Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 35, page 36, line 38, leave out ‘the search’ and insert ‘searches’.

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 102.

No. 58, in clause 35, page 37, line 17, leave out from ‘includes’ to end of line 17 and insert

‘all clothing save underwear and shoes’.

Government new clause 7—Power to search persons in attendance centres for weapons.

New clause 10—Power to search for weapons—

‘After Section 85A of the Further and Higher Education Act, as amended, insert—

“85AAPower of members of staff to search students, etc. for weapons

(1)A member of the staff of a college of further education who has reasonable grounds for believing that a student at the college may have with him or in his possessions—

(a)an article to which section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies (knives and blades etc.), or

(b)an offensive weapon (within the meaning of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953),

may search that student or his possessions for such articles and weapons.

(2)A search under this section may be carried out only where—

(a)the member of the staff and the student are on the premises of the college; or

(b)they are elsewhere and the member of the staff has lawful control or charge of the student.

(3)A person may carry out a search under this section only if—

(a)he is the principal of the college; or

(b)he has been authorised by the principal to carry out the search.

(4)A person who carries out a search of a student under this section—

(a)may not require the student to remove any clothing other than outer clothing;

(b)must be of the same sex as the student; and

(c)may carry out the search only in the presence of another person who is aged 18 or over and is also of the same sex as the student.

(5)A student’s possessions may not be searched under this section except in his presence and in the presence of a person (in addition to the person carrying out the search) who is aged 18 or over.

(6)If a person who, in the course of a search under this section, finds—

(a)anything which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting falls within subsection (1) (a) or (b), or

(b)any other thing which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is evidence in relation to an offence

he may seize and retain it.

(7)A person who exercises a power under this section may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for exercising that power.

(8)An authorisation for the purposes of subsection (3) (b) may be given either in relation to a particular search or generally in relation to searches under this section or to a particular description of such searches.

(9)In this section—‘outer clothing’ includes an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat; ‘possessions’, in relation to a student of a college, includes any goods over which he has or appears to have control.

(10)The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any powers exercisable by the member of the staff in question apart from this section and are not to be construed as restricting such powers.”.’.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I shall speak very briefly to my two amendments, which are both probing. There is much to be said about the clause in a clause stand part debate.

Clause 35(3) rather implies that specific permission needs to be obtained separately for each search. That might be the case, but I am anxious that at least one member of staff should be authorised to carry out searches generally rather than authorised to carry out a particular search in a particular case, hence my amendment No. 57.

Amendment No. 58 relates to the issue of clothing. In effect, subsection (9) limits what clothing a searcher can require someone to take off. I asked the Minister how she came to define outer clothing as only

“an outer coat, a jacket, gloves and a hat.”

The subsection does not refer to shoes, but if the search is to be at all worth while, more clothes should necessarily be removed in order to ensure the efficiency of the search.

I pause only to say that we debated a similar measure on clothing in a Bill that is being considered along the Corridor. I apologise for erring from our debate slightly, but that measure relates to the ability of certain immigration officers and private sector employees employed by the Home Office to require certain passengers to remove certain items of clothing. It was most interesting that the list of items of clothing in that Bill—the attempt was to limit it—is not exactly the same as it is in this one, which caused a little consternation among the civil service and Home Office advisers next door and should cause a little consternation in this Committee, since the purpose behind each provision appears to be identical.

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Cross-dressing.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

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

“may not require the pupil to remove any clothing other than outer clothing”

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   centres that I am sure the hon. Member for Woking would welcome. They also offer training in a range of basic skills. They combine education and support skills with punishment. Again, it is about getting the balance right.

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.

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.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

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.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I repeat a statistic that I gave a moment ago. Earlier this year, I asked

“on how many occasions in the last 12 months a pupil at a state secondary school in England has been found to be in possession of a weapon on school premises.”

The ministerial answer was:

“A Youth Justice Board survey in 2004 showed that 1 per cent. of age 11–16 pupils in England and Wales had at some time in the last year carried a knife in school for offensive reasons, and 2 per cent. for ‘defensive’ reasons.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 592W.]

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 (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

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?

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

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   school premises, and constables have the power to enter schools to make searches and deal with miscreants.

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:

“Although it is helpful to have clarity from the education secretary on the powers given to headteachers, subsequent questions have to be addressed. If a young person allegedly carrying a weapon is searched without consent, this may exacerbate an already difficult situation.”

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:

“We would not wish the right of a headteacher to undertake a search to be transformed into an expectation, whether contractual or otherwise, which would oblige our members to take on searches of pupils. This is an issue that has to be carefully managed”.

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.

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.

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

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

“may carry out the search only in the presence of another person who is aged 18 or over and is also of the same sex as the pupil.”

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

“any other thing which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting is evidence in relation to an offence.”

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.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

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.

Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

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 (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

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.

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

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   to identify the scope of the power, because those who seek to apply a search will not use the power if the law is not clear for fear of being sued by difficult parents.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

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.

Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

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 (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

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.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I think, Mr. Forth, that I have adequately dealt with those points.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

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—

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not use that term. He will withdraw the remark immediately.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

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.

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

That is most certainly not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point, nevertheless.