 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, James Davies,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 26 March 2009(Afternoon)(Part III)[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill[Continuation
from column
836] 8.15
am On
resuming—
‘(6A) The
requirement in subsection (6)(b) shall not apply in circumstances
where— (a) the school
has no members of staff of the same sex as P,
or (b) the provisions of
subsection (4)(b) apply and there are no members of staff of the same
sex as P
available.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 89, in clause 229, page 131,
line 30, at end
insert— ‘(6A) The
requirement in subsection (6)(c) shall not apply in circumstances
where— (a) the school
has fewer than two members of staff of the same sex as P,
or (b) the provisions of
subsection (4)(b) apply and there are fewer than two members of staff
of the same sex as P
available.’. Amendment
91, in clause 229, page 131, leave
out line
33. Amendment
96, in clause 231, page 134, leave
out line
45.
Mr.
Gibb: It is good to see you fresh and alert,
Mr. Chope, on this Friday morning. I just spent half an hour
asleep in the office, among the moths, and I now realise that MPs do
not need a second
home. Amendment
88 relates to proposed new section 550ZB(6)(b) in the
Education Act 1996, which requires that a person carrying out a
search
“must be of the
same sex as
P”, P
being the pupil being searched. Subsection (4)(b) states that, if off
premises, a search may be carried out only if the member of staff
has “lawful
control or charge of
P.” The
exemption we seek would be for either a small school where the teachers
are of one sex, and that sex is different from that of the pupil being
searched, or a school trip with no members of staff of the same sex as
that of the pupil being searched.
The
Association of School and College Leaders raised the following
concern: “We
believe that detailed provision for conducting searches should not be
on the face of the Bill... There may be occasions (particularly in
small schools or on small school trips) when it is important to search
but all the conditions cannot be fulfilled. There needs to be some
flexibility if senior school leaders are not to be exposed to risk of
legal action when doing their duty. Under the Bill a minimum of four
staff (two of each gender) must accompany any school trip where there
may be a possibility of
drugs, alcohol or weapons being carried or bought - clearly this is
impracticable and would put an end to many school trips. Given that
this is a reserve power for use in emergencies, we think there should
be some allowance for emergency use when there is a risk of serious
disorder or physical
danger”. This
is a pragmatic amendment to an important clause giving powers to school
staff to search pupils suspected of having on them a prohibited
item. Amendment
89 relates to subsection (6)(c), which states that
someone “may
carry out the search only in the presence of another member of staff of
the same sex as
P.” The
amendment is similar to the previous amendment, but concerns situations
in which there is only one member of staff of the same sex as the pupil
being searched. The requirement is that there be more than one.
Amendment 91 would leave out line 33 on page 131. That line
just reads: “P; and”. It deals with a search of a
pupil’s property in the presence of the pupil. Subsection (7)
states: “P’s
possessions may not be searched under section 550ZA except in the
presence of...P...and...another member of
staff.” That
is also of concern to the Association of School and College Leaders,
which
stated: “We
are concerned, however, that the effect of these clauses is that no
belongings may be searched except in the presence of the pupil
concerned. There are occasions when a school may, for example, find it
necessary to have a general locker or bag search while pupils are in
class to find stolen or forbidden items without arousing the suspicion
of the pupils concerned. To have every child present while this is done
would be wholly impracticable. The term ‘possessions’ is
defined as including any goods over which a pupil has or appears to
have control. This is helpful in preventing the pupil from saying
‘it’s not mine, it’s my friend’s’,
but we seek clarification that the term ‘possessions’
does not cover pupils’ lockers or desks. We believe that there
should be a distinction between the power to search clothing with force
and the search for
possessions.” It
would be helpful if the Minister responded to that question about the
definition of possessions in the Bill. Alternatively, if the Minister
accepts amendment 91, which would delete line 33, that would remove the
problem. Finally,
amendment 96 would essentially remove the same provision for college
students, which requires a person of the same sex to be present while
their belongings are searched. Again, there may be occasions on which
the college authorities need to search bags or lockers to find items
such as drugs without wishing to alert the student under suspicion to
the search. It would be perfectly pragmatic to remove that prescription
from the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s
response.
Mr.
Laws: May I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr.
Chope, and say good morning to Committee members and those listening to
our proceedings in the Gallery? May I particularly thank the staff of
the two Departments and the staff of the House who have remained with
us? They have been extremely patient in spite of the fact that they
have probably had to deal with unusual circumstances and have perhaps
slept in places where they have not slept before. That is very much
appreciated. The
amendments are important. I confess that I considered tabling something
similar. These requirements seem onerous. There are concerns that
schools are becoming inclined to shy away from school trips because of
their real and perceived health and safety obligations. Some of those
concerns may not be genuine, and schools may
have excessive concerns over the risk of legal action, but some concerns
are genuine, and they relate to issues such as those specified in these
provisions. They are highlighted particularly in the earlier amendments
tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and
Littlehampton. Sad
though it is, I understand that we live in an age when these powers
must be exercised very carefully by school staff. Their activities are
open to great scrutiny, and claims are sometimes made by pupils and
others about inappropriate activity by staff. I appreciate the need for
proper protections not only for pupils but for staff members who could
be at risk of having their reputations impugned. That is what caused me
to shy away from my natural inclination to try to amend these
provisions to make them more reasonable. I am attracted to the hon.
Gentleman’s earlier amendments because they focus on small
schools or schools with a restricted number of teachers of one or both
sexes. In that situation, there is a particular reason for providing
greater flexibility than we might otherwise, and for ensuring that the
reasonable actions of teaching staff are possible and that we do not
inadvertently deter schools from taking their pupils on school trips,
where such issues often
arise.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The existing legislation on the powers to
search for knives and other offensive weapons includes a number of
important safeguards to ensure that power is not used
inappropriately.
Before I go
any further with my remarks, however, I must beg your indulgence,
Mr. Chope. Hon. Members may have noticed that the hon.
Member for Plymouth, Devonport was not with us last week. Her father
was very seriously ill, and I regret to inform the Committee that he
has since died. He was previously an hon. Member, and I am sure that
the Committee will wish to pass on its condolences.
The
safeguards include a requirement that the person conducting the search
must be of the same sex as the learner, and that the search must be
carried out in the presence of another staff member who is also the
same sex as the learner. They also require that searches of the
learner’s possessions are conducted in the presence of the
learner and a second member of staff. Several of the safeguards were
introduced during the passage of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,
in response to concerns about human rights issues, and I understand why
hon. Members would wish to remove them in certain circumstances.
However, they are important safeguards that are intended to protect the
learner and the member of staff conducting the search.
One instance
that the hon. Members for Yeovil and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
both mentioned was school visits, but our guidance on those says that
if a power to search is required, people should call the police. Most
secondary schools and colleges, which are much more likely to use the
power, will have a mix of staff, so it is likely that the issue of not
having staff of the same gender as learners will apply only in primary
schools, and we do not think that that justifies removing the
safeguards from the entire school and college system.
Mr.
Gibb: The hon. Lady will have seen statistics that show
the very small proportion of male teachers in primary schools. I do not
have the data here, but it is
very likely that a significant number of even medium-sized primary
schools will have no male members of staff, although they will, of
course, have male children. What does the Minister envisage in those
circumstances? Is she saying that the power will not apply to that
significant number of primary schools?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The word that we need to use is
“proportionate”, and we should also point out that the
provision is a power, not a duty. If it is not appropriate for a school
or college to undertake a search, it is not required to do so. The
powers are much more likely to be used in secondary schools and
colleges, and that is why, on balance, we should not remove the
safeguards.
Mr.
Gibb: The Minister must be a little out of touch if she
has not been reading about—or, given her position, heard first
hand—that violence is increasing among very young children.
There is, therefore, a strong likelihood that they will possess
contraband, so I am surprised that she uses
“proportionate” and “power, not a duty” in
relation to the clause. There seems to be a hole in the clause, because
she admits that the provision is not applicable to a significant number
of primary schools, where the amount of poor behaviour, violence and,
undoubtedly, children with banned and illegal products, is
increasing.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The other point is that we are discussing a
certain power without consent, but schools can, of course, require
children to turn out their pockets. The safeguards are important, and
we have come to the view that we need to keep them in the
system.
It is worth
noting that the requirement that the learner be present while his
possessions are searched is to protect not only learners’ basic
human rights, but the member of staff conducting the search against
accusations of theft or of planting evidence. Failure to comply with
that requirement might render any evidence unreliable.
“Possessions” covers lockers, and schools can make it a
condition of having a locker that pupils consent to a general search of
lockers.
I appreciate
hon. Members’ reservations about the approach, but, by
enshrining those important safeguards in the Bill, we will ensure that
the powers are used appropriately and protect the rights of staff and
learners. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment. 8.30
am
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 30 March 2009 |