Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 221, in page 20, line 16, leave out from ‘which’ to ‘, and’ in line 17 and insert

‘young children should experience, appropriate to their age and ability’.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 113, in page 20, line 16, leave out

‘are required to be taught to’

and insert

‘should be assimilated by babies and’.

No. 220, in page 20, line 16, leave out ‘taught to’ and insert ‘experienced or mastered by’.

No. 222, in page 20, line 35, at end insert—

‘(c)any particular teaching style to be prescribed, or

(d)any specific “curriculum content” to be delivered.’.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

This is one of the most important clauses. For that reason alone, we must get the wording right. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that it is right, despite my continuing support for the early years foundation stage. I thank the Minister for circulating the document. I am not ready to be tested on it yet. I have read it, but I need to do more work on it and do not want her to ask me whether I have read page so-and-so. There is some excellent material in the document, and I am really pleased about that.

I hope that the Minister treats my amendments as the most serious that I have tabled.The main problem is the inclusion of the word “taught”. If we are talking about a curriculum—a vision—for nought to five-year-olds, clearly it is not appropriate to have teacher-initiated activities, which is how I interpret the word “taught”, throughout those stages. The document—I could not express this better myself—makes the point that there will be a mix of child-initiated learning and teacher-initiated learning. It is dangerous to include “taught”. The quality of the work force will be important for successful delivery, but things will take time. There could be a problem with people knowing that “taught” is in the Bill. Sometimes, the best-meaning parents in the world try to cram their children with information at a very early stage and, in doing so, possibly damage development. There are dangers.

Amendment No. 220 was my first stab; I prefer amendment No. 221, which is rather better. Rather than use the word “taught”, the Bill should say:

“young children should experience, appropriate to their age and ability”.

The Minister obviously has drafting experts, but I feel that the amendment encompasses what we want to say. It does not preclude teaching, but it ensures that the approach is not unidirectional, which is basically what the Bill says. Someone pointed out that there is something sexist about amendment No. 220. If I could have expressed it in any other way, I would have done, because that is the last thing that I want to be.

I have thought long and hard about whether “play” should be included, but because there will obviously be some teacher-initiated activities at age four, it is difficult to use that word. However, I will give it some more thought.

On amendment No. 222, I said in my opening speech that we should have more “nots”. Subsection (5) states:

“A learning and development order may not require”.

I am pleased to see paragraph (a). I mentioned that I visited a first school in the past two weeks where it was clear that there was good teaching—I am happy to use the word “teaching”, possibly, in the context of four-year-olds. Even at that age, the good teacher-led process involved a mix of child-initiated and teacher-initiated activities throughout the day. The Minister laughs at my using the word “teaching”, but my example expresses exactly what I mean. I do not want a two-year-old to be taught in a traditional way. There will be some teacher-led activities, but the situation is different as we move through the different stages. The word “taught” is wrong in the context of nought to five-year-olds.

However, returning to the “nots”, amendment No. 222 provides that no particular teaching style should be prescribed and that no specific curriculum content should be delivered. I am trying to make the provision much looser, so that the Minister’s planned long consultation, which is to be applauded because the work will not be completed until 2008, is as open-ended as possible.

To open up the provision, the amendment introduces extra “nots” rather than what might be interpreted as a “must”. I know the Minister’s commitment to consulting the experts, and that is right, but this important clause needs to be less prescriptive. What is required is leadership and thrust, not prescription.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I am happy to support the hon. Lady’s amendments, and in particular amendment No. 221. Our amendment No. 113 seeks to achieve the same objective. Many of us see flashing lights when “taught” appears. That is the nub of the problem.

As I said, the Opposition think that the nought-to-two age group is crucial, and the way one interacts with babies, as we sought to call them—the Committee was not minded to back us in an earlier amendment—is different from what comes afterwards. That age group should be differentiated. The use of anything remotely educational and “schoolified”, as one of the groups put it, is inappropriate for that age group.

There are several welcome ways in which this clause and others that deal with this aspect of the Bill set out a lot of detail that we have not had before. The   objective of creating a single framework for the birth-to-three guidance, the foundations stage, the elements of national standards for under-eights day care and child minding is helpful. We must streamline and simplify the strategy when dealing with those children.

Just the mention of “taught” can be taken wrongly. It creates visions of ticking boxes and achievements that represent a scaled down version of what is expected of children as they go into the formal school system. Part of the problem is not having the regulations.

I welcome the vision that the Minister provided, but I am not sure how it will translate into regulations and guidance for the people providing the service. All of us should subscribe to the vision. I subscribe to section 15 in particular, which says:

“The aim of the Government is that the early years framework should replicate the things which good parents do as a matter of course for their children and which they would therefore expect to see in a good childcare setting.”

That is an important and key part of the vision. We are not trying to take the place of parents, nor impose things on them; we are trying to encourage, not impose, good parenting. In the past, the balance has often been lost.

Many of the children’s charities that have taken an interest are concerned. In their professional experience, they see problems with the use of “taught” and suggest an alternative wording to reflect the reality that children learn through play. Amendment No. 113 uses a phrase which, in terms of parliamentary lingo, is full of holes, I am sure. It states that the matters, skills and processes should be “assimilated” by babies and young children of two and under, rather than “taught” to them.

Assimilation is all about absorbing and taking things on board, and that is what the development of babies and young children is all about. Ours is a probing amendment, to put on record our objections to the use of the word “taught” and to try to come up with a better use of words that would dissuade anybody so minded from thinking that the provision was intended just to produce a miniature version of the assessment frameworks for schools, which apply later in a child’s life.

The explanatory notes use very educational language with regard to clause 41. They mention “six areas of learning” and use the phrase “expected to achieve by” in respect of young children. One would expect to see such things for schools and for later in a child’s life. The notes discuss:

“educational programmes, setting out what should be taught to young children”

and

“arrangements for assessing the learning”

of such children. I do not like such language, and it concerns us greatly. Local authorities, if they were so minded, could devise an assessment based on a slimmed-down, mini-version of the assessments for the development of children that apply once they get into primary schools and beyond. Such schemes would be entirely inappropriate for babies and young children.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. There is no doubt in my mind that the clause intends to give a directional steer for early years child care providers. The use of the word “taught” gives the provision a far more prescriptive sense than is intended, if we consider the vision in the guidelines that we have been given.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right; I should like to see the provision much more in terms of dissemination of the good practice that, as I pointed out, one would expect from the normal and natural good parenting that would be happening in any case.

This is a probing amendment. If the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wishes to press her lead amendment to a vote, we will be minded to give it our support. I really think that the Government have to get away from the use of the word “taught”. It is only one word, but its implications and the extra ammunition given it by the explanatory notes are very concerning and could be dangerous. On that basis, I seek the Committee’s support of our amendment and that of the hon. Lady.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members about the use of the word “taught”. I shall not support them if they press the amendment to a Division because, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the phrase “mastered by” seems sexist and also, like the phrase “should be assimilated by”, gets us away from the idea that young children spend time having a range of experiences rather than achieving certain skills and being very outcome oriented.

Ministers, however, should remind themselves of what they were in charge of in writing the national child care strategy, which stated that activities should be

“underpinned by a play based approach to promoting children’s development and learning, building on children’s experiences to help them extend their skills and develop their understanding and confidence.”

I fear that the Bill reflects neither that nor what is in the birth-to-three framework, also produced several years ago by the Department for Education and Skills.

Andrew Selous (Whip, Whips; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Perhaps the hon. Lady will enlighten me, and one or two other Committee members, about what is sexist in any of the amendments. I am genuinely puzzled about what she means.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

The word “mastered” is a rather old-fashioned and sexist word to use when we are talking about small children.

My concerns are strengthened in respect of communication, language and literacy, which is one of the areas of learning and development. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. There is a risk, with taught literacy for children under the age of five, that some people will push children to read and recognise letters a long time before they are ready to do it.

It is good if children know how to handle a book. Once they recognise that a book is not just an object, but is representational in that it contains pictures of things in the real world, and once they know that stories come from books, that is the beginning of their becoming an active learner. However, if we concentrate on taught literacy, we risk turning off small children. It is a mystery how children learn to read.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

I was listening with interest to the hon. Lady. I agree. When we picked up “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” we did not know whether we were reading a book, just enjoying a story or being taught, but having read it we enjoyed it, which meant that we developed personally.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

That is a good example.

A child I knew well became obsessed with the tube map at the age of four and loved drawing it and reproducing the colours. He lived in London and travelled on the tube and realised that the tube map was a representation of the trains in which he journeyed to his nursery school. At that moment, it became clear that although he did not know any letters, he was going to learn to read quickly because he had made the connection between the symbols and what was going on in the world.

We will deal later with the quality of the training and qualifications, but we all know that we have a work force that need to be improved. Perhaps if the Minister does not accept the amendment, she will be realistic and consider the matter and, on Report, change “taught” to “experienced by”.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

I, too, support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

The clause is far too prescriptive. The reality is that other issues may be in conflict in respect of children of nought to two-years-old. Babies may be happy in a sandpit or doing whatever they are doing, but ensuring that all the boxes are ticked may hinder their personal, social and emotional development, and it may upset them if people have to ensure that they have covered all the areas.

I should love to hear more about the aspirational areas—problem solving, reasoning and numeracy—from Labour Members. I understand that there is a need to focus on that.

I support the amendment and although I have, perhaps, been slightly glib about one aspect of it, I hope that the Minister takes on board the serious point that it makes.

Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

I should briefly like to agree with the points that have been made.

Children develop at different stages. A child could be damaged if they were pushed too hard to achieve all the goals that the Government have set out. It is not that Conservative Members do not understand why the Government want to do what is proposed. There are far too many children in our society whose chances are simply hopeless because of their experiences at   home, and my hon. Friends and I entirely support what the state is doing under the Bill to improve their chances.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I have just realised that there is something that I forgot to say. The points made about a play-based approach, rather than a teaching approach, were endorsed by the all-party group on play, which met earlier this week.

Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

The hon. Lady is right to point that out. We know that she is a champion of the cause. I should have said that we are grateful for her support—her emotional support, if not her actual support when it comes to a vote. I hope that Ministers listen to the points that have been made. The Government are seeking to make child care available to everyone nationally. Clearly, with regard to those households where children are not properly looked after, the state can have a role in making up for what parents are not doing at home. That is of benefit not only to those children—that is the first priority—but to our society in general.

I understand where the Government are coming from in being so prescriptive, but it just does not seem to us that their approach would work entirely, because children develop at different rates. We cannot rush them; doing so may well hinder them. For many young children, personal development is as much progress as they can reasonably be expected to make; that is apart from the other goals set out in the clause. Achieving that personal development in an unhurried and unthreatening fashion—at their own pace and when they are ready for it—may help them to learn better when they go to mainstream school.

I worry that the Government are trying to do too much and are setting up a framework that will be antagonistic to those seeking to put it into practice. Sadly, it could end up being counter-productive for those children that the Government most want to help. I urge them to reconsider the matter of just how prescriptive they want to be, and I urge them to allow a little more flexibility in the way that child care providers can look after children in their charge.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

First, let me say that there is no difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and I and among other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about what we are trying to achieve, and the kind of environment and experiences that we want for young children, whether in child care or in their educational settings.

Frankly, hon. Members are getting caught up on their interpretation of “taught”. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said about our approach being prescriptive; I completely reject that. If she looks in any detail at the documents that I circulated, particularly the framework direction of travel document, she will see that that is not the case.

Amendments Nos. 113, 220 and 221 seek, in one way or another, to remove the word “taught” in reference to young children and replace it with alternative wording. The first point to note is that   “taught” reflects language that is already used in the foundation stage and in the Education Act 2002 that was approved by the House for three and four-year-olds.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I do not know the answer to this, but is the word “taught” used in “Birth to Three Matters”?

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I cannot recall whether it is or not. I have no doubt that someone will tell me in a moment. I shall try to get an answer for the hon. Lady.

The point is that the early years foundation stage will cover the wide range of processes, planning and teaching needed by practitioners to provide an effective, stimulating, play-based environment to enable young children to learn and develop at their own pace—a pace that is appropriate to their age and ability. That includes practitioners establishing relationships with babies and young children and their parents; planning the learning environment; supporting and extending children’s play, learning and development; and observing and assessing children’s achievements; and planning for each child’s next steps. That is far from the formal education that I believe is in Members’ minds when they think of the word “taught”.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

These comments very much come out of those made to me by my constituents. Putney is a typical part of London. It has many young mothers and young families with small children and babies, and the concept of babies and young children being taught is raised with me on the doorstep. There is an issue in the wider world that will need to be addressed. The amendments reflect not just the Opposition’s perception of the clause but the perception of the outside world.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

Perhaps some of my comments later will clarify for the hon. Lady what we intend and what the meaning of the word “taught” is.

The early years foundation stage will continue to promote, as “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage already do, the kind of activities and experiences that all good parents

“do as a matter of course”

with their children—I was clear about including that phrase in the document, and I am glad that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham picked it out—and which they would therefore want to occur in any good child care setting. The standards are those that we set ourselves for our own children. My children are now in their 20s, but, had they had child care, that is what I would have wanted.

I cannot think of any activities that I as a parent did with my children that were not, to some extent, teaching. Children are not born knowing nursery rhymes, how to clean their teeth or how to tie their shoelaces. They are not born knowing how to speak. They learn that through interaction, initially with parents and, when they are not at home, with other adults. That is what we are talking about for child care.   One cannot distinguish the process of having fun and playing from the process of extending opportunities for young children to learn. Sometimes they learn by assimilation—by observing—but not always. They learn through doing things with others. Parents encourage young children to imitate them, to say “Daddy” or “Mummy”, to model their behaviour after them. We are teaching children all the time, are we not?

Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)

The Minister is very sexist to say “Daddy” first.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I was reflecting other people’s common practice, not mine. I remember that my mother was perplexed when I took a conscious decision to refer to everything as she or her—dogs in the street, post people, everything—as a matter of course, to challenge the received wisdom that everything is assumed to be male unless proved otherwise.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

The fact is that children who learn English as their first language always learn to say “Daddy” before they learn to say “Mummy” because it is easier for a child to make the d sound than the m sound. There is nothing sexist about that.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I thank my hon. Friend for a more scientific explanation of what tends to happen in practice, for whatever reason.

To take this further, practitioners who read and speak to babies and young children are helping—or teaching—children’s early speech and language development. That activity also supports—or teaches—social development and interaction. I assure hon. Members that, as the document makes clear, we will make this interpretation clear in the supporting document for the EYFS on which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has kindly acknowledged, we plan to consult extensively.

The issue goes to the heart of what we mean by “teach”. We are referring, as the previous legislation has done, to its natural meaning. With respect, it is a mistake to equate that term with a formalised method of learning and teaching. That is what hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are doing.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister. I can tell her that, from my speed reading of it, the word “taught” does not appear in “Birth to Three Matters”. What she is saying seems very much to apply to children above the age of two, which is why we differentiated in what we proposed earlier and in our use of the word “babies”. Unless she had very advanced children—I am sure she did—teaching them to recite nursery rhymes between the ages of nought and two would not have been a goer. Does she not see that there is a difference between those who are aged nought to two years and those who are above two? That is what we are trying to get at in our amendments.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I do not accept that there is a difference, in that I think that the experience of the child is one of continuous development, and a continuous thirst for new things and for stimulation. The role of adults, be they parents or other carers, is one in which they quite naturally try to provide those opportunities and extend the range of children’s experience and therefore what they can do. What are picture books for? We sit with babies on our knees reading picture books, talking about the pictures and encouraging children to point and to recognise what is in the picture. Through that interaction, children are learning and adults are teaching.

The point is that we are using the natural meaning of the word “teaching”. We made such a reference earlier in the debate in relation to another phrase. The “Oxford English Dictionary” gives four meanings for the verb “to teach”. The first relates to doing so for a living. The second relates to imparting information or a skill to a person about a subject. The third relates to putting forward as fact or principle. The fourth is to cause to adopt—I could say “assimilate”—a practice and so on by example or experience. That is precisely what we are talking about.

The word “teach” encompasses all of those means by which children acquire new skills, knowledge and experience and all of the mechanisms by which adults help them to do so, either in an unguided way, by letting children experience things and reflecting that back to them, or in a more directed way. I assure hon. Members that that is the meaning that we are using. It is very wide-ranging and all the documents that we produced endorse that.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for her definition of the word “taught”. There is still some concern in my mind about using it. The fourth definition that she mentioned included the words “to cause to adopt”, which sound pushy. The whole ethos is that children will learn and will adopt a behaviour or skill by example or experience. That exemplifies our concerns. The play-based approach is far more voluntary and far less pushy.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point. She is falling back on what is in her own head: what teaching means to her. I am saying that we are using the term in the widest sense: the sense that, in terms of the definitions that I have read out, is accepted. With regard to “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage, it is used in a sense that practitioners are already comfortable with and use implicitly. I am advised that although we do not use the word “teach” in “Birth to Three Matters”, it refers to the environment in which young children are cared for and educated, which is a similar term and similar points could be made about it.

The framework is set out in the definition and approach given and it gives practitioners examples of the sort of experiences that young children need in order to develop. I shall give some examples from the listening and responding part of the section entitled “A skilful communicator” because the issue of literacy has been raised. The effective practice that is encouraged   to help children develop this part of their language ability includes encouraging playfulness, turn-taking and responses, including peek-a-boo and rhymes with young babies; talking to babies about what they have done through the day so that they will link words with actions, such as welcoming and preparing lunch; being able to explore and talk about things that interest young children indoors and outdoors, listening and responding to their questions, both serious and playful; and extending the range of stories, songs, games and rhymes from their own and other cultures and language. I do not think that any hon. Member could say that this a prescriptive, teacher-led, didactic approach of the sort that was referred to implicitly in the concerns of Opposition Members.

Amendment No. 220 would require the child to have some form of “mastery”. I shall not get into the argument of whether that is a masculine term; we have been there already. Apart from the fact that children learn at very different rates, some will appear to be accomplished—if I may use that term—at all that they are being shown and experiencing, while others will not. Children acquire those accomplishments in a number of different ways.

When we were preparing for today’s sitting—I admit it was rather late in the day and we may have got a bit hysterical: well, not hysterical, but we were seeing the funny side of things—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary speculated whether the proposals meant not showing a child how to tie his shoelaces because that might be too didactic, but setting a pair of shoelaces and a shoe in front of him and saying, “Right, Johnny. Experience your shoelaces.” I am being facetious, but Opposition Members are going too far in suggesting that we are talking about didactic teaching.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

That is not a good example. It is more like teaching a dog tricks; that is what we are concerned about. What is much more important is why a child has to tie their shoelaces. If they did not they would fall over and then there is the environment round them to consider, blah, blah, blah. Simply considering the act of teaching a child to tie shoelaces is to risk ticking a box showing whether they have been taught to do various tricks, which is not what it is all about—certainly not at ages nought to two. That is the difference between us.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I would be very surprised if there is not a parent in the country who has not attempted to teach their child to tie their shoelaces or brush their teeth.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

Absolutely. That is not the point.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman says that it is not the point. I think that it is the point. The way in which children learn depends on a variety of different actions and methodologies used by the people caring for them. That will include, in some instances, guidance from the experience of seeing things done and being encouraged to imitate them and acquire the skill. That is true of young babies as well as children aged three and four, but not in terms of the example of tying shoelaces.

Amendment No. 222 would prevent the Secretary of State from specifying any teaching style and any curriculum content, which would include appropriate learning and development activities in early years provision. We know from research, whose findings we are implementing, that the centres that produce the best outcomes for children use play environments to provide the basis of instructive learning. We want to continue that. The most effective pedagogy, if I may use that term, is a mixture of experienced guidance by teachers or carers, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, and the provision of freely chosen but instructive play activities. Even then, when the child will be able to choose what to do and how to do it, and to play in the playhouse or whatever it is, the practitioner should more systematically observe what the children are doing and helping them, in a non-directive way, to get the most out of the activity. Therefore, while the child’s experience will be free play and activity much of the time, the practitioner must observe what the child is doing—

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

Earlier on, my right hon. Friend referred to peek-a-boo, which is a very good example. It is not a game about communication, but a first lesson in epistemology. I am sure that no babies know that, because when children play peek-a-boo what they are learning is that the mother, or whoever it is, is present even when the child cannot see her. The child finds that amusing and simply thinks that it is a game, but the practitioner knows that the child is discovering something about the world.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I agree with my hon. Friend. She endorses my point. However, amendment No. 222 would also prevent the Secretary of State from specifying play-based learning, because that is a methodology, or phonics as part of the curriculum. I am sure that hon. Members would not want to do that.

In the current guidance we stress that the curriculum refers to

”everything children do, see, hear or feel in their setting, both planned and unplanned.”

Our approach is to give practitioners not prescription but examples of good practice that they can use to improve outcomes for young children.

I hope that, with that reassurance and those interpretations, particularly of the word “teaching”, Opposition Ms will not press their amendment.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with most of what the Minister said, but I am disappointed that she will not reconsider the wording.

It is an obvious point, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the heading of clause 41. “The learning and development requirements” is a perfectly satisfactory heading. That brings us to ask whether there is a difference between learning and teaching. I believe that there is.

Most of the Bills on which I have served have been home affairs Bills, in which we try hard to get the words right because we know that they will be tested in courts of law. The words in this Bill will be used by the   practitioners in the field, so it is immaterial whether a dictionary supports the wording. There is a difference between the meaning of a word on the surface and its connotations.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I agree. The problem is that if we do not have a debate on what “taught” means, those who have to make the assessments, in whatever form they are, can have a different interpretation—one that the Minister claims she does not mean and which we certainly do not mean. By reading the Bill in that way, the interpretation could become a reality.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

That is exactly my point.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

Does the hon. Lady accept the point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the practitioners—those with whom we will consult—are the experts? As they already use the term in that way, they are not confused by the Government’s intention to use it in the Bill for a second time.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

We need to distinguish between practitioners at different levels. I am talking about the well meaning and talented person who helps out at the local playgroup. Some of the press comments following the launch of the Bill were misguided, describing the early years foundation stage as madness. However, some people making those statements are self-proclaimed experts and their views carry a lot of weight in our press. The Minister must have been disappointed that what some people said about the early years foundation stage became a front-page story. I am committed to that stage, so I want it to work in the best possible way.

Owing to the way in which the amendments were selected, amendment No. 221 has come before amendment No. 220. I shall never understand that process, but it probably makes sense. I might push amendment No. 221, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham supported, to a vote. I hope that the Minister reconsiders the amendment. I realise that it is not perfect. I do not have the skills to produce it in the right language, but its sentiments are better than the provision in the Bill.

It was a shot in the dark when I asked the Minister whether “taught” was in “Birth to Three Matters”. I was impressed by the document, and I thought that “taught” would not be in it, so I am pleased that I was right. Page 10 says:

“As babies explore the world through touch, sight, sound, taste, smell and movement, their sensory and physical explorations affect the patterns that are laid down in the brain.”

Is that being “taught”? I do not think it is, not in my interpretation of the word, nor in the dictionary definition to “cause to adopt”, which sounds unidirectional to me.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will endorse another part of the document, which states:

“As they engage in pretend play with gestures and actions, feelings and relationships, ideas and words, they become increasingly imaginative. Children become creative”.

They are not being taught to be creative. One cannot be taught to become creative. The document says that children

“become creative through exploration and discovery as they experiment with sound, media and movement.”

The Government have provided so much excellent material that it argues my case for me.

When we use the word “teaching”, and when we get the sort of newspaper stories that followed the launch of the Bill, I am put in mind of a row of little baby chairs with perhaps six babies—[Interruption.] I am not suggesting that that is what the Minister means, but it is a connotation of what is in the clause.

The Minister should reconsider amendment No. 221, as the clause is critical for setting the scene for what we all want to achieve. We must get the wording right.