| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Pest and Disease Control
Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What percentage of the total agricultural research budget for 2000-01 was spent on investigating methods of pest and disease control which do not involve the use of chemical pesticides.[HL3382]
Lord Whitty: In 2000-01, Defra spent £8.4 million on research into methods of pest and disease control which do not involve the use of chemical pesticides.
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) spent approximately £3.9 million on research directly into alternatives to chemical pesticides. Together this represents nearly 7 per cent of the agricultural research budget.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many research projects over the last five years which were in receipt of public funds involved research into alternatives to the use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides; and whether they will give the names of the research institutions involved and the value of each contract.[HL3383]
Lord Whitty: During the last five years, Defra has funded 113 projects which have involved research into alternatives to the use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides and BBSRC has funded 14. Many of these projects, including LINK projects funded jointly with industry, have been developing methods of integrated pest management to reduce dependence on pesticides.
The main research institutions involved were Horticulture Research International (total value of contracts £21 million); Institute of Arable Crops Research (£17 million); Central Science Laboratory (£13 million) and ADAS (£2 million). The total value of all 127 contracts was £57 million, giving an average contract value of about £0.45 million.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What procedure is followed when they receive a request to extend the approval for use of a pesticide beyond its intended revocation date; and what are the criteria by which the Government decide whether or not to grant such an extension of approval.[HL3384]
Lord Whitty: Pesticide approvals may be revoked for a variety of different reasons. The most important would be the identification of safety concerns but often include an approval holder's failure to meet data submission deadlines or the withdrawal of the product by the company for commercial reasons. Provided the approval is extant at the time the request is made, an extension can be considered. There are no set procedures when considering an extension beyond the intended revocation date. Each request is considered on its merits, taking into consideration the reason for
the original revocation decison and, where applicable, whether any data requirements should be met before granting any extension.National Forest Company
Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether a conclusion has been reached on the review of the National Forest Company.[HL3470]
Lord Whitty: The quinquennial review of the National Forest Company has been completed. It has concluded that the company, a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should continue to be responsible for delivering the National Forest Strategy which is contributing strongly to the Government's sustainable development agenda. Since its creation in 1995, the company has, for example, achieved an expansion of woodland cover in the national forest area, covering 200 square miles in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire, from 6 per cent to 12 per cent. Detailed changes to the company's operations will be made in order to maximise effective delivery and value for money. A full report of the review is available at www.defra.gov.uk.
Education Bill
Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What would be the status of compulsory subjects such as the core curriculum, religious education and daily worship, and citizenship, if proposals were to come forward under Clause 2 of the Education Bill linking the dropping of subjects with the raising of standards.[HL3317]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): Exemptions under Clause 2 of the Education Bill may be conferred for a temporary period only, and only for the purposes set out in Clause 1. That is, exemptions may be conferred only "to facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects that may—(a) in the opinion of the Secretary of State contribute to the raising of the educational standards achieved by children in England, or (b) in the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales contribute to the raising of educational standards achieved by children in Wales". The Secretary of State would have to approve any such proposals, and would do so only if she were convinced it would lead to higher educational standards.
Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What would be the liability of governors, head teachers and other partners if a company, set up under Chapter Three of the Education Bill, were to fail; and who would be responsible for assessing risk.[HL3318]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In the event of a school company failing financially, we would expect the liability of each company member to be limited to a nominal sum. In the case of a company limited by guarantee, this would be the nominal guarantee figure of perhaps £10. In the case of a company limited by shares, this would be any amount outstanding on the shares, which we would anticipate to be a nominal sum. For member schools, the liability would not rest with individual governors or the head teacher. We expect joint venture companies to operate under the same principles as school companies.
Other partners could include other company members whose liability would be limited in the same way as school company members. The situation of LEAs would differ depending upon the type of company. Just as schools spend their delegated budgets as agents of the LEA, so a purchasing company, when spending those delegated budgets, would also be acting as an agent of the LEA. This would not be the case for service provider companies, who would be spending income from contracts.
It would be up to a school governing body to assess operational risks before deciding whether or not to join a school company.
Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- In the light of the Education Bill, which Criminal Justice Act would require amendment in order to extend parenting orders.[HL3319]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The powers relating to parenting orders are contained at Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That is the Act that would require amendment in order to extend these powers.
Vocational GCSEs
Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is the estimated cost of introducing the new vocational GCSEs, including materials, equipment and the recruitment and training of appropriately qualified staff.[HL3351]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The department has funded an extensive programme of training and support for schools and colleges to support the expansion of vocational opportunities at Key Stage 4. Among other things, this will cover the introduction of the new GCSEs in September 2002. The cost will be £2.7 million in 2001–02 and the programme will be extended in 2002–03. In addition, a general programme with funding of £38 million will be made available in 2002–04. Aimed at increasing work related learning opportunities, it will also support the roll-out of the new GCSEs at Key Stage 4.
Classroom Assistants
Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will clarify the distinction between a classroom assistant employed under current
- arrangements and a classroom assistant as envisaged under Clause 129 of the Education Bill.[HL3354]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: A classroom assistant as envisaged under Clause 129 of the Education Bill will be required to work under a framework set by a qualified teacher when work of a teaching nature is undertaken. In comparison with present arrangements, this will add a clear assurance that adequate supervision is in place.
Education Bill: Applications to Innovate
Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Under the Education Bill, how many additional staff will be required to assess all applications to innovate under Chapter 2 and also to assess all applications under Chapter 3.[HL3355]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Chapters 2 and 3 in the Education Bill refer to earned autonomy and powers to form companies.
We intend to consult widely on which flexibilities under Chapter 2 will be available as of right and which on a discretionary basis before regulations are laid. Until consultations have been completed, it is not possible to say precisely how many additional staff will be required, but the intention is to design procedures to minimise bureaucracy and extra staff and enable as many flexibilities as possible to be made available automatically.
Under Chapter 3, the relevant LEA has a role in determining whether or not schools may form or join school companies. However, the LEA may only refuse schools permission to join in limited circumstances, to be set out in regulations. We therefore do not expect this task to be an onerous one and so do not expect there to be a need for LEAs to employ additional staff.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page