DOCSLIB.ORG

'Strict Protection': a Critical Review of the Current Legal Regime for Cetaceans in UK Waters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'Strict Protection': a Critical Review of the Current Legal Regime for Cetaceans in UK Waters Looking forward to 'strict protection': A critical review of the current legal regime for cetaceans in UK waters A WDCS Science report Editors: Mick Green, Richard Caddell, Sonja Eisfeld, Sarah Dolman, Mark Simmonds 1 WDCS is the global voice for the protection of whales, dolphins and their environment. Looking forward to ‘strict protection’: A critical review of the current legal regime for cetaceans in UK waters Mick Green1, Richard Caddell2, Sonja Eisfeld3, Sarah Dolman3, Mark Simmonds3 Published February 2012 Cover photographs © Charlie Phillips/WDCS, Terry Whittiker ISBN 978-1-901386-33-2 WDCS, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society Brookfield House 38 St Paul St Chippenham Wiltshire SN15 1LJ Tel. 01249 449500 Email: [email protected] Web: www.wdcs.org WDCS is the global voice for the protection of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and their environment. Offices in: Argentina, Australia, Germany, the UK and the USA. Registered Charity in England and Wales No. 1014705 Registered Charity in Scotland No. SC040231 Registered Company in the UK No. 2737421 1 Ecology Matters, Bronhaul, Pentrebach, Talybont, Ceredigion, SY24 5EH, Wales, UK 2 Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, Wales, UK 3 Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), Brookfield House, 38 St Paul Street, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN15 1LJ, UK 2 CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................5 2 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................7 3 REVIEW OF CURRENT LEGISLATION ............................................................................8 3.1 Global International Agreements ........................................................................................ 8 3.1.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 .................................................. 8 3.1.2 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946 ........................................... 8 3.1.3 Bern Convention 1979 .................................................................................................. 8 3.1.4 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979 ..................... 9 3.1.5 Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 ...................................................................... 10 3.1.6 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic ...... 12 3.2 European Legislation ....................................................................................................... 11 3.2.1 Habitats Directive ...................................................................................................... 11 3.2.1.1 The designation of cetacean SACs ....................................................................... 11 3.2.1.2 Management of cetacean SACs ........................................................................... 12 3.2.1.3 ‘Strict protection’ measures under Article 12........................................................ 13 3.2.1.4 Fisheries issues and the implementation of the Habitats Directive .......................... 14 3.2.2 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008.................................................................. 15 3.2.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 1985 ................................................ 17 3.2.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001 ............................................. 17 3.2.5 Whaling policies .......................................................................................................... 17 3.3 UK National Legislation ................................................................................................... 18 3.3.1 In England and Wales .................................................................................................. 18 3.3.1.1 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 ...................................................................... 18 3.3.1.2 Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 ................................................ 18 3.3.1.3 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 ................................... 18 3.3.1.4 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 ............. 18 3.3.1.5 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 .................................. 19 3.3.1.6 The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 .......... 19 3.3.1.7 The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 ................................................................................................ 19 3.3.1.8 The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 ................................................................................................ 19 3.3.1.9 The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 ..... 19 3.3.1.10 The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 ........................................................................................... 19 3.3.1.11 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 .................................... 19 3.3.1.12 Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 .............................................................. 20 3.3.1.13 Animal Welfare Act 2006 ................................................................................ 20 3.3.1.14 Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 .................................................................. 20 3.3.2 In Scotland ................................................................................................................. 21 3.3.2.1 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 ............................................................ 21 3.3.2.2 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004 . 21 3.3.2.3 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 . 22 3.3.2.4 Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 ................................................................................ 22 3.3.3 Wider protection regulation in the marine environment ................................................. 22 3.3.3.1 Offshore industry ............................................................................................... 22 3.3.3.2 Ministry of Defence............................................................................................ 22 3.3.3.3 Voluntary Codes of Conduct ............................................................................... 23 4 APPLICATION OF THE LAW ........................................................................................24 4.1 Implementation of Global International Agreements .......................................................... 24 4.1.1 Convention on Biological Diversity through UK Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) ............. 24 3 4.2 Implementation of European Provisions ............................................................................ 25 4.2.1 ASCOBANS ............................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Fisheries legislation ..................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2.1 Application of by-catch issues .............................................................................. 25 4.2.3 NERC Act .................................................................................................................. 25 4.2.4 SEA Directive ............................................................................................................ 25 4.2.5 EIA Directive ............................................................................................................. 27 4.2.6 Habitats Directive ...................................................................................................... 27 4.2.6.1 Inadequacy of SACs............................................................................................ 28 4.2.6.2 Poorly managed activities conducted within SACs ................................................. 31 4.2.6.3 ‘Strict protection measures’ ................................................................................ 33 4.3 Implementation of National Legislation ............................................................................. 34 4.3.1 Disturbance in England and Wales ................................................................................ 34 4.3.2 Disturbance in Scotland............................................................................................... 34 4.3.3 Licensing in England and Wales .................................................................................... 34 4.3.4 MPAs under the Marine and Coastal Access Act and Marine (Scotland) Act ..................... 36 4.3.4.1 Wider protection measures under the Marine Acts ............................................... 37 4.3.5 Effectiveness of Codes of Conduct ............................................................................... 38 4.3.5.1 Ceredigion County Council, Wales ...................................................................... 38 4.3.5.2 Dolphin Space Program, Moray Firth, Scotland ..................................................... 38 5 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................40
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of UK Drug Policy a Monograph Prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission
    An Analysis of UK Drug Policy A Monograph Prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission Peter Reuter, University of Maryland Alex Stevens, University of Kent April 2007 The UK Drug Policy Commission ‘Bringing evidence and analysis together to inform UK drug policy.’ Published by the UK Drug Policy Commission UK Drug Policy Commission 11 Park Place London SW1A 1 LP Tel: 020 7297 4750 Fax: 020 7297 4756 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ukdpc.org.uk UKDPC is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales No. 5823583 and is a charity registered in England No. 1118203 ISBN 978-1-906246-00-6 © UKDPC 2007 This independent research monograph was commissioned by the UK Drug Policy Commission to assist in its setting up and to inform its future work programme. The findings, interpretations and conclusions set out in this monograph are those of the authors. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the UK Drug Policy Commission. The UK Drug Policy Commission’s objectives are to: • provide independent and objective analysis of drug policy in the UK; • improve political, media and public understanding of the implications of the evidence base for drug policy; and • improve political, media and public understanding of the options for drug policy. The UK Drug Policy Commission is grateful to the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation for its support. Production and design by Magenta Publishing Ltd (www.magentapublishing.com) Contents About the authors 5 Acknowledgements 6 Executive summary 7 The nature of the drug problem 7 The policy response
    [Show full text]
  • The Four Health Systems of the United Kingdom: How Do They Compare?
    The four health systems of the United Kingdom: how do they compare? Gwyn Bevan, Marina Karanikolos, Jo Exley, Ellen Nolte, Sheelah Connolly and Nicholas Mays Source report April 2014 About this research This report is the fourth in a series dating back to 1999 which looks at how the publicly financed health care systems in the four countries of the UK have fared before and after devolution. The report was commissioned jointly by The Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust. The research team was led by Nicholas Mays at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The research looks at how the four national health systems compare and how they have performed in terms of quality and productivity before and after devolution. The research also examines performance in North East England, which is acknowledged to be the region that is most comparable to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of socioeconomic and other indicators. This report, along with an accompanying summary report, data appendices, digital outputs and a short report on the history of devolution (to be published later in 2014), are available to download free of charge at www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/compare-uk-health www.health.org.uk/compareUKhealth. Acknowledgements We are grateful: to government statisticians in the four countries for guidance on sources of data, highlighting problems of comparability and for checking the data we have used; for comments on the draft report from anonymous referees and from Vernon Bogdanor, Alec Morton and Laura Schang; and for guidance on national clinical audits from Nick Black and on nursing data from Jim Buchan.
    [Show full text]
  • Millennium Cohort Study
    Millennium Cohort Study Ethical Review and Consent Authors: Peter Shepherd, Emily Gilbert Second Edition February 2019 Centre for Longitudinal Studies Following lives from birth through the adult years i www.cls.ucl.ac.uk CLS is an ESRC Resource Centre based at the Institute of Education, London First published in 2019 by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies UCL Institute of Education 20 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AL www.cls.ucl.ac.uk © Centre for Longitudinal Studies The Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) is an ESRC Resource Centre based at the Institution of Education. It provides support and facilities for those using the three internationally-renowned birth cohort studies: the National Child Development Study (1958), the 1970 British Cohort Study and the Millennium Cohort Study (2000). CLS conducts research using the birth cohort study data, with a special interest in family life and parenting, family economics, youth life course transitions and basic skills. The views expressed in this work are those of the author(s) (amend as necessary) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic and Social Research Council. All errors and omissions remain those of the author(s). This document is available in alternative formats. Please contact the Centre for Longitudinal Studies. tel: +44 (0)20 7612 6875 email: [email protected] 1 Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4 Background ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Care of Extremely Premature Babies in England, 1995 – Present
    Care of extremely premature babies in England, 1995 – Present Andrei Scott Morgan Department of Neonatology Institute for Women’s Health University College London A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) June 2015 I, Andrei Scott Morgan, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed: Date: 17 July 2015 Supervisors NeilMarlow ElizabethS.Draper Professor of Neonatology Professor of Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Department of Neonatology Department of Health Sciences Institute for Women’s Health University of Leicester University College London c Andrei Morgan 2015 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. 3 Abstract This thesis, arising from the EPICure studies into extremely preterm births, seeks to explain demographic, clinical and organisational factors associated with a large increase in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Using six pre-existing data sets, along with a repeat Unit Profile Study of English perinatal centres conducted in 2011 as part of this thesis, three studies were performed: Validation of the 44% increase in the number of admissions to neonatal intensive • care at 22–25 weeks gestation seen between 1995 and 2006 in England was at- tempted using three methods of probabilistic record linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. The effects of antenatal steroid administration, tocolysis and Caesarean delivery • on perinatal outcomes in the extremely preterm population were investigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
    Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow Eleni Paipai Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow Abstract Mrs Eleni Paipai holds a Masters in Contrary to popular beliefs, the vast majority of dredged Environmental Pollution Control and material around the world is not significantly different has recently become a Principal from the sediment found naturally in rivers, estuaries Environmental Scientist with the and seas. Since the 1980s, a number of NGOs environment team at Halcrow including CEDA, PIANC and IAPH, as well as several Consulting Engineers, Peterborough Contracting Parties to the London Convention, have office. Previously she held a similar been arguing the case that dredged material generally position in the Estuaries and Dredging should be regarded as a resource and not a waste. Group in the Ports of HR Wallingford. Therefore much of the dredged material is suitable for She works on waterside projects, relocation within the natural ecosystem and/or some on the environmental aspects of port Eleni Paipai other form of beneficial use with or without treatment. development and operations and in This paper attempts to re-define the word “beneficial” particular on aspects of dredging, and gives a survey of present beneficial use activities disposal and beneficial use of dredged and suggestions for future options. material. In 1994, she won the PIANC Gustave Willems prize for her paper The paper was prepared under the auspices of CEDA “Environmental Enhancement using by Eleni Paipai, presently of Halcrow Consulting Dredged Material”. Engineers, UK, with invaluable assistance from Axel Netzband (Germany), Polite Laboyrie (The Netherlands), Lindsay Murray (CEFAS, UK), Antonio Navarres (Spain), Caroline Fletcher (HR Wallingford, UK) and Neville Burt (HR Wallingford, UK).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Housing in the UK and US: Evolution, Issues and Prospects
    Social Housing in the UK and US: Evolution, Issues and Prospects Michael E. Stone, Ph.D. Atlantic Fellow in Public Policy Visiting Associate, Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths College, University of London Professor of Community Planning and Public Policy University of Massachusetts Boston October 2003 Support and Disclaimer: This research was made possible through an Atlantic Fellowship in Public Policy, funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and administered by the British Council. Additional support has been provided by the Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths College, University of London; and the John W. McCormack Institute for Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, Goldsmiths College, or the University of Massachusetts Boston. Acknowledgements: Community Activists: Malcolm Cadman, Bill Ellson, Steve Hurren, Jean Kysow, Jessica Leech, Shirley Mucklow, Pete Pope, Jess Steele Housing Professionals: Keith Anderson, John Bader, Alan Bonney, Lorraine Campbell, Simon Cribbens, Emyr Evans, Barbara Gray, Pat Hayes, Andy Kennedy, Colm McCaughley, David Orr, Steve Palmer, Emma Peters, Roland Smithies, Louise Spires, Sarah Thurman Goldsmiths College CUCR Staff: Les Back, Ben Gidley, Paul Halliday, Roger Hewitt, Carole Keegan, Michael Keith, Azra Khan, Marjorie Mayo, Neil Spicer, Chenli Vautier, Bridget Ward © Copyright, 2003, Michael E. Stone. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Prioritised Action Framework for England
    Doc Hab 12-04/04 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds FORMAT FOR A PRIORITISED ACTION FRAMEWORK (PAF) FOR NATURA 2000 For the EU Multiannual Financing Period 2014-2020 England including marine to 12 nautical miles (2nd edition) (Version 30 March 2016) Summary of England PAF, 2nd edition This annex to the UK Prioritised Actions Framework applies to Natura 2000 sites in England, including inshore waters up to 12 nautical miles. This 2nd edition updates the first PAF (edition 2013) to incorporate the latest conservation status assessments, the outcomes of the LIFE funded IPENS project (Improvement Programme for England’s Natura 2000 Sites) and views of stakeholders and partners. Prioritised Actions Frameworks set out the priorities and funding needs for Natura 2000. The actions and cost estimates set out in this England PAF do not commit Government or any other organisation to provide additional funding for Natura 2000, although applications under e.g. LIFE and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund do require match funding. Rather the PAF provides a strategic overview to where resources are best targeted in order to improve the condition of England Natura 2000 sites and where possible deliver multiple environmental benefits. This revision will also improve the targeting of actions to better protect and enhance valuable wildlife sites and species, maximising benefits for the environment, people and the economy as part of the Government’s 25 year Environment Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Liberalisation in Historical Context Historical Context
    Energy Liberalisation in Historical Context Michael Pollitt Judge Business School Spanish Association of Energy Economists, Pamplona 27 January 2012 www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk Background • Acknowledgments: – Peter Pearson and Roger Fouquet – Conference on ‘Past and Prospective Energy Transitions: Insights from experience’, Cardiff, 18-20 April, 2011. – Not all literature can be covered , apologies! • Economic Policy Analysts vs Economic Historians • The key issues are: – What has been learned from this recent period? – How significant is it in the light of an energy transition to low carbon energy system by 2050? www.electricitypolicy.org.uk Outline • Timeline of the energy liberalisation era • Background to energy liberalisation • Evidence on impact of energy liberalisation • Assessment of its historical significance • Relevance of period to low carbon economy www.electricitypolicy.org.uk Characterising the Era • The energy sector substantially consists of oil, gas, coal, electricity and related emissions (of, for example, carbon and sulphur) markets. • Liberalisation may be characterised as: – The privatisation of state owned energy assets. – The introduction of competition via structural changes to the organisation of energy sectors. – The establishment of independent energy sector regulators. www.electricitypolicy.org.uk Key Dates • Oil and upstream gas: – privatisation of BP,1977. Major sales 80s-90s. • Electricity and gas supply: – Privatisation and reorganisation of Chilean electricity industry 1982, British Gas 1986. • Coal liberalisation: – run down in DE, PL, ES, UK (privatised 1994). – privately owned coal from Australia and SA. • Emissions markets: – SO2 in US from 1995, CO2 in EU from 2005. www.electricitypolicy.org.uk Liberalisation only partial… • NOCs in the Middle East dominate. • 25 of 39 leading countries still have substantial state ownership within their electricity sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Alcohol 2017 Data Report Download
    TRENDS IN ALCOHOL A compilation of data from across the UK 2017 1 Trends in Alcohol: A compilation of data from across the UK INTRODUCTION Background The consumption of alcohol and more specifically the harmful use of alcohol and its impacts remain a key consideration in terms of public policy making at a local and national level. Given the diverse nature of harms, patterns of consumption and the nature of the industry, public policy on alcohol has the ability to impact on a range of stakeholders including alcohol producers, retailers and distributors, health professionals, the police and emergency services, the media, the third sector and national and local government and therefore requires comprehensive understanding of official government data. To fulfil the demand for information and data about trends in these areas there are a wide variety of data sources that cover various different aspects of alcohol consumption and harms.As there is no universal source of data, statistics are often quoted in isolation without looking at the wider context in which they are set. As alcohol related harm remains an important issue to public policy, it is important that the facts on the scale of the problem are presented clearly and in the appropriate context to enable the debate to focus on the real issues that remain. Authored by: 2 Trends in Alcohol: A compilation of data from across the UK Methodology This document aims to provide a single point of reference by pulling together the latest comparable data on alcohol consumption, underage issues, health harms, crime and regional and socioeconomic variations from official Government sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Room to Roam England's Irish Travellers
    E N G LA N D’S IRISH TRAVE LL E R S Room to Roam England's Irish Travellers Dr Colm Power Report of Research Funded by the Community Fund June 2004 1 ROOM TO ROA M Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people and organisations all of whom have provided me with assistance, advice, support or other positive contributions without which it would have been much more difficult to develop, plan, execute and complete the research and write the report. I take full responsibility for the content of the final report. The project research team including fieldworkers Anthony Drummond, Patricia Twomey and Jane Whittle who all contributed data and knowledge to this report. Dr Jane Longmore, former head of the History, Social and Cultural Studies department at St. Mary’s College, who actively supported me throughout the development and submission of the original research bid to the Community Fund, and the numerous people who gave advice on the bid content. The staff and management committee of Action Group for Irish Youth (AGIY) who lead the research bid consortium and managed the overall project. The staff of Brent Irish Advisory Service Irish Travellers Project (BIAS ITP) who joined the research consortium and facilitated much of the fieldwork. The staff of Irish Community Care Manchester’s Irish Traveller Project who became associate members of the research consortium and facilitated much of the fieldwork. The staff of St. Mary’s College (the third research consortium member) who managed the actual research project and provided the researchers with academic support.
    [Show full text]
  • Disabled People and Direct Payments: a UK Comparative Study
    Disabled People and Direct Payments: A UK Comparative Study ESRC Award RES-000-23-0263 Sheila Riddell, Mark Priestley, Charlotte Pearson, Geof Mercer, Colin Barnes, Debbie Jolly, Victoria Williams August 2006 ESRC End of Award Report (RES-000-23-0263) Disabled People and Direct Payments: A UK Comparative Study This report presents findings from a ‘four-country’ study exploring a relatively new and radical form of welfare provision, direct payments. The purpose of the research was to support future policy development by explaining variation in the implementation of national direct payments policies in different localities across the UK, and particularly within the context of devolution in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Empirically, the research involved a multi-method and multi- stakeholder analysis, focusing on the changing practices and cultures of purchasing authorities. The findings explain implementation as a multi-factored phenomenon, concluding that local variation is not attributable solely to ‘local factors’, and that varied techniques of devolved governance impact on equity and social justice for disabled people. The research has considerable policy implications, for national and local government and for those purchasing and supporting direct payments, and has generated extensive knowledge transfer and dissemination outputs. Background Direct payments are funds paid by local authorities to disabled people and other community care service users to purchase their own support (e.g. by employing their own ‘personal assistants’). The origins of direct payments lie in the social claims and activism of the movement for independent living, for greater choice, flexibility and control in disabled people’s lives (Priestley 1999) but have now become part of the mainstream of welfare policy in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Care in Britain
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery Childcare and Mothers’ Employment: Approaching the Millennium Kirstine Hansen*, Heather Joshi** and Georgia Verropoulou*** Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Bedford Group, Institute of Education, University of London October 2005 Abstract: Childcare provision in the UK has evolved alongside the expansion of mothers’ employment, transforming the experiences of successive generations. This paper reviews some mixed evidence on outcomes of maternal employment and offers a detailed examination of the working mothers’ use of childcare. In particular, it looks at the differential use of formal and informal childcare provision using the first survey of Millennium Cohort Study, which is compared, as far as possible, with evidence from the earlier birth cohort studies in 1970 and 1958. The affordability and trustworthiness of formal childcare remains a constraint on its use and indirectly on labour supply for some mothers. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank colleagues in the ESRC Centre for Longitudinal Studies for help in the preparation of data for this paper, their predecessors on the earlier cohort studies, and the respondents of the three birth cohort studies for contributing their information. We would also like to thank Shirley Dex and Kathy Sylva for useful comments. Author information: * Researcher Director of the Millennium Cohort Study, Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Bedford Group, Institute of Education, University of London. ** Director of the Centre for Longitudinal Studies and Director of the Millennium Cohort Study, Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Bedford Group, Institute of Education, University of London. *** Research Associate Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Bedford Group, Institute of Education, University of London.
    [Show full text]