Proceeding contribution from Maria Eagle (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 9 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Childcare Bill.
Childcare Bill
No, I do not accept that. I said that the words with which Members have tried to replace the word ““taught”” are fully encapsulated in that word, so they add nothing. I have tried to illustrate that removing ““taught”” would make it more difficult to understand the clause. I understand the points that are being made about formality in education at too early an age, which we debated extensively in Committee. I do not think that there is much difference between us in respect of the outcomes that we want. Removing the word ““taught”” will not solve things or add clarity in any useful way. It is well known in the early years sector, and is clear in ““Birth to Three Matters”” and the foundation stage documentation that ““taught”” means much more informal learning than that for older children.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 443 c1026
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Access Data protection Databases Childcare Curriculum Disadvantaged Childminding Equality Health Disqualification Information Local government Low incomes Powers of entry Protection Parents Police Pre-school education Poverty Local government services Police cautions Registration Standards Vetting Schools Sexual offences
- Legislation
- Childcare Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:38:10 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306551
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306551
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_306551