Mary
Creagh: I am asking about the hon. Gentleman’s
position.
Mr.
Laws: Well, I have explained my position. It is very
clear— [Interruption.]
Mr.
Laws: Thank you, Mr. Chope. I would be
delighted if the hon. Lady were to make a speech on the issue later,
and I hope that she will indicate whether she supports the rather
extraordinary limitations that the Bill places on the power to search.
The provisions are not sensible and will amaze most people outside
Parliament and strike them as completely dotty, particularly as there
are powers to search for items that are far less dangerous. I think
that most head teachers agree with the majority of teaching unions that
the provisions are not
sensible. During
the evidence session on 10 March, the Minister
said: “We
can extend powers further if a justifiable need occurs, but at this
stage we do not believe that that is
required.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
10 March 2009; c. 164,
Q384.] Is it
really sensible to go about things in that way? The Minister suggests
that there is currently no evidence that hardcore pornography is a
problem, but we will discover whether that is the case when she
responds and tells us what the statistics show in that regard, as well
as whether they are reliable in relation to items such as drugs,
alcohol and stolen goods, for which there are no powers to search at
present. Is
it sensible not to include powers to search for hard-core pornography,
even if it is not currently considered to be a huge issue? Are we
really suggesting that we come back to legislate in yet another
Committee, take up the officials’ time and incur additional
expenditure simply to insert a power into the Bill that any sensible
person would believe that a head teacher should already have? It is
stunning and amazing that the Government do not believe that such a
power is
needed. There
are also interesting questions about other items that are not covered
by the Bill. The Bill lists drugs, alcohol and stolen goods, and
mentions the existing definition of weapons. Will the Minister let us
know how the existing legislation currently defines weapons? That is
directly relevant to our amendments on the
issue, because the provisions prescribe an inflexible list of items that
will inevitably exclude others, on which head teachers and teachers
should be allowed to make a judgment. There is a danger that we will
exclude some items that are not currently considered to be weapons but
that may be used as such in the future. That would not be
sensible. Youngsters
often have crazes; there was one a couple of years ago, for example,
that, rather than involving a hidden item, involved an activity that
was inspired by a media advert. The situation became quite dangerous,
and the practice was banned in many schools. There will be items that
fall outside the Bill’s list that sensible head teachers,
governing bodies and staff will not want to be circulated in their
schools. It would therefore surely be appropriate for the Bill’s
powers to be framed in such a way that we do not have to keep adding
new items. We should not treat head teachers, teachers and governors
like children; they are adults and responsible people who should be
allowed to make
judgments. During
the evidence session, the Minister made an interesting comment about
why the Government had reached their
conclusion: “We
are following the recommendations from Sir Alan Steer’s report,
and we believe that additional powers to search drugs, alcohol and
stolen goods are sufficient...That does not rule out searching for
other items in the future.”——[Official
Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill
Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 164,
Q384.] Later
in the same evidence session, we heard further evidence on the issue
under cross-questioning by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and
North Poole. She is insightful and well informed on the issue, and she
probed Ministers about Sir Alan Steer’s report. Those
discussions made it clear that independent bodies have recommended that
there should be a more general power to search. If I have got that
wrong—I do not want to waste the Committee’s
time—I hope the Minister will intervene on me immediately with
enthusiasm to prevent me from making any
errors. 3.45
am If
it was true that Sir Alan Steer or others advising the Government
suggested that there should be a general power to search, it would be
odd that the Government had come forward with the specific proposals in
the Bill, which create the concerns that lead to the amendments in the
group. We need some further clarification on that, because when I
further asked the Minister for Schools and Learners about that issue on
10 March in the witness sessions for Ministers, there seemed to be a
great deal of uncertainty. I
said: “You
will be aware that a couple of amendments have been tabled to clause
229 that do not give a general power to search, but that would widen
the power to cover items, for example, that threatened potential or
imminent harm to pupils; another Tory amendment refers to items banned
by the school. Presumably you have not taken any legal advice on
whether that would be an acceptable, wider power that would not have
the same implications as a general power. Perhaps you could answer that
last question before the two opening
questions.” Interestingly,
the Minister
replied: “Obviously,
to some extent those are things that we can discuss when we get to the
debates on those clauses.”——[Official
Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill
Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 186,
Q457.] In
other words, the Government did not have an answer.
I expect a
clear explanation from the Minister today, particularly because as it
is relevant not only to this group of amendments, but to all those that
we will discuss under the clause. It will be useful to have a clear
explanation of why the Government have chosen to go down the course of
having the specific power that excludes some important items, rather
than a general power. Is it, for example, that the Government have been
told that were there to be a general power to search, it would
effectively be illegal because it would be in breach of
children’s rights or human rights? The evidence given to the
Committee by the Ministers was not only unclear, but seemingly
contradictory to the Steer report in many respects, and seemingly
inaccurate—although I believe that the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families may have
corrected herself later. Unfortunately, I tore out a page from the
Official Report for the Committee evidence session to use in
previous speech, and I do not have that quote to hand. However, I know
that the Minister will correct me enthusiastically if I am getting this
wrong. The
crucial issues that the amendments address are: why have the Government
chosen not to go for a general power of search, and if they decided not
to go for it because they believed that it would be open to legal
challenge, have they made a mistake by not going for a more general
power such as that contained in amendment 14, and in one of the
Conservative amendments that we will come on to in a
moment?
Jim
Knight claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.
36), but the Chairman withheld his assent and declined to put that
Question.
Mr.
Laws: I respect the right hon. Gentleman enormously, both
as a Minister and as an MP in my region, but I am sure that he would
not want others to read the proceedings of the Committee only to
discover that, for party or other reasons, he had cut off a debate that
was genuinely important. Frankly, even without the present background,
I would want to explore the clause in detail. The number of amendments
that have been tabled show that this is not an attempt at a long-winded
intervention. We are debating a serious matter.
In deciding
whether amendment 209 and the others in this group are a sensible
solution to the problems, it is crucial to know whether the Government
have considered the possibility of having some sort of mid-way power
that sits between a general power to search—that might be too
wide, although it seems that that is what Sir Alan Steer
recommended—and a power to search involving proscription of the
type suggested by Ministers.
Some of the
amendments in this group could be immensely useful to the Government
and might offer a way forward—a sensible compromise. I wish to
comment on not only amendment 14, but some of the amendments tabled by
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, to which he has
already spoken, and which are important and useful.
Amendment 209
is a proposal from the Conservative party to add a refinement to the
powers to be granted under clause 229. It allows for a power to search
when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that
“a pupil at the
school may have an item that, in the judgement of a member of staff,
may present harm to other pupils, staff or
teachers.” That
is precisely the sort of sensible compromise amendment that might be
welcomed by head teachers.
Even though we
are at a late hour—or an early hour, depending on how one looks
at it—and although the Minister may be tempted to give short
shrift to anything at the moment, I hope that we will hear a positive
response that not only sets out the reasons why the Government have
taken this course, but explains why a provision of this sort might not
be more sensible than the Government’s proposal. The amendment
would ensure that the powers were not too widely defined, and thus
would not fall foul of a reasonable person’s view of what powers
a head teacher or teacher should have, but would be not so narrowly
defined that sensible head teachers, governing bodies and teachers
would find that they were operating under totally barmy restrictions
that did not allow them to do their job properly. I would certainly be
willing to support that amendment if the hon. Gentleman was minded to
press it to a Division.
Amendment
337, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, would insert an additional condition in clause 229(2),
which deals with the powers that a member of staff may have to search a
pupil or pupils. The hon. Gentleman seeks to add the following
words: “In
determining whether there are reasonable grounds under subsection
(1)(a), the member of staff may have access to any CCTV footage that
the school may
have.” That
is a sensible proposal. It is a sad fact that many schools have CCTV
cameras. One would not have dreamed that it could happen, except in the
John Cleese film—I have forgotten the title—that starts
with a head teacher using a CCTV camera. Many schools now have CCTV
cameras and it would be sensible, given the importance of these items
and the risks involved, if the footage were allowed to be used.
Clarification would be useful of whether the powers to search are to be
based on evidence, rather than being general. I understand that the
concern about the general power relates to not just the legal issues
and human rights, but the power perhaps being abused by schools to
trawl lockers on a general basis and without evidence. This useful
amendment would indicate that there ought to be an evidential basis for
head teachers and teachers taking
action. Amendment
353, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton, is also useful. In proposed new subsection 550ZA(3),
which describes what are considered to be prohibited items, the
amendment would replace paragraph (c)
with “any
other item which, if it were to remain with the pupil or in his
possession, may constitute a risk of imminent harm to the pupil himself
or to any other
person”. That
is similar to amendment 14, which stands in my name and that of my
colleagues who have been wise enough to charge me with speaking to
these provisions and therefore leave earlier. That amendment would add
another prohibited item to the list of items in proposed new subsection
(3): “any
other article which the member of staff considers may cause potential
or imminent harm to the pupil or to
others.” It
would address some of the concerns that I raised earlier. Unless my
memory is flawed—as it may be at this time of the
morning—the amendment was suggested to me by the National Union
of Teachers. It gave very helpful evidence to the Committee based on
its enormous experience in this area. It represents tens of thousands
of teachers across the country, and even some head teachers, and many
of those members would be faced
with the practical difficulties of implementing the narrow powers to
search contained in this clause. I hope that the Government will accept
something like either amendment 14 or amendment
353. Amendment
90 takes another approach, which is also a sensible alternative. It was
tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, although
I do not know whether it was recommended by some wise person in the
world of education. [Interruption.] Yes it
was—the hon. Gentleman himself. The amendment would define which
items should be prohibited more narrowly through the use of a general
power to search, but more widely and sensibly than in the Bill. It does
so by stating very common-sensically—if that is a
word—that the head teacher and staff should have the power to
search for any other item that is prohibited by the published rules of
the school. That amendment is extremely sensible, and it would be very
odd if a head teacher or a teacher were not given such a
power. My
view—we will hear from the Minister whether it is
accurate—is that if we accepted either amendment 14 or amendment
353, or amendment 90—which is coupled with amendment 95 on the
college sector—we would have a far more pragmatic and realistic
power to search. With amendment 14 or amendment 353, the power would be
constrained to items that might cause potential or imminent harm, which
could include a far wider range of items than set out by the
Government, but would not be a general power to search, and the other
route that has been suggested, almost as an alternative to amendments
14 and 353, would simply base the power on the published rules of the
school. I
see no reasons why parents would not be extremely happy to know that,
were their child to bring in an item prohibited by that school or
college, the head teacher or another member of staff would have the
power to search for it. That seems extremely sensible, and in my view
it could get the Government around the problem of trying to deal with
the potential problems of a general power of search while ending up
with a list of items that is frankly incomplete. As the Minister has
been so constructive, thoughtful, patient and unhurried today, I hope
that she will give the issue and the amendments the consideration they
deserve.
4
am
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Amendments 209, 353 and 14 would broaden the
scope of the clause to include items likely to cause harm, and
amendment 353 would also remove the specific reference to alcohol. I
understand why hon. Members want to widen the scope of the clause in
such a way, but I do not believe that to be necessary. The current
weapon-search powers, which the clause will re-enact, already enable
teachers to search for any article made or adapted for causing injury,
or intended by the person carrying it to be used to cause injury. That
covers much of what is proposed by the amendments with regard to items
causing harm to other pupils.
Both alcohol
and illegal drugs were specified by Sir Alan Steer. He did recommend a
general search power when responding to a question from the hon. Member
for Yeovil, but he particularly highlighted alcohol, drugs and stolen
property.
| 
