Clause
229Power
of members of staff to search pupils for prohibited items:
England
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 209, in clause 229,
page 130, line 16, at end
insert— ‘(aa) has 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;’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 337, in clause 229, page 130,
line 19, at end
insert— ‘(2A) 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.’. Amendment
353, in
clause 229, page 130, line 26, leave
out paragraph (c) and
insert— ‘(c) 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;’. Amendment
14, in
clause 229, page 130, line 31, at
end insert— ‘(f) any other
article which the member of staff considers may cause potential or
imminent harm to the pupil or to
others.’. Amendment
90, in
clause 229, page 130, line 31, at
end insert— ‘(f) any other
item prohibited by the published rules of the
school.’.
Amendment 95,
in
clause 231, page 133, line 41, at
end insert— ‘(f) any other
item prohibited by the published rules of the
college.’.
Mr.
Gibb: We are now debating a very important part of the
Bill, which concerns behaviour in schools. This is one of the problems
that parents and teachers raised with us many times. Poor behaviour in
our schools is one of the key reasons why teachers leave the teaching
profession. It is also a key reason why many people who might be
tempted to enter the teaching profession refuse to do so. Those people
know that in too many of our schools persistent low-level disruption is
the order of the day. We therefore need the provisions set out in
clause 229 to give teachers more powers, for example, to search pupils
for prohibited items.
The clause is
very restrictive on the items for which teachers are allowed to search.
For example, in proposed new section 550ZA of the Education Act 1996,
teachers are given powers to search for knives in subsection
(3)(a), offensive weapons in subsection (3)(b), alcohol in subsection
(3)(c), controlled drugs in subsection (3)(d) and a stolen article in
subsection (3)(e). That is a very prescriptive and exhaustive list.
What about other items? The hon. Member for Yeovil has pointed out
before that violent pornography does not seem to be listed. There may
be other items that the school has banned in its school rules and which
teachers should have the power to search for. Again that is not
provided for in this
clause. Amendment
209 says that if the teacher has reasonable grounds for suspecting that
a pupil at the school may have an item that in the judgment of a member
of staff may present harm to other pupils, staff or teachers, that will
be regarded as grounds for the teacher to conduct a search. Amendment
337 says that 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 might seem an odd amendment but
there was a case reported in The Daily Telegraph recently where
a teacher wanted to see CCTV footage of a classroom where poor
behaviour was recorded, but was refused access to it because of the
Human Rights Act. We have to make it clear that teachers have the right
to examine such
footage. Amendment
353 says that any other item can also be searched for if, were it to
remain with a pupil or in his possession, it constitutes a risk of
imminent harm to the pupil or to other people. This issue was brought
up during the evidence sessions of the Committee by the representative
from the teaching unions. It is a very real concern that that power to
search seems to be missing from this important clause giving. Amendment
95 adds a sixth item to the five items that can be searched for under
subsection (3), namely any item that is prohibited by the rules of the
school. That is the most important amendment, because in some ways it
is not the item that is important but the fact that their child is
deliberately disobeying a school rule. Being able to enforce school
rules is probably even more important than confiscating the items
listed in subsection 3(e), because it is about the credibility of the
head teacher and the ability of teachers to maintain discipline in the
school. Unless they can do that, violence will break out in the school
and poor behaviour will proliferate not just within the school grounds,
but out in the community.
Teachers have
to be given real powers to tackle poor behaviour, because unless we
tackle poor behaviour in our schools, we will not see a rise in the
standard of education for schools, pupils or the country as a whole.
Ofsted reports that 43 per cent. of schools in this country are not
good enough. One of the key factors that renders them not good enough
is poor behaviour. Teachers say that they simply do not have the power
to instil discipline and good behaviour in our schools. One reason why
they do not have that power is a lack of credibility. We on the
Conservative Benches also believe strongly that head teachers should
have the power to exclude pupils without such decisions being
second-guessed by an independent appeals
panel. I
would be grateful if the Minister were to explain why the list of items
that can be searched for is so restrictive. Why is it confined to
knives, offensive weapons, alcohol, controlled drugs and stolen
articles, and why does it not apply to, for example, mobile phones,
computer games or pornography, which also should not be on the person
of a pupil at a school? During the evidence sessions with the Minister,
it appeared that one reason might be the Human Rights Act 1998 or other
legislation that protects the rights of a child in respect of
possession of such items. But if those items are banned by the school
rules, it should be perfectly within the legal right of schools to
confiscate and search for them, if they were included in the provision,
without contravening the Human Rights Act. Perhaps the fact that there
is no home-school contract signed by parents, students and the school
before the children enter the school is a reason why such action would
contravene other Acts of Parliament, if items beyond those listed here
were to be the subject of a search of a pupil. If that is so, the
answer—again, this is Conservative policy—is for a
home-school contract to be a condition of admission to a
school. The
Minister has on many occasions expressed opposition to that policy, on
the grounds that, if a pupil has a particularly poor parent who refuses
to sign such an agreement, for whatever reason, that pupil should not
suffer as a consequence, but that would then be an issue for social
services and other departments to look into. If such clear evidence of
poor parenting were presented, it would be an early warning sign to the
social services department at the local authority that there was a
problem. Otherwise there is no reason why a parent would not sign an
agreement that simply says that the child, on entering the school, will
abide by the school rules. If the school rules say that certain items
are prohibited in the school, I see no reason why those items cannot be
searched for, within the provisions in the clause, by teachers, head
teachers or staff so authorised by the head
teacher. With
those few words, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s
response to this first group of
amendments.
Mr.
Laws: This is an important clause, as the hon. Gentleman
has explained. We think the amendments are valuable in seeking to
strike a sensible balance between the powers to search that a school
should have and the legitimate considerations about the confidentiality
of pupils’ items. In the clause, the Government give teachers
additional powers to search not only for weapons but for illegal drugs,
alcohol and stolen property.
3.30
am I
understand that the Minister is trying to be helpful and to ensure that
instead of the existing restriction to weapons, specific provision is
made for drugs, alcohol and stolen property. However, there are some
problems, one of which is that as soon as Ministers put a specific list
such as this on the face of the Bill, head teachers, teachers,
governing bodies and local government will understandably conclude that
it is not reasonable for staff to search for items not included in the
list. We
know from our evidence sessions that a number of the teaching unions
are concerned about the effects of clause 229 and want it either
deleted or amended to take proper account of their considerations. They
understand that it is sometimes necessary to search in circumstances
where there may not only be a weapon. I suspect that it is already the
case—the Minister will correct me, if I am wrong—that
when they think it proper, head teachers routinely search for illegal
drugs, alcohol and even stolen property. However, by proscribing those
particular items, the Government are opening themselves up to the
accusation that they are leaving out a lot of items of great concern
for which head teachers, teachers and others, including governing
bodies, might legitimately expect that powers to search
exist.
An
interesting exchange that I cannot cite, as I do not have the papers to
hand, took place involving one of the Conservative Committee members
during our evidence session. He challenged the notion that children
should automatically be presumed to have rights of protection in
relation to most or all of their property and the ability to search it.
He rightly pointed out that head teachers, teachers and governing
bodies are, to a large extent, in loco parentis when young people are
in school and that their responsibilities and powers ought therefore to
mirror in many ways the freedoms that parents have in the home
environment, particularly with regard to items that could endanger
either the child concerned or other children in the school.
We had some
interesting exchanges about that matter in Committee on 10 March,
during an evidence session. I questioned the Under-Secretary of State
for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Portsmouth,
North about whether she intended under clause 229 to exclude powers to
search for hard pornography, which was mentioned earlier by the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. She was commendably direct
in saying—I assume that she will confirm it today—that
she has no intention of allowing it to be possible for head teachers,
teaching staff and governing bodies to search within a school, even for
hard pornography and, presumably, even if it is suggested that a pupil
not only possesses hard pornography but seeks to sell or market it in
some other way to other pupils. That leads us to the inescapable, but
somewhat bizarre, conclusion that a head teacher or a teacher wishing
to search pupils’ possessions or a locker, for an item such as
hard pornography would find that they were unable to do so. However,
presumably under the Bill, if a student were suspected of having
alcopops or cider in their locker, there would be powers for the head
teacher to search for that item. Most people outside this
place—press comment has already been made about the
issue—would be absolutely astonished that the Government intend
such action under clause 229.
By putting
such powers in the Bill in respect of items that it will be permissible
to search for, head teachers will conclude that, rather than expanding
the range of items that can be searched for, which seems to be the
intention of the Minister, it will be made more difficult for them to
exercise their judgment in determining which items should be searched
for when they pose a risk to other students in the school and
potentially individuals outside the school. It will create an extra
element of bureaucracy for teachers and head teachers when doing their
job. The
much respected John Dunford, the leader of the Association of School
and College Leaders, has been critical of many aspects of the Bill and
its degree of prescription. He said that additional burdens will make
it difficult for schools to discharge their responsibilities and that
it will make it particularly difficult for school leaders, who are a
critical resource. We have already dealt with the complaints that
Mr. Dunford is seriously worried about. Head teachers really
do not need additional burdens of bureaucracy or obligations. They fear
that the provisions will not only make schools a more dangerous place
for students, but will make the job of being a head teacher or even a
teacher much more
challenging. I
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families,
the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, about her response to the issue
of hard pornography and whether she would be willing for head teachers
and teachers not to have the power to search for it. She
replied:
“It is
a choice between not making a prescriptive list covering absolutely
everything that you would not want schoolchildren to have and a
balanced power. We believe that the additional powers covering drugs,
alcohol and stolen goods are
appropriate.” I
understand that a balance might be struck between the need to protect
to some extent the rights and freedoms of students and pupils, because
I am not sure that any of us wants to give a completely open-ended
power to schools to carry out a general trawl of all lockers on a
regular basis. It is sensible to have some regulations and guidance
within which head teachers and teachers have to operate. Surely the
risk from the Government’s strategy is that, by specifying more
clearly than is currently the case what can be searched for and not
including some important items, they will make it difficult for head
teachers to do their jobs.
I posed that
point to the Under-Secretary after she said that she is relaxed about
head teachers not being allowed to search for items such as hard
pornography. She
replied: “We
have data suggesting that drugs, alcohol and stolen goods are in
schools, but we do not at this stage have evidence that there is a
significant problem with pornography being taken into schools. 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, Q383 and
Q384.] That
raises several concerns, the first of which is what the data show at
present and whether they are reliable. To my knowledge, the Committee
does not have access to the information to which the Minister has
referred about the extent to which drugs, alcohol and stolen goods are
a problem in schools, and the extent to which they are searched for and
seized. If there is such information and it compares those items with
hard pornography, can we see it, because it would be useful in making
our assessment?
Mary
Creagh: I have been listening with great interest to the
hon. Gentleman’s peroration on hardcore pornography. Will he
clarify his party’s position on the possession of such
pornography, with particular reference to 16 to 18-year-olds who might
be in a school’s sixth form? I remember a Liberal Democrat
conference a couple of years ago passing a motion that it was party
policy that hardcore pornography should be available at 16; is that no
longer the
case?
Mr.
Laws: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is out of date and
has not been following my party’s proceedings closely. She is
clearly concerned about hardcore pornography, so I am delighted that
she is taking part in this important debate, but is she actually happy
to support the Government’s
position?
|
