Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Peter Bottomley (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 9 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Childcare Bill.


Childcare Bill

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—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c1028 
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