Metropolitan Police:
Strip-search of Schoolgirl
Commons Urgent Question
The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House
of Commons on Monday 21 March.
“The City and Hackney Safeguarding Children Partnership report
into the strip-search of a 15-year-old schoolgirl while at school
by police officers in 2020 is both troubling and deeply
concerning. This experience will have been traumatic for the
child involved; the impact on her welfare should not be
underestimated.
The Government and the public rightly expect the highest
standards from our police officers. The ability of the police to
perform their core functions is dependent on their capacity to
secure and maintain public confidence and support for their
actions. While the Metropolitan police have apologised for their
actions and recognised that this incident should never have
happened, the force’s culture has again come under scrutiny.
Members of the public must be treated fairly and without
prejudice, no matter their race, age or background. Strip-search
is one of the most intrusive powers available to the police. The
law is very clear that the use of police powers to search must be
fair, respectful and without unlawful discrimination. Any use of
strip-search should be carried out in accordance with the law and
with full regard to the welfare and dignity of the individual
being searched, particularly if that individual is a child. If
police judge it operationally necessary to strip-search a child,
they must do so in the presence of the child’s appropriate
adult.
It is the role of the independent police watchdog, the
Independent Office for Police Conduct, to investigate serious
matters involving the police, and the IOPC says it has been
investigating the actions of the Metropolitan police in this
case. We must let the IOPC conclude its work. We will of course
expect any findings to be acted on swiftly, but it is vital that
we do not prejudge the IOPC’s investigations or prejudice due
process, so it would be wrong of me to make any further comment
on the case in question at this time.”
5.26pm
(Lab)
My Lords, we are all, frankly, utterly appalled by the sickening
details of the strip-search of Child Q, a 15-year-old black
schoolgirl, a child, at a Hackney secondary school in 2020—an
absolute disgrace.
How was it that existing guidance failed to prevent police
officers undertaking this shocking strip-search? The Government
have said there is to be a review of the incident and the
guidance, but when will this be finished? How many such
strip-searches have there been across the country? What is in
place to protect children now?
Jim Gamble’s review concluded that the search was unjustified and
that racism was likely to have been a factor. What is the ethnic
breakdown of strip-searches conducted in the Metropolitan Police
area and across the country? How on earth are we going to change
this culture of racism, and soon? Child Q said:
“I need to know that the people who have done this to me can’t do
it to anyone else ever again.”
Can the Minister assure Child Q, this Chamber and the country at
large, of that?
The Minister of State, Home Office () (Con)
First, I join the noble Lord, , in expressing my disgust at
what has happened to a child—and at school, no less. He is
absolutely right to ask the questions he has asked.
I understand that the review by the IOPC, which I assume he is
referring to, will be done at pace. His question on the
collection of data is also absolutely the right question to ask.
What are we doing now? I understand that from December this year,
we will be including more detailed custody data in the annual
police powers and procedure statistical bulletin. It will include
the number of persons, including children, detained in police
custody, broken down by age, gender, ethnicity and offence type.
It will include the number of children detained in custody
overnight, whether pre-charge or post-charge, broken down by age,
gender, ethnicity and offence type. In fact, the noble Lord will
recall that some time ago we banned the detention of children in
custody, so I hope that figure comes out as nought.
Crucially, on the question of whether an appropriate adult was
called out for a detained child, the review has yet to report but
on the face of it, that does not appear to have been the case
here. In the case of a detained adult who was declared
vulnerable, and regarding the question whether an appropriate was
adult called out, there is the time taken for an appropriate
adult to arrive and the number of strip-searches carried out,
broken down by age, gender, ethnicity and offence type. I am sure
that all noble Lords and the other place will be very interested
to hear those statistics, and I hope that is helpful at this
stage to the noble Lord.
(LD)
My Lords, the police strip search of a young black woman, legally
a child, in her own school in the absence of an appropriate adult
on the basis of her allegedly smelling of cannabis is clearly
disproportionate and unacceptable, even if a teacher called the
police. Have the officers been suspended, or at least removed
from duties involving contact with the public? Have the
Government found anyone in the Metropolitan Police who has said
that a strip-search in these circumstances must never happen
again? As a former Metropolitan Police officer, I am disgusted,
appalled and ashamed.
Noble Lords
Hear, hear!
(Con)
My Lords, on the latter question, the outcome of that will be
forthcoming in the review undertaken by the IOPC. In terms of
police and the interface with vulnerable people and children, it
is essential that front-line police recognise vulnerability in
children and young people regardless of the circumstances around
any interaction. We have funded various training programmes for
social workers, health professionals, police and safeguarding
leads in schools, and the Home Office-funded National Policing
Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme shares the very
best practice across forces. As I say, on the noble Lord’s latter
question, that is for the IOPC to conclude in its investigation,
which I understand has almost finished.
(Lab)
My Lords, I note that your Lordships are rightly concerned about
data and evidence gathering, which we need to do in any
problem-solving exercise. But as my noble friend Lady Lawrence of
Clarendon said just yesterday, what evidence do we need after all
these years—I would add, after recent years in particular—that we
have a problem with police culture? It is not just an issue of
data; it is an issue of culture, leadership and, I would say,
law. We have just passed sometimes controversial police
legislation, and the broader the power, the greater the
discretion. If there are, as there always are, because humans are
human—
Noble Lords
Question!
(Lab)
Thank you for that. If there are questions of discretion, there
will be questions of abuse of power. What were the teachers doing
when this happened? What instructions will be given to the new
appointee to the Metropolitan Police? What will we do about
future broad powers before we hand blank cheques to the
police?
(Con)
I will try to answer those questions rapidly because I know that
other noble Lords are keen to get in. Teachers have a very clear
duty of care to the children in their schools; that is writ large
in every safeguarding policy in every school. In terms of
culture, I know that Dame Angiolini and the noble Baroness, Lady
Casey, in both their pieces of work for the Home Office, are
involved in looking at the culture within the police. I do not
think that anyone is trying to whitewash, for want of a better
word, the fact that there are issues of culture within the
police. We have seen so many incidents—Sarah Everard, to name but
one. It is clear that over the last couple of years, BAME
representation in the police has been much more representative of
the population at large, and that can only be a good thing.
My Lords, there is an underlying question here that came up in
the Sarah Everard case: how do you say no to the police? What do
the Government plan to do to encourage and support schools and
public authorities in addressing that question?
(Con)
The right reverend Prelate may have heard me say, when we
discussed Sarah Everard’s murder, that I would not feel confident
in saying no to the police if I were requested to do something.
In a way, that is at the heart of this issue. It will all come
out in the IOPC review, but did the school have confidence in
saying, “Excuse me?” to the police or, “This is the way that we
do safeguarding at this school”? That will all come out in the
review. However, whatever the organisation, whether it is
schools, teachers or the health service, we need to have
confidence in challenging—not refusing but challenging—the police
if we think they have got it wrong.
(LD)
My Lords, childhood lasts a lifetime. The indignity that child Q
had to go through is going to scar her for life. My daughter is a
teacher and she too was appalled to learn about this blatant act
of abuse of human and legal rights in a school—a place where
children should be protected from physical and emotional harm.
After the death of George Floyd, and Black Lives Matter, we all
should know better. The police should know the importance of
following the stringent guidelines and procedure when dealing
with cases involving young people, especially those of colour, so
both teachers and the police have questions to answer. What is
being done to reinforce the safeguarding measures already in
place to ensure that this kind of abusive and traumatic incident
never, ever, happens again?
(Con)
The noble Baroness will have heard me talk about some of the
measures that are already in schools and public institutions to
safeguard children. Safeguarding children should be at the centre
of what we do as public servants. There are clear guidelines
around safeguarding and the type of thing we were talking about
this week in relation to child Q. Strip-searching is probably one
of the most intrusive things that one could ever do to a child.
