CSF Bill state of play and union rent seeking

There’s a page up for the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009-10 with links to the bill, full transcripts of the Committee meetings and a list of Associated memoranda as follows:

  • CS 01 - Memorandum submitted by National Children’s Bureau - a ‘fake’ charity which gets half of its funding from government departments. So, I think we can guess how much they are going to be disagreeing with their pay-masters’ plans.
  • CS 02 - Memorandum submitted by Mr. Imran Shah - which human rights and children’s rights bills and conventions this bill would break
  • CS 03 - Memorandum submitted by the Family Planning Association - no mention of HE
  • CS 04 - Memorandum Submitted by Mr Imran Shah and Ms Betsy Anderson - more acts and stated government policies which this bill runs afoul of
  • CS 05 - Memorandum submitted by Roxane Featherstone - how the bill will not work to unearth hidden abuse
  • CS 06 - Memorandum submitted by the Family Education Trust - argues against the changes from the POV of what is good for families
  • CS 07 - Memorandum submitted by Mr Imran Shah and Ms Cintha Archer - on how the bill will give home educating parents less protection than parents who abuse their children
  • CS 08 - Memorandum submitted by Mr. James Chilton - no mention of HE
  • CS 09 - Memorandum submitted by Edge Foundation - no mention of HE
  • CS 10 - Memorandum submitted by the National Union of Teachers - refreshingly no mention of HE, they’ve decided they have more important fish to fry
  • CS 11 - Memorandum submitted by Education Otherwise - general critique of the bill
  • CS 12 - Memorandum submitted by NASUWT - All the expected whining about the bits that actually effect them but then they can’t resist a bit of naked rent seeking, claiming that “there is a strong case for the Government to consider whether the right of parents to educate their children at home remains appropriate in the context of a modern education system”. Just think of how many extra teachers would need to be employed if home education were outlawed. Think of all the extra membership dues to the NASUWT.

Last Modified: Wednesday, January 20th, 2010 @ 19:20

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 20th, 2010 at 7:20 pm and is filed under Firebird, Political. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “CSF Bill state of play and union rent seeking”

  1. When does that commtiee meet again do you know?

  2. “there is a strong case for the Government to consider whether the right of parents to educate their children at home remains appropriate in the context of a modern education system”.

    Gracious me. I am more shocked than I should be, probably.

Leave a Reply