---

Diversification

Mr. Breed: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations that can advise farmers on diversification. [128057]

Mr. Morley: There are numerous organisations, both in the public and private sector, that can provide business advice to farmers on diversification. Guidance on these sources of advice will be set out in a new booklet on farm diversification to be published by this Department later this summer as part of the Action Plan for Farming.

Crop Contamination

Mr. Breed: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation he will make available to organic farmers whose crops and organic status are at risk from contamination from genetically modified crops on neighbouring farms; and if he will make a statement. [128044]

28 Jun 2000 : Column: 499W

Mr. Morley: There is currently no commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in the UK. Compensation for any detriment to a farmer as a result of activity on a neighbouring farm would be a matter between the farmer and those responsible for the activity.

International Whaling Commission

Mrs. Fitzsimons: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the position of the United Kingdom will be at the forthcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission. [128441]

Mr. Morley: The International Whaling Commission (IWC) will be holding its 52nd Annual Meeting in Adelaide between 3 and 6 July. I will be attending.

At this meeting I will be confirming that the UK remains strongly opposed to whaling, and that our ultimate aim is to secure a permanent, worldwide ban on all whaling, other than some limited aboriginal subsistence whaling. We will be seeking to build upon the successful outcome of the recent CITES meeting where all whale downlisting proposals were rejected and the primacy of the IWC reaffirmed.

There will be further discussions of proposals put forward by Ireland in 1997 for a package of measures on whaling. The Irish proposals would involve a ban on all whaling, including scientific whaling, outside coastal waters (in effect creating a global ocean sanctuary), with a possibility that countries might authorise whaling under IWC rules within their own coastal waters; there would be a ban on international trade in whale products. In these discussions we will maintain our previous position on these ideas: while we are prepared to discuss constructively all ideas for improving whale conservation, and strongly support some elements of these proposals, we have significant reservations about others, in particular those relating to coastal whaling. Nevertheless we are prepared to consider interim solutions on the way to our ultimate destination provided that these deliver very real benefits to whale conservation.

It is, however, unlikely that any progress will be made on the Irish proposals, as the whaling countries and their allies remain opposed to key aspects of them. Japan, in particular, has demonstrated that it is not prepared to consider ending scientific whaling or a ban on international trade in whale products. In these circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to support the alternative ways of achieving our aims that we outlined at least year's meeting and subsequently reported to the House on 9 June 1999, Official Report, columns 348-50W.

A key element of our approach is support for the creation of regional sanctuaries, and we will be strongly supporting a proposal put forward by Australia and New Zealand to create a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary will afford greater protection to whales in a highly important breeding and feeding area, and one through which many other great whales migrate. The proposal has been endorsed by South Pacific Forum leaders.

At previous IWC meetings the UK, together with a majority of IWC members, has consistently criticised the whaling operations authorised by Japan under special permits--so called "scientific" whaling. It is, therefore,

28 Jun 2000 : Column: 500W

very disappointing that Japan has presented proposals, for discussion in the IWC Scientific Committee, to extend these whaling operations to cover two further species, Sperm and Bryde's whales. Under the IWC's parent convention, IWC approval for these proposals is not needed and it is for Japan to authorise whaling under special permit., We will, nevertheless, be registering the Government's strong objection to these proposals and will be urging Japan to withdraw them.

There will be further discussion of The Revised Management Scheme (RMS), which is being developed to regulate all aspects of any future commercial whaling. The IWC meeting will be preceded by a two day working group focusing, in particular, on the Inspection and Observation Scheme which would form an integral part of the RMS. It is important for the credibility of the IWC for it to be seen to be making progress on the development of the RMS, and the UK will continue to participate constructively in this work. We will be seeking a comprehensive RMS that would ensure that, if commercial whaling was ever authorised in future, it could not pose a threat to whale conservation and that catch limits and other rules would be strictly observed. The Government will also be making it clear that our participation in this work is without prejudice to our opposition in principle to commercial whaling.

As we have at previous meetings, the UK will again be expressing its concern about the cruelty involved in whaling; we also intend to raise the inhumane methods used and lack of regulation in the hunts for small cetaceans, such as dolphins and porpoises, that take place in some countries. Other topics on which we hope to make progress include the impact of environmental change and pollution on whales and other cetaceans and the encouragement of whalewatching.

We will report the outcome of the meeting to Parliament.

DEFENCE

Exposure Facility

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the safety regulations covering the new exposure facility which was opened in February. [127137]

Dr. Moonie: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

TRACER Programme

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has paid to date on the joint project to develop a system of Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment; what is the planned final cost; if this project is running on time and at agreed budget levels; and if he will make a statement. [127181]

Dr. Moonie: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

28 Jun 2000 : Column: 501W

Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 28 June 2000:

I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence on the collaborative Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) programme. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

The joint programme with the United States to develop TRACER was formally launched with the signature of the programme Memorandum of Understanding in July 1998. Contracts for the current Project Definition phase were awarded to two UK/US industrial consortia in January 1999. These contracts will be of 42 month duration and are due to complete in July 2002. This phase of the programme is proceeding to schedule and within budget. UK expenditure on the joint programme to 31 March 2000 amounted to £30 million and the current estimate of the overall cost to the UK of this phase is £120M at current prices.

UK involvement in phases beyond Project Definition will be subject to further approval and will take account of parallel studies into the use of Unmanned Air Vehicles for battlefield reconnaissance. A realistic estimate of the total cost of the project is not possible in advance of the decisions on the balance of investment between platforms ie armoured reconnaissance and Unmanned Air Vehicles.

A feature of defence procurement is the need to accommodate new sophisticated systems within the resources expected to be available. Conflicting demands on the available resources inevitably lead to priorities being kept under review. The current budgetary review process in the US, which could have implications for the TRACER programme, is being closely monitored, and we are in regular contact with the US DoD.

Procurement Spending

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the percentage of GNP spent on defence procurement in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [127176]

Dr. Moonie: Changes introduced under the European System of Accounts (ESA) 95 mean that GNP is no longer calculated. Gross National Income (GNI) is now recognised as the accepted, more accurate, standard and this has been used to provide the comparison with expenditure on Defence Equipment set out in the table. The GNI figure for 1999-2000 will not be available until the end of June and an updated reply will be made available at that time.

Financial year	Expenditure on defence equipment £ million	GNI £ million	Expenditure on defence equipment as a percentage of GNI
1998-99	9,785	866,461	1.13
1997-98	9,003	822,720	1.09
1996-97	9,100	771,837	1.18
1995-96	8,537	723,960	1.18
1994-95	8,819	689,421	1.28
1993-94	9,200	646,273	1.42
1992-93	8,711	609,755	1.43
1991-92	9,758	585,515	1.67
1990-91	8,838	556,784	1.59

28 Jun 2000 : Column: 502W

---