Clause 19 - Meaning of “young child”
Childcare Bill
6:00 pm
Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
The practitioner world certainly see this as the next logical step on the journey that we have been undertaking with the definition of the foundation stage and the development of birth to three matters. Providers and practitioners find that useful. However, as many of them care for children from very young up to five, they feel that it would make sense to have a single coherent phase, particularly as there is an overlap to allow for the fact that some children will leave birth to three matters earlier than others.
Some anomalies would result from the proposal to split into a baby definition and a young child definition. Let me give an example. Two children—one born on 2 September 2006, the other born on 31 August 2007—would both be moved into the two to four phase on 1 September 2009, even though one would be just two and the other would be nearly three. For individual children that might be appropriate, but we cannot legislate that that would be appropriate for all children. We know that small children can make huge progress in a matter of months. There is a great deal of difference generally between what a child of nearly three and what a child of just two can do.
We shall have a debate about this on clause 41, so I shall not dwell on it now. I will simply say that what we intend to do here is completely counter to the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to withdraw it. We will certainly resist it.
That brings me to amendment No. 248, tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It seems to be going in completely the opposite direction. It would bring the start of key stage 1 to the beginning of the reception year when children are four. I am surprised by it, given some Opposition Members’ strong feelings about the use of the word “taught” and about the appropriateness of formalised learning for very young children. I do not agree with the amendment and I wonder whether many of the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends really agree with it either.
We want to see a coherent foundation stage from nought to five and then we want children to begin their key stage 1 learning in primary school at that appropriate age. I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman was talking about in terms of territorial splits and so on. This is an issue about which people have strong views, but I do not think that it is about protecting territory either inside or outside the Department. I think that people want to do the best for children. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.