Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 297ZA, 300, 301, 302 and 303ZA, in my name. The issue of searching children and their property is a difficult one. The Government insist that Sir Alan Steer recommended the extension of the existing powers. However, I recall the Minister telling us in this House when those powers were first introduced that no further powers would be sought until Sir Alan had reviewed the operation of the existing powers and published a report. I do not recall seeing such a report and I do not believe that a private report to the Government is good enough. However, we have to deal with what the Government are proposing today, wherever it came from, and it has to be admitted that they have already made some sensible concessions. My concerns expressed in Amendment 297ZA relate to the safety of the teacher where he or she is doing a search without consent. The pupils may be objecting violently, so it is important for both the teacher’s sake and the pupil that the teacher has appropriate training in these situations. Anger can be defused with proper management. Attitude and body language can all add up to a situation that is either carried through without a problem or a situation that blows up into something uncontrolled. In addition, as my amendment says, a teacher must know what he is looking for, if we are allowing him to look for drugs; otherwise, he may not know crack from a sherbet fizz. Although some teachers may be familiar with today’s drugs, I suspect that most are not. It is really important to their credibility that they know what they are doing. There will be nothing worse for a teacher’s reputation in the school than being laughed at by the pupils if he confiscates something quite innocuous. Amendment 303ZA is exactly the same thing but relates, in Clause 237, to teachers in colleges of further or higher education. I would encourage teachers not to carry out such searches unless their CPD had properly equipped them to do so. We on these Benches wish to ensure that no teacher can be forced to carry out searches unless they are willing to do so, unless, of course, that is their job because they are a member of the school’s security staff. I am grateful for the Minister’s assurances in her letter of 15 June 2009, but I would like to have it from her own lips for the record. I say in parentheses how sad it is that we now have to have schools with such a thing as security staff. The Bill places the burden of proving that a seizure, retention or disposal was lawful on the person who carries out the seizure or disposal. This is a serious disincentive to the use of the power. It means that a teacher who uses it could be the subject of legal proceedings in which he would have to prove that what he had done was lawful. Our Amendment 300 would mean that to be lawful a seizure would have to comply only with new Section 550ZC. I hope that this would protect the teacher from cases brought under the Human Rights Act and would have a similar effect to that of Conservative Amendment 305. Amendments 301 and 302 would ensure that only a member of the school’s security staff could seize items found during a search, even if he did not conduct the search, and that he should be able to make the decision as to how to deal with any items found. This would reduce the potential liability of ordinary teachers and put the onus on properly trained security officers to seize and dispose of items. On some of the amendments tabled by other noble Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea that the items should include only those that might cause imminent harm—indeed, I have put my name to one of the amendments. Will the Minister consider including that criterion in the eventual regulations that specify what these items should include? I am afraid that I have no sympathy with the amendments about things that are against the school rules. For example, chewing gum may be against the rules, but it would be a bit over the top to use these powers to search for it. After all, this is not Singapore. However, for their own protection, teachers should hand over any drugs that are found to the police; otherwise, they would be open to suspicion that they wanted to keep the drugs for their own consumption. None of us would want that. If drugs are found on the premises, most schools already involve the police. That is probably the right approach—while drugs are still illegal.