Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) I beg to move, That this House has
considered the rights of children while in police custody. It is a
pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. In March, I led an
Adjournment debate following the incredibly concerning case of a
constituent who was held in a cell for nine hours before an
appropriate adult was called. Unbeknown to his family, he had been
missing; he had not arrived at school, and they were unaware of
his...Request free trial
(Lewisham East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the rights of children while in
police custody.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. In March,
I led an Adjournment debate following the incredibly concerning
case of a constituent who was held in a cell for nine hours
before an appropriate adult was called. Unbeknown to his family,
he had been missing; he had not arrived at school, and they were
unaware of his whereabouts. From that case and many others of a
similar nature, it is clear that the law is simply not working
for children in police custody. There is room for further debates
on the general policing of minors and children, but today’s
debate is focused on the rights of children while in police
custody.
I am sure the Minister knows that various legislative protections
are in place to ensure that children are detained as a last
resort, and for the shortest possible time. The failing is that
this is clearly not happening, because the policies are being
ignored. Some 50,000 children are held and locked up in police
custody every year. Children are detained in cells in police
stations that have primarily been built for adults. On average,
children are detained for over 13 hours, with 21,369 detained
overnight in 2019. The decision to detain children is approved
99% of the time, and it is time the whole process was
reviewed.
According to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the role
of the appropriate adult is to safeguard the interests, rights,
entitlements and welfare of children and vulnerable people who
are suspected of a criminal offence by ensuring that they are
treated in a fair and just manner and can participate
effectively. The Act derived from public concern over the Maxwell
Confait murder case in my constituency in 1972, which led
Parliament to pass the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, known as
PACE. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Confait case,
which involved a tragic murder and the wrongful arrest, charging
and sentencing of minors, which was later overturned.
PACE tackled a number of areas of growing public concern,
including the treatment of suspects in police stations and cells,
the length of detention without being charged, the conduct of
interviewers and access to lawyers. In cases where the suspect is
a child or vulnerable person, PACE requires the presence of an
appropriate adults, also known as AA.
(Battersea) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend not only for securing the debate, but for
the really important speech she is giving. On the role of the
appropriate adult and how it has evolved over the 50-year period,
does she agree that there need to be more checks and balances on
how appropriate adult schemes are used in our police stations,
and that there needs to be greater monitoring and robust scrutiny
of those roles to ensure that any child in custody has an
appropriate adult within a reasonable timeframe? We do not mean
within three hours but within a couple of hours at most.
My hon. Friend has captured the essence of my speech. She is
entirely right that assurances need to be put in place to make
sure that children have an appropriate adult to help, guide and
support them throughout the whole process. I will cover this
issue in some detail later in my speech.
The principal intention of the appropriate adult safeguard was to
reduce the risk of a miscarriage of justice as a result of
evidence being obtained from vulnerable suspects, which by virtue
of their vulnerability led to unsafe and unjust convictions. Some
50 years later, children in custody are being failed because of
the length of time they are spending in detention without being
charged and because appropriate adults are not being contacted
quickly enough. Child suspects are almost invisible to
policymakers and politicians.
(Erith and Thamesmead)
(Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate on a
subject that really needs to be discussed. On children in police
custody, does she share my concerns about how the use of force is
applied? Footage has circulated recently of force being used on a
16-year-old child in my constituency, and there is recent footage
of force being used on a 14-year-old boy, in what turned out to
be a case of mistaken identity. Both incidents are being
investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service Directorate of
Professional Standards, but does my hon. Friend agree that there
needs to be an urgent review into how force is used, particularly
when it is applied to children? If it is used in a case of
mistaken identity, there are long-term mental effects,
particularly when it happens to children. If it is not
appropriate, something needs to be done to review it.
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important intervention. It
is very distressing to hear about the abuse of power by
professionals in a trusted position. It is even more distressing
to hear that certain incidents happen to young people and
children. They could be our relatives—our children, our nephews,
our nieces. It is upsetting, and we need to get to the bottom of
it. My hon. Friend mentioned the investigations that are rightly
taking place, but the Government need to do more to hold public
servants to account and ensure they are operating in the manner
in which they should.
In the recent Adjournment debate I led on harm to adults, the
Minister said:
“It is right and proper that children are acknowledged as a
protected group with specific needs.”—[Official Report, 14 March
2022; Vol. 710, c. 737.]
In response to a question I asked last week, the Minister for
Crime and Policing confirmed the Government’s commitment to
driving down the number of minors held in custody and the
duration for which they are held. Although the Government
recognise the significance of the role of the appropriate adult,
they need to do far more, and I hope I will get a more satisfying
response this afternoon.
There is consensus that work needs to be done with minors in
custody, but tragically I fear there is a danger that the Home
Office will continue to miss my point. The law is not functioning
as it should. We are not living up to the UN convention that we
ratified. The legislative status quo fails to adequately
safeguard children, and something needs to change. Children are
left waiting an average of six hours before the arrival of an
appropriate adult, and are sometimes held overnight. I remind
Members of my constituent, who spent nine hours waiting for an
appropriate adult.
Outrageous!
It is indeed outrageous. Despite the rules requiring the police
to secure the attendance of an appropriate adult as soon as
possible, I am told that in some cases appropriate adults are
asked to attend only when the police are ready to interview. That
severely hinders the appropriate adult’s ability to enact their
role of providing oversight and welfare throughout the whole
process of detainment. A Children’s Commissioner report found
that, in cases where the parent is unable to fulfil the
appropriate adult role, there was an average of a seven to
eight-hour delay before the police requested an appropriate adult
from a local scheme. Again, children are being failed. If a child
aged between 10 and 17 years old is left alone in a police cell
for extended periods of time, one can only imagine what they are
thinking and how they are feeling. If it were our own child or a
child from our constituency, we would be deeply concerned. The
Government should be deeply concerned about all children across
our nation.
I have spoken to a constituent who told me that, as a child, they
accepted a guilty plea even though they were innocent. They did
that because they wanted to avoid having to stay any longer in a
police cell. They will not be the first person to do that, and
the Government need to re-address that injustice—that
wrong—quickly.
A recent trial in the Metropolitan police has demonstrated that
such delays are not inevitable. A trial took place, using the
acronym CHILD, to focus on the importance of contacting the
appropriate adult at the point of booking in, whether that was
the parent or an individual in a local scheme. In that trial,
average detention times for children reduced by 10 hours—sorry,
not 10, although I would like it to be; they reduced by seven
hours, which demonstrates that safeguarding the interests, rights
and welfare of the child is achievable. I hope that the Minister
will join me in praising the Met’s initiative and work, and that
the Government will roll out that successful pilot to all Met
stations and all regions of our nation. Is there a plan to do
that?
Many elements are built into the youth justice system that
differentiate it from the broader criminal justice system. In the
youth court, the judge and the probation officers are youth
specialists—in my previous life, I was trained as a youth
probation officer, so I have some knowledge of that. All the
language is adjusted to remain appropriate to the age of the
child. Broadly speaking, the youth criminal justice system seeks
to avoid punitive measures and tries to put the child first. As
we have heard, that is not the case in police custody.
According to academics Dr Vicky Kemp and Dr Miranda Bevan,
specialists in this area, child suspects who are not convicted
and who are uncharged experience disproportionately harsh
treatment. The rules say that children are to be detained for the
“shortest appropriate period”, but children are often detained as
long as adults. Children are not adults, so why are they treated
like adults? Data shows that the average stay is increasing.
In 2019, following a freedom of information request, it was
uncovered that a 10-year-old child spent a staggering 23 hours in
a police cell. That beggars belief—it is actually hard to take
in, but it is true. In one particular police force, the average
detention period was 18 hours—not for one child, but on the 1,293
occasions on which a child was detained overnight in police
custody.
Long detention times deeply traumatise children and scar them for
life. They are deprived of liberty, trapped in incredibly
intimidating conditions and often deliberately kept in the dark.
After an overnight stay, one 12-year-old said:
“I didn’t know they could do that to you...it was awful and I
wasn’t sure I was going to be okay”.
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. Does she
agree that those moments in which that poor child, or any child,
is detained in custody will have a long-term and sustained impact
on their mental health and wellbeing, their confidence levels and
their ability—because they are children—to understand what has
actually happened to them? It is a form of abuse.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, in such instances, it is abuse.
It is harmful for children to be in such situations. The very
service that is there to protect them is also doing them
incredible harm. The Government have to take that on board and to
accept their responsibility and the role they need to play. The
welfare of the child is “paramount”—it says that in the Children
Act 1989. If the welfare of the child is paramount, their welfare
needs to be paramount on all occasions and in all situations. The
very services that are there to protect and support them need not
only to carry out justice—absolutely—but to consider the welfare
of the child.
I am sure we want more for our children—I am hearing that
already—but we must not keep them in a state of despair. That is
simply wrong. As I said, the Government can change that. Even
with children who end up being convicted, we cannot bury our
heads in the sand and carry on with a system that is devoid of
compassion.
Cutting the detention clock for a child in custody would mean
that the appropriate adult is likely to be called out quicker and
is more able to stay for the duration of the detention. It would
also lead to a decrease in the frequency of overnight stays. That
would be better for the public purse economically, but also for
the physical and mental wellbeing of the child.
For the police, it would improve relations with key communities
in the area, reduce reoffending rates and ensure that all their
collected evidence was reliable. It would prevent the collection
of evidence from being hampered by the lack of sleep or the worry
and stress stemming from 13 or so hours in solitary confinement.
To be clear, calling for a reduction in the child detention clock
would not hinder the police’s ability to fight crime. The police
currently have the power to request an extension from the
superintendent if the case is complex. That power would be
retained even if a lower detention cap was implemented.
During the previous Adjournment debate, the Minister failed to
respond to my call to cut the stay limit from 24 hours. Will she
hear me now and respond to that call? There is evidence calling
for a stay limited to 12 hours instead of 24.
I will mention two other things before I finish. First, there
must be far higher reporting and monitoring of the use of strip
searches in police custody. I commend my hon. Friend the Member
for Battersea () for her recent
parliamentary question. The current rate of strip searches is
woeful. They are degrading and humiliating and, as we have seen,
they completely traumatise children. Will the Minister commit to
increasing transparency and accountability on this issue and
exploring technological alternatives that are less intrusive,
less emotionally harmful and less damaging to the child?
Secondly, a decade of legal aid cuts has meant that firms cannot
afford to send down more than minimally trained representatives
to police stations, and then only for the shortest possible
period. Lawyers therefore often arrive just before the interview,
when the child is too exhausted to engage—if the child gets a
lawyer at all. Currently, children have to opt in for legal
advice, and too many children forgo their right to legal
representation; they are burnt out, emotionally exhausted and
probably do not fully understand, and they falsely believe it
will make the process go faster. The fallout from this kind of
misunderstanding can be avoided if we instead implement an
opt-out system.
There is also a danger that post-pandemic remote legal advice
will begin to spread. Research from Transform Justice shows that
remote legal advice increases the stress and anxiety of children
and impedes the communication between lawyer and child. To ensure
high-quality advice that serves the needs of the child, it is
vital that the Minister continues to champion in-person legal
advice, moves towards an opt-out system and bolsters legal
aid.
As I draw to a close, I ask the Government to maintain public
safety and to protect children throughout the youth criminal
justice system. I call on the Minister to review the detention
clock for children, to roll out the Met’s new approach to
appropriate adults across the Met and the police nationwide,
which will allow us to begin finally to have a child-first
approach to police custody suites, and to implement opt-out legal
representation system for children. I ask again whether the
Minister will commit to increasing transparency and
accountability for strip searches and exploring technological
alternatives that are less intrusive and harmful to minors. As a
country, we should see the welfare of the child as paramount in
all instances and across all services at all times.
(in the Chair)
The debate can last until 4 o’clock. I am obliged to call the
Front Benchers no later than 3.37 pm. The guideline limits are 10
minutes each for Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Minister.
will have three minutes at the
end to sum up the debate. I believe that three Back Benchers are
seeking to catch my eye, so there should be plenty of time for
everyone to get in.
2.49pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East () on raising the issue. I can
well recall when she secured the debate in the main Chamber,
which I attended to support her and ask questions. I had a
discussion with her before and after the debate. The issue is
very real for her, and although it may not be for us in Northern
Ireland, I understand the issues and her concerns. I wanted to
come along, as I do to many debates, to support those who bring
forward matters that are important for their constituents and for
us across the whole United Kingdom.
It is a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for
Halifax (), in her place, and the
Minister. I am convinced that the Minister will be keen to
respond to the questions that the hon. Member for Lewisham East
has asked and that others will ask. We in this House have a
responsibility to ensure that while children are in custody, they
are safeguarded and their welfare is promoted. I can well recall
the case—I could not believe that it took place—in which a young
person was arrested and detained with absolutely no action taken
to protect, safeguard or look after them. That is the issue for
me, as it is for the hon. Lady, and it is why I am here.
This is a huge issue. There are fluctuations in the number of
children being arrested, as well as an increase in the number of
children reoffending and being re-arrested. I understand that
there has to be law and order—there has to be a system—but
protection for young people needs to be paramount in the legal
system. That is why many of us were flabbergasted when we read
that that incident had taken place. While there is absolutely no
excuse for crime, we must ensure that the process is done in the
right way, to safeguard and yet discourage.
The hon. Lady has provided some useful and insightful material in
relation to child arrests, for which I thank her, and she has
made some incredibly important points. It was of particular
interest and concern to me that from the age of 10 children who
are arrested are expected to choose whether or not to have legal
advice. I would have thought it would be normal to give them
legal advice there and then. I cannot understand why they would
be asked, “Do you want legal advice or don’t you?” They do, and
the law of the land should protect them—it should reach out to
them and ensure that they know their rights.
I am not aware of any 10-year-old who understands the meaning of
the term legal advice. I am a grandfather, and my oldest
grandchildren are aged 12 and eight. Neither of them would be
aware of their rights, and I presume that they are an example of
the rest of society when it comes to knowing what is right and
what is wrong, so an appropriate adult must be present at that
stage. Children should have appropriate advice at all stages, and
they must have an appropriate adult present to give them the
advice they need. If the family are not available—sometimes that
happens, for whatever reason; someone may be working, or they may
not be accessible or available—it is important that the state
steps in to provide that assistance.
In addition, children are often detained in adult cells, with no
immediate support to help them understand what they have done.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East referred to that fact while
setting the scene, which she did extremely well. To help those
children to realise that wrongdoing has taken place, talking is
one of the first things that should happen, and young people must
know their rights. Sometimes, they may be shy; they may be
introverted and not know how to react; or they may be extremely
scared. I suspect that for many, it is the latter, so those are
things that we need to sort out.
As the Minister knows, I always give a Northern Ireland
perspective in these debates. It is just to add a flavour to the
debate, not necessarily to ask her to take any responsibility,
because she has no responsibility for Northern Ireland. A report
by the Northern Ireland Audit Office has revealed that it costs
£324,000 per year to keep a young person in custody in Northern
Ireland. We have one youth detention centre, Woodlands Juvenile
Justice Centre in Bangor, County Down, just north of my
constituency. Each year, an average of 100 youths between the
ages of 10 and 17 serve convictions there, and the figure for
those placed in custody is much higher. Although we must ensure
that children in police custody are dealt with through the
correct process, they are initially arrested for a reason. That
reason has to be proven, of course, and how it is done has to be
monitored, but it is an extremely big deal when a youth crime is
committed, and lessons have to be learned.
I spoke in a previous Westminster Hall debate on sentencing for
repeat offenders, where Department of Justice figures revealed
that the reoffending rate across the United Kingdom is 38.5%. It
is quite a large figure—reoffending seems to happen to more than
one third of those who are detained originally. Maybe the
Minister could give us some help and indicate what has been done
to reduce those reoffending rates, because the figures are quite
alarming and concern us all. There must be a firm reminder that
youth custody is not a respite but an essential part of the
judicial process for lessons to be learned. Although I agree that
children should have additional safeguarding, it is not a soft
measure that should be taken for granted.
Young girls should have access to female support—it should be
available each time—and not have to wait eight or even 10 hours,
as I think the hon. Member for Lewisham East said, for someone to
come. Oh my goodness, it is incredible that the wait time should
be so long. Let us honestly address the fact that for ladies and
girls, this is also about hygiene and personal issues, and they
are incredibly important to a vulnerable young person who needs
help. All young people should have access to a parent or
guardian, and not be subject to intimidation or violent
treatment.
However, it is so important that those young people still
understand that their choices have led them to a place that they
simply never want to be. That goes back to reoffending and the
question that I have asked the Minister. What has been done to
ensure that young people are treated in the right way, with
compassion, understanding and persuasion, so that they are not
unduly afraid of the system but they understand it better and,
hopefully, never have to reoffend again?
While I respect the fact that Northern Ireland falls under our
own Department of Justice, the concept of how we deal with youth
offenders should be the same. I want safeguarding for children,
as the hon. Member for Lewisham East does, but I also want the
correct education, so that crimes are not committed to begin
with. We must look deeper at the issues and why these things
happen. We also cannot ignore society and where they live. Is it
a poor community? Is there poverty in the family? Is there
parental control? Are gangs taking advantage of young people?
Those are all things in the bigger picture that must be
addressed.
I look to the Justice Minister back home, in many cases, but I
also ask the Minister here what commitments have been made to
ensure that young people have rights and are safe in custody,
whether here or back home. Has the Minister had any discussions
with the Justice Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly? It is
always good to exchange ideas and see what is working. We should
be looking at what is working around the United Kingdom, and at
what is perhaps working better in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in
Scotland or Wales.
I agree that children should be detained only for serious
offences. I get quite concerned that people may see the police as
the enemy because of the nature of where they live or the arrest
system. However, as I have highlighted, that does not mean by any
means that petty crime should be ignored. A lack of deterrent
and/or punishment will lead to serious reoffending. This always
seems to come back to the reoffending issue, as I have done on
three occasions.
To conclude, Mr Hollobone, I commend the hon. Member for Lewisham
East for bringing this issue forward, and I commend others who
will speak. I agree with many of the points that have been made,
but there must be a reminder that it is never okay to commit
crime, and we must not allow custody for children to be a
respite. They must be represented well, they must never be let
down, they must always know their rights and they must be held to
account under the correct procedures of the law with a
compassionately firm hand, persuasion and understanding. We must
show young people that there are alternatives to the route they
are on that will take them away from a wrongful path.
To me, it is all about putting people on the right path, with the
right focus and the right direction—I think that today’s debate
does that in many ways—and protecting young people. That is
ultimately what the hon. Member for Lewisham East said in her
debate in the Chamber. I fully support her on that, and on the
goals and achievements she is aiming for. I very much look
forward to the Minister’s responses. I am quite hopeful we will
get the responses that we look for, and I hope that the hon.
Member for Lewisham East will be satisfied with them.
2.59pm
(Battersea) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham
East () on securing this important and
timely debate. I thank the many organisations that have worked
really hard to raise awareness of the issue, including the Howard
League for Penal Reform, Just for Kids Law and many experts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East highlighted that she
had an Adjournment debate on the subject recently, and I went
back to it for reference. I thank her for sharing her
constituents’ experiences, and I thank her constituents for their
bravery in sharing those horrific experiences. I recently had a
similar case in my own constituency, where a young child in their
school uniform was kept in police custody for just under 24
hours—it was 23 hours and some odd minutes. That child was found
to have suffered some serious failings in relation to their
safeguarding while in custody. Worse still, the child was not
charged with anything; they went through that horrific experience
and there was no charge.
I recognise that custody is a core element of our policing. It is
crucial to ensuring justice and to keeping the public safe.
However, it must be balanced with the safeguarding of children,
as the safety and welfare of children is paramount. Public bodies
have a responsibility to protect minors. The Children Act 2004
places a statutory duty on the police in relation to children.
Article 37 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the
child makes it clear that children should be detained only as a
last resort, and for the shortest appropriate period possible, as
we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East
and for Erith and Thamesmead ().
It was therefore deeply worrying to read the Just for Kids Law
report, which found through a freedom of information request that
21,369 children were detained overnight in police custody, either
pre or post charge, in 2019. That statistic should worry us all.
Those children have potentially been scarred for life. That
statistic is still a significant underestimate, because it only
includes the responses of 34 police forces, which tells us the
number could be higher. Black children are disproportionately
detained in police custody overnight, according to the responses
from 31 of those 34 police forces. As an MP representing a London
constituency, I am particularly concerned that more than 44% of
children detained overnight in police custody in 2019 were black
children.
It is not right that there is such a huge racial disparity, and
it points to the institutional and structural racism in the
policing of our black children. The Government can no longer deny
or dismiss that, because the data and the evidence are quite
clear. For a child, spending a night in police custody is an
extremely traumatic and frightening experience. Spending a long
time in such an environment has serious consequences for a
child’s mental health and wellbeing. My hon. Friend the Member
for Lewisham East has already spoken about that, and that is why
she is right when she says that reform is desperately needed.
It is quite clear that legislation written 50 years ago—be that
PACE or other pieces of legislation—is outdated. We need to look
at reforming the current system. That is why I agree with the
recommendations in the Just for Kids Law report. We need a
reduced time limit on how long children can be detained in police
custody, because the current 24-hour limit is the same for adults
and children. That cannot be right, because we know that children
and adults are not the same, so it must be reduced to 12 hours or
less.
The issue about appropriate adults is key, because we have
already heard that children have to wait for hours in police
custody without an appropriate adult. That system has to be
overhauled. If it is about safeguarding the child, I am not sure
what can be done if we cannot overhaul that aspect of the
process.
I cannot stress enough the importance of data. Data and evidence
are crucial to this process, because they really help to
illustrate and paint a picture of the crisis in our policing of
children. We also need a review of the collation of data so that
we know what is being collated, and we need consistency across
the country over what is collated.
Publication of this data will be important, because it helps with
scrutiny and it helps to give robust oversight of what is
actually going on. That is why publication should be mandatory.
No police force in this country should decide on a voluntary
basis to record data. I am not sure how that can be acceptable.
Just for Kids Law was unable to access all the data in relation
to its freedom of information request; it only got data from 34
police forces, when 43 could have responded.
I recently asked an oral question at Home Office questions—I
think it was just over a week ago. I am calling for mandatory
recording and publication of the data on children who are
strip-searched. Everybody was horrified at the case of child Q,
but we know now that that was not an isolated incident and that
many children—including young girls, whether they are on their
menstruation cycle or not—are being strip-searched. These are
people’s children, and we all have a responsibility and a duty to
protect them. Will the Minister commit to looking into the
mandatory publication of data in relation to police interactions
with young people? As I have highlighted, at the moment the
police are required to record and publish such data only if an
arrest has been made. However, as was the case with child Q, who
was not arrested—
(in the Chair)
Order. I said right at the start of the debate that no reference
should be made to any cases where there are ongoing legal
proceedings. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady made a glancing
reference, which is fine, but she should not repeat the reference
to child Q any further in the debate.
I apologise for that, Mr Hollobone, and I will not refer to that
case in the rest of my speech.
Finally, I believe we need a review into the policing of black
children. They are being over-policed and treated with less care
and protection. That perception of maturity —a term that is used
is the adultification of our young black children—is another form
of racism.
I have seen many examples of that when I have seen young children
being detained by multiple officers, and the police say
afterwards, “Based on the evidence before us, nothing is wrong
here.” If that is the case, something is wrong with the way our
young children are being treated. I really hope that when the
Minister responds to the debate, she will refer to that. The
disparity in the treatment of black children across policing is
bound to lead to a breakdown in community relations, and a lack
of trust and confidence in the police force. All I try to do, as
an elected representative, is to help the police to build trust
and confidence in our communities.
I do not believe that the solution can simply be boosting
diversity in recruitment; although diversity is important, there
are other elements to consider. The solution is not just about
providing cultural changes, either. We need an urgent
root-and-branch review that investigates the policing of our
black children and sets out clear recommendations about how the
police can reduce disproportionality and build and restore
trust.
I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will
agree with me that we need a review, and if she does not agree,
that she will explain why, so that I can understand. No one can
be against a proposal that will help to reduce the racial
disparities facing our children. We all know that our children
are our future. It is on us to create that fair, better future
for them.
3.10pm
(Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I
thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East () for securing this important
debate.
I am mindful not to speak about cases currently going through the
courts. I intended to allude to child Q, unaware that the case is
in court. I will modify my speech accordingly. None the less, it
is damning in the 21st century to be talking about children being
strip-searched by police officers while at school and in their
own environment. It is also damning to have seen the public
report, which I hope I can speak about. Perhaps I cannot, as I
have just received an eye from the Chair. That report is public
and gives a damning account of what—
(in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Lady resume her seat? I am acting to try to
protect the hon. Lady. She was honest to say that her speech was
to be about a particular case, and now she is going to do her
best to talk about the same issues without referring to the
particular child, but we all know who she is talking about. She
will have to be very careful and speak only in general terms. I
am saying that to protect her and Parliament.
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Hollobone.
We know there are cases where children are not given an
appropriate adult when brought into custody, are not presented
with their rights, or are asked whether they want representation.
Such practices must end. We must come to a better understanding
of how we treat children, not only when protecting them from
crime, but when they are brought into custody and falsely
accused, or otherwise.
I have dealt with cases in my constituency where children
innocently engage in social media and are then caught in a spiral
in system where they are brought in for questioning; they are
frightened by the type of questioning and the way it is posed.
They are immediately so fearful of that questioning and the
adults in the room that they are ready to sign anything in order
to get out of there as quickly as possible. Children should have
an appropriate adult; they should be told their rights in a
manner that gives them an informed choice about having proper
representation. If necessary, a pause should be given, so that
they can make that informed choice. It is important that they
have an adult in the room and have proper legal representation
because what they say and admit to in that room can rest with
them forever and a day and affect every aspect of their life
going forward. It is important that children get the right
representation from the outset, because many of them are in the
midst of important, serious exams that will affect the rest of
their lives. They need to be in the right mindset to do those
exams.
In one of the schools in my constituency, children had been
accused of a form of bullying, which turned out to be a conflict
between ethnicities and races. The children and parents were not
given the proper support and advice, and the children were told
to stay away from the school environment until the investigation
was complete, without being given any support to study at home or
do anything that enabled to them to have a better understanding
of the education that they need to continue with.
I am continuing to be mindful not to talk about child Q, Mr
Hollobone, but I will say that it is important that children are
allowed to feel safe in their school environments, neighbourhoods
and communities, and that they know that the first action by the
police will not be to bring them into an invasive situation
wherein they have less power, but that the police will treat
children as children, with the right and proper support around
them. I hope that all the recommendations that come out of many
of the serious and important reports on the way that children are
treated in custody are implemented, and that somebody is
appointed at a senior level to ensure that this is the case. Too
often, recommendations remain unadopted and sit at the bottom of
the shelf, but they need to be implemented to protect the future.
It is even more vital that racist and misogynistic attitudes are
left out of the custody suite and interactions with children. Far
too often, black and other globalised children are left reeling
from racism and, if they are young women, misogyny.
Institutional racism and misogyny in the police force needs to be
seriously addressed, especially when it involves children. At the
end of the day, we are talking about police services that have
already been deemed to have used sexist, derogatory and
unacceptable language when it comes to dealing with people in
their custody. We know of adults being wrongly strip-searched. We
also know that two serving Metropolitan police officers were
jailed for sharing photographs of the bodies of Bibaa Henry and
Nicola Smallman, two young black sisters from north London who
went missing in June 2020. The officers shared the photos with 41
members of a police WhatsApp group. The police were also accused
of showing a lack of interest in the fact that the two sisters
were missing, which delayed their search.
The Metropolitan Police Service was recently forced to deny that
it is plagued by a culture of misogyny, after an official report
revealed shocking details of officers sharing messages about
hitting and raping women, as well as about the deaths of black
babies and the holocaust. The Independent Office for Police
Conduct said in its report on behaviour at Charing Cross police
station that there was a culture of “toxic masculinity” and that
the behaviour was not confined to rogue individuals, but was part
of an offensive Metropolitan police culture. The report
states:
“We believe these incidents are not isolated or simply the
behaviour of a few ‘bad apples’.”
Of course, that inquiry came after the brutal police crackdown of
a vigil in the memory of Sarah Everard. I do not believe that
that case is—
(in the Chair)
Order. The debate is about the rights of children while in police
custody. I understand that the hon. Lady has made the remarks
that she has for reasons of context, but the debate is
specifically about the rights of children in police custody, so I
would appreciate it if she came back to that subject.
Thank you for that guidance, Mr Hollobone. Indeed, I was
highlighting a policing culture that no adult, let alone a child,
should be subjected to. We simply cannot expose children to that
type of policing culture. It is therefore vital that measures to
avoid holding children in police custody, or to reduce the time
that they spend in it, are strengthened and enforced.
The Youth Justice Legal Centre found that children are not
interviewed under caution outside a custody suite as often as
they could be. Too often, children who are refused bail are not
transferred to local authority accommodation, as is legally
required; instead, they are kept in police cells. That must end.
I also support the calls from the Just for Kids Law charity for
an end to the overnight detention of children by police. Children
are currently subject to the same time limit as adults. We cannot
allow that to continue and it must change.
We must redouble our efforts to end the scourge of racism and
misogyny that plagues our police forces and all aspects of
society, and in doing so, we must ensure that our children are
not exposed to unnecessary harm in police custody.
3.22pm
(Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I
pay tribute, as others have done, to my hon. Friend the Member
for Lewisham East (), who shared individual cases
and statistics revealing that children and young people spend
lengthy periods in custody. I thank her for securing the debate,
for being a true champion and campaigner on this issue, and for
the all the different ways she has used the parliamentary tools
at her disposal to keep the spotlight on securing best
practice.
Children and young people are a protected group with specific
age-related vulnerabilities. Their treatment in detention is
governed not only by domestic law, but by the UN convention on
the rights of the child, which the UK has signed and ratified.
Legislative requirements and best practice are outlined in
various documents, including, most significantly, the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984—commonly referred to as PACE—and its
codes of practice, guidance from the College of Policing, and the
Home Office’s concordat on children in custody.
It is absolutely right that officers must take into account the
age of a child or young person when deciding whether statutory
grounds for arrest apply. Police should pay particular regard to
the timing of any necessary arrests of children and young people,
ensure that they are not detained any longer than necessary, and
avoid holding them overnight in police cells unless it is
absolutely necessary.
The College of Policing is right to stress in its guidance
that
“Everyone who works with children has a responsibility for
keeping them safe.”
That means that they have a role to play in identifying concerns
about a child’s safety and wellbeing, sharing information and
taking prompt action when it is needed to protect a child. A
child who has been detained and is in police custody presents an
opportunity to understand why, to disrupt their behaviour if it
is criminal, and to safeguard them and the public from further
harms.
West Yorkshire police’s violence reduction unit has undertaken
several pieces of significant research to better understand the
relationship between young people and violent crime. Nationally
and in West Yorkshire, the number of proven offences committed by
10 to 17-year-olds has fallen dramatically, particularly over the
past five years. The number of young first-time entrants into the
criminal justice system has also plummeted. However, worryingly,
in 2019-20, more than half of the offences committed by 10-17
year olds were violence against the person, compared with 39.7%
in 2013-14.
We know that children and young people are capable of committing
serious crimes and we cannot shy away from that, given the impact
on victims, who are often children themselves. One comprehensive
piece of research undertaken by Crest with the West Yorkshire and
Harrogate Health and Care Partnership and the violence reduction
unit found five key health inequalities that are influential in
the lives of young people in West Yorkshire and their journey
either towards or away from violence and exploitation:
deprivation and socioeconomic disadvantage, trauma and unmet
mental health need, education engagement, poor quality or lacking
service provision and delivery, and contextual harm. More than
61,000 of 11 to 25-year-olds in West Yorkshire—13% of the
population—were at risk of serious violence as a result of income
deprivation and high levels of neighbourhood crime. One reality
drawn out of the research that I find particularly depressing is
how young people are being drawn into gangs and criminality by
family members who are already involved. The report found that
young people are often recruited by their own family. The reasons
young people get involved in crime and find themselves in police
custody serve as a reminder that some children’s lives could not
be more different from our own and that harm and risk is all
around them.
How can we ensure that encounters with the police and any time
spent in custody have a positive impact on these children’s
trajectory and do not compound the negative experiences
surrounding them? The West Yorkshire violence reduction unit
research recommended the development of trauma-informed practice
across partnerships such as the complex childhood trauma steering
group, which should be used to evaluate and standardise the
trauma-informed offering across the region, and more and better
mental health support for young people, all of which could and
should be a feature of a child’s limited time in custody. The
aspiration has to be that the more we understand the risks and
recognise the value of targeted intervention upstream, the more
time in custody can be avoided entirely for children and young
people.
One of the key features of the opening speech from my hon. Friend
the Member for Lewisham East was about the provision of
appropriate adults. Research conducted by Dr Miranda Bevan of
Goldsmiths, University of London, and Dr Vicky Kemp from the
University of Nottingham, and shared by my hon. Friend found that
it is not unusual for appropriate adults to not arrive until six
or more hours have passed. Having got a better understanding of
some of the reasons for that from my local police just today, I
am sympathetic that trying to make contact initially with
parents, who may or may not be available and who, sadly, are
sometimes not willing to attend, then approaching the emergency
duty team within child social care, and then, if they can still
not get someone to attend, approaching the National Appropriate
Adult Network, starts to show where the practical barriers to
making swift progress are—and that is when attempts are made
straightaway, which, as we have already heard, is not always the
case.
From speaking to colleagues in West Yorkshire’s liaison and
diversion team earlier today, I know that problems are often
exacerbated when looked-after children are in custody. Lines of
parental responsibility prove harder to establish at a time when
some of the most marginalised children are required to make
serious decisions, without support, in conditions that are
designed to be uncomfortable. Indeed, the hon. Member for
Strangford (), who it is always a pleasure to see in Westminster
Hall, made the right and powerful point, which has been supported
by almost all the speakers made here today, about asking these
children to decide for themselves if they want or require legal
representation, when it should be the default.
In its research, the National Appropriate Adult Network points
out that children in custody are disadvantaged by more than just
cognitive development. They are much more likely than other
children to have poor mental health, to have a learning
disability, at up to 22% for that cohort compared with 4% in the
wider population, to have a communication disorder, at up to 90%
versus 7%, to be autistic, at 15% compared with 1%, and to have
suffered a head injury with loss of consciousness for more than
20 minutes, at 18% versus 5%. If we are looking for confirmation
of why appropriate adults are essential for children in those
circumstances, the statistics could not make the case any
clearer.
We know that there are routine delays in getting someone to
attend on behalf of a child. Are we not able to establish a model
of best practice that works for both the police and the child,
and moves things forward by having someone skilled on hand to
provide that service? I hope the Minister will share her thinking
on that when she responds, and address the pilot scheme that my
hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East outlined, which appears
to be delivering significant results. Once we have that in place,
it opens up conversations about how swiftly we can move a child
through police custody, and we can look again at 24 hours.
I am very much taking into account your comments, Mr Hollobone,
but the Minister will be aware that alarm has been raised about
strip searches in recent weeks. In response to a written question
tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and
Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the Minister for Crime and Policing
confirmed that the Ministry of Justice is supporting a project
with the National Police Chiefs’ Council with the aim of
addressing the difference in experience of ethnic minority
children and adults in police custody. My hon. Friend the Member
for Battersea () shared some
particularly powerful experiences of her constituents.
The Minister for Crime and Policing said that a wide range of
agencies and independent advisers have contributed to that work,
which engages a number of police forces across the country and
builds on existing initiatives in the workplace, including a
dedicated independent strip search scrutiny panel in Norfolk and
Suffolk police. He said:
“From December 2022 we will be including more detailed custody
data in the annual Police Powers and Procedures statistical
bulletin which will include data on whether an appropriate adult
was called out for a detained child and the number of strip
searches & Intimate searches carried out, broken down by age,
gender, ethnicity, and offence type.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea also spoke about the
importance of data. That piece of work is welcome, so will the
Minister confirm when it will be concluded and published? It
struck me that the response to that written question said that
the research will determine if an appropriate adult was called. I
very much expect to see that that requirement was upheld
entirely.
I have spent a great deal of time trying to improve the modern
slavery provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and
looking at when children come into custody. If there are concerns
that they are victims of child criminal exploitation, county
lines gangs or trafficking, the push to keep children out of
custody for all the right reasons cannot mean that we cut corners
and miss opportunities in our safeguarding obligations. Where the
police arrest children and seize drugs or cash due to unlawful
possession, they and other statutory agencies should fully
understand the potential dangers for those children of being
releasing without them, potentially back into the grasp of those
who have been criminally exploiting them. We must work through
that by involving all the relevant safeguarding agencies to truly
disrupt the criminal activity that has a grip of the young
person, and deliver that wraparound support as urgently as
possible.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East once again
for securing this debate, and I look forward to hearing the
Minister’s response to her powerful calls for best practice,
scrutiny and oversight, and for making sure that children in
custody are recognised and treated as children.
3.33pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to respond to the
hon. Member for Lewisham East (). I am especially grateful to
her for the way she continues to bring issues relating to the
rights and protection of children in police custody to the
attention of this House.
All Members have spoken about the vital element of trust and
confidence in policing, which I am absolutely sure we all share.
I want to put on the record my thanks to our police officers in
every force across the country. Although we all understand and
recognise some of the incidents of substandard and unsatisfactory
practice—alleged, because these are often ongoing cases—that have
been highlighted by Members, who are obviously doing a good job
in raising the interests of their constituents, as we would
expect, it is right to say that the vast majority of police
officers in our country do an extremely good job under very
difficult circumstances. Ultimately, the work they have to do in
those types of situations is very sensitive. They have to
navigate and make that judgment while balancing the rights of the
child and the rights of the victims of the alleged crime. We all
share in the collective endeavour to ensure that the criminal
justice system supports that.
We have moved on from March, when I set out the criteria for
police custody. Police custody is an important element of our
criminal justice system. Being able to question suspects in the
controlled environment of the custody suite is instrumental to
progressing criminal investigations and to bringing offenders to
justice, protecting victims and keeping everybody safe. Forgive
me, Mr Hollobone, as I forgot to thank the Members who
contributed and made excellent speeches, particularly the hon.
Members for Battersea () and for Leicester East
(). I will pick up their
points in the course of my speech.
Children should be detained in custody only when absolutely
necessary and when there is no other practical alternative. They
are rightly acknowledged—this Government agree and stand behind
this—as a protected group with specific needs and
vulnerabilities. For that reason, opportunities to divert them
away from police custody should always be considered first as a
priority.
I very much welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Halifax
(), who spoke about the
excellent work done by the violence reduction units in her area.
However, they are national schemes and I think House would be
interested to know a little bit more about that work. I will not
go into a huge amount of detail because time prevents me, but
this is a truly groundbreaking, long-term project, and a
Conservative Government initiative. My officials will correct me
if I am wrong, but I think we have committed £500 million over a
very long period to work out, as she said, which initiatives and
practices actually work to divert young people away from crime
and prevent them from getting involved in the first place. I
think we can all agree that it is an incredibly compassionate
approach.
We want to ensure that perpetrators are dealt with appropriately
and that sentencing is tougher and meets the needs of the public,
but we also want to look at the vulnerabilities of young people
and understand why they are drawn into crime in the first place.
That is why this detailed work is taking place across the
country—and, as the hon. Lady highlighted, in her own
area—working in a granular way with local agencies that know
their communities and those children best. I strongly encourage
any Member who is interested in youth justice, prevention of
crime and a social justice approach to visit their violence
reduction unit if they have one in their area, to learn more
about that.
Turning back to the issue at hand, custody procedures and police
decision making in custody are, quite rightly, subject to
scrutiny and oversight. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of
constabulary and fire and rescue services regularly inspects
police custody suites, monitors the treatment and welfare of
detainees in custody, and makes recommendations for police forces
and partners. We expect forces to take those recommendations
seriously and to take action to address issues in response.
In 2017, as Members have referenced, the Government changed the
law so that children aged 17 were entitled to the specific
safeguards intended for children under the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984. These include a legal requirement for an
appropriate adult to be present for interviews and strip searches
to ensure their rights are protected. Officers must consider a
child’s age and welfare when deciding whether to arrest them.
Members raised a number of specific comments, concerns and
complaints. Many of them fall under the category of cases that
are currently going through legal proceedings, but it is fair to
say that this Government and the public rightly expect the
highest standards from our police officers. The ability of police
to perform their core functions of tackling crime and keeping the
public safe is dependent on their capacity to maintain the
confidence of the public. That is why we take the reports of
these incidents extremely seriously. We have the safeguarding
structures and the scrutiny in place.
Several recent incidents have been referred to the IOPC, which is
investigating or determining whether an independent investigation
is required. That work is ongoing and I cannot say more at this
point. It is an independent body and must be allowed to carry out
its work free of political influence. The Government’s role,
however, is to consider any recommendations for legislation or
policy change carefully. I think I can say, without prejudicing
anything, that, in the case of child Q, the IOPC has served four
officers of the Metropolitan police with notices of gross
misconduct. That means that they are being investigated for
alleged misconduct that is such a serious breach of professional
standards that it could warrant dismissal if proven.
I welcome the comments of Mayor of London . He released a statement
following the publication of the child Q safeguarding report
outlining his concerns about cultural issues within the Met
police to which some Members have referred. It is the Mayor’s
responsibility in his function as police and crime commissioner
for London, supported by the deputy Mayor for policing and crime,
to hold the Met police to account for delivering the necessary
improvements.
I note that the Met has put a robust plan in place, in the light
of the incidents, which includes adultification training for all
officers in the central east command unit, which covers Hackney
and Tower Hamlets, reviewing the policy on further searches of
children to ensure that it recognises that the child in such
circumstances might be a vulnerable victim of exploitation—a
point made well by the hon. Member for Halifax—and introducing
new measures, so that an inspector must now give authority before
a search takes place to ensure appropriate oversight.
Furthermore, a Merlin report has to be submitted to ensure that
safeguarding of the child is a priority.
Often in these debates, the problems and concerns are outlined
and the challenge to the Government is to do more. We all
understand the delicate balance in this country between the
operational independence of the police and the important role
played by police and crime commissioners, elected by their
communities, with their various important powers. We do not shy
away from acting where we need to, but we will also shine a light
on all those other important individuals who have a
responsibility to deliver on some of these serious failings.
The Minister rightly points out the independent role that the
IOPC has to play, but the key point here is about children in
custody, safeguarding and prevention. Frankly, we should all be
striving for cases not needing to go there, because the incidents
should not be happening in the first place. She talked about what
the Met is doing, but this is a national issue. Does she agree
that there needs to be a review of how the policing of black
children is taking place?
I will come on to the point that the hon. Lady made about black
children, but I hope she heard my earlier comments about the
importance that the Government place on prevention. That is the
reason for the hundreds of millions of pounds we are spending
over the long term on violence reduction units, to look at what
actually works in this space to prevent young children from being
drawn into knife crime, gang culture and a life of crime.
[Interruption.] Sorry, did someone wish to intervene?
Obviously, the Minister was referring to the policing of black
children, not the criminalisation of black children.
I will move on in my speech and address those points.
Turning to the issue of children being detained in police cells,
whether they are black or any other ethnicity, looking at the
system as a whole, I am pleased to say that Her Majesty’s
inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services reports
that its custody inspections show a decrease in the number of
children held in custody in recent years. I think we can all
agree that that is positive, although we must continue to keep
that under review.
We take our responsibilities towards children in detention
seriously. Those aged under 18 should not be treated in the same
way as adults in the criminal justice system. They should not be
placed in a cell or be allowed to associate with an adult
detainee in any circumstances. We are clear that all new custody
suites must be designed with the capability to allow separation
of adult males, adult females and children.
Members have made reference to data in their speeches. I can tell
the House that the Home Office will publish data on strip
searches in custody for the first time this year as part of a
wider custody collection, which will greatly increase
transparency and accountability. We anticipate that this
collection will ultimately become mandatory.
Will the Minister give way on that point?
I will just finish my point, as I may well be answering the
question. We are exploring with forces the feasibility of
collecting more detailed data on thorough searches following stop
and search to complement this. A number of datasets are part of
this work. One such set could well be the time taken for
appropriate adults to be present, as the hon. Member for
Battersea referred to in her speech.
On the point about data collection and strip searches, as it
stands, a strip search will take place where there has been an
arrest, and that data is recorded. A strip search could also take
place where there has not been an arrest, and that data is
currently not mandatorily recorded. Could the Minister confirm
that that is now going to be the case?
I will write to the hon. Member on that point. As I am sure she
knows, the Minister who would normally be responding to this
debate is the Minister for Crime and Policing, my right hon.
Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (). He has the knowledge and policy expertise on all
these matters, and I am sure he would be able to answer the hon.
Lady were he not in the main Chamber. We will absolutely write to
the hon. Lady to update her on those points.
The hon. Member for Battersea referred to levels of trust in
police among ethnic minorities and young people in particular.
She is right that recent incidents have raised some serious
issues within the police, and it is right that the Government ask
difficult questions to drive positive change. Our police are more
diverse than ever before. Forces have worked hard to improve
community engagement, and we have seen major improvements in the
way the police deal with racist crime. However, we still know
that there is much more to do. That is why attracting more
officers from a wide range of ethnic and socioeconomic
backgrounds is a core ambition of our drive to recruit an extra
20,000 officers.
As we set out in the “Inclusive Britain” report, the Government
and policing partners will create a new national framework for
how the use of police powers such as stop and search is
scrutinised at a local level. We will also explore sharing
body-worn video footage with scrutiny panels and removing
unnecessary barriers to its use to increase community oversight.
I welcome the Ministry of Justice’s support for a project with
the National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop scrutiny panels on
the use of strip search with the aim of addressing the difference
in experience of ethnic minority children and adults in police
custody. I am sure the hon. Lady can agree with and welcome this
significant programme of work to tackle some of the concerns she
has raised.
I would like to respond to a few more specific points. Before I
do, I want to thank the hon. Member for Strangford () for his thoughtful contribution. He is right that we
have no direct oversight of police forces in his constituency,
but his suggestion that I meet with my counterpart in Northern
Ireland is an extremely good one. He has form in filling up my
diary, because the last time I responded to a debate he spoke in,
I was a transport Minister and I had a really productive
conversation with my counterpart in Northern Ireland, so I am
happy to do that again.
Members have referred to the issue of the detention clock, the
timing of it and the work done by Dr Miranda Bevan and Dr Vicky
Kemp. The Home Office is fully aligned and engaged with this
work. This is a complex issue, as I am sure Members will
understand. We meet frequently with police, solicitors and wider
stakeholders. Dr Kemp has addressed these meetings with updates
on the findings, and we are committed to considering the final
outcomes carefully. Of course, we will take Dr Kemp’s
recommendations very seriously.
I was asked about legal advice and whether it should be an opt-in
or opt-out pilot. We would all have the view that children should
be prioritised for in-person legal advice. I know that colleagues
in the MOJ are running a pilot scheme, which I understand is
being trialled by the Metropolitan police. That is very important
because of the significant representation of arrested ethnic
minority children. That pilot is ongoing, and it will be
important to look at how it progresses, take lessons from that
and see what the implications are for national policing.
I think I have addressed all the key points raised by Members, Mr
Hollobone, but obviously they are always free to write to me
about any specific points of details. To finish, this is a really
important and sensitive area. I thank Members for the way in
which they have raised the concerns of their constituents and
communities. We take the issue very seriously and we recognise
that there is a lot of work to do in this space. I hope Members
are reassured that we understand and prioritise the issue. We are
funding the police to do their job. We look at policy areas where
things are failing, but we also recognise that the police have an
incredibly difficult to job to do. I again thank the hon. Member
for Lewisham East for her consistent advocacy for vulnerable
children.
3.51pm
I thank everybody who participated in this afternoon’s debate.
All hon. Members, including the Government and Opposition
spokespeople, spoke comprehensively. Many issues were touched on,
but the thread that ran through everybody’s contribution was the
need to safeguard the wellbeing of young people, children and
minors.
I was particularly struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the
Member for Battersea (). She spoke about a
young person who had been held in a custody cell for 23 hours and
then discharged without being charged with any offence. Young
people who are arrested by the police are sometimes not charged
at all because no evidence is found that they have committed a
crime.
I have worked closely with the police in previous jobs and have
had brilliant professional relationships with police officers. I
do not believe that anybody comes to work to do a bad job; I
think everybody goes to work to do a good job, including the
police, but people do not always have the tools or training they
need to do that or the policies in place to enable that. There is
room for change, which I will mention briefly in the time I have
left.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford () for his contribution and comments, which were very
meaningful. He mentioned the rights of children and that a
10-year-old child is still learning about what is right and what
is wrong. Those children may not have the ability to say whether
they need legal representation or not, but they absolutely need
it.
The hon. Member for Leicester East () spoke about young people
needing to be protected and about preventing overnight detention,
as well as being an advocate for safeguards to be in place for
strip searches.
I welcome the Minister’s comments about what is happening in
regard to strip searches. I would be interested to see the
information she offered to my hon. Friend the Member for
Battersea to clarify if it relates to all strip searches; it is
an issue we need to be open and transparent about. I was
interested to hear about the Government’s work to prevent the
adultification of young people, as well as about the new design
for custody suites.
The main point of the debate was about the detention of children
and about appropriate adults. As I mentioned, successful child
trials have been rolled out with the Met. I press the Minister
and the Government to look at that trial to see whether it could
be pushed forward across the Met and other police forces to
ensure that children are not detained longer than necessary. I
also press them to consider minimising that stay from 24 hours to
12, to look at the whole legal aid system, in order to ensure
that all children can access legal aid, and to consider the
opt-out system.
Thank you very much for your time, Mr Hollobone.
(in the Chair)
Thank you for yours.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the rights of children while in
police custody.
|
