Violent Crime Reduction Bill |
|
The Chairman: Cross-dressing. Mr. Malins: Indeed. Will the Minister say a little more about searches and why she selected an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat in particular? Surely there is a good argument for extending that list in order to have a more efficient search. Lynne Featherstone: I rise to speak to new clause 10 and to ask that the principles that the Government want to apply in schools be applied in further education colleges. The Association of Colleges has consulted its members, who strongly support giving college principals and nominated members of staff a very similar power. I emphasise that more 16 to 18-year-olds are in full-time study at further education colleges than there are at school. There are 701,000 at further education colleges compared with 345,000 at school, and 120,000 14 to 16-year-olds now choose to study vocational courses at college. I am worried that not giving colleges an equivalent power will send out the signal that only those studying at school need similar protection. There is a precedent in that the Education Act 2002 extended the power given to schools relating to nuisance or disturbance on educational premises to further education establishments. That was achieved by inserting a new clause in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The new clause seeks to persuade the Government to do likewise in the Bill. Column Number: 302 Hazel Blears: I shall resist amendment No. 57. It is not necessary, because subsection (8) provides that authorisation may be given by the head teacher to a particular search or to searches in general. Until now, school staff have had no specific power to retain weapons held illegally by pupils and taken from them at school. Clause 35 creates the power to retain such items, and Government amendment No. 102 will clarify the procedure for their disposal. If school staff retain seized weapons indefinitely, pupils or parents might ask the school to return them. School staff are unlikely to be expert in deciding whether it would be legal or safe to return such items—we do not want to put teachers into that position—so the amendment requires school staff to pass seized items to the police as soon as reasonably practicable. There are two benefits. It relieves schools of the responsibility to consider whether to return seized items, and it brings the item under long-established police procedures for determining whether or how to return items to their owners. I turn to amendment No. 58, tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. The Government recognise that carrying knives and the use of knives is a serious issue. Knives threaten many people, but the carrying of knives in schools is not widespread. It is not a matter of course for all school pupils. Only a small minority of pupils have carried knives, and the Government have responded to the problem by creating the power of search for head teachers and others. The Government take the matter extremely seriously, but we want to be proportionate in the powers that we provide to help deal with it. Subsection (4)(a) provides that the search
As the hon. Member for Woking said, outer clothing is specified as coat, jacket, gloves and hat. It is a non-exhaustive list, but the amendment proposes that a pupil should have to remove all clothing “save underwear and shoes”. Requiring a pupil to remove a shirt, trousers or skirt should be unnecessary when carrying out most searches, although not necessarily in all cases, but it might be disproportionately intrusive. We need to get the balance right between protecting the privacy of the pupil and searching them for weapons that could be damaging to other innocent pupils. We also want to avoid the possible appearance of impropriety when members of staff carry out such searches. The hon. Gentleman says that it may be necessary in some circumstances to extend the list beyond the outer coat, jacket, gloves and hat, but it is a non-exhaustive list and other items can be added to it. I therefore ask him not to press the amendment. Government new clause 7 gives staff the power to search persons in attendance centres. People who are the subject of attendance centre orders or other community orders are required to attend such centres, usually for two or three hours on alternate Saturdays. They offer a range of activities in structured and disciplined groups, and help develop personal responsibility and self-discipline. They are the sort of
School premises are often the ideal venue for attendance centres, as they have the facilities required. It is important that we provide the necessary protection to those teaching staff and pupils who may be confronted by someone carrying a knife or other weapon while the school is being used as an attendance centre. The new clause provides the same protection to staff at attendance centres who deal with offenders, some of whom may have a history of violence. Again, it is right that they should have the equivalent protection to that which we are introducing for schools. Staff should have the power to search when they have reasonable grounds. In one case, they were found outside the centre with firearms. That has resulted in calls from staff for the power to search, and we must respond to those calls, so that staff are given the necessary powers and protection. Again, there are safeguards in the Bill. Searches can take place only on the centre premises, two staff must be present and searches can be made only by a person of the same sex. We have consulted officers in charge of attendance centres, the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams, all of which recognise the valid reasons why we have introduced this power. New clause 10 would give members of staff at a college of further education the power to search students for weapons. It says that searches should be conducted by the principal, or by someone authorised by the principal, and specifies how searches should be carried out. Clause 35 focuses on schools because, although they are generally very safe places, and most pupils never carry knives, we are aware of a small number of incidents. That is why we have been working with head teachers and the police to see what could be done, and we now have a broad spread of support for the powers in schools. That is what we concentrated on, because that is where the majority of the problems appeared to be. I say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that the new clause is welcome and I want to give further consideration to extending the search provisions. One reason why we would like to consider the proposal further is that increasing numbers of pupils are attending courses at colleges, under arrangements made by their schools as part of their compulsory education. Increasingly, a pupil at secondary school might spend one or two days a week in a further education establishment, so the boundaries between schools and further education colleges are becoming more blurred as we develop a more practical and vocational curriculum for some of our students. It might therefore be appropriate to extend the provisions in the way suggested to protect school students and further education students. Column Number: 304 I also want to take the opportunity to consult principals of further education colleges, in the same way that we have consulted head teachers of schools, before introducing an amendment on the issue on Report. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause. Mr. Malins: I have heard what the Minister has said and I have some observations to make on a different issue in the clause stand part debate, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: No. 102, in clause 35, page 37, line 11, at end insert—
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Mr. Malins: I repeat a statistic that I gave a moment ago. Earlier this year, I asked
The ministerial answer was:
If those figures are correct, I calculate, by reference to the number of school children of that age, that approximately 60,000 offences have taken place. Hazel Blears: I have said that we are discussing a small minority. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, based on those figures, 98 per cent. of children in schools are not carrying weapons? 6.45 pmMr. Malins: What an astonishing response from the Minister. She is asking me to applaud her because 98 per cent. of pupils do not carry weapons, when approximately 60,000 children do. I am not going to applaud that, because that is 60,000 children too many and there are no grounds for complacency. While I am at it, will the Minister respond to the absurd story about the local government ombudsman forcing a council to pay £11,000 to a boy who was expelled for taking a knife to school? Has she heard that report? The law exists to punish people for taking knives on to school premises. Section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence for a person to have a bladed article—a knife or other such weapon—on school premises. The same Act also makes it an offence to have an offensive weapon on
The Minister accepts that tens of thousands of children are offending, so she will no doubt be extremely proud to know how many children have been prosecuted for such offences in the past few years. There were 10 prosecutions under the 1988 Act for having an article with a blade or point on school premises in 1999; 19 prosecutions occurred in 2000, when the rate shot up dramatically; 25 prosecutions occurred in 2001; 22 prosecutions occurred in 2002; and 25 prosecutions occurred in 2003. Unless I am completely wrong, that means that in any one year proceedings are launched against 25 people only for a serious criminal offence that is currently being committed by 60,000 children a year. That is a disgraceful state of affairs, and it beggars belief that the education authorities are not taking a more proactive view and attitude toward children in schools. How many of those prosecuted were taken into custody? A total of nine people in the past five years. The situation is appalling, and the Minister cannot escape the fact that although the offence is prevalent, no one is being prosecuted for it. Why are there only 10 or 20 prosecutions a year, when 60,000 people are committing the offence? The Minister cannot get round that absurdity. The Minister apparently thinks that everything will be sorted out by giving teachers more powers to search. Is she saying that no investigations or prosecutions have taken place in the past few years because teachers have not had those powers? That argument is hopelessly wrong, because teachers have always been able to send for a policeman. They could say, “Come on to the premises, because I think that that person is carrying a knife.” The Minister cannot answer the question why that does not happen. I hope that clause 35 will make a difference, but I wonder whether it will. If education authorities, schools and the Government do not have the will to enforce the current law, can any of us believe that the power to search will suddenly change the culture? I think not. One or two people have expressed certain concerns that the Minister should address. The general secretary of the National Union of Teachers gave the proposals a cautious welcome and added:
Frankly, I should not need a young person’s consent to search them, if I suspect them of carrying a knife in school. The general secretary continued:
Will the Minister comment on those slight worries? Concerns have also been expressed that teachers or others who exercise the new power might be sued for invasion of privacy. That concern reflects the world we live in, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it. Column Number: 306 We cannot possibly vote against the clause standing part of the Bill, but I venture to suggest that unless the education world and the Government change their attitude and seriously enforce the offence of having a knife on school premises, which has been on the statute book for years and has, as I have said, been enforced sparingly, the clause will not make the difference that the Minister wants. Mr. Prisk: I shall not detain the Committee for too long, but I want to echo the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking about the Government’s worrying habit of passing new laws when the established laws are not being enforced in the first place. I suspect that I share the concern of many hon. Members that such a power is felt to be necessary, but we must face the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. I shall comment on two aspects of the clause, and I shall be grateful if the Minister responds. The problem with passing legislation that we do not scrutinise properly—let alone enforce properly—is that we may allow it to go through without thinking through how it will actually work. New section 550AA refers to the way in which a search is carried out, and subsection (4) refers to a person who carries out a search of a pupil. Paragraph (a) refers to the removal of clothing and the fact that the person undertaking the search must be the same sex as the pupil. However, paragraph (c) states that the condition of the clause is that the person who carries out a search of a pupil under that section
I understand the logic behind ensuring that someone who carries out a search on a minor or somebody aged 18 is of the same sex as the person being searched, but there is the danger of being too prescriptive. When we visit primary schools, most of us are acutely aware of the lack of male teachers, and many primary schools are largely populated by women—the problem is sharp in secondary schools, but it is not as acute as in primary schools—which gives rise to the practical issue that it may be almost impossible to conduct such a search. Given the Government’s preference for delegated legislation, will the Minister explain why that requirement has been specified in the Bill? I would welcome greater clarity on subsection (6) of new section 550AA, which concerns what is found by the person conducting the search. Paragraph (b) specifies that
Will the Minister give us examples of something encompassed by that definition and something excluded by it? That is not a matter of semantics, and I want to help those who follow our deliberations to understand the scope of the law that we seek to make. I often feel that we fear to ask a question when we see such phrases in Committee, because the answer might be self-evident, but if we do not ask such questions, who will? I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer. Column Number: 307 Lynne Featherstone: Knife crime and the carrying of knives in school is now so prevalent that the situation has changed. I hope that giving the power to teachers, which is slightly less formal than calling a police officer, will encourage teachers to make searches in cases in which they think that, although a child is not necessarily going to use a knife, the carrying should stop there and then. The alternative is even worse—metal detectors in schools, which they have in America. I want teachers to have the power to create and change the culture, rather than suspecting all who go into schools and turning our children into criminals. I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that further education colleges will also be considered. Hazel Blears: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has asked who would constitute a third party and whether not being able to find two men on the premises at the same time might prove to be a practical issue. The third party does not have to be another teacher, and they could be a caretaker or another member of staff. Clause 35 introduces a power, not a duty. If a member of staff feels that they do not have the necessary staff on the premises to conduct a search, or if they feel unsafe or are not confident about exercising the power—they may not have had the right degree of training—a police officer can be called to carry out the search. It is important that another adult is present to ensure the safety of the person who conducts the search. Issues of propriety also arise, and it is important to have a witness to a search, particularly if an individual’s clothing is removed. I accept that it may be difficult to find two men in a primary school, which is a genuine concern. If it were impossible to have two men present, the member of staff concerned would have the option of calling a police officer. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the items that could be seized, and drugs immediately come to mind. If while conducting a search for knives, illegal drugs were found, they should be seized and retained or disposed of in accordance with the Bill. Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): May I bring to the Minister’s attention a case that was reported in the newspapers concerning a child who was very badly slashed by a pencil-sharpener blade? Young people can obtain items at school that may seem benign, but that can be used ferociously to attack other children. Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has raised the very disturbing case in Sheffield, which shows how innocuous items can sometimes inflict extensive damage. That poor child has a huge number of stitches in her face, and let us hope that she is not permanently scarred. Mr. Prisk: Is the Minister saying that an item that is innocuous, but that has clearly been misused falls within the definition in new section 550AA(1)? I want
Hazel Blears: In that case, I am not sure whether the blade was carried on its own or whether the pencil sharpener was dismantled in class and then converted. It would be difficult for us to provide a power to search for and confiscate pencil sharpeners in school. Ms Keeble: I welcome the provision. Children and young people follow fashions in schools, and they will get their hands on items that the Minister cannot specify or clearly include in the Bill. However, the provision allows teachers to conduct searches, and if teachers know that certain items are being abused as part of a fashion, they can deal with the problem. Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right that we are seeking to empower head teachers and teachers to exercise the powers in the Bill, but we want them to do so only if they feel safe confident and safe. We have held extensive discussions with the teachers’ trade unions to ensure that teachers receive proper support and back-up, which is why I also want to hold discussions with the FE institutions. I do not want to place staff in a position in which they feel vulnerable. I support the powers because I want fewer children to carry knives in our schools—we must stop knives being carried in schools. I do not particularly want to see more prosecutions, and I would rather see fewer children carrying knives. All hon. Members want to see more preventive work. If the hon. Member for Woking is disappointed by my responses, I am occasionally disappointed by his undue emphasis on punishment at the expense of prevention, education and support work. Gang culture or peer pressure sometimes draws some of our most vulnerable children into getting involved in carrying knives. Of course, we should enforce the law and prosecute, which is why we have had 6,000 prosecutions. It is also important that we support and educate our young children to prevent them from getting involved in crime and antisocial behaviour. Mr. Malins: Will the Minister give way? Hazel Blears: I think, Mr. Forth, that I have adequately dealt with those points. Mr. Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Forth, the Minister has quite accidentally misled the Committee. I do no think that under this clause she meant to say— The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not use that term. He will withdraw the remark immediately. Mr. Malins: I withdraw it immediately. I was merely going to say that I suspect, Mr. Forth, that the figure that the Minister gave a moment ago on knives being carried on school premises is accurate only in relation to bladed articles being carried in a public place. Column Number: 309 The Chairman: That is most certainly not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point, nevertheless. Question put and agreed to. Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36 Supplemental provisions for Part 2 Amendments made: No. 292, in clause 36, page 37, line 28, after, ‘25’ insert
No. 103, in clause 36, page 37, line 33, leave out paragraph (d). No. 293, in clause 36, page 37, line 34, at end insert—
Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 7.1 pmSitting suspended. 8pmOn resuming:— [Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair] Clause 37 Football-related disorder Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Malins: While we are on the subject of football banning orders and football-related disorder— Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): Why are you looking at me like that? Mr. Malins: I had no intention of looking at the hon. Gentleman in that way. With the 2006 football World cup less than a year away, it is important that football banning orders operate as effectively as possible. Some concerns have been expressed to me about public safety; it is said by some that there is next to no national strategy on football banning orders. Research suggests that it is unlikely that many orders are complied with or that
Unlike immigration officers or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which has special branches that monitor immigrants, contraband goods and terrorism respectively, football intelligence officers have no right to check passports at points of entry and exit. They have the right to request to see passports, regardless of whether individuals are wanted on warrant or for an arrestable offence, or subject to a football banning order. I understand that many of those subject to such orders are acutely aware of that and decline. The result is that they can travel with virtual impunity. It is noteworthy that the police have the right to use the automatic number plate recognition system on points of entry and exit; they can check vehicles but not the passengers. Is there a reason for that distinction? Would the Minister consider amending the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 to grant police officers the power to demand to see passports at points of entry and exit, as well as granting them the automatic right to access manifest passenger lists to check whether they contain persons who are subject to football banning orders? I am sure that she will agree that it is imperative that the orders operate effectively with the World cup not far away, and I hope that she will be able to deal with the observations that I have passed on, though not necessarily now. In due course, I shall be extremely grateful to have a letter on the point. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 27 October 2005 |