|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister does not consider that he has been guilty of maladministration in this case. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister informed the Midlands Co-operative Society of this view in September 2002. Therefore no action has been taken in response to the comments made by Lord Justice Schiemann. However, as set out in last year's planning Green Paper he is committed to improving the handling of called in planning applications and recovered appeals.
Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister does not consider that he has been guilty of maladministration in this case. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister informed the Midlands Co-operative Society of this view in September 2002. Therefore it would not be appropriate or necessary to compensate the Midlands Co-operative Society for any issues incurred as a result of the new superstore at Thurmaston.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Under Section 14(6)(b) of the Education Act 1996, local education authorities are under a duty to secure special education provision for pupils with special educational needs. The organisation of school provision in a local education authority area, including the balance between mainstream and special schools, is a matter for the authority itself. Proposals to make changes to school provision are decided by the local school organisation committee or, where they cannot agree, the school adjudicator. Officials do discuss provision in special schools with local authorities, in response to their requests for advice, where an Ofsted inspection shows that some aspects of an authority's arrangements for education are found to be inadequate or where an authority has failed to comply with the terms of a statement of special educational need.
The Government believe that special schools play a vital role in supporting pupils with special educational needs. However, it is also important that local authorities and the schools themselves recognise that that role is changing and needs to become more outwardly-focused to reflect the general principle in the SEN code of practice that the special educational needs of pupils will normally be met in mainstream schools or settings. Last summer I commissioned a sub-group of the Ministerial SEN Working Group to advise me on how the role of special schools might develop within this inclusive framework. I am due to receive that report shortly and will ensure that the noble Lord receives a copy.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: At January 2002 there were 1,098 maintained special schools and 63 non-maintained special schools in England. This compares with 1,274 and 78 respectively in 1992. Since January 2002, 16 special schools have closed, 17 special schools are proposed to close and 18 special schools have opened. In addition to maintained and non-maintained special schools, there are currently 225 independent schools where the register consists mainly or wholly of pupils with special educational needs (SEN). Of these schools 89 have approved status. An equivalent figure for 1992 is not available.
In January 2002, some 36 per cent of the 248,982 pupils with statements of SEN were in maintained or non-maintained special schools compared with 52 per cent of the 160,759 pupils with statements of SEN in 1992.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had no prior knowledge for the letter.
Lord Whitty: The proposal in the Hunting Bill is to establish a system for making case-by-case decisions on whether hunting activities may take place to ensure that unnecessary suffering is prevented. An applicant would have to show evidencewhich could cover any factor he wished the registrar to considerthat both the tests of utility and cruelty are met in the case of the particular hunting proposed. The registrar will determine, on the basis of an objective assessment of all the evidence provided by both the applicant and the animal welfare body, whether the proposed hunting satisfies the two tests.
Lord Whitty: We have placed in the Library of the House a complete verbatim transcript of the hearings held on 9, 10 and 11 September 2002, in Portcullis House. Also in the Library are copies of the papers of evidence submitted by the witnesses at the hearings. All this information is available on Defra's website.
The 194 letters from organisations or individual hunts in response to my right honourable friend the Minister for Rural Affairs' letter of 31 May 2002 are also available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Members of the public may view the responses in Defra's headquarters library. Copies of the responses will shortly be available on computer disk.
Lord Whitty: The Government proposesubject to satisfactory further consultations with the livestock industryto make significant changes to the animal movements regime in England and Wales with effect from 4 March 2003:
Since the end of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak animal movement controls have been in place, underpinned by a 20-day standstill period for premises following the arrival of incoming animals. These controls were imposed on the basis of strong veterinary and scientific advice.
There have been successive relaxations and exemptions from the 20-day regime in England and Wales and separately in Scotland, notably a system of isolation or separation for incoming animals, in order to meet industry concerns about the costs imposed by the standstill rule.
The two independent inquiries into FMDthe Lessons Learned and Royal Society inquiriesreporting in July 2002 endorsed the retention of the 20-day standstill on disease control grounds until such time as the Government had carried out a detailed risk assessment and wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis of the impact of different standstill periods.
Separately Defra had already commissioned a risk assessment of the probability of disease reaching GB livestock either from illegal imports or from meat imported legally from third countries; emerging results from that risk assessment were also relevant to this work.
These risk assessment and cost-benefit studies have been tackling novel and complex problems in a relatively short time. The emerging findings do not provide unequivocal answers to the questions posed.
Nonetheless, on animal movements the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis provide evidence for four conclusions. First, they suggest that standstill rules can play a useful part in limiting the spread of foot and mouth disease during the period before its presence in the country has been identified. Secondly, however, initial disease spread is likely to be dominated by early animal movements over which standstills have limited impact and by other spread mechanisms which they do not affect. Standstills therefore appear to have rather less effect than might have been anticipated in confining outbreaks to local areas. Thirdly, in disease spread terms, in the majority of scenarios the differential benefit between a six and a 20-day standstill is relatively small and in cost-benefit terms a six-day standstill is more effective in most (but not all) scenarios. And fourthly and perhaps most important, the model shows that the key factor affecting the ultimate scale of an outbreak is the time to detection of disease, not the length of standstill.
The Government's veterinary and scientific advisers do not consider that the currently emerging conclusions from the movements risk assessment are sufficiently robust definitively to determine the optimum length of standstill period. However, the balance of view of the experts in risk assessment is that, while the second phase of the risk assessment work should continue to the end of May 2003 as planned, there is unlikely to be a significantly better basis on which to make a decision about the standstill then than is available now. The Government therefore are faced with making a decision now on the evidence available to them balancing scientific, veterinary, economic and other factors.
The Government consider in the light of the evidence that a standstill period provides a valuable long-term element in the movement regime. The emerging results from the cost-benefit analysis suggest a reasonably robust cost-benefit case for a six-day standstill (compared with no standstill). But, bearing in mind the uncertainties on the movements risk assessment, the emerging results cannot at this stage provide a robust conclusion on whether or not the economic benefits of 20-day standstill (net of costs) are greater, or less, than for six days. The results do however strongly indicate that it is equally important to address factors such as disease surveillance, biosecurity standards on farms, in markets and in the transport of livestock, and above all efforts to raise awareness and commitment in the livestock community to reporting suspicion of disease.
The Government will also tackle non-compliance more systematically by removing farmers' right to move animals under general licence if they break the rules; and put in place a joint campaign with the industry to promote high levels of compliance and accepted tough treatment of those breaking the rules.
In addition, government will work with industry, the veterinary profession and farm assurance schemes on a package of education and best practice guidance, covering in particular the recognition and reporting of disease and the encouragement of farm health plans covering disease surveillance, biosecurity and movement records.
There would also need to be a commitment that the industry will engage constructively in consultations on the delivery of the animal health and welfare strategy and on future systems of risk sharing between government and the industry of the costs of animal disease.
At the same time, the Government recognise the need to maintain and enhance their efforts to minimise the risk of an FMD outbreak posed by illegal imports of meat and animal products, building on the illegal imports action plan and the conclusions of the risk assessment on illegal imports. We intend to consult further with stakeholders on a revised and updated version of the action plan.
The Government will also put in place arrangementsalong the lines recommended by the Royal Society Reportfor triggering a 20-day standstill should the threat of disease increase or the evidence base otherwise changes so as to justify a longer standstill, or if there is significant non-compliance with the new or existing biosecurity provisions. The regulations setting out the move to a six-day standstill will have an expiry date of 31 July 2003, so that the position can be reviewed at the end of May.
The Government are publishing a summary document describing the emerging findings from the risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis and the advice we have received on them from peer reviewers and from our veterinary, scientific and economic advisers. It will also set out more fully the proposed new measures on detection and biosecurity. Detailed reports on the risk assessments from the external contractors will be published within the next couple of weeks when quality assurance is complete.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page