|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The bullying of disabled children is an issue that Ofsted takes very seriously. I know colleagues within the Education Directorate in Ofsted have recently met with representatives from Mencap to discuss the implications of their report: Bullying Wrecks Lives. Eileen Visser HMI discussed with Lesley Campbell and Rachel Hughes (Managers for the Stop the Bullying Campaign) what more inspectors might look for in relation to bullying of disabled pupils in schools.
A consequence of this meeting has been to provide a platform for a young woman with a learning disability to address our forthcoming Education Directorate conference, which will include references to disablist bullying in schools. At this same conference, training will be given to inspectors on the inspection of learning difficulties and/or disabilities in schools. The issue of bullying as a result of a disability is included.
In February this year, the Children's Rights Director in Ofsted published a report which had canvassed children and young people's views about bullying and what could be done to improve this problem. This survey included residential special schools and the views of 153 children who declared themselves as having a disability were taken. The report can be found at www.ofsted.gov.uk/assets/Internet_Content/Shared_Content/Files/2008/feb/chldrnonbllyng.doc.
Referring now to your comments about the Disability Discrimination Act, I can advise that Ofsted recently carried out a rapid response survey looking at schools' compliance with equalities legislation. This report was sent as an internal briefing paper to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). In this small scale survey one in four schools indicated a shortfall in their compliance with legislation. This shortfall was reported in their inspection report where it had a negative impact on the overall judgment about equalities. Concerns about compliance are also included in a school's inspection report where there is an impact on the outcomes for learners. Over time this should lead to improvement in schools' compliance with legislation.
We are conducting a survey of SEN provision and outcomes in 2009-10 and bullying could be a factor in this work. Furthermore we have indicated that it would be possible to include a separate survey solely looking at this issue in the 2009-10 work programme and will discuss that with the DCSF.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government are currently drawing up options for exempting from the Act certain low-impact licensable activities, including low-impact live music events, and aim to carry out a public consultation by the summer.
Whether they have considered using the power under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 to amend the Act's descriptions of entertainment to make clear that low-risk performances are exempt. [HL3292]
What meetings the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has held, or has scheduled, this year with representatives of musicians' organisations; and whether the department's agenda for those meetings included or will include discussion of new exemptions from the Licensing Act 2003 for low-risk performances. [HL3293]
Lord Davies of Oldham: Representatives of the Musicians' Union (MU) had an introductory meeting with new senior officials in the creative industries team at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on 28 January 2008. There was no formal agenda for this meeting.
The MU is a member of the DCMS's Advisory Group on Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing and its sub-group on minor variations. Both groups met on 13 March 2008. The question of new exemptions from the Licensing Act 2003 for low-impact activities (including low-impact musical performances) was discussed at both meetings.
At this stage it is too early to predict the precise size and shape of the network of marine protected areas. This will depend on the outcome of work being undertaken by the statutory conservation agencies to identify sites in UK waters. This work is being taken forward with the involvement of sea users, industry and other stakeholder groups.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): The draft Marine Bill contains various proposals which will help us to better protect marine wildlife, and prevent the loss of marine biodiversity. Part 4 in particular provides for the designation and protection of marine conservation zones (MCZs), which will be capable of being used where necessary to protect seriously endangered marine life species throughout UK waters, as well as rare, threatened and representative species, habitats and marine features.
The UK's biodiversity strategy has established biodiversity action plans (BAPs) for a number of marine species including harbour porpoise and bottle-nosed dolphins and for marine habitats such as eelgrass and maerl beds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): There is currently no right of appeal against the decision of a mental health review tribunal (MHRT). Decision of the MHRT may only be challenged by judicial review. There is no historical information which provides details of the number of decisions of MHRTs which have been challenged by judicial review. There is no historical information which shows the outcome of decisions of MHRTs challenged by judicial review.
On how many occasions the Secretary of State for Justice and his predecessors have appealed against decisions of Mental Health Act tribunals; and how many of these appeals have been successful. [HL3255]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Jack Straw) and the mental health review tribunal operate in parallel to achieve a balance between the need to protect the public from serious harm and the rights of individual restricted patients to seek independent judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention for treatment.
The Secretary of State sometimes seeks judicial review of the tribunal's interpretation of its powers or whether its decision-making has been a reasonable or adequately explained response to the evidence. The tribunal is charged with taking an independent decision, and the Secretary of State does not seek review simply because he disagrees with the tribunal's conclusion.
(a) which Northern Ireland projects were funded by the Millennium Fund; (b) how much was allocated in each case; (c) what were the names of projects which fully achieved their declared objectives; (d) what were the names of those projects which failed to meet fully their objectives; (e) what moneys were retrieved from unsuccessful projects; and (f) what moneys were withdrawn from successful projects. [HL3098]
All these projects achieved their declared objectives in the past, but the Linen Green Centre, Moygashel, no longer has public good objectives. It met its objectives from its completion in 2000 until ownership was transferred in 2006 to a third party which was not subject to the objectives set out in the original Millennium Commission grant agreement. The sum of £960,500 was retrieved from the Linen Green Centre, Moygashel. No moneys have been withdrawn from successful projects.
(a) how many projects were funded by the Millennium Fund in the United Kingdom; (b) how much funding was allocated in total; (c) how many
7 May 2008 : Column WA75
Lord Davies of Oldham: Two hundred and twenty-three completed capital projects were funded by the Millennium Commission in the UK apart from the Millennium Experience at Greenwich, which was subject to different procedures, and £1,326 million was allocated for the capital programmes. Of the 223 completed projects, 219 achieved their declared objectives. Three projects became insolvent and failed to meet their objectives. A fourth has recently been sold for non-public good purposes. The total grant spent on these four projects was £45,053,232. The amount retrieved from these four projects was £6,003,017. No grant has been withdrawn from successful projects.
Lord Rooker: The Answer given on 28 April (WA 8) explained that the department has no formalised dress code for staff. This means that the departmental staff handbooks do not set out requirements concerning the type of clothing which should be worn by staff.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|