Draft Further Education Institutions and 16 to 19 Academies (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) (LD)
† Bradley, Karen (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
† Bridgen, Andrew (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
† Burt, Lorely (Solihull) (LD)
† Carmichael, Neil (Stroud) (Con)
Evans, Chris (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
† Halfon, Robert (Harlow) (Con)
Hayes, Mr John (Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning)
† Lazarowicz, Mark (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
McFadden, Mr Pat (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
McGovern, Jim (Dundee West) (Lab)
† Marsden, Mr Gordon (Blackpool South) (Lab)
† Mensch, Louise (Corby) (Con)
† Roy, Mr Frank (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
† Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP)
† Stride, Mel (Central Devon) (Con)
† Wright, Jeremy (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Eliot Barrass, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, purs uant to Standing Order No. 118(2 ):
Barwell, Gavin (Croydon Central) (Con)
Clark, Greg ( Minister of State, Depa rtment for Business, Innovation and Skills )
Thirteenth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 4 July 2012
[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]
Draft
Further Education Institutions and 16 to 19 Academies (Specification
and Disposal of Articles) Regulations
2012
2.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Greg Clark): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Further Education Institutions and 16 to 19 Academies (Specification and Disposal of Articles) Regulations 2012.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. It will not have escaped your attention that I am not the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning—my hon. Friend is, as we speak, accompanying the Olympic torch in his home village of Moulton, Lincolnshire. History does not record whether he has donned the white tracksuit and is to be seen jogging or careering around the village’s streets but, no doubt, tomorrow’s press will have the photographic evidence. On his behalf, I am happy to move the motion standing in his name.
The Government are committed to improving the standards of behaviour of young people in schools. As hon. Members know, an increasing number of young people of school age are being educated in colleges, sometimes from the age of 14 or 15. It is considered important that they should have parity of treatment with their peers who are educated in schools.
The Department for Education has already extended by regulation the list of prohibited items that can be searched for without consent in schools to include tobacco products, fireworks and pornography. We are now doing the same in further education and sixth-form colleges, so that teenagers and their parents will have the same reassurance that expectations of behaviour will be equal regardless of the educational establishment they attend.
While seeking to treat all under-18-year-olds equally, we should not impose on the civil liberties of adults. Colleges—especially FE colleges—provide for a wide age range of students, the majority of whom are adults. Common sense, if nothing else, tells us that searching adults for cigarettes would be an unwarranted intrusion on their privacy, which is why the regulations specify an age limit of 18 to be imposed on the power to search for those items, as is already the case in searches for alcohol.
I want to set out briefly what the regulations mean in practice. Members of college staff can already search students and their possessions for knives and other weapons, illegal drugs and stolen items irrespective of the student’s age. They can also search for alcohol if the student they believe possesses it is under the age of 18. The new search powers included under section 3 of the Education Act 2011 came into force on 1 April. They enable
staff in schools to search students for any article where there is a reasonable belief that it has been or is likely to be used to commit an offence or cause harm or damage to property.The regulations build on the existing provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, adding tobacco products, pornographic images and fireworks to the list of items prohibited under sections 85AA and 85AC of that Act. Like alcohol, those items are only prohibited for students under the age of 18. Committee members will be aware that the new provisions introduced by the Education Act 2011 enable searches to be made for any item where there is reasonable belief that it may be likely to cause harm.
I am told by the Association of Colleges that, in the last academic year, 911,000 students aged 14 to 18 were being educated in colleges, including 58,000 14 and 15-year-olds. Some of the youngest part-time students would also have been attending school at the same time. Those figures do not include apprentices under the age of 18. Following the recommendations of the Wolf report, those numbers are likely to increase.
The Government’s coalition agreement promised to:
“Give heads and teachers the powers they need to ensure discipline in the classroom and promote good behaviour.”
As I have said, we believe that all under-18s should be treated equally, which is why behaviour and discipline in policies concerning colleges should mirror those for schools as far as is practical.
In terms of the specifics, smoking is harmful to the health of both adults and children, but, in making tobacco products a prohibited item for under-18s in colleges, we are reflecting Parliament’s view that under-18s require extra protection against them. Although we can try to protect children from the harmful effects of smoking, it is up to adults to decide for themselves whether or not to smoke. It is already illegal to sell fireworks to under-18s and for them to possess fireworks in a public place. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to prohibit under-18s from bringing into colleges something that they are not legally allowed to posses in the first place and that they may not be sufficiently experienced to handle safely.
Pornography is also covered by various other regulations, such as the 18 certification in cinemas. While adults should be able to decide for themselves what they choose to view, under-18s, consistent with other regimes, should be protected from exposure to inappropriate material.
The conditions for searching students for such items are unchanged. When the regulations, with the approval of the House, come into force, particular guidelines will be issued. Colleges have the power to search for prohibited items, but not a duty. College principals can therefore choose whether to exercise that power depending on their view of a situation. Where they do, they will be confident that they are supported by legislation.
2.35 pm
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab): May I follow the Minister by saying that it is a great pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms Dorries? The pleasure is only marred by not having the delight of seeing the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, whom I shadow directly. I have
always known that he carried a torch for learning, but we now know that he carries one for other purposes as well. His replacement, in the Minister, is very welcome.For the relief of all present, I will first say that we do not intend to divide the Committee on this issue. The proposal is a relatively uncontroversial extension of powers and measures that were put in place by the previous Government in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. It is of course welcome that the Government have the support of the Association of Colleges and the 157 Group as well as other representative bodies. It is important, as the Minister pointed out, that the Government recognise the importance of teaching young people in both further education and sixth-form colleges. I have two excellent colleges in my neck of the woods—the Blackpool and The Fylde college and the Blackpool sixth-form college—and I know that they will welcome the permissive ability to use the powers, which are not compulsory.
The change in the categories of items, as the Minister implied, reflects changes in legislation in recent years on tobacco and fireworks. Pornography is a slightly different issue and I will return to it in a few moments. However, I have some questions for the Minister regarding the implementation of the regulations.
It has been drawn to my attention that the way that the inspection process proceeds is important in not only preserving discipline, but securing the broad consent of students and parents. With that in mind and because of the issues of sensitivity involved, what thought has been given to the use of the powers to search students with special educational needs, a fair proportion of whom will be in sixth-form and FE colleges? Will any additional information be given on how that will proceed? It is possible, for example, that a student with an autistic condition may react differently to the prospect of being searched for the articles in question. What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the situation for SEN students is recognised?
As I have already said, the measures build on the measures on other categories in the 2009 Act. I would also be interested to know whether the Department holds any statistics on the number of items seized or confiscated by sixth-form or FE colleges to date and on the number of searches conducted. The monitoring of such statistics could be quite useful in evaluating the regulations and their future effectiveness.
As I have said, I welcome the fact that the measures are proceeding with the support of sixth-form colleges and FE colleges in general. However—I am not expecting the Minister to give a detailed response to this today; it may be something to write to me and the Committee about, or to discuss with the stakeholders as the regulations are implemented—it was put to me that the practicalities of conducting searches of students in the age range concerned at sixth-form and FE colleges may be somewhat different from the practicalities at schools. I will give an example. In schools, normally an identifiable cohort of students is going in and out on a day-to-day basis. That will not necessarily always be the case with sixth-form and FE colleges, particularly with people on day release.
If those issues have not been looked at—they may already have been—perhaps they should be considered during the implementation process, otherwise they may cause problems. Ultimately, as the Minister said, this is a permissive regulation, so the responsibility for taking
it forward lies with the college principals and organisations concerned, but it would be helpful if, at an early stage, the Department had those conversations with them to iron out any problems that may occur.I will return to the issue of pornography. I say this partially lightly, but only partially. What definition of pornography is the Department intending that sixth-form and FE colleges use? There is a serious point here. There may not be a coherence of view across this House, or indeed any House, on what the nature of pornography is. It has always been a thorny issue in law. My understanding —I am using, advisedly, the terms in the regulations—is that it is content that could be
“assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”.
That is quite a difficult thing to define. I wonder whether any consideration has been given to publications that, although not top shelf, to use an old-fashioned phrase, may contain content that leads to that.
My final point on that matter—I again make it advisedly—is that pornography, however we define it, does not come just in printed form these days. It comes in other forms, too. Is it the intention that people would have to display material on computer laptops or mobiles to come under the regulations?
That concludes my remarks on the specific issues. I will obviously be happy if the Minister can answer my questions directly, but I will be equally happy if he can come back to me and the Committee in writing on a future date.
2.43 pm
Greg Clark: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s constructive response. Many of these measures can be implemented successfully if done sensitively and they can cause offence if done heavy-handedly. Two aspects relate to that. One is the professional discretion of college principals. I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, is a great respecter of the professionalism of that group. In my experience, college principals in my constituency tend not to be the type of individuals who are particularly aggressive or insensitive. They are in a leadership position in colleges consisting mostly of adults. There is a wide degree of good judgment as to the type of regime that is needed to run such colleges. Therefore, we have confidence in the professionalism of the staff.
Secondly, guidance will be produced in association with the Association of Colleges on the implementation of the regulations. The hon. Gentleman made a reasonable point about the particular requirements of students with special educational needs. It is envisaged that training will be required for staff members, which should cover the differences in approach that are required for people who are likely to react to a search differently. He enjoys a constructive relationship with my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. It may be that, while that guidance is being put together, he will wish to meet my hon. Friend to ensure that all his suggestions on that matter are reflected, but he is right that that point should be covered.
The hon. Gentleman raised an issue about identifying the students. It is true that, in an FE college, students come and go and it is important to know that one is dealing with the right person. It is envisaged that the
right to ask for identification should be provided, so that the right person can be searched.There are no centrally collected figures on seizures by sixth-form and FE colleges—at least current figures—but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with some historic figures that may be available in the Department’s files.
On the questions about pornography, there is no change to the definition. The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition in the regulations:
“‘pornographic image’ means an article containing an image of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”.
That is consistent with other regimes. The regulations are clear that that pertains to electronic devices as well as to printed material, but as I say the detail on some of the behavioural requirements on college principals and their appointed officers will be set out in the guidance agreed with the Association of Colleges later in the year.