Chamber and committees

I am talking about when new buildings are being constructed. I presume that you try to have some kind of input into the design.

But you would try to make the case.

Susan Quinn has just brought everything into sharp focus with her explanation of the training that is required. Teachers are specialists, but in many ways they are generalists as well, so they have to cover a range of areas. The depth of knowledge that they require, sometimes for just the one pupil who may come along from time to time, is huge. The enormity of the task is beyond what I initially thought.

Do teachers feel helpless when faced with all of that? Do they think that it is just such a big task that they feel helpless and that they will not be able to get sufficiently knowledgeable to meet all the children’s needs, or do they still hope that they can get to that point and provide a good-quality education? What is the feeling in that respect?

I am really interested in what you said. Everybody else was nodding when you were saying it. Am I right in thinking that you are saying that it is not so much that there is a presumption of mainstreaming but almost a rule that a child should be mainstreamed?

The minister will have read some of the comments from the Society of Editors. Is she able to give a substantial response to its concerns to explain why she thinks that its issues are not valid?

I have raised previously with your predecessors an issue about the take-up for eligible two-year-olds. We were previously told that the data-sharing arrangement with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions would significantly increase the take-up, but the figures from last year showed a decrease in the actual numbers and in the percentage take-up. That is a real concern for me, given that the data-sharing arrangement is in place.

In addition, there seem to have been huge variations from one local authority to another. Has the minister looked at why there has been such variation and why we have not managed to drive up the take-up? Liberal Democrats were strong advocates of provision for that group of two-year-olds, and I am disappointed that we have not been able to give parents of those children the opportunity to take up that early learning and childcare provision when they have been offered it.

I am concerned about the fact that the Government has put its confidence in the data-sharing provision to solve the problem. I have previously raised the fact that the provision for two-year-olds is not available in every community, because there might not always be sufficient numbers to justify full provision. That might mean that families who do not have the wherewithal to travel would have to travel quite significant distances to access a centre.

Could the minister look at that in particular, to make sure that we do not have large areas where there is no provision, with the result that isolated individuals cannot access the provision? I think that that is one reason why we have not had the level of take-up that I would have liked. I could perhaps have understood it if the take-up was static, but the reduction in numbers is a real concern.

Will the minister give that consideration and lodge an amendment?

The minister set out concerns about Miles Briggs’s amendments, but is she opposed in principle to putting that guidance on a statutory footing, which is what many campaigners are calling for? If not, will she consider lodging an amendment at stage 3 to do exactly that?

I realise that the issue that I am about to raise would probably be for the regulation stage.

Some people argue that restraint should almost be excluded completely, because they see its use as a failure to manage the young person in a more effective way. Do you envisage a minimalist approach? I know that you are not in favour of banning restraint completely, but where would you draw the line? What guidance should we give on that for the next stage?