Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, there are a great many issues in this group of amendments, and I hope that we shall manage to address them all fully. This section of the Bill expands the powers to search that are laid out in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. It specifies a further list of items that can be searched for in a school or further education college. That list comprises alcohol, illegal drugs and property suspected of being stolen. Our Amendments 295 and 303, and Amendment 297, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, call into question the validity of having a very specific list of items for which these search powers can be used. We argue instead that teachers should be able to use the powers to search for anything that is against the published school or college rules. Surely every school has a set of rules; as long as they are published and easily accessible, there seems little excuse for pupils not to be aware of them. Taking that into account, does the Minister not agree that teachers should have the power to enforce those rules in order to maintain discipline in the classroom, and so be able to concentrate more fully on teaching? It may be that the item causing disruption is not on the list in the Bill, and may not be dangerous. However, it may be something that is against the school rules and causing disruption or disturbance to the point of having a detrimental effect on teaching. The examples that spring to mind may be things like pornography, or something merely disruptive such as the latest craze of new toy. The first reason for the amendment, therefore, is that we want to allow the maximum possible scope for teachers to be able to use their discretion to enforce discipline and create an environment suitable for teaching and learning. The second reason is one that we have brought up time and again: we must trust the professionalism of our teachers to use these powers. I am not saying that we feel that there should be a free power of search without consent for any item at all but, if there is a school rule that bans an item, then it is surely right to trust the teacher to search for it. Otherwise, what is the strength behind such rules? Pupils will know that their rights help to protect them against even having to obey the rules. What sort of an environment does this create in the classroom? Our Amendments 293 and 296 offer a slightly different approach. They expand the search powers to include any item that could be constituted as risking imminent harm to the pupil or any other person. These amendments have been suggested by the National Union of Teachers and, on Amendment 296, we have also been given the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We have tabled these amendments as another option for defining when the powers of search without consent can be used. We feel that teachers should be able to exercise their own judgment about when they feel that it is advisable to search a pupil and, here, we suggest that this would be when the item in question poses a threat of imminent harm. The Minister may say that this power is too flexible and vague. Well, yes, it is flexible, because we feel that we should be able to trust to the professional discretion of the teacher to know when the powers can be used. As for "too vague", it would be perfectly possible to provide guidance and information about what can and cannot be searched for. This does not, however, have to be laid down in primary legislation. Such guidance may not cover every instance, but surely it would be more appropriate than an inflexible list of prohibitions, which would prevent teachers searching for something they consider to be a risk of imminent harm. Teachers would not have to be left unguided, but they could be left to use their own judgment. I extend my thanks to the Minister and her Bill team for all the effort that they have put in to listening to our concerns over this matter. We welcome the fact that they have attempted to answer our worries by tabling a group of amendments that allow the list of items that can be searched for to be extended by regulation, but we feel that this does not go far enough. It does indeed increase the flexibility of the list, but unfortunately does not answer the main principle of our concern, which is that we should trust the professionalism of teachers. Any power to search should reflect this, and teachers’ responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of pupils under their supervision and care. Our Amendment 294 would ensure that CCTV footage may be used by members of staff to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to use the search powers. I am assured that the Minister may be able to give us the reassurances that we need on this count, and I look forward to her reply. A second issue, which has also been raised by the National Union of Teachers, regards who should have to prove that the use of the powers of confiscation was lawful. We have tabled Amendment 305 because, currently, the burden of proof as to whether a confiscation is lawful or not lies with the teacher and not the pupil. Amendment 305 would alter the Education and Inspections Act 2006 so that a person who "seizes, retains or disposes" is assumed to have been acting lawfully until it is proved otherwise. The National Union of Teachers is concerned that, if the burden of proof is on the teacher to prove himself or herself innocent, they will be unwilling to use these disciplinary powers. This may have the knock-on effect of reducing discipline in schools still further, and taking away from valuable teaching time. It is crucial to an effective school that teachers are able promptly to search pupils for forbidden items without fear of legal investigations. In another place, the Human Rights Act was cited as a reason for the burden of proof being laid at the door of the teacher. Seizing, retaining and disposing of a pupil’s property, it was suggested, is an infringement of that pupil’s rights. Therefore, it was said: ""Members would agree that there must remain an overriding obligation on school staff to act lawfully and reasonably".—[Official Report, Commons, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill Committee, 26/03/09; col. 847.]" This is obvious. Everyone is in agreement that confiscations should be lawful; the issue at dispute is on whom the burden of proof should rest. According to the National Union of Teachers, it is clear that, ""the law should not assume that teachers who confiscate have done wrong until they prove that they have not"." I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, particularly relating to the fact that a person who seizes controlled drugs or stolen articles should have a direct and clear choice about whether these should be handed to a police officer or be disposed of. Amendment 302C would allow teachers clear discretion; items may be handed over to the police but do not have to be. It seems to me that there are important considerations to be taken into account here. Do the police need to be involved in every incident of this kind at a school? Is this the best use of their time? I await the Minister’s words about that amendment and about the Minister’s own amendments on this. Many of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in this group address teacher training with regard to being able to carry out effective and legal searches. I can see the reasoning behind these amendments. They may mean that teachers feel better equipped to carry out searches and that parents feel reassured that teachers are operating firmly within the legal guidelines. It would certainly be useful, for example, to have a clear idea of what was meant by each of the other items on the Government’s list. Nevertheless, the National Union of Teachers has expressed to us concerns that this undermines the principle that teachers can be trusted to use their own judgment in these matters. The legislation should be there to protect teachers who exercise their authority to discipline pupils, not to make them use these powers in a different way. I anticipate a healthy debate on these matters. I look forward to hearing all contributions and the Minister’s response.