---

31 Jan 2003 : Column 1066W—continued

Strategic Rail Authority (External Consultants)

Mr. Don Foster To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the (a) technical consultants and (b) financial consultants used by the Strategic Rail Authority since 3 July 2001 on a call-off basis, the total amount paid to each consultant; and the nature of the projects; [93223]

(2) if he will list the technical and financial consultants awarded contracts by the Strategic Rail Authority between 3 July 2001 and 31 March 2002, the nature of the assignment for each consultant, and the value of each contract; [93224]

(3) pursuant to his answer, 7 January 2003, Official Report, column 108W, on Strategic Rail Authority (Consultants), if he will list (a) the total amount spent, (b) the technical and financial consultants awarded contracts of £25,000 and less by the Strategic Rail Authority since April 2002, (c) the nature of the assignment for each consultant, and (d) the value of each contract. [93225]

Mr. Jamieson: Information on contracts worth less than £25,000; and those awarded prior to April 2002 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The information on call-off contracts is in the table.

31 Jan 2003 : Column 1067W

£

Consultant	Project	Value
Booz Alien and Hamilton	Rolling stock strategy definition	>25,000
EC Harris	Managing costs and estimates during infrastructure and development projects	>25,000
Franklin and Andrews	Managing costs and estimates during infrastructure and development projects	>25,000
Mott McDonald	Technical consultant for the specification and the measurement of project outputs	>25,000
Nichols	South Central replacement project	>25,000
Nichols	Felixstowe-Nuneaton gauge project	>25,000

Thames Valley Multi-modal Study

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost has been of the Thames Valley multi-modal study. [93613]

Mr. Spellar: The Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study is expected to cost £1,250,300.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

Higher Education

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the evidential basis was for the description by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Eduction of some higher education courses as Mickey Mouse; and to which courses she was referring. [93942]

Margaret Hodge: I was referring to any course where the content is not intellectually rigorous and where there is not a clearly designed purpose. I made the comment in the context of ensuring that the expansion of higher education is both relevant and appropriate to meet the needs of learners and employers, particularly when we are seeking a contribution towards the cost of tuition from students.

Scottish Universities

Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with (a) the Scottish Executive and (b) Scottish university representatives as to the possible implications for Scotland of the changes for English and Welsh universities announced in his statement of 22 January 2003, Official Report, columns 301–09. [93741]

Margaret Hodge [holding answer 28 January 2003]: My right hon. Friend meets members of the Scottish Executive from time to time in the course of normal business, as indeed do I. There have also been specific discussions during the higher education review, including the possible implications for Scotland.

The White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", identified the need for further discussions with the Devolved Administrations to consider the impact of our proposals for student and institutional funding on flows of students between UK countries.

31 Jan 2003 : Column 1068W

Training

Mr. Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the maximum values of Learning and Skills Council training allowance are (a) by region and (b) by sector within each region. [90918]

Margaret Hodge: We do not set a maximum value on training allowances paid by the Learning and Skills Council. The minimum training allowance is 40 per week, although even here, local Learning and Skills Councils have discretion to increase this minimum depending on local circumstances, such as wage rates for unskilled employment.

Mr. Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research the Department has carried out on the relationship between the level of Learning and Skills Council training allowance and the rates of young people entering full-time training. [90920]

Margaret Hodge: We have not undertaken any specific research on the relationship between the level of the minimum training allowance and the numbers of young people entering full-time training. The majority of young people in full-time Modern Apprenticeships are employed and receive a wage rather than the allowance.

University Tuition Fees

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he defines the meaning of his phrase 'fair access' in higher education. [94072]

Margaret Hodge: As set out in "The Future of Higher Education" (Cm 5735), fair access means that the opportunities that higher education brings are available to all those who have the potential to benefit from them, regardless of their background.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Import Declarations

Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her Department's policy (a) to introduce manufacturer/importer declarations on products manufactured outside the European Union stating that an article does not contain and release chemicals restricted in the EU and (b) to increase the use of animal testing in order to produce the test information required by the European Union's chemicals management system REACH; and if she will make a statement.[Transferred] [87024]

Mr. Meacher: The Government supports the overall aim and approach set out in the Commission's White Paper of February 2001 on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. As part of the process of developing its position in preparation for negotiations on the resultant legislation (expected in 2003) the Government published a Position Statement on 9 December, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. This is not a definitive statement of the Government's negotiating position, not least because the Commission has still to publish proposals for legislation. The Statement focuses on the main elements of the system itself and how it might function.

31 Jan 2003 : Column 1069W

In negotiating the legislation when it emerges, the Government will have three overarching objectives:

Creating a fast, efficient and workable process of testing, screening and assessing chemical substances to provide the information necessary to control those substances of concern, starting with the most harmful, because of their impacts on human health or the environment;

Keeping animal testing to the minimum necessary to protect human health and the environment; and

Maintaining or enhancing the competitiveness of the chemical industry.

In addition, we also want to see a system that is transparent to all interested parties in its operation and that provides consumers, workers and users of substances with the level of information they require about the substances with which they come into contact.

In practical terms we believe it would be difficult to enforce a requirement where every substance that had gone into the manufacture of an article was registered in accordance with the proposed new regulations. However, it may be possible to place a requirement on importers of articles to make a declaration that the imported article did not contain any labile substance of high concern which was likely to be released.

On animal testing, as stated above, the Government wishes to ensure that vertebrate animal testing is kept to the absolute minimum necessary to provide sufficient information for decision-making on health and environmental protection. For example, one early estimate of the number of extra animal tests necessary to meet the system described in the White Paper came to 12 million, whereas the ideas outlined in the Government's Position Statement would require far fewer (around 1.3 million).

The Government and Devolved Administrations position statement on the New European Chemical Strategy, a copy of this is in the House Library and can be found on the Defra web site at www.defra.aov.uk

Common Agricultural Policy

Tony Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the inclusion of a specific objective in the European Commission's Mid-Term Review that CAP reform should work in the interests of poverty reduction and food security. [87567]

Mr. Morley: We estimate that the Common Agricultural Policy costs the average family of four in the United Kingdom between 8 and 9 per week through higher food prices and taxes. We believe reform is necessary to reduce this cost and contribute towards our wider poverty reduction objectives. Similarly, reform of the CAP would assist objectives of poverty reduction in developing countries, by increasing access for their agricultural produce to EU and third country markets.

The CAP was originally introduced in 1962 to address a strategic need for food security in Europe. However, as production responded, surpluses became chronic and required increasingly heavy expenditure. Food security is now less of a policy driver, and we would prefer to see

31 Jan 2003 : Column 1070W

producers rewarded for delivering public benefits focussed on the environment and wider rural economy, rather than over-production.

Mr. James Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reform of the Common Agricultural Policy has taken place since 1997; what recent discussions have taken place with European colleagues on this matter; what proposals she has for future reform; and when they will be submitted to the EU. [93577]

Mr. Morley: The Agenda 2000 reform package, agreed at the March 1999 Berlin European Council, brought EU cereal, milk and beef prices closer to world levels, and gave member states some flexibility to use CAP money for environmental schemes. It represented a significant shift from price support to direct payments and it reduced some of the economic distortions of the CAP, enabling the formulation of an integrated EU rural development policy.

On 22 January 2003 the Commission issued its draft legislative proposals for the 'Mid-term Review' of Agenda 2000. The Government has welcomed these proposals, believing further reform of the CAP to be necessary for both domestic and international reasons. In particular, we were pleased to see formal proposals to break the link between subsidy and production ('decoupling'), which will give producers greater flexibility to exploit market opportunities. However, we also have concerns over some elements of the proposals. For example, the proposed mechanism for transferring funds to support rural development is complex, would be hard to administer and would unfairly impact on larger farms; and we are disappointed at the proposed extension of milk quotas.

The first formal discussion of these proposals took place at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting on 27 and 28 January. Further Council discussions are planned for the coming months. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets her EU counterparts bilaterally to discuss this issue. Since the start of this year she has met both the French and Greek Agriculture Ministers.

Geraldine Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the reform of CAP. [92003]

Mr. Morley: The Government welcomed publication on 22 January of the European Commission's formal legislative proposals for reform of the CAP. In particular, we were pleased to see formal proposals to break the link between subsidy and production (decoupling), which will give producers greater flexibility to exploit market opportunities. However, we have concerns with some elements of the proposals. For example, the proposed mechanism for transferring funds to support rural development is complex, would be hard to administer and would unfairly impact on larger farms; and we are disappointed at the proposed extension of milk quotas.

31 Jan 2003 : Column 1071W

---