is available to the public on request.

27 Jul 1999 : Column: 330

---