Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I assure the Deputy Chairman of Committees that I will not put him to any difficulty because I will not press my amendments when we get to the appropriate stage. Of course, I do welcome government Amendment No. 132A, which puts the matter clearly that somebody cannot be forced to take part in carrying out searches. The Minister referred to the main thrust of these government amendments, which is that when a search takes place, the second person there should be someone with a duty of care—a member of staff. Indeed, I agree entirely that that was the matter put forward by my honourable friend Humfrey Malins in another place. The then Minister, Hazel Blears, said, ““We’ll take it away and we’ll think about it””. I then raised it at Second Reading, and the problem I then had was the response by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. When she responded to matters put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on a different point on searches, she appeared to say that another adult will be present, but she did not say that it had to be another member of staff. She said:"““I am sure the noble Lord does not seek to make a distinction between a teaching assistant and a teacher or some other responsible adult””.—[Official Report, 29/3/06; col. 848.]" Well, of course, I did. That was exactly the point I sought to make and the point I had thought that Hazel Blears had taken on board. I now find, thank goodness, that that is exactly what Hazel Blears had intended. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was seeking to be helpful, when in fact she said something that she did not mean to say at Second Reading. The next day, I busily tabled a raft of amendments, to which the Deputy Chairman of Committees had to refer and then call out. That was on 29 March. I was very relieved last week to see that the Government had indeed tabled their own. With regard to the searches, that is fine. But I do have other queries, raised by my amendments. First, what if a member of staff is invited to take part in a search, and does so, and then they find a bladed weapon, for example, and the person being searched is not some compliant young person, who says, ““Oh, yes, Mr Smith. Don’t worry. Here you are. This is where I carry my knife. Here it is,”” and then hands it over by the handle? What if this person carries the knife because they are not exactly the nicest person on God’s Earth? What if, when they are searched, they then use it on the member of staff? Have the Government been in discussions with the unions that represent teachers about what happens then, from the point of view perhaps of compensation that might be needed for the injury caused to the teacher? I wonder whether the school must now carry out its own insurance in these matters—I simply do not know how it will work. I wonder what the Government have done to find out how it will work in the real world. I agree with the Government that it is right that these searches should be possible, that they should take place, but I do worry about what might happen to some teachers when they carry this out. However good the guidelines are, however carefully the searches are carried out, there could be some unfortunate results. I tabled some other amendments in the group, including Amendments Nos. 135, 140 and 145, which raise another aspect of the power to search students at attendance centres. I think it is important that searches should be carried out only where strictly necessary. Subsection (1) of the Government’s revisions appears to try to insure that that restriction applies. It means that a search should take place only where a member of staff has reasonable grounds for believing a student has a weapon on him or in his possessions. That is fine. I agree entirely with what the Government is trying to do there. I find subsection (10), however, rather confusing. It appears to widen staff’s power of search to enable them to search generally, rather than having a specific reason, a specific person, or a specific occasion. This would mean that they could just say, ““Right, we’ll have searches every Monday, at 10 am, for the next year””. I would not see that as a very helpful way forward. My amendment simply removes one part of subsection (10), which seems to me to be replicating the power given in the remainder of the subsection. What does, ““Generally in relation to searches,”” in the subsection mean? What will be lost if that were removed? Surely if the staff can search only if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that weapons are being carried, that power to search should be limited to a search of a particular person, or persons, on one occasion. If there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that students routinely carry weapons, on a particular occasion—let us say they are going away to an away football match—I would imagine that that power to search would be conferred by the phrase, ““A particular description of such searches””. Do the Government really intend that schools should be able to have a policy to routinely search everybody, or a particular class—a group of people—when they enter the institution? Amendments Nos. 136 and 141 address subsection (3), which provides that a search can only be carried out if the person making that search is either the head teacher of a school, or is a person who has been authorised by the head teacher to do so. My understanding of what the Minister said is that if the government amendments are agreed to—I do not need to worry that—and if the head teacher is absent, there would be nobody there to authorise a search. What happens if the head teacher is absent from the school, for professional or personal reasons, and an authorisation for a search that is taking place is needed? How is the authorisation of the search given? Does the definition of head teacher cover a deputy head holding a permanent appointment? Could it cover a person who is acting as a head teacher’s deputy, even though they do not have a permanent appointment, and how will that work? I realise that there may be an answer in the provisions of the Education Act 1996. If so, I would be grateful to be pointed towards it, as I could not find it. Finally, my Amendments Nos. 137, 142 and 146 relate to guidelines. Of course the Government said that there will be guidelines, but I had a simple, straightforward reason for tabling the amendments, although not the usual one used by the Opposition. I wanted ask about the training that the Government expect schools will put in place to ensure that searches are carried out appropriately.