| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.20 pm
Ms Linda Perham (Ilford, North): In my contribution to this important debate, I shall comment on the continuing commitment to reduce infant class sizes, the hope offered through the new deal to the long-term unemployed, particularly via new deal 50-plus, and the proposals for post-16 education through the new learning and skills councils. I shall also touch briefly on the reform of electoral procedures.
Parents and teachers are convinced that, for younger children, smaller classes are vital so that more attention can be given to them at the start of their great journey into learning. The Labour Government's early pledge to reduce infant class sizes is of special importance to me, because for eight years I was a member of the Labour group on the London borough of Redbridge. We campaigned for many years for smaller primary classes, against the implacable opposition of the then Conservative majority council, whose dismal record included tolerating a situation in which, in 1993, more than 8,500 children--53.5 per cent.--were in primary classes of 31 or more.
In May 1994, for the first time in 30 years, Labour was elected as the largest party on the council on an education manifesto--I know because, as the then education spokesperson, I wrote it--that included a commitment to provide additional resources to primary schools towards reducing class sizes to a maximum of 30. On that pledge, we were ahead of new Labour.
By January 1996, 48.5 per cent. of key stage 1 pupils were in classes of 31 or more. By September 1999, just two months ago, that figure had been reduced to 11 per cent for key stage 1. The admission of pupils in units of 30 will allow gradual progress to be made in lowering class sizes throughout Redbridge's primary schools--not just at key stage 1.
I applaud the determination of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education and Employment to drive through progress towards the fulfilment of that key pledge. More than 300,000 infants are already in smaller classes than would have been the case had the Tories continued their year-on-year increases in class sizes.
Because of my work inside and outside Parliament on tackling age discrimination, and following my private Member's Bill, the Employment (Age Discrimination in
Advertisements) Bill, I especially welcome the proposals in the Gracious Speech for the extension of the new deal. I agree with the Third Age Employment Network, which states:
It is pleasing to see that the deal is voluntary and open to those over 50, and that it does not cut out at 65. It thereby recognises that those over retirement age still have much to offer the country and may want to take up new opportunities.
Given my interest in Start-Up in my constituency, a support and resources group for the new business person, I am particularly pleased that the deal applies to those seeking self-employment as well as employment. However, I am concerned about the length of time before people can claim help. For older workers, six months is a long time to wait after being made redundant or registering for benefits. Also, some people may be discouraged from becoming involved by the lack of a guarantee of level of benefit should the new job or enterprise be lost. I should welcome assurances on those matters.
My next set of comments relate to the establishment of local learning and skills councils--LLSCs--and other moves in post-16 provision. Although I broadly welcome the proposals, concern has been expressed to me by the London East training and enterprise council--LETEC--which is uncertain whether activities, initiatives and innovative projects in which it is engaged will be continued by the LLSC.
Will the LLSC have the flexibility and the funds to support the young workers programme, which has concentrated on improving young people's employability? LETEC has also been involved with the reading partners project, which has had a highly valued effect on our infant and primary schools. Will that fall within the remit of the LLSC? Will the LLSC maintain and extend the direct contacts that can be forged by TECs, continuing the extensive range of local partners, including employers, and focusing on deprived communities and social exclusion?
Surpluses at LETEC have been used to developuseful community networks--including the Redbridge signposting centre for refugees, migrants and the long-term unemployed, work to provide training possibilities for the people of the Orchard and Ray Lodge estates, and the Redbridge safer communities project--and to broker access to training between individuals and providers.
There is to be a transition period from the TECs to the LLSCs. I am sure that the Department's aspiration to retain the skills and experience found in the TECs is genuine, but an 18-month transition period could be long enough for talented staff to ooze out of the system.
The Labour Government have much to be proud of in education and employment. Education standards are being driven up and unemployment continues to fall, but much more needs to be done. The commitment to build on our achievements is clear in the Gracious Speech.
Finally, on the review of electoral procedures, I welcome the efforts of the working party on electoral procedures and the measures proposed in the
representation of the people Bill, which were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), to increase public participation in the democratic process. However, I hope that there will be a commitment to take forward a public debate on the introduction of compulsory voting.
Such a system would undoubtedly improve turnout, as is evidenced in the democracies where it is in place. In Australia in the House of Representatives election in October 1998, there was a 95 per cent. total vote as a percentage of the electorate. A MORI poll of 1991 showed 49 per cent. of British people in favour of compulsory voting and 41 per cent. opposed. Following the abysmal turnouts in recent local and European elections, surely it is time to engage in debate and consultation, as recommended in the Home Affairs Committee's observations on electoral law and administration, which were issued last month.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury):
I apologise for being unavoidably late and missing most of the opening speeches. I was, of course, present for the Queen's Speech. I shall deal with only one aspect of it this evening, so I shall probably not take up the full time allowed to me.
The Queen's Speech referred to the plan to introduce a Bill in respect of special educational needs. We look forward to seeing the Bill, although I am not sure what it will contain. I take a different approach to that taken by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who is not in his seat.
The Government introduced the subject of special educational needs in a Green Paper some time ago and called for further integration. In principle, that is a good theme, but it has its limits. One of the dangers of integrating pupils with special educational needs into mainstream schools is that that can be taken to an extreme--as is happening in Gloucestershire, where the Liberal Democrat and Labour groups are bringing about more integration than is good. I support the principles of integration and inclusion, but even more important is that education should be appropriate, and that should take precedence over integration and inclusion.
I want to speak for a moment about my education, which should not take long because it was not that great. I am probably one of the few hon. Members, perhaps the only one, to have had the distinction of going to what was called a secondary modern school, having failed to negotiate successfully the 11-plus. Nevertheless, it was an appropriate school for me, and I had good academic and moral education. However, parental choice is now under great assault; grammar schools and grant-maintained schools are under assault, and special needs schools are in danger of coming under assault. Such an assault would be most inappropriate because integration is not always the best option.
I declare an interest in that my wife is the Conservative education spokesman on the county council and recently she has been much involved in special needs debates. I also have a godson who is profoundly deaf. He has been to both special educational needs and mainstream schools, but he found it difficult to cope with life in a mainstream school and had to go back to a special school.
During the debate in Gloucestershire, my wife and I received many messages of support for our belief that not all integration is appropriate. Those messages came not only from those from whom one would expect them to come, but from head teachers, teachers, governors, parents and children. Children wrote to us saying, "Please keep our school open." Their letters were often difficult to read because they were so emotional.
"New Deal 50plus is significant and more radical than any other part of New Deal",
because for the first time the Government have backed a programme specifically to support with a budget of £270 million older people's opportunities for training and work.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |