Childcare Bill

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has actually underlined the point that the word ““taught”” is incongruous. In fact, it is incompatible with the guidance notes that the Minister distributed in Committee, which were almost encouraging in terms of how providers should approach the early years foundation stage. We are simply objecting to the word ““taught””, which I sincerely believe should be changed, as all early years providers agree. Whatever the civil servants may be saying, we should look to the professionals in this field. Early years is the most important period: it impacts on future life experiences and attainments. During early years, children should be in a setting that provides a relevant and positive learning experience, so that they can develop a sense of their own identity—not that of the child care worker—and become self-confident learners. This is about setting the scene for a hopeful and positive education experience, which inevitably becomes more formalised once children go to school. At that early stage, it is absolutely vital that we enable children to develop at their own pace and give them every opportunity to learn and to assimilate as much as they possibly can. Children learn at different rates, and they must want to learn and be ready to learn. When we use the word ““taught””, which has specific connotations, we should remember that the ratio of pupils to teachers is usually higher than one to one. At this critical stage, we have to allow children to progress at their own rate. I hope that we will get a positive response from the Government. This issue was debated in detail in Committee, and I felt that between us, we were winning the argument; however, it was not to be. As I have said, this is the single most important change that needs to be made to the Bill, and I hope that the Government are now listening. I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by the Conservatives. They will be useful in securing further clarifications, as the answers in Committee to the questions that they raise aroused great unease. Clause 46 allows exemptions to the early years foundation stage to be granted to certain providers. The worry is that they could be granted here, there and everywhere, with the result that we lose the basis for quality assessment. I understand that there might be a very good reason for granting an exemption in the occasional, one-off case, but clause 46 implies that exemptions could be widespread. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) hope that the Minister will say more about how the clause will be implemented, as I feel that there could be a case for deleting it entirely.