---

17 Mar 2004 : Column 280W—continued

Birds

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has collated on the effect of predator control on the sustainability of ground nesting bird populations. [158023]

Mr. Bradshaw: Ground nesting birds can be predated on by a variety of other species. There have been relatively few studies of the effectiveness of removing predators to protect bird populations. A recent review of studies (Cote, I. M. and Sutherland, W.J. 1997, The effectiveness of removing predators to protect bird populations Conservation Biology 11: 395–405) concluded that the studies indicated that the removal of predators had a large, positive effect on the hatching success and post-breeding population sizes of target bird species but not on breeding population size, the effects on which varied considerably between studies. Whilst predator control may thus be a useful tool for game managers, it may not meet the requirements of those seeking to increase the size of bird breeding populations.

17 Mar 2004 : Column 281W

Birds

All wild birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and under Section 16 of the Act licences can be issued to allow certain birds to be controlled for the purposes of conserving wild birds or for the purposes of conserving flora and fauna. Defra currently issues a general licence to allow the control of certain species, such as those of the corvid family for this purpose.

Mammals

Mink may also predate certain ground nesting birds. Mink are not protected by domestic legislation and can thus be controlled on a year round basis.

With regard to badgers I have already informed my hon. Friend that Defra is currently funding research aimed at providing a scientifically vigorous assessment of the importance of badger predation on ground nesting birds. The Central Science Laboratory is due to report its findings in March 2005. Until that time I cannot give a definitive answer of the effect of badgers on ground nesting birds.

Export Subsidies

Mr. Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is the Government's policy to eliminate all agricultural export subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy; and if she will make a statement. [160561]

Alun Michael: The World Trade Organisation Doha Declaration commits all member countries to negotiations aimed at reductions, with a view to phasing out, all forms of agricultural export subsidies. The Government fully supports this commitment.

Farm Subsidies

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2004, Official Report, columns 1149–51W, on single farm payments, what (a) assessment and (b) economic analyses were (i) conducted and (ii) completed (A) before and (B) after her statement to the House on 12 February 2004. [160915]

Alun Michael: Numerous economic analyses of the single farm payment have been undertaken over recent months and work is still on-going. These are being drawn together into a single comprehensive document which will be made available shortly.

GM Crops

Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to refuse permission for the planting of GM crops in the UK until after (a) a co-existence regime to prevent contamination of non-GM crops and (b) a liability regime to determine who must pay damages for harm caused by GM crops has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. [158275]

Mr. Morley: The Government have been considering the report on these issues by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and we will set out our thinking shortly.

17 Mar 2004 : Column 282W

Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure that new scientific evidence from Norway on the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter is taken into account before a decision is taken on the seed listing of Chardon LL fodder maize. [160572]

Mr. Morley: The reported new scientific evidence from Norway on the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter has yet to be published. When the details of this research do become available, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), which advises the Government on the risks posed by the intentional release of GMOs, will be asked to evaluate these data and advise on their implications for existing consents and future applications.

Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she was informed that (a) the transgenic insert used in Chardon LL is unstable and (b) the variety would be incapable of passing the distinctiveness, uniformity and stability test under Directive 2001/18/EC. [160573]

Mr. Morley: Chardon LL is a variety of the genetically modified maize known as T25. I understand that the Belgian Competent Authority under Directive 2001/18/EC has published an analysis of the structure of the transgenic insert in GM maize T25 and that this was considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) at their meeting on 22 January 2004. ACRE advised that they needed to see the full detail of the Belgian reassessment before coming to a final view and this has been requested from the Belgian Competent Authority. However, their preliminary analysis was that the work did not necessarily indicate instability of the insert, but consisted of additional information available now due to recent improvements in methods for the analysis of transformation events.

The requirement for distinctness, uniformity and stability testing falls under Directive 2002/53/EC and not 2001/18/EC. Chardon LL underwent such testing in France, according to internationally recognised methods and the protocol adopted by the Community Plant Variety Office, as required by the EU legislation. Chardon LL was found to be distinct, uniform and stable by the French testing authorities.

Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications of the Chardon LL feeding trial involving broiler chickens in relation to the health and safety of GMHT fodder maize. [160578]

Mr. Morley: The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) carried out a comprehensive review of the risks posed by the marketing and use of Bayer GM maize T25 (Chardon LL) in response to concerns raised in the Chardon LL public hearing on seed listing. Their advice was published in December 2002. The Committees concluded that there is no evidence from the broiler chicken feeding study that suggests that T25 maize grain fed to animals would pose an increased risk compared with conventional maize grain. However, ACRE advised that the raw data from the chicken feeding study should be re-analysed to maximise its value/power in

17 Mar 2004 : Column 283W

comparing the nutritional value of T25 maize grain with that of a non-GM counterpart. The results of this further analysis did not alter the conclusion about the risk posed by this GM maize but slightly increased the power of the study in the extent to which it can resolve any differences between chickens fed GM maize grain and those fed non-GM maize grain. For more detailed comments please refer to ACRE'S advice on Chardon LL maize at http://defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/advice/advice20d.htm, this is also available in the parliamentary Library.

Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has communicated the shortcomings of the farm-scale evaluation maize trials to the lead competent authority in France, as required by Directive 2001/18/EC; and whether she has requested a variation in the conditions attached to the Part C consent for Chardon LL fodder maize. [160579]

Mr. Morley: I am not aware of any shortcomings of the farm-scale evaluation (FSE) maize trials, the results have been endorsed by both the Scientific Steering Committee overseeing the evaluations and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). Officials sent the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations, together with the non-specialist and scientific summaries, to the European Commission and the Competent Authorities of the member states for their information on 20 and 21 October 2003. ACRE published its advice on the FSE results on 13 January 2004, and this advice was also sent to the Commission and the Competent Authorities on that date. On 9 March 2004 officials wrote to the French Competent Authority, which issued the relevant consent on behalf of all EU member states, seeking amendments to the consent for Bayer T25 GM maize (Chardon LL) to limit herbicide use with the crop in line with ACRE'S advice.

Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she was informed that the dry matter content for Chardon LL averages 27.3 per cent. [160619]

Mr. Morley: The Secretary of State was made aware in March 2003 of a range of issues raised in the public hearing on Chardon, including its dry matter content. The lower than average dry matter content in the performance trials was taken into account, but the conclusion on overall value for cultivation and use rightly took the other important characteristics into consideration. These included better than average dry matter yield, early vigour and resistance to lodging.

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her oral statement to the House of 9 March 2004, Official Report, columns 1381–96, on GM policy, what discussions she has had with biotechnology companies; and what timetable she has set for the establishment of a compensation scheme for farmers and growers adversely affected by the growing of GM crops. [161662]

Mr. Morley: [holding answer 16 March 2004]: We have said that we will consult stakeholders on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers who suffer financially through no fault of their own. Until that consultation exercise has been completed it is too

17 Mar 2004 : Column 284W

soon to say what the outcome might be. We will consult on this and the co-existence issue as soon as possible. Clearly, discussions with the biotechnology companies will be a necessary part of the consultation process.

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her oral statement to the House of 9 March 2004, Official Report, columns 1381–96, on GM policy, what support she will give to (a) areas, (b) zones, (c) local authorities, (d) regions and (e) nations which are seeking to achieve GM free status; and what discussions she plans to have with her counterparts in EU member states to assist in clarifying the (i) powers and (ii) responsibilities of places which seek to declare such status. [161663]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 16 March 2004]: This issue has already been discussed within the EU. It is clear that under EU law it is not possible to impose blanket GM-free status on a compulsory or statutory basis at any geographic level. The Government is not seeking to promote GM-free status, but we have said that we will provide guidance to farmers who may want to establish voluntary zones in which GM crops are not cultivated.

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her oral statement to the House of 9 March 2004, Official Report, columns 1381–96, on GM policy, what rules she plans to put in place in the coming months. [161664]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 16 March 2004]: As the statement confirmed, we envisage that measures to facilitate the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops will be in place before any commercial GM cultivation. Our intention is that GM producers should observe a code of practice on co-existence which has statutory backing, based on the 0.9 per cent. EU labelling threshold for adventitious GM presence. We will consult in due course on the details of this, on whether a lower GM threshold might apply for organic production, and on options for compensating non-GM farmers who suffer financially because a GM presence exceeds statutory thresholds.

---