|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
31 Oct 2002 : Column 913Wcontinued
Mr. Flook: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have been excluded from state (a) primary and (b) secondary schools at each of the key stages in each year since 1997 in Somerset. 
Mr. Miliband: The available information is shown in the table. Information collected centrally on permanent exclusions does not record the key stage of the pupil; a breakdown of the figures by age is given as a proxy. Figures are not available centrally on fixed-term exclusions.
|Age of pupils|
|Primary schools(8)||6 and under||7 to 10||Total|
|Number of permanent exclusions||4||14||18|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||22.2||77.8||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.02||0.07||0.05|
|Number of permanent exclusions||2||9||11|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||18.2||81.8||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.01||0.04||0.03|
|Number of permanent exclusions||1||5||6|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||16.7||83.3||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.01||0.02||0.02|
|Number of permanent exclusions||0||12||12|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||0.0||100.0||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.00||0.06||0.03|
|Number of permanent exclusions||5||10||15|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||33.3||66.7||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.03||0.05||0.04|
31 Oct 2002 : Column 914W
|Age of pupils|
|Secondary schools(8)||13 and under||14 to 15||16 and over||Total|
|Number of permanent exclusions||37||41||0||78|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||47.4||54.7||0.0||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.21||0.42||0.00||0.27|
|Number of permanent exclusions||31||32||1||64|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||48.4||50.8||1.6||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.18||0.32||0.06||0.22|
|Number of permanent exclusions||26||29||0||55|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||47.3||54.7||0.0||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.14||0.29||0.00||0.19|
|Number of permanent exclusions||24||25||0||49|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||47.9||52.1||0.0||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.13||0.25||0.00||0.16|
|Number of permanent exclusions||23||15||0||38|
|Percentage of all permanent exclusions(9)||60.5||39.5||0.0||100.0|
|Percentage of school population(10)||0.12||0.14||0.00||0.12|
(7) Permanent exclusions data for 200001 have been estimated as they are known to be incomplete.
(8) Includes middle schools as deemed.
(9) The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number.
(10) The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January each year.
Annual Schools Census
31 Oct 2002 : Column 915W
Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 14 and 15 October; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. 
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 1415 October. The Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development also attended.
The Council considered three proposals on food safety, covering the monitoring and control of zoonoses and genetically modified food and feed. Some clarification of positions emerged but it was not possible to reach agreement on this occasion. Further work will be undertaken by officials before Ministers reconsider these dossiers.
The Council assessed the agricultural priorities flowing from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and agreed conclusions accordingly.
The Council continued its consideration of the mid-term review of the CAP with a discussion concentrating on the proposals concerning rural development, farm audits and three commodity sectors: nuts, rice and milk. My hon. Friend was supported by a number of other Member States in stressing the importance of a shift from production-linked support under the CAP to rural development programmes and he recalled the importance of a fair distribution of funds between Member States. On the commodity proposals, he opposed the introduction of new market measures for
31 Oct 2002 : Column 916W
nuts and supported the Commission's proposals on rice which would complement improved access to the EU market for third countries. On milk, he reiterated UK support for action that would eventually enable milk quotas to be phased out, and indicated that we would be prepared to consider favourably the possible acceleration of certain measures agreed in the Agenda 2000 package.
Ministers also discussed the agricultural aspects of the WTO round negotiations. My hon Friend strongly supported Commissioner Fischler in emphasising the importance of CAP reform in general and decoupling in particular if the EU is to participate constructively in the round.
Under other business, the Commission dealt with enquiries about olive oil promotion, aid to Greek cotton producers and negotiations with third countries over grain imports.
On fisheries, the Council held a further debate on the Commission's proposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, this time covering access to waters and resources, enforcement, and the Commission's proposals for Regional Advisory Councils: the presidency noted the various views expressed and reiterated that its aim is to conclude this dossier at the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council.
The Council also debated the Commission's proposal for a cod and hake recovery plan based on limitations on days at sea, which was originally submitted to the Council in December 2001. There was a divergence of view on the desirability of a plan, with one significant group of member states, including the UK, supportive of the need to act, and another group markedly less so. For the UK, my hon. Friend recognised the seriousness of the state of the stocks and emphasised that all possible approaches, including days at sea, warranted consideration. He stressed also that it would be important, when determining what measures to adopt, to recognise the varying structures and circumstances of national fleets.
Commissioner Fischler gave a first presentation to the Council on his proposed action plan for Mediterranean fisheries. The Council will discuss this substantively at a later date.
Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on areas of outstanding natural beauty in each region in (a) 200001, (b) 200102 and (c) 200203 to date. 
Alun Michael: The Countryside Agency, which manages the expenditure on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, has provided the following figures:
31 Oct 2002 : Column 917W
|Yorkshire and Humberside||80,358||13,677||(189,000)|
|East of England||369,966||78,227||(308,000)|
|South East and London||1,227,573||406,730||(1,555,000)|
(11) Actual spend to date for 02/03 as at 29 October 2002 is given along with, in brackets, the expected total spend based on current commitments.
The Agency advises that figures for 2000/01 are not available in this format because the programme for areas of outstanding natural beauty that year was part of a wider theme on protected landscapes, taking in national parks, Heritage coasts and Heritage landscapes. The total spend on the theme was #4.4m.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|