17
Written Answers
15 MARCH 1993
decided to delay gazettal for a second time on 19 February, for a third time on 26 February, and for a fourth time on 5 March.
The Governor explained to the Legislative Council in Hong Kong on 5 March that we wished to go the extra mile and give the Chinese side every opportunity to respond.
Unfortunately, by 12 March the outstanding differen- ces had not been resolved and we still had no date for talks. We had not even been able to obtain agreement that an announcement about talks could be made early the following week. Having deferred gazettal on four occasions, we and the Governor therefore decided with the advice of Exco to gazette the draft legislation on 12 March. We shall have to judge, in the light of subsequent developments, when to introduce the draft legislation into the Legislative Council.
We remain ready to hold talks with the Chinese side without preconditions. The remaining issues are matters which, given the will, could be solved quickly. We still hope that they can be.
Yugoslavia
Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with his counterparts in other member states of the European Community concerning the effectiveness of the embargo on trade with Serbia and Montenegro in relation to regulation No. 1432/90 and decision 92/285/ECSC; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Sanctions are essential pressure on Serbia and Montenegro to co-operate with the peace process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discusses regularly with his EC colleagues the effectiveness of these EC measures to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 757. He did so most recently at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 March.
Baltic States
Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Commonwealth of Independent States to encourage the acceleration of repatriation of former Soviet troops from the Baltic states.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have pressed the Russian Government repeatedly at the highest level on this issue. We welcome the Lithuanian-Russian agreement of September 1992 on a withdrawal timetable, and we look to Russia to agree and implement similar timetables with Estonia and Latvia without delay and without linkage to other issues. We are pleased that withdrawals are continuing despite the Russian announcement in October 1992 temporarily suspending them.
EDUCATION
National Curriculum
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what considerations underlay the withdrawal of health education and personal and social education from the national curriculum core subjects; and what steps he is taking to monitor the practice of teaching this subject.
Written Answers
18
Mr. Forth: Health education and personal and social education have never been core or foundation subjects of the national curriculum. Aspects of these topics are. however, included in several core and foundation subjects, and must be studied by all pupils. My right hon. Friend will look to the Office for Standards in Education to provide him with information and advice about all aspects of education provision in schools.
Dyslexic Students
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision is made for dyslexic students in guidance given for public examinations, and for the national standard tests.
Mr. Forth: Examining boards for GCSE and A-level examinations advise schools and colleges that candidates suffering from dyslexia may be given up to 25 per cent. extra time to enable them to read the paper, to plan and to correct their answers. Additional facilities, such as the use of a reader, amanuensis or a word processor, are also available.
The School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) has advised schools through their school assessment folders that similar arrangements may also be made, at the discretion of the head teacher, for national curriculum tests. If the pupil does not have a statement of special needs, approval must also be sought from the LEA or, in the case of non-LEA maintained schools, from SEAC.
The main vocational awarding bodies have special arrangements for dyslexic students and are continually monitoring the situation both with centres and individual students.
Funding Councils
Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what appeals procedures are available to institutions to challenge the decisions of the new funding councils.
Mr. Boswell: Any institution which is dissatisfied with a decision of the Higher Education Funding Council for England or the Further Education Funding Council is free to make representations to that council.
Blind Students
Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of further and higher education funding is allocated to equipment and resources for blind students.
Mr. Boswell: From 1 April the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for England will be responsible for distributing public funds for further and higher education to individual institutions. Neither earmarks funds specifically for blind students. However, they are both taking forward initiatives to improve access to further and higher education for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. It is for institutions themselves to decide how to provide appropriate facilities for students from within the total resources available.
|| CW41/9 Job 2-7