Childcare Bill

I hope to be able to provide some reassurance, although in the light of our experience in Committee I am not convinced that I will be able to allay completely the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) or the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I do not think that there is much between us. I know that the word ““taught”” is between us, but I hope to try to provide some reassurance. It is important to use the word ““taught””, and it does not necessarily imply the extreme formality that Opposition Members fear. It is a term recognised by the early years sector, and reflects the language already used in the foundation stage and in the Education Act 2002. It does not necessarily imply sitting toddlers in rows and cramming them with rote learning, no matter what age they are. I accept that ““taught”” can have that connotation, but it does not necessarily have it. The hon. Lady will forgive me if I return to the dictionary definition because dictionaries, especially the Oxford English Dictionary, are the basis from which we start when interpreting what we mean by the words that we use. Although it is true that the dictionary includes formalised definitions of ““teach”” such as"““to impart information to skill to (a person) or about (a subject) . . . do this for a living . . . put forward as fact or principle””," another definition is more informal and is what we intend the work of the early years foundation stage to be. It is to"““cause to adopt (a practice etc) by example or experience””." That uses some of the words that hon. Members are trying to replace ““taught”” with. My argument is that ““taught”” encapsulates what hon. Members are seeking to replace it with. To remove the word completely leaves us thrashing around to try to make sure that we can encapsulate fully the meaning of what we are trying to say in the legislation. Clarity is important in legislation. This is not conclusive, but some technical defects with amendments Nos. 8 and 9 make it difficult for them to be accepted. They illustrate what could happen if we were to remove a word such as ““taught”” from the Bill, as amendment No. 8 would do by removing the word ““taught”” from the ““matters, skills and processes”” that practitioners should offer young children of different abilities and maturities and replacing it with reference to the matters, skills and processes that young children should experience by their involvement in or exposure to learning and development. That is a complicated way of removing a word from the Bill, and does not add to the clarity of the meaning. Amendment No. 9 would have a more complex effect because it would remove the word ““taught”” from the Bill by replacing the phrase"““which are required to be taught to young children of different abilities and maturities””" with"““young children should experience and learn, appropriate to their age, ability””" The effect of that would not be clear, because it would allow learning and development requirements to specify the matters, skills and processes that young children should experience, and it is hard to see how matters and skills can be experienced. I do not think that it would add to the clarity of the Bill if we were to adopt the wording that either amendment suggests, although I understand the point that hon. Members are making.