---

16 Sept 2004 : Column 1666W—continued

Foot and Mouth

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the evidential basis was for the conclusion in the report, Origin of the UK Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic in 2001, that the February 2001 UK outbreak and the September 2000 South African outbreak had a common origin rather than the South African outbreak being the origin of the UK outbreak; and if she will publish the results of the phylogenetic analyses which were undertaken; [183398]

(2) what outbreaks of the foot and mouth virus have been identified by the Government as providing a plausible common origin for the February 2001 UK outbreak and the September 2000 South African outbreak; [183399]

(3) if she will publish the results of further analyses of the genome sequences of isolates from the February 2001 UK and the September 2000 South African foot and mouth disease outbreaks and their likely origins, performed since the publication of the report on the Origin of the UK Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic in 2001; [183400]

(4) whether a foot and mouth disease outbreak isolate with a closer phylogenetic relationship to the February 2001 UK outbreak than the September 2000 South African outbreak has been identified. [183402]

Margaret Beckett: The conclusion, in the report of the Origin UK Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic in 2001, that the UK and South African epidemics are likely to arise from a common origin, rather than the South African outbreak being the source for the UK outbreak, is based on knowledge of the history of the disease pattern and control measures in place in both countries rather than any direct evidence from phylogenetic analyses. The detailed evidence for this conclusion is set out clearly in the main body and annexes 5 and 6 of the report published by my Department in June 2002. The report may be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/inquiries/lessons/fmdorigins.pdf.

Phylogenetic analyses alone cannot attribute causal relationships between outbreaks and can only provide data on the similarity between isolates. The following
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1667W
 
two papers have been published on the possible origin of the UK 2001 outbreak. They include details of the phylogenetic analyses, the first comparing only VP1 sequence data and the second on the complete genome sequences:

Knowles, N.J., Samuel, A.R., Davies, P.R., Kitching, R.P. and Donaldson, A.I. (2001). Outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease virus serotype O in the UK caused by a pandemic strain. Veterinary Record 148: 258–259.

Mason, P.W., Pacheco, J.M., Zhao, Q.-Z. and Knowles, N.J. (2003). Comparisons of the complete genomes of Asian, African and European isolates of a recent foot-and-mouth disease virus type O pandemic strain (PanAsia). Journal of General Virology 84: 1583–1593.

No viruses have been submitted to the World Reference Laboratory (WRL) for foot and mouth disease which have a closer relationship to either the South Africa 2000 or the UK 2001 than these two viruses have to each other. The most closely related virus that is in the WRL collection to these viruses originated from Japan in 2000. However, as indicated above, this should not be taken to indicate a causal relationship between the Japanese and other isolates. Due to the widespread distribution of the pan-Asia strain and its limited genetic diversity, phylogenetic analysis is unlikely to provide further information on any possible common origin for the UK and South African outbreaks.

Copies of the two scientific papers referred to above will be placed in the Library of the House.

Fuel Poverty

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much public money was spent in insulating and improving heating in (a) elderly and (b) low income homes in each of the last 25 years. [186107]

Mr. Morley: Since the establishment of Defra in June 2001, the Warm Front scheme, which provides a range of insulation and heating measures to private households in England, has spent approximately £296.6 million. Of this, around £220 million has been spent on the elderly.

The Energy Saving Trust, which is grant funded by my Department, also provides support to local authorities to run local energy efficiency programmes.

GM Crops

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her policy to ensure co-existence measures between GM and non-GM crops are in place before supporting the addition to Europe's common catalogue of seeds varieties of GM maize. [188756]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 13 September 2004]: It is the Government's clear policy to introduce measures on the issue of the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops before commercial cultivation takes place in the UK.
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1668W
 
We do not expect commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK before 2008. The recent decision to add 17 varieties of GM maize to the EU Common Catalogue of seed varieties does not alter this as the varieties in question are not appropriate for cultivation in UK conditions.

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent decisions of the European Commission relating to plans for commercial growing of 17 different varieties of GM maize, as submitted by Monsanto. [188308]

Mr. Morley: The European Commission has approved the addition of 17 varieties of GM maize to the EU Common Catalogue of seed varieties. The Common Catalogue is an amalgam of individual member states national seed lists and it is a routine procedure for varieties on individual national seed lists to be added to the Catalogue. These 17 varieties are already on either the national seed lists of France or Spain.

The 17 maize varieties all contain the same GM transformation event which confers resistance to the European corn borer. This GM event was given EU wide approval for commercial cultivation in 1998, and maize varieties containing this GM event have been grown in Spain since then.

While adding these varieties to the EU common catalogue means they could theoretically be grown in the UK it is not expected that any farmer in the UK will attempt to grow them. This is because these varieties are very late maturing and in UK conditions they would not produce a crop with anything like the feed value that livestock farmers require from maize. Nor would they ripen to produce a grain crop. In addition the pest to which the maize varieties are designed to be resistant is not a problem in the UK. We understand that Monsanto do not intend to offer these seed varieties for sale in the UK.

Harvest

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from (a) farmers in the Vale of York and (b) farmers elsewhere in England regarding the impact of the bad weather in August on the harvest; and what measures her Department proposes to take to alleviate the situation. [187560]

Alun Michael: The Department has received representations from farming interests and Defra officials had a detailed meeting with representatives of the NFU. It is clear that there have been difficulties during one of the wettest harvest periods on record particularly in some parts of the country. However, it was agreed at the meeting that the position is still evolving and it would not be possible to establish an overall position until there is a fuller picture to establish whether any measures to alleviate the situation would be warranted. The Department is in close touch with the industry and the EU Commission on this issue.
 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1669W
 

Hazardous Waste

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 15 July 2004, Official Report, column 1298W, on hazardous waste, how many landfill sites are able to accept hazardous waste. [185612]

Mr. Morley: Currently, there are 11 merchant dedicated hazardous waste landfill sites (which would receive hazardous waste on a commercial basis accepting hazardous waste). Of these six are operating under PPC permit and five are operating under current Waste Management Licence (WML).There are eight in-house dedicated hazardous waste landfill sites (which are used to dispose of waste from their own operations such as factory process waste) accepting hazardous waste. Of these two are operating under PPC permit and six under WML. Finally, there are 13 non-hazardous sites each with a separate cell for stable non-reactive hazardous waste accepting hazardous in the separate cells. Of these two are operating under PPC permits and 11 under WML.

Some sites have been issued with PPC permits but are not yet operational usually due to sites undergoing engineering/construction (approximately nine sites). In addition, there are a number of applications pending.

Sue Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hazardous waste dumping incidents were reported to the Environment Agency in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by region. [188095]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 13 September 2004]: The Environment Agency reports the data broken down by Agency Regional boundaries and is available for the calendar years 2001–04. The table shows the total numbers of incidents of deposits involving hazardous materials on land and in water, recorded in each of the years for each region. Data for 2004 are for the year to date.

Region	2001	2002	2003	2004
Anglian	90	89	117	66
EA Wales	29	54	61	45
Midlands	128	120	78	47
North East	88	106	143	112
North West	86	48	74	38
South West	44	70	36	33
Southern	75	62	65	49
Thames	58	83	90	43
Total	598	632	664	433

Sue Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the postponement of the meeting of the Hazardous Waste Forum that was due to take place on 3 September. [188094]

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons the Hazardous Waste Forum meeting, due for 3 September, was cancelled; and on what date the meeting will now take place. [188755]

 
16 Sept 2004 : Column 1670W
 

Mr. Morley [holding answer 13 September 2004]: The chair of the forum suffered a bereavement in the week before the meeting, necessitating her absence, and there were no other senior officials available to take her place. All members were given over a week's notice of the cancellation, and in the process, the secretariat sought views of the forum on the need for a further meeting before the next planned one at the end of November.

In the light of comments from a minority of members, a further, likely smaller scale, meeting of the forum is being rescheduled for 11 October. In the meantime the Department continues to maintain regular contact with stakeholders on the forum. The secretariat for the forum has specifically requested feedback from its members on any pressing regulatory or other issues since 16 July which need to be shared with the forum, or discussed at the 11 October meeting.

---