|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
9. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): What assessment he has made of the educational and training value of the video, "Left-Handed Children; A Guide for Teachers and Parents", produced in consultation with his Department and the Teacher Training Agency; and if he will make a statement. 
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The video can play a part in raising teachers' awareness of the particular issues surrounding left-handed children. I hope that it will be of use both for the initial training and the continuing professional development of teachers.
Mr. Luff: I thank the Minister for another constructive answer on this important but previously overlooked problem. I am glad that she agrees that the video produced by Mark Stewart and the Left-Handers Club of Great Britain and generously sponsored by the Post Office can play a part in improving teachers' awareness of this important issue. I am sure that she welcomes the fact that the Teacher Training Agency is sending the video to all providers of initial teacher training. What can be done to
Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right that much progress has been made in acknowledging that the left-handedness of children is a factor in the educational development of some of them. I am pleased that he welcomes the fact that the Teacher Training Agency has agreed to fund distribution of the video to initial teacher training providers. Beyond that, it is for others to make it clear that the video is available. Ultimately, the allocation of resources for purchasing videos and other things is up to head teachers and governing bodies.
Mr. Michael J. Foster (Worcester): Will the Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Richard Buttle, the head teacher of Redhill primary school, his staff and the children, who took part in making the video? Does she agree that this exemplifies the high standards of teaching in that school and in Worcestershire as a whole?
The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): We have been reviewing the conventions as yet unratified by the United Kingdom. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Mackinlay: I thank the Minister. May I remind him that there is a long list of unratified or unimplemented ILO conventions? I welcome what I think that he said about publishing the comments of the Government in respect of them all. Will he address with urgency the ratification of conventions 111 and 138, which relate to discrimination in employment and combating the exploitation of child labour? They are important and their non-ratification is causing us some embarrassment, especially in respect of the latter. Will he consider convention 137 on dock workers? Can we have early re-ratification of convention 26 on the minimum wage?
Mr. Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the importance of those conventions and the desirability of the United Kingdom being able to ratify them. We took a leading role in securing the adoption of the declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work at the ILO convention in Geneva last June. The steps that we have set out in "Fairness at Work", along with introducing the minimum wage and signing up to the social chapter are significant strides forward for workers' rights and representation in this country. I hope to reach agreement shortly on signing up to convention 111 and also to convention 138 on the minimum age in respect of child
12. Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): What representations he has received from school governing bodies with infant and junior classes about the effect of lower class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds on future classes for eight, nine and 10-year-olds. 
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Some governing bodies have sought clarification of the implications of the policy for junior classes. We have made it clear in our guidance to local education authorities that lower class sizes for infant pupils must not be achieved at the expense of junior pupils. We are providing £620 million for the pledge to be met fully and to ensure that resources are not diverted from other phases of education.
Mr. Bruce: St. John's school, Weymouth, wrote to me about a point on which I wrote to the Minister and on which she has replied to me. The school now has classes of 30 where previously it had had higher numbers. That means that the school's funding for the later years relies upon having larger classes to ensure that it gets the same funding. The school is concerned that bringing in lower class sizes will undermine its viability. It simply asks the Government to address the issue. This is important to a county such as Dorset, which is at the bottom of the standard spending assessment league table--the money that the Government say that it is allowed to spend. It already spends well above SSA in schools. The Government need to consider this important point because school governors are worried about the future of their school.
Ms Morris: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that schools now do not have to have huge class sizes in order to get extra money, as they had to do when his party was in power. It is clear that the school to which he refers and many others in his constituency and local authority will have money to reduce infant class sizes and will receive a share not only of the extra £19 billion that will be put into education over the next three years but, I suspect, of the 20,000 extra teaching assistants that will be funded through the standards fund. I know that the hon. Gentleman omitted to say, because of lack of time, that he very much welcomed the £0.5 million extra money that his area received to reduce class sizes last September and the reduction by more than 1,000 of five, six and seven-year-olds in Dorset now in classes of over 30.
Miss Melanie Johnson (Welwyn Hatfield): Will my hon. Friend develop further her comment about the 20,000 extra classroom assistants and their contribution, together with lower class sizes, to improving standards in our schools? How does she expect them to contribute to making teachers even more able to do the job that they are there to do?
Mr. David Willetts (Havant): Does the Minister accept that a survey by another group of our friends in education, the National Association of Head Teachers--[Interruption.] They are all on our side now because they recognise the consequences of the rigid implementation of the Government's pledge on class sizes. The association shows in its survey that there are more larger classes in junior schools for eight, nine and 10-year-olds as a direct consequence of the rigid implementation of the pledge. Does the Minister not understand that schools also have more mixed-year classes and, despite what she said a moment ago, that there is still per capita funding for schools? Schools are having to turn away children whom they would have been happy to educate and they are losing funding as a result. Does the Minister not understand that that is a consequence of the rigid implementation of the pledge?
Ms Morris: I have never heard so much twaddle in my life. How on earth can the hon. Gentleman quote a figure in a survey and claim that there are more junior school children in large classes as a consequence of the infant school policy when the children educated in smaller classes cannot possibly have reached the ages to which he referred? That is absolute nonsense. The policy has not yet been enacted in full, but it will be in two years' time. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot change his mind since the general election and now claim that class size matters while he objects to every penny that we put in and every action that we take to deliver our pledge to parents and pupils. His local authority received £1 million of capital funding to reduce class sizes last September. It has gained from our policy. He and every