| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Peter Bottomley: The Minister has been quite convincing on amendment No. 53. I hope that the interpretation of that is that the parent will be told why their children are being exempted from certain things. Obviously, it is at the request of the parent that no information is to be given. If there is some reason why the parent has not asked, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that parents should be told of the situation. That is a different sense of the meaning of "published"—not keeping secret.
As I think the Minister recognises, she is not on quite such strong ground on amendment No. 51. The main point of the debate is about the word "taught". The Minister explained that "taught" meant the same as "experienced by", and then explained that "experienced by" necessarily did not mean the same as "taught". It seems that that is where she got out of her circular argument—on the wrong spot. It would be a good idea if before this issue comes up in another place the Minister were to seek advice and would ask what would be lost—
Mrs. Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I wonder whether he shares my concerns. The Minister was talking about drawing up regulations. When doing so, should she not take account of the impact that formalised teaching may have on premature babies who are still struggling to catch up in development terms during the important early years?
Peter Bottomley: The Minister may choose to respond again at the end of the debate, or she may want to consider this question when it comes up in another place. If the clause were not in the Bill, I do not think that anyone would miss it. Most people who are caring for children, especially in an early education setting, are trying to do all these things in any event. Given that the clause is in place, the Minister should be asking those whose opinions she respects—I hope that she respects our opinions in this place, but there are others whose opinions she may respect—that if "taught" means the same as "experienced by", cannot "experienced by" mean the same as "taught", and would not that then be satisfactory?
Annette Brooke:
I drew a diagram, and I think that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) has expressed the situation clearly. I drew a circle to incorporate everything that "taught" meant. Learning and experience was clearly a sub-set of "taught", so "taught" means a great deal more than learning and experience. That is clear.
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1029
The Minister questioned whether learning and experience could be applied to matters and skills—but when I visited the most excellent early years centre that I have ever seen, there was complete free choice for all the young children. Nothing was structured. The experience led me to ask some questions. I was given an example. If, for instance, some children decided that they wanted to fly kites, and it was found that there were not enough kites, others who wished to join them would have to make kites. For that they would need to find scissors from the cupboard. They would need to find paper. They would use scissors because they wanted to make kites, like the others. That is a clear example where one might say, "You must be taught how to use scissors." However, in the early years, we are talking of a skill that is acquired by learning and experience, when that skill is wanted. I question whether the Minister is right on this point.
4.30 pm
Peter Bottomley: We have been taught that the word "taught" has six letters. The sixth word after the word "taught" in clause 41 is "abilities". Perhaps the Minister should table a manuscript amendment to change it to "aptitude" as the Department has found it difficult to distinguish between the two.
Annette Brooke: That could take us down another route. The task in hand is to remove the word "taught", so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will concentrate on that.
I cannot stress enough the importance of changing that word. I am happy to accept that the drafting of the amendment is not perfect, but, having served on many Committees, I know that when one wants to say something, it is worth trying to write the amendment oneself, because if it makes a good point, professionals will rewrite it. I am concerned about the impact of the provision on professionals in the field.
A great deal of consultation is under way to establish exactly what the early years foundation stage will include. There is a great deal of confidence about those discussions, but there is not confidence among professionals while the word "taught" remains in the Bill. Their anxiety is much greater than the Government have conceded. Given the lateness of this debate I am not going to press the amendment to a Division, but I very much hope that Ministers will give a great deal of thought to the matter as the Bill proceeds to the other place. The amendments are certain to discussed further, and I expect that there will be professional input in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 19, in page 21, line 29, at end insert—
'(ab) the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned;'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1030
Amendment made: No. 20, in page 29, line 33, at end insert—
'(ab) the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned;'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
Amendment made: No. 21, in page 34, line 35, at end insert—
'(ab) the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned;'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
Amendments made: No. 22, in page 40, line 2, after 'children' insert—
'or on grounds relating to his health'.
No. 23, in page 40, line 11, after '1989 (c. 41)' insert 'or any prescribed enactment,'.
No. 24, in page 40, line 13, at end insert—
'(ga) he has been given a caution in respect of an offence of a prescribed kind;'.
No. 25, in page 40, line 32, after 'section' insert—
'"caution" includes a reprimand or warning within the meaning of section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37);'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
Maria Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 50, line 32, at end insert—
'(f) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;'.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 17.
Maria Eagle: I hope to deal with these amendments very quickly. Government amendment No. 16 refers to the council of the Isles of Scilly, which we have rather stupidly omitted from the definition of an English local authority. We clearly need to include that council in the Bill. Government amendment No. 17 ensures that the National Assembly for Wales can commence at the appropriate time the provisions in schedule 2. These are technical amendments, and I hope that the House will accept them speedily.
Tim Loughton: I am a little worried, as the good burghers of the Isles of Scilly must be seething, about an obvious omission that should have been addressed at the outset. Goodness knows, the Government have had enough time to deal with this. The Under-Secretary skimmed over it in a single sentence, but I would be grateful if she gave us an insight into the structure of the education authority on the Isles of Scilly so that we can understand why the change is essential.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |