Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) I beg to move, That this
House has considered the effect of police stop and search powers on
BAME communities. It is a privilege to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr Owen. Stop-and-search is often referred to as the
litmus test of police-community relations, and it is one of the
first encounters that young people from ethnic minority
backgrounds...Request free trial
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of police stop and
search powers on BAME communities.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.
Stop-and-search is often referred to as the litmus test of
police-community relations, and it is one of the first
encounters that young people from ethnic minority backgrounds
have with the police. Those early interactions can shape how
young people view the police for the rest of their lives,
especially when they, their family or their friends are
searched repeatedly. Members from all parties will
undoubtedly have heard accounts from their constituents of
deeply negative experiences of stop- and-searches and other
types of police-initiated stops, such as detentions at ports
and airports under counter-terrorism legislation, and stops
under road and traffic legislation.
Unfortunately, we have debated stop-and-search time and again
due to the way that it has been misused since the 1960s.
Recently, the Government initiated a series of reforms backed
by cross-party consensus, which I will refer to. However,
numerous inspections by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of
constabulary—in 2013, 2015 and 2016—found that many chief
officers are frustrating that process because they are
“failing to understand the impact of stop and search”
on people’s lives. I look forward to hearing from the
Minister how the Government seek to carry on reforming these
powers and prevent the backsliding that we have seen in the
last couple of years.
I stress that stop-and-search can be a useful tool to detect
crime, but only when it is used in a very targeted way.
Claims are often made about how useful stop-and-search is,
but they are not backed by scientific research and, in fact,
often contradict the evidence base. Stop-and-search is
neither the solution to crime problems nor a substitute for
intelligence from good relationships with communities.
Evidence shows that stop-and-search is a blunt tool for the
prevention and detection of crime, and has a profoundly
negative impact on police-community relations.
Home Office research in 2000 showed that stop-and-search had
only a marginal role in combating crime, because its use was
not linked to patterns of crime, and that searches for drugs
were fuelling unproductive searches of ethnic minorities,
particularly young black men. Ten years later, the Equality
and Human Rights Commission reached the same conclusion.
Threatening legal action against the five forces that it felt
had the worst ethnic disproportionality at the time, it
managed to reduce their volume of searches and that
disproportionality—importantly, without reversing the
long-term fall in crime. Last year, the College of Policing
published analysis on the effect of stop-and-search on
various crimes. It, too, found that stop-and-search had a
weak role in reducing only certain types of crime, while
having no measurable impact on most others.
Those studies show just how ineffective stop-and-search is as
a general tactic. Even within a similar family of forces,
stop-and-search use, outcomes and ethnic disproportionality
differ so drastically that, as some of the research
concludes, they are determined more by the culture set by
chief officers than by local crime trends.
On the ground, the ease with which police officers can use
their discretionary powers, together with their widely
divergent views about what constitutes reasonable suspicion,
mean that stop-and-search has become the go-to power for
social control, and one that is influenced by unconscious
biases or outright racial prejudices. For example, “smell of
cannabis” and “fits a suspect description” are routinely used
to justify searching people of colour. There are, of course,
other powers that do not even require reasonable suspicion.
Members will not be surprised to hear that those produce even
worse ethnic disproportionality.
Given the national debate about the apparent increase in
knife and violent crime, what are the Government doing to
resist the urge to increase stop-and-searches in the false
view that that will solve the problem? When the Prime
Minister was Home Secretary, she rightly called that
“a knee-jerk reaction on the back of a false link.”
In fact, the police’s own data show that most searches are
for drugs, rather than knives, guns or other weapons, and
that the proportion of searches for drugs is actually
increasing. For most forces, that figure is consistently more
than 50%, and in a number of cases it is even above 70%. Will
the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure
that stop-and-search is actually targeted at violent crime?
Ironically, that increase has occurred at a time when police
forces have signed up to the Best Use of Stop and Search
scheme, the main purpose of which is to increase trust and
confidence in policing by addressing the disproportionate
impact of stop-and-search on ethnic minorities and by giving
communities a stronger role in scrutinising those powers.
Although that has delivered a welcome 44% reduction in the
use of stop-and-search and has improved detection rates, if
we probe behind the headlines we find that little else has
changed.
After initially declining, disproportionality has shot to new
heights in the past two years. Estimates for last year show
that black people were searched at more than eight times the
rate of white people, and people from mixed, Asian and other
ethnic backgrounds were searched at around double the rate.
Under the “suspicionless” powers in section 60 of the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, black people were
searched at 14 times the rate of whites, mixed people were
searched at twice the rate, and people from Asian or other
backgrounds were searched at a slightly higher rate than
whites.
Clearly, the benefits of scaling back excess searches of
people who would not otherwise have been searched have not
filtered through to ethnic minority groups. As with the
Government reforms following the Brixton riots in the 1980s
and the Macpherson report on the mishandling of the murder of
Stephen Lawrence, we are at risk of giving up too soon and
allowing stop-and-search to regress to unacceptably high
levels of disproportionality and grief.
In her final months as Home Secretary, the Prime Minister
argued that
“there is still a long way to go.”
That is partly because numerous HMIC inspections have shown
that most chief officers are failing to show leadership in
addressing stop-and-search. At one point, the former Prime
Minister, , declared:
“The Conservatives have become the party of equality.”
So can the Minister explain why the current Prime Minister
has allowed disproportionality to increase and reform to
grind to a halt under her premiership?
Communities have been left wondering whether the Government
remain committed to reform of stop-and-search, particularly
because the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member
for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), did not give it the
attention it deserves, despite it having been so central to
her predecessor’s race equality agenda. The Prime Minister
has also failed to live up to her promises to introduce
monitoring of traffic stops and remove individual officers’
ability to use stop-and-search where they are found to be
routinely misusing it. Will the Minister affirm that the
Government are still committed to those proposals and say
when we are likely to see them?
The powerlessness of ethnic minority communities to
scrutinise and shape police policies and practice is a
crucial issue that remains unaddressed. The true test of a
democracy is the way it treats its vulnerable and minority
groups.
-
The hon. Lady will know that a hugely disproportionate
number of black young men are victims of knife crime.
Will she agree to survey victims’ families—those who are
most closely affected—to see whether they agree with her?
I strongly suggest that they want tougher sentences for
knife crime, they want tougher sentences for the
criminals who are convicted and they want more
stop-and-search.
-
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, and I will
address some of those issues. I am not sure that
conviction rates support what he suggests, but I will
look into that further.
Police and crime commissioners were elected to
democratise policing, but few have prioritised issues
facing ethnic minorities. The best stop-and-search
schemes give the public opportunities to accompany
officers out on patrol, but they place most of their
emphasis on scrutiny of stop-and-search records and data
at police consultation groups.
The University of Warwick recently conducted the most
comprehensive study of how members of the public in five
police force areas try to provide input into police
practice. It showed that police-public consultative
groups have become the main forum through which the
police make themselves accountable to the public,
although those groups lack representatives from ethnic
minorities and young people, who are most affected by
policing. It concluded that these groups have become
talking shops and are viewed as merely rubber-stamp
committees by frustrated members of the community who
want to make a difference. That is because there is no
obligation on police officers to amend their policies or
practice in the light of recommendations from the public.
Even more concerningly, some senior officers responsible
for organising these groups are either misleading the
public about their use of stop-and-search or withholding
even the most basic information, which would allow
communities to hold them adequately to account. If we are
serious about empowering communities, we need to ensure
that members of the public can make recommendations and
receive a written response from their chief officers on
what those officers will do with that feedback. Will the
Minister make that a statutory requirement?
The importance of getting stop-and-search right is made
clear by academic literature on procedural justice, which
suggests that the way people are treated by the police
has an impact on their trust and confidence in the police
and, by extension, on their perception of the state’s
legitimacy, which determines their willingness to
co-operate with the police and obey the law. It is
therefore no surprise that anti-police riots have been
fuelled by experiences of stop-and-search. All of that
makes it even more important that we get stop-and-search
right, no matter how long it takes.
One type of encounter that tends to be ignored and that
is shrouded in secrecy is stops under schedule 7 to the
Terrorism Act 2000, which are the most draconian of all
police stops. The schedule provides powers to detain the
travelling public for up to six hours, which could mean
they miss their flights, without the right to
compensation. They are separated from their family and
friends to be questioned, searched and potentially
strip-searched. They have their biometric data taken,
irrespective of the outcome of the stop, and have data
from their mobile phones and laptops downloaded without
their knowledge or consent. This has a deeply negative
psychological impact on British Muslims and on those
mistaken for Muslims, such as Sikhs and men with beards.
This power does not require there to be suspicion that
individuals are involved in terrorism, so British Muslims
are left wondering why they have been detained, other
than by virtue of their faith.
Young Muslims have had the bizarre experience of being
asked if they personally know where international
terrorists such as Osama bin Laden are hiding. These
law-abiding citizens are made to feel humiliated,
distressed and fearful, as well as alien to the country
they know and love. That has created a sense that British
Muslims have become the new suspect community. What will
the Government do to eliminate religious and racial
profiling at ports?
There is more data and research on police stops than ever
before. It shows a consensus that these powers are
ineffective in anything other than highly individual
scenarios and that they continue to impact negatively on
innocent people’s lives. Now is not the time to rest on
our laurels and assume that the job is done, simply
because the overall numbers are down. I look forward to
hearing from the Minister what the Government are doing
to empower communities to hold their police to account,
to deliver on promises of reform and to tackle the false
notion that knife crime is linked to stop-and-search.
I will finish on this:
“nobody wins when stop-and-search is misapplied. It is a
waste of police time. It is unfair, especially to young,
black men. It is bad for public confidence in the
police.”—[Official Report,
30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 833.]
Those are the words of our current Prime Minister when
she was the Home Secretary. This year marks 20 years
since the Macpherson inquiry started, and last month was
25 years since the stabbing of Stephen Lawrence. The
Macpherson report in 1999 noted on stop-and-search that
there remained
“a clear core conclusion of racist stereotyping”.
In 2009, the Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a
member, reported on progress since the Lawrence inquiry.
It noted that minority ethnic people remain
“over-policed and under-protected within our criminal
justice system.”
It may be easy, from a position of privilege, to view
this as a fad, but for many in our black and minority
ethnic communities, racial profiling and discriminatory
policing are real. They are corrosive, and they are
undermining trust in public institutions. If we have
learned anything from the Macpherson report, it is this:
institutional racism needs to be dismantled if we are to
build a society based on values of procedural justice and
public accountability.
-
It is always a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my constituency
neighbour, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz
Shah), on securing the debate. It may not surprise her
or you to hear that I disagree with virtually
everything she said. I will explain why.
This debate is about the effect of police
stop-and-search on black, Asian and minority ethnic
communities. I believe that the recent changes in the
culture on stop-and-search are very much hurting parts
of those communities, and it is not on. They are
suffering not from the overuse of stop-and-search, as
the hon. Lady would contend, but from the potential
underuse of it.
I appreciate that some people will look just at the
headline facts, take the consensus view and then want
to be seen to be doing something to solve the problem
they have identified. I wish, not just on this issue
but on many others, that we in Parliament would look
more closely at the evidence; we are not here to
represent the loudest voice of the day. Apart from that
being sensible in itself, if the problem identified is
the wrong problem, doing something to fix it could
actually be more harmful than helpful, despite people’s
very best intentions.
It cannot have escaped anyone’s attention that young
people are dying on our streets at a frightening rate,
particularly in London. If we look beyond the
statistics to the real lives being lost, they are
predominantly not white. I am no fan of dividing people
up by the colour of their skin—in fact, I often think
that the people who see everything in terms of race are
the real racists—so all such references in my speech
are simply to reflect that that is the way in which the
debate is framed.
Extreme violence is one of the real problems facing us,
and by and large it is non-white people who are the
victims in these murders. The 2016 statistics on race
and the criminal justice system show that, in the
three-year period from 2013 to 2016, the rate of
homicide was four times higher for black victims, at 32
victims per million people, compared with white victims
at eight per million and other victims at seven per
million. Therefore, when it comes to the most serious
offence of all—murder—it is clear that black people,
and in particular black males, are far more likely to
be victims. They are also more likely to be
murderers.
Following a parliamentary question I asked in 2016, I
was given the following information about the ethnicity
of murderers. While white people made up 87% of the
population, they were responsible for 67% of murders.
Black people made up 3% of the population but 14.5% of
murders. Asian people were 6% of the population but
were responsible for 12% of murders, and mixed race
people were 2% of the population but responsible for
5.5% of murders.
It is also a fact that black people are more likely to
use a knife or a sharp instrument to kill. According to
the 2016 statistics on race and the criminal justice
system, for victims from the black ethnic group sharp
instruments accounted for nearly two thirds of
homicides, but they accounted for only one third of
white homicides. Cressida Dick said last year that
young black men and boys were statistically more likely
to be the victims and perpetrators of knife crime,
having made up 21 of 24 teenagers murdered at that
point that year.
That is the background and those are the facts. I am
not sure anybody disputes them, because they are the
official facts. If no crimes were taking place, we
would not need stop-and-search, but in the real world
there is crime, and it is a serious problem. The use of
stop-and-search is just one way to fight against crime
and one tool to try to prevent it, but it is a very
important tool.
-
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my neighbouring MP, for his
input. How does he respond to the fact that for the
majority of stop-and-searches that take place, when
police officers make their recordings they are made for
the purposes of addressing drugs, not knife crime or
violent crime, despite what he reads?
-
I will come on to address those points in my remarks,
but the implication of what the hon. Lady says is that
drug offences are not serious offences and therefore
the police should be turning a blind eye to them. That
is not a premise I accept. Drugs are a blight on our
society and cause misery for a lot of families, and it
is absolutely right that the police try to crack down
on drug offences. I do not take the view that drug
offences are something that the police should not focus
on.
-
The association is more intimate than that, is it not?
Very often, these crimes are the result of gang
activity, and those gangs are involved in both the drug
trade and the violence that leads to knife and gun
crime and ultimately fatalities.
-
My right hon. Friend makes a good point; it is
difficult to disaggregate drugs from some of the
violence we see. The two often go hand in hand, and he
puts that point particularly well.
I do not have time today to go into as much detail as I
would like on this subject. I know that one of the
reasons for stop-and-search relates to drugs. The 2016
statistics on race in the criminal justice system show
that 34% of black offenders, and only 15% of white
offenders, were convicted of drug offences, making that
the largest offence group for black offenders. It seems
to me perfectly obvious that black people are therefore
more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than
white people, because more people are convicted of
those crimes. That seems to me to be partly obvious.
Drug offences were also the largest offence group for
the Asian ethnic group, accounting for 28% of its
offenders.
One of the other purposes of stop-and-search is to
check for weapons. According to the Ministry of
Justice’s figures, black suspects had the highest
proportion of stop-and-searches for offensive weapons,
at 20%. As far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant how
many people from each background are being stopped and
searched. What is relevant is how many of those who are
stopped and searched are guilty of those crimes.
If those from certain communities were being stopped
and searched and were consistently found to have done
nothing wrong, I would be the first to say, “This is
completely unacceptable.” In fact, that was one of the
reasons why I started to do my own research on this
subject, because I was constantly being told that
people from ethnic minorities were much more likely to
be stopped and searched but to have done nothing wrong,
and therefore they were simply being stopped and
searched because of the colour of their skin. If that
were the case, it would be unacceptable, but that is
absolutely not the case.
I asked a parliamentary question about this in 2016. I
was told that the following were the percentages of
searches that resulted in an arrest. For white people
who were stopped and searched, 13% were arrested as a
result. For black people it was 20%, for Asian people
14% and for mixed race people 17%. The evidence shows
that the community that is much more likely to be
stopped and searched and yet found to have done nothing
wrong is white people. Those are the facts. They might
be inconvenient facts for people who have a particular
agenda, but they are nevertheless the facts.
-
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I struggle
with it. For me, the common-sense approach to this
would be to say that if the police are searching more
black people, they will get higher conviction rates. If
they were searching the same number of white people,
would that not correlate with convictions? The truth is
that from the outset, black people have been stopped
and searched much more than their white counterparts,
so there will be a reduction in those figures, will
there not?
-
It is a proportion, not a number. It is a proportion of
the number of people who are stopped and searched who
were found to have done something wrong and were
arrested as a result. The numbers are irrelevant; I am
talking about the proportion. As I say, I am not a big
fan of dividing people into ethnic groups, but that is
the purpose of this debate. The fact of the matter is
that the ethnic group most likely to be stopped and
searched and found to have done nothing wrong is white
people. That is the fact.
-
For the avoidance of doubt, is the hon. Gentleman
saying that the disproportionate levels of
stop-and-search exercised on black people, Muslim
people and people from south Asia is because we are
more criminal?
-
I am giving out the facts, and the facts of the matter
are, as I went into earlier—I am sure the right hon.
Lady was listening—that for certain offences, black
people are more likely to be found guilty than white
people. That is a fact. I gave the figures for murder.
They are official figures. They are not my figures; I
have not made them up. It is not a contention I am
making. I am merely quoting the facts. I know the right
hon. Lady is not always known for wanting to deal in
facts, but they are the facts.
-
I heard what you said, and I ask you—
-
Order. I am saying nothing; it is the hon. Gentleman.
-
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I ask him, “Are
you saying that black, Muslim and Asian people, as a
whole, are more likely to be criminal?”
-
I have just answered that question, but I will answer
it again for the right hon. Lady’s benefit. The fact is
that for certain categories of offence—murder, drug
offences and so on—black people and people from ethnic
minorities are more likely to be guilty than white
people. That is a fact. I am not making a particular
contention. That is the evidence. That is the rate of
convictions. That is done by the courts. It might be
that she has no confidence in our courts system in this
country; that may be her contention. I, as it happens,
do. Those are the facts.
-
I am really struggling with this. What I am saying, and
what I have put before the House today, is the fact of
the disproportionality of young black men being stopped
and searched in the first instance. Had we not had that
disproportionality— if we had it equal—does he not
agree that those figures would then be more fairly
representative—
-
Order. I will just say to the Opposition Front Bencher
and the sponsor of the debate that they will get an
opportunity to respond to the debate.
-
Thank you, Mr Owen. I will try to resist more
interventions on that basis.
I do not accept the premise the hon. Lady starts from,
which is that police officers in this country are
inherently racist and are going out of their way to
deliberately stop people from ethnic minorities whom
they know there is no basis for stopping. I do not
accept the premise of that argument. I have a high
regard for police officers, not only in my local
community but right across the country. I believe they
do the job to the best of their ability. The evidence
shows that her premise is not right, because the people
most likely to be found guilty of something after being
stopped and searched are people from ethnic minorities,
which would indicate that police officers are not doing
as she and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and
Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) allege.
The Ministry of Justice’s most recent publication says
that
“the rate of prosecutions for the Black ethnic group
was four times higher than for the White group. The
Mixed group had the second highest rate, which was more
than twice as high as the White group.”
That mirrors the higher stop-and-search rate in that
same period, when black individuals had a
stop-and-search rate around four times higher than
white individuals in London, and about five and a half
times higher in the rest of England and Wales. In many
respects, the rates of stop-and-search based on
different people’s ethnicity only mirrored the exact
same difference in conviction rates for those ethnic
groups. The two were entirely in line. The most recent
figures show a bigger gap between the rates per 1,000
who are stopped and searched by ethnicity, and time
will tell whether those rates continue to mirror the
same pattern within the criminal justice system.
When it comes to youths, the difference is even
starker. According to the Ministry of Justice report:
“The number of juveniles prosecuted for indictable
offences in relation to population size varied by
ethnicity. Prosecution rates per 1000 people aged
10-17…were highest for Black juveniles (12 juveniles
per 1000 people), followed by Mixed (4 per 1000),
Chinese or Other (2 per 1000), White (2 per 1000) and
Asian (2 per 1000).”
In 2016, the black ethnic group represented 4% of the
general population aged 10 to 17 but 19% of all
juvenile prosecutions for indictable offences, whereas
the white ethnic group represented 82% of the general
population aged 10 to 17 but 67% of juvenile
prosecutions. In answer to the shadow Minister, the
figures suggest a clear pattern in youth offending, and
particularly in serious youth offending. Those are the
facts. They might be uncomfortable, but we cannot get
away from them just to suit our political narratives.
I do not even accept the premise set by the hon. Member
for Bradford West that people from ethnic minorities
feel that the criminal justice system and
stop-and-search are discriminatory against them. Again,
I do not see the evidence to suggest that. A group of
young BAME people were asked if they agree that, if
used fairly, stop-and-search is a good tactic to help
reduce crime. Some 71% either agreed or strongly
agreed, and only 9% disagreed. Why did only 9% disagree
that stop-and-search is a good thing? Could it be that
they believe and realise that the police predominantly
protect them through the use of stop-and-search?
Without stop-and-search, they are much more likely to
be the victims of these serious crimes.
Another survey, with the results published in
“Statistics on race and the criminal justice system”,
was done back in 2014. It found that the ethnic group
with the highest confidence in the criminal justice
system was Asian people, with 76% of them having
confidence in the criminal justice system. For mixed
race people it was 66% and for both white and black
people it was 65%—exactly the same. Again, I do not see
any evidence to suggest that people from ethnic
minorities have less confidence in the criminal justice
system. Those surveys certainly do not suggest that.
The hon. Member for Bradford West may well have seen
the article in The Sunday Times last weekend with
research from Cambridge University that found that
Muslims are no more likely than white Britons to be
stopped by police on suspicion of committing a crime. I
hope that she will read that report, because it is a
helpful piece of research.
Are police officers guilty of racism towards non-white
individuals in the street? That, in effect, is the
allegation that Opposition Members are making.
Actually, that does not even take into account the fact
that BAME officers themselves engage in
stop-and-search. According to the Home Office’s latest
police workforce figures, 6% of police officers are
non-white. In London, where stop-and-searches occur far
more than in any village in my constituency, 13% of
officers are BAME. As of 31 March 2017, there were
7,572 BAME police officers in total, and many of them
will themselves use stop-and-search on other people
from ethnic minorities. Are they being racist towards
people from ethnic minorities? They are part of the
statistics I have quoted.
-
To follow the hon. Gentleman’s line of thinking, this
is all about stopping crime. Bearing in mind that, in
2016-17, 62% of stop-and-searches were for drugs,
compared with 11% for offensive weapons, 9% for going
equipped and 1% for firearms, does the hon. Gentleman
agree that higher priority must be given to searches?
That would help to reduce the rise in killings in
London, for example. Stop-and-search is a way of
preventing crime, and it is very important.
-
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman, and I
am grateful to him for that support.
Why are more black people being stopped? If the
uncomfortable truth is that they commit more of the
crimes for which they are stopped, we need to accept
that and deal with it. If that is not the case, we need
the evidence to show what the issue is. The Prime
Minister said that institutions should explain or
change. I say that this evidence needs an explanation,
and it may well be that it should result in a change to
the recent policy on stop-and-search, and that
stop-and-search should be used more.
As a result of this politically correct chatter about
stop-and-search, the number of stop-and-searches has
reduced dramatically. One reason is that the police
fear stopping and searching people in case they are
branded racist. In fact, one police officer told me
that, in their training, they were told to avoid
stopping and searching somebody from an ethnic minority
because it could easily get them into trouble. What a
message to send out to our police officers, who try
their best to combat crime. Cressida Dick is reported
to have said of police officers last August:
“I think there are some who have become concerned that
they will be accused of racism, that they may get a
complaint and that if they do get a complaint, that may
inhibit their work in other ways, or they may not be
supported by their bosses. When I look at it, there’s a
very low number of complaints, and the vast majority of
those are resolved very, very quickly and in favour of
the officer.”
Of course there will be the odd bad egg in any
institution or organisation, and of course that should
never be tolerated. Modern technology in the form of
body-worn cameras can help to allow greater
transparency, and those who abuse their position can be
weeded out. I understand that 94% of Metropolitan
police officers now wear those cameras, so what is
anybody worried about?
All the evidence as to whether people are treated
fairly or unfairly is there. Let police officers get on
and do their job. They do a fantastic and important job
in keeping us safe. The last thing they need is
meddlesome politicians, who know barely anything about
what they are talking about, interfering in their
operational work. Their job is hard enough as it is
without people in this place making it even harder for
them. Let us trust them to get on and do their job.
They do their job with great skill and dedication, and
we should support them.
It is totally unacceptable to have a situation in which
officers leave criminals free to commit crimes simply
because they want to avoid racism complaints. We need
to ensure that everything is done to stop the needless
killings and other crimes on our streets. Above all, we
need to trust the police and let them get on with their
job. There are plenty of political correctness wallahs
in the police anyway nowadays, so there are plenty to
look after that agenda. We need to give the police the
best chance of fighting crime and protecting all our
people, black, white or whatever—their skin colour is
completely irrelevant. I am not sure that debates and
agendas like these help with that unless they are based
on evidence and facts.
At the beginning of May, the Evening Standard reported
on parents who have lost children to knife crime
leading a peace march and rally in London. The article
said:
“Hundreds of marchers are expected to take to the
streets in Hackney and Islington amid a growing outcry
over the number of fatal stabbings. There were also
calls for the Metropolitan Police to boost the number
of stop-and-searches in London to detect knife
carriers.
March organiser Janette Collins, who runs the youth
intervention project The Crib, said: ‘We are saying we
have had enough. There are no police on the streets, we
do not see them walking on the streets in Hackney and
Islington, they are in their cars. We need to bring
back stop-and-search. If people object to it, I ask do
they want to see kids running around with big knives?’”
That is the real view of people out in the streets, but
it is a view that this House seems completely out of
touch with. I think that most people in this country
expect us to support the police in the work that they
do. I certainly do. I hope other Members will do so
too.
-
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for
Bradford West (Naz Shah) on bringing this important
subject before us. It is an honour to follow the hon.
Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who made his case
with his usual Yorkshire bluntness. I will be a bit
less monochromatic; I am a sociologist, so I will
introduce some light and shade and context to the
debate. I will quote very few opinion surveys, because
as a sociologist, I am always suspicious of the
sampling techniques used to seemingly pluck figures out
of the air, such as the use of self-selecting samples.
I used to teach sampling methods.
It is important to remember the context. Disquiet at
the excessive use of stop-and-search long predates
expressions such as “institutional racism”, “hostile
environment” and other terms with which we are now
familiar. It has its origins in the sus laws, and in
the Vagrancy Act 1824, which allowed any person to be
arrested on suspicion of loitering and was scrapped in
the 1980s. These are not new debates.
We have a sense of déjà vu. In 1981, there were
headlines about rising violence on the streets. The
Specials’ “Ghost Town” was No. 1, and the streets of
Brixton and Toxteth burned. At the same time, a royal
wedding was being celebrated. I queued up to see the
fireworks for Prince Charles and Lady Diana, I
remember. A royal commission in 1981 found that there
was an excessive use of stop-and-search, and in the end
it was scrapped. That year’s riots were the result of
the heavy-handedness of the sus laws and of the use of
stop-and-search against ethnic minority communities. It
is often a knee-jerk reaction to step up
stop-and-search. Nobody doubts that it is an important
tool in the toolbox of police and law enforcement when
there is rising crime, but it can be a blunt
instrument, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford
West pointed out. We need to think about the
implications that it has for community relations, for
trust and confidence, and for transparency.
Of course, the events I mentioned were in 1981, before
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and before
interviews had to be recorded, and there are a lot of
scary examples of how it was used indiscriminately on
our streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford
West pointed out the alarming figures, and the fact
that some people are eight times more likely to be
searched, which is quite disturbing. My intervention
was going to be figure-free and has grown into a speech
as I have been sitting here. We still have Section 60
of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,
which authorises officers to stop and search people
without reasonable grounds but where there is a risk of
violence, or where it is believed weapons are being
carried. A Section 60 stop-and-search order is
something that should not be slapped on lightly.
What we are talking about is racial profiling, as a
sociologist would say. There has been some to-ing and
fro-ing on drugs policy in the debate. I have figures
from the most recent British crime survey—a robust
exercise, not simply an opinion survey—that say that
BAME people are much less likely to use drugs,
including cannabis, than white people, yet black people
are stopped and searched for drugs at a rate nine times
higher than their white counterparts, compared with
eight times higher for all other reasons for a search.
Asian and mixed-race people were also stopped and
searched for drugs at a rate three times higher than
their white counterparts, compared with two times
higher where there were other reasons for a search.
There are disparities there; we cannot get away from
that.
-
A key part of addressing racial bias in the police
force is making sure the force reflects the community
it serves. When I joined Greater Manchester police,
there were only a handful of such officers. Things have
improved since then, and there has been good work,
through unconscious bias training, positive action
co-ordinators and independent advisory groups, but
there is still an issue with minority ethnic officers
rising to the top ranks. Does my hon. Friend agree that
the Government and politicians should do what we can to
encourage forces to reflect their communities at all
ranks?
-
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has served
as a police officer and a lawyer, and is now a shadow
Minister—so he speaks with great authority. There is a
need for greater training, and for things to be seen in
a less monochromatic, dogmatic way, rather than as
political correctness gone mad, and to address the
issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West
has pointed out, the Prime Minister said when she was
Home Secretary that communities are alienated when
stop-and-search is used willy-nilly.
There are some reasons to be cheerful. According to
figures from the Mayor of London’s office, from 2011 to
2012, fewer than one in 12 instances of stop-and-search
culminated in arrest; but now one in six leads to
arrest, and of those, one in three produces a positive
outcome. No one disagrees with stop-and-search if it is
done properly—if it is targeted and intelligence-led.
There are many instances of that, and I can give some
anecdotal ones. As I have said, I am always suspicious
of opinion polls of any sort; at the general election,
they predicted my demise, and my majority went up 50
times. However, the polls cited by the Mayor of London
show that 74% of Londoners and 58% of young people
support stop-and-search. I do not know where the
figures came from.
The hon. Member for Shipley pointed out the use of
body-worn cameras, which could be a game changer; we
shall have to see how that plays out. In the past,
police interviews were not even tape-recorded. We live
in an age when everyone carries a smartphone and many
more things are recorded.
As I have said, my speech is really an overgrown
intervention. I wanted to share a personal experience
that all Opposition Members present may be able to
identify with—the fact that because of our pigmentation
we are treated differently. The in-built suspicion of
people and the idea that they can be stopped while
going about their lawful business pervades all levels
of society. I have been stopped more times in this
place since my election in 2015 than in 43 years
outside. It still occurs daily, presumably because my
face does not fit. I have the correct pass, and the
last time I gave the rejoinder that I had every right
to be here, a complaint was made against me through the
office of the Serjeant at Arms. We all face that kind
of thing. I am sure that it is not a completely alien
scenario even for my right hon. Friend the Member for
Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has
been here many years.
Last year I was on a cross-party delegation to the
state of Israel, and I was told that often the person
of colour on a delegation is the one who gets problems.
I thought, as an MP, it would not happen. I shall not
go into the details of being strip-searched at Ben
Gurion International airport, but it happened to me as
a Member of Parliament. Those things do happen, and
perhaps a cultural shift is needed in society, in the
light of such things as the hostile environment policy.
The assumption that anyone of the wrong pigmentation
may be up to no good, and the idea that all public
servants, NHS staff and landlords must suddenly turn
into Border Force and ask for passports at every turn,
is what we get under a hostile environment policy.
Noises are being made about restricting stop-and-search
and carrying it out in a more targeted way. I should be
interested to hear from the Minister about that.
Having said that I do not want to quote opinion polls,
I have some actual data from 2014-15—the most recent
figures I could find. They show that of a total of
82,183 citizens in London who were arrested and
subsequently released without charge, 45% were white
Londoners. It is not necessary to be a statistician to
work out that that is hitting black and ethnic minority
people disproportionately. If 45% were white, 55% were
not, for the benefit of anyone who is not quick at
maths.
As a sociologist, I also want to draw attention to
poverty and a critical error that is made in this
context. The new Metropolitan Police Commissioner,
Cressida Dick, has said—I have a counter-quote to the
one given by the hon. Member for Shipley—that we need
higher rates of stop-and-search. However, the idea that
higher rates of stop-and-search will lead automatically
to a reduction in violence is a false promise; they
cannot, on their own. It is poverty that we need to
address, because the violence is taking place in the
most acutely deprived communities.
There have been police cuts, and police numbers are
down 20,000. Cuts, including cuts in the Home Office,
have consequences; that is the reason for the massive
errors about the Windrush generation. If there are
fewer Home Office staff and everyone else is expected
to act as border police, anomalies occur. I am glad
that the new Home Secretary is addressing those
matters. I hope that the change will be to not just
wording, but the mentality and climate. This may be
politically unpalatable, but rising crime also has to
do with rising poverty in society. Anyway, this is an
overgrown intervention; it was not intended to be a
speech, so I will end there.
-
We will now hear from the Front Benchers. We have a bit
of extra time, so I ask that they use it wisely to give
the Minister a full opportunity to respond, and to
enable Ms Shah to wind up the debate at the end. If
hon. Members have come in late and wish to make
interventions, that is fine, but they are not to make
long interventions or speeches.
-
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Owen. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford
West (Naz Shah) for securing time for this important
and, as it turned out, lively debate. She highlighted
the risk of inappropriate stop-and-search undermining
confidence in the police. That is a real concern. The
key is that use of stop-and-search has to be
appropriate. We heard the counter-arguments made by the
hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who argued
that there was an underuse of stop-and-search, but as I
have said, the key for me is appropriate use of it.
The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq)
placed the debate in its historical context and gave a
very balanced view of the current situation. I am
obviously a Scottish Member; in Scotland, criminal
justice and policing are devolved, and the Scottish
National party is taking action to ensure that there
are no inappropriate stop-and-searches, but there is
still work to be done.
For every debate that I take part in, I like to
consider my own constituency cases, but having had a
quick look, I have to say that we have had none on this
issue, although in fairness, policing is devolved, and
if people had a complaint, they would be more likely to
go to my Scottish Parliament counterpart. I have also
checked with local organisations, and they have had no
recent cases. The only anecdote that I can give from my
own knowledge is a personal one. It is from my partner,
Nidhin. She was stopped and searched when she lived in
London, and it had a traumatic effect on her, giving
her anxiety and stress-related issues that continue to
this day. I am pleased to say that she is largely over
that now, but I have seen at first hand how
stop-and-search can be counterproductive if used
inappropriately.
Scotland has a much smaller BAME population. According
to the 2011 census, the size of the minority ethnic
population was just over 200,000, or 4% of the Scottish
population. That represents a doubling since 2001.
The Scottish Government introduced a new code for use
of stop-and-search powers. It came into effect a year
ago and, among other things, it requires the police to
monitor trends in who is being stopped by them. Since
11 May 2017, police are able to stop and search people
only with reasonable grounds. That has ended the
so-called consensual searches, whereby people were
searched with consent but without legal basis. The new
code is about finding the balance and maintaining the
trust between the police and the public.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice, , said:
“The ability of police to stop and search individuals
can be an intrusion into liberty and privacy, but
remains a valuable tool in combating crime.”
He went on to say that he had spent time with officers
on the streets and was convinced that such searches
would be carried out with “fairness, integrity and
respect”. It is vital that that is how stop-and-search
is handled.
Under the code, Police Scotland must carefully monitor
the use of stop-and-search in relation to specific
sections of the community, including different ethnic
groups. That will enable Police Scotland to identify
any concerning trends or seemingly disproportionate use
of the powers, and to take action if necessary. There
has been an improvement: an increase in the number of
minority ethnic entrants to the police workforce.
Police Scotland’s positive action team have implemented
the Introduction to Policing programme, known as ITPP,
which supports potential minority ethnic candidates
through a training and mentoring programme. The first
course had 54 participants and the second 58, with the
direct result that more than 10% of the recruits who
joined Police Scotland in September 2017 were from a
minority ethnic background. That stands us in good
stead, given that people from such a background make up
4% of the population.
When stop-and-search is used in a way that is perceived
to be unfair or ineffective, it has a lasting
detrimental impact on people’s trust in the
police—particularly when it is used against the
young—and their willingness to co-operate with them.
Consequently, the police’s ability to carry out
investigations and reduce crime is undermined, so it is
in everyone’s interests to get this right.
Stop-and-search can be a valuable tool in combating
crime, but it is important that we get the balance
right between protecting the public and the rights of
individuals and, critically, maintaining the trust
between the police and the public.
-
It is always a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend
the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on bringing
forward this very important debate. I also thank my
hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton
(Dr Huq) and for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for
their important interventions, to which I will return.
Nothing has poisoned relationships between the police
and the communities they serve more than
non-evidence-based stop-and-search. The hon. Member for
Shipley (Philip Davies) said there is a lot of support
among ethnic minorities for stop-and-search that is
used “fairly”, but he missed the important point about
that word. Everybody supports stop-and-search where it
is used fairly. The concern arises when there is no
evidence to justify the stop and the search—when it is
felt that there is disproportionality. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton said, one
thing that can allay these concerns is a police force
that looks more like the community it is supposed to be
serving. That is the point about fairness that the hon.
Member for Shipley does not seem to have engaged with.
Although I defer to the hon. Gentleman in all matters,
I know a little bit more than him about
stop-and-search, because one of the earliest campaigns
I was involved in as a young woman in the early 1980s
was the campaign against the sus laws. I was part of
that campaign together with —he is now in
the other place—but also a number of mothers. What
gives the lie to the notion that stop-and-search has no
harmful effects is that those mothers, who were working
with us to take forward the campaign and ultimately to
have the sus laws abolished, were concerned about the
effect on their sons—the unfairness and the possibility
that disproportionate stop-and-search was actually
criminalising their sons, with effects they feared.
The first thing to say about stop-and-search is that it
has to be seen to be used fairly and on the basis of
evidence. But the next thing to say about
stop-and-search is that it does not work in the way
some Members seem to think. That is the verdict of
research from the Home Office, from the College of
Policing and from the Greater London Authority when the
current Foreign Secretary was the Mayor of London. And
the Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, said:
“I strongly believe that stop and search should be used
proportionately, without prejudice, and with the
support of local communities”.
She also said that misuse of stop-and-search was an
“affront to justice”. Government Members do not seem to
consider the possibility that, certainly in the recent
past, it was misused, but the current Prime Minister
considered that possibility, and on that point, if on
that point only, I agree with her.
The whole history of stop-and-search is that it is not
used proportionately; it is used in a prejudicial way,
and local communities frequently feel that it is
unfairly imposed on them. The House needs to reflect
for a few moments on the 1981 Brixton riots. This was
one of the worst riots, up to that point, on the
British mainland, and it was triggered specifically by
Operation Swamp 81 in Brixton, where, in a matter of
days, 943 people were stopped and searched and 82 were
arrested.
Nobody—I have to repeat this—objects to targeted,
intelligence-led stop-and-search, but too frequently,
and certainly until the current Prime Minister
introduced her reforms as Home Secretary,
stop-and-search has been random, mass and
indiscriminate. Local communities too often feel that
the only reason they are targeted is the ethnic
composition of the community.
Stop-and-search is used vastly more disproportionately
on ethnic minorities. Formerly, if someone was Asian,
they were three times more likely to be the subject of
stop-and-search. If someone is black, that rises to six
times more likely. And the situation is getting worse.
This is no time for people to be complacent and assume
that communities welcome stop-and-search. The
disproportions had been narrowing up to 2015, but now
the disproportionality has risen once again. As of
2016-17, black people are eight times more likely to be
stopped and searched. The scandal of discrimination is
growing.
According to the Home Office, in 2016-17 there were
four stop-and-searches for every 1,000 white people,
compared with 29 stop-and-searches for every 1,000
black people. Ministers have to understand what it does
to a young man, often just going about his
business—going to his education or his job—to know he
has this wildly disproportionate vulnerability in terms
of being stopped and searched.
-
Is it the right hon. Lady’s contention that police
officers in this country are institutionally racist?
-
There are disproportionate levels of stop-and-search,
which poison the relationship between the police and
the community. As the hon. Gentleman will understand,
we cannot effectively contend with crime unless we have
the co-operation of communities.
-
The right hon. Lady gave a very interesting answer, but
it suffered from not answering the question I actually
asked. I will ask it again to see if we can get a
straighter answer: is it her contention that police
officers in this country are institutionally racist?
-
My contention—it was also the contention of the Prime
Minister when she was Home Secretary—is that
disproportionate levels of stop-and-search were
damaging to police-community relationships. If the hon.
Gentleman queries that, maybe he should ask the Prime
Minister why she thought that.
Some hon. Members and many pundits believe that
stop-and-search is the answer to a rise in serious
violence on our streets, including knife crime, gun
crime and acid attacks. However, there is no evidence,
only tabloid headlines, to support that assertion. In
academic circles, there is the phrase “policy-based
evidence-making”—that is, searching desperately for any
evidence, however flimsy, to support a preconceived
policy. Policies formed in that way frequently fail,
but their advocates draw no lessons from that failure.
They often demand more of the same—more failure.
The truth is that when the levels of stop-and-search
decreased, the arrest rate as a whole actually rose. In
Hackney, my own borough in London, they brought down
levels of stop-and-search, but their arrest rate rose.
According to Home Office data, 71% of all
stop-and-searches result in no further action. Only 17%
of stop-and-searches result in any arrest. Many of
those are not for the possession of weapons or any
serious crime at all, but for the possession of small
amounts of drugs for personal use. Stop-and-search on
its own will not end knife crime and gun crime.
The random, untargeted and discriminatory use of
stop-and-search is worse than useless. Imagine
belonging to one of the groups of people who are
routinely discriminated against. Imagine feeling that
you have been picked on by the police because of how
you look. Is that likely to make you, your friends and
your family more favourable to the police or more
distrustful of the police? The answer is self-evident.
Any large-scale increase in stop-and-search that is not
intelligence-led runs the risk of leading to even
greater resentment against the police.
In the debate in the Chamber on the serious violence
strategy yesterday, the Government’s introduction,
although well meaning, was a lacklustre and
ill-considered defence of their strategy. The strategy
itself is ill-considered, and violent crime is rising.
Young black and Asian men must not be the scapegoats
for this Government’s failings on policing and crime.
Increasing stop-and-search can and will win cheap
headlines, but it will not lead to lower levels of
serious violent crime. As all the evidence suggests, it
will lead to little increase in arrests for possession
of weapons, and it may well lead to far greater
resentment in the communities where it is imposed.
I can remember the children of the women who were my
friends in the ’80s and ’90s, and how upset those women
were by the treatment meted out to their children in
the name of stop-and-search. I had a friend whose son
was wheeling his bicycle back home, and the police
stopped him, believing he must have stolen the bicycle.
If that happens once, that is one thing, but if that
sort of targeting of people because they look different
happens over and over again, how can it improve
police-community relations?
In conclusion, stop-and-search is clearly a legitimate
weapon against crime when it is targeted and there is
some evidence base, but as the Prime Minister—a former
Home Secretary—said, ill-targeted stop-and-search is an
abuse, which cannot help relationships between the
police and the community. I agree with my hon. Friend
the Member for Bradford West that we have to ensure we
leave behind some of the obvious abuses, which are
reflected in the figures, of the disproportionate use
of stop-and-search, so that it becomes what it has
always had the possibility to be: a useful tool in the
fight against crime. It is certainly not the be-all and
end-all if we are talking about violent crime.
-
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Owen. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz
Shah) for bringing this debate before us and for her
contribution. Stop-and-search is a vital policing tool,
and I welcome the fact that everyone who has spoken in
this debate has recognised that it has a place in
policing. I believe, however, that if that power is
misused, it is counterproductive, has a negative impact
on police-community relations, and is a waste of police
time.
I patrolled some of the most hostile community areas in
my early life. I patrolled the Turf Lodge in west
Belfast, Northern Ireland and carried out
stop-and-search there. At the time, that community was
far more hostile than any on the mainland of the United
Kingdom. I was also an intelligence officer two years
later.
The nub of the issue is that stop-and-search is a tool
that is often tactical rather than strategic. As the
Minister responsible for security in the United
Kingdom, I have the strategic responsibility of trying
to keep people safe. That is what I am here to do. I
will empower our police, intelligence services and
communities to use whatever tools they can to do that.
Sometimes we have to balance tactical and strategic
needs.
I agree with Opposition Members that what really stops
crime is gathering good intelligence, when communities
speak to police and community representatives and tell
them, as they would say in Lancashire, who’s a
wrong’un. As a Lancashire MP stuck between two
Yorkshire MPs from either side of the House, I felt in
a somewhat difficult position in this debate. What
stops crime in the long term is when the community is
on the side of the police and gives them information.
That can be casual information or well sourced
information, and it could come from police working hand
in hand with community groups to deliver the knowledge
needed to use targeted searches. Sometimes that will
mean doing less stop-and-search, if it means that there
is a longer-term investment in communities to ensure a
better flow of intelligence.
We should be slightly cautious about that, because
every community is different. I joke about west
Yorkshire, but it is different from Lancashire. Our
communities behave differently and our ethnic
communities often behave differently among themselves,
so we have to be acutely aware of individual
sensitivities at a local policing level. In my view,
one of the most important decisions a chief constable
can make is the right appointment of the chief
superintendents in the divisions that they police,
because the at that rank of the police force people
hold in their hands the relations with the community.
If they get it right there is a massive decline in
crime, but there can sometimes be a rise just across
divisional borders when they get it wrong.
After being spat at, abused or petrol-bombed, or after
one of my soldiers had been murdered, it used to be
tempting for me to walk down the street in west Belfast
and abuse back. That would be tempting and
understandable for any human being who had seen people
killed who they owed a duty of care to, who they valued
and, sometimes, who they loved. But it does not fix the
problem in the long run. In the long run, the problem
is solved when the community realises that the police
are its help and saviour, not its enemy. That is why we
have to get the balance right on stop-and-search, and
why the Government started that process by introducing
a reform package in 2014.
I make the point to the Opposition that if we are to be
less tactical and more intelligence-led, it is
important to give our police and intelligence services
the power to gather that intelligence. It is no good
saying on the one hand that we want less indiscriminate
or blanket targeting, but on the other that we oppose
Prevent or some of the investigatory powers measures
that allow us to gather that intelligence, to be more
targeted at people committing or planning wrongdoing
and to ensure that we can leave the population alone to
live their lives free of interference. That is an
important point.
Good intelligence gathering and good intelligence
measures and powers are how we can allow our police to
leave people alone to carry on their daily business
freely, and how we can ensure that we do not end up
with such a disparity that we get into the circular
debate that I have heard today about whether we go
after more people from certain groups because those
groups commit more crimes, or vice versa. I urge the
Opposition to reflect on that in discussions about
Prevent and other issues.
-
The Minister has raised the issue of Prevent. I
certainly have called for a review of it, but the
concern is not that we do not need that type of
strategy, but that the current Prevent operation has
done what I have argued that stop-and-search has done:
it has not helped to heal relationships or promote
better relationships between certain communities and
the state. We want a Prevent-type strategy, but we want
one that works. The problem with Prevent is that in
many communities—not all, but many—it has become a
tainted brand.
-
I have published the figures, and I would venture that
Prevent is working. It allows people who have set off
on a path of violent extremism to be diverted from that
path and to re-engage in society, and in doing so, it
protects many of us on the streets. The figures show
that hundreds of people who had been a serious concern
are not in prison—we did not cut corners and lock them
up without trial, or that sort of thing—but back in
their communities, and some of them, hopefully, are
back in the mainstream.
We all have a job of recognising and communicating that
Prevent is about safeguarding. When we do, and when I
speak to communities up and down the United Kingdom, we
find that although some in the communities are worried
about it or do not like it, a growing number of people
realise that it is a safeguarding tool that
works.
We have had many debates about Prevent before, but it
is about allowing communities, alongside local police,
to engage, and about seeing what we can do to make
people desist, disengage and turn around. In some
communities it works, but I know that, as the right
hon. Lady says, we have more work to do in other areas.
Whenever I say, “Please give me an example of your
version of Prevent,” every single person just describes
Prevent. They do not usually come up with anything
different, because at the end of the day it is
effectively a safeguarding measure.
I need to press on to the heart of the debate about
stop-and-search. In 2014, when we started work on a
major public consultation on the use of the power,
troubling evidence came to light that it was not being
used fairly, effectively or, in some cases, lawfully.
For example, figures showed that of 1.2 million
stop-and-searches carried out in 2010-11, only 9% led
to an arrest. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of
constabulary, as it was known at the time, found that
potentially more than a quarter of stops carried out by
the police were without sufficient legal grounds, and
it also found poor knowledge of the law on
stop-and-search among officers and their supervisors.
Statistics also showed that if someone was black, they
were seven times more likely to be stopped and searched
than if they were white, and three times more likely if
they were Asian. That was a cause for considerable
concern, and still is. It is not that we have forgotten
about it, and I would not like the Opposition to
venture that that was the case.
As a result of extensive public consultation and
community engagement, and of working closely with the
police and other partners, the Government introduced
several measures, such as clarifying “reasonable
grounds for suspicion” in PACE code A, which governs
the use of stop-and-search powers, and publishing
stop-and-search data on police.uk, which offers local
transparency to understand how the police serve their
communities.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Bradford West,
who asked how there could be oversight. She made a
point about police and crime commissioners that I was
disappointed with, and if what she said is the case, we
should all do more to ensure that it is not. They
should have a role in that regard, and they should have
it further up their agenda. They have the power to hold
chief constables to account. I do not know what the
response from her local chief constable is, but if
something is troubling the local community, that is the
point of our PCCs. They should be communicating, taking
those things on board and seeing what steps they can
take to ensure that such things are not happening.
-
The Minister trotted out a rather meaningless statistic
about the proportion of stop-and-searches on different
communities. Is he saying that it is Government policy
that there should be the same proportion of
stop-and-searches for each ethnic group of the country
as their make-up of the population? Otherwise, what on
earth is the point of him saying that a certain ethnic
group is stopped and searched more often than another?
Does he accept that it is inevitable that some ethnic
groups will be stopped more often than others, or is he
saying that it should be the same figure for every
ethnic group?
-
I am saying that it should always be clearly targeted.
The geographic breakdowns give a better picture. The
hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq)
talked about sociology and statistics, and it is
important to look below the national figure at the
local figures. Often, they show where we can put things
right, where there is a disparity, or where the figures
are just a reflection of the crime trends, as my hon.
Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) talked
about.
Before this debate, I asked for some regional
statistics. In 2016, in Merseyside, if someone was
Asian, they were less likely to be stopped than if they
were white, and someone was 2.8 times more likely to be
stopped if they were black. In west Yorkshire, they
were 1.5 times more likely to be stopped than if they
were white. In Lincolnshire, someone was less likely to
be stopped if they were Asian than if they were white,
but if they were black, they were 4.8 times more likely
to be stopped.
Those regional or county statistics are really useful,
because they help to answer other questions. I had
assumed that the figure of black people being 8 times
more likely to be stopped was predominantly driven by
London, but in the Metropolitan police area, someone
who was black was only 3.8 times more likely to be
stopped. If they were Asian, it was about the same as
if they were white.
When I look at those figures, I ask myself about
community relationships, about whether we have a
tactical rather than a strategic approach, and about
the relationship between PCCs and the chief constables.
By looking at the information at force level, we will
get a more informed picture on the circular debate
about whether it is because people commit more crimes,
whether we as the state are doing something wrong,
whether communities are not supporting the police, or
whether there is a particular problem with organised
crime groups in certain areas.
The 1981 riots are important to consider, and they came
up in yesterday’s debate on serious violent crime. One
of the biggest differences between crime in 1981 and
today is the scale of organised crime and the ability
for it to be organised through mobile telephones and
encryption, as I said yesterday. We should recognise
that organised crime is colour-blind. It does not care
whether someone is black or white; it will shoot or
stab them, and sell them drugs, no matter what. I
suspect that some of the least racist people in this
country are the drug dealers—they are delighted to sell
anyone their poison.
We must remember that one of the differences between
1981 and now is that the modus operandi of organised
crime. It targets communities using county lines,
meaning that some of our communities are more
vulnerable to being exploited than they were before. I
do not know the exact answer to that. Some of it will
be an increase in stop-and-search where there is a
particular problem with organised crime groups, because
that may be the only tool that the local police have at
that moment in time. Some organised crime groups have
become much quicker at moving into a community before
the community spots them, and then delivering their
drugs, moving people around and moving couriers from
outside an area into it so that the local community
does not recognise them.
Also, communities are much less settled now than they
were in 1981, which is a challenge. How do our
frontline police deal with what is sometimes a very
dangerous threat but short-term threat, whereby people
move in, carry out their crime and then move on again?
Addressing that will be a challenge. Stop-and-search
will play a strong role in meeting that challenge, but
more than anything, intelligence will play a role in
stopping these criminals and hopefully preventing them
from getting ahead of us.
We rolled out the voluntary Best Use of Stop and Search
scheme, introducing greater transparency and public
scrutiny, and the measures in that scheme have all been
delivered. Every force in England and Wales signed up
to the scheme, putting in place all of its components,
which enable the public and the police to better
understand how stop- and-search is used and how it can
be improved upon. PACE code A, which governs how
stop-and-search is carried out, was changed to make it
clear that “reasonable grounds” cannot be based on race
or stereotypical images, and the College of Policing
developed and rolled out national standards and
training, including mandatory unconscious bias
awareness. We expect to see further improvements
following on from those changes.
In answer to the hon. Member for Bradford West, the
Home Office—in collaboration with the College of
Policing through its national policing curriculum, Her
Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and community
interest group representatives—is reviewing the Best
Use of Stop and Search scheme, to take into account the
three years of operational experience and feedback from
practitioners, organisations and the public. A
refreshed version of the scheme is currently being
developed, with a view to a nationwide launch by the
end of the year. The refreshed version will place
further emphasis on community involvement and the need
for forces to monitor and explain their use of
stop-and-search.
HMIC has observed improvements across the 43 forces in
a number of areas. For example, in 2012 the
inspectorate found that 27% of stop-and-search forms
that it examined did not show that there had been
sufficient grounds for a lawful search. By 2017, that
figure had dropped to 6%.
As for race and ethnicity, in 2016-17 substantially
fewer black individuals were stopped and searched than
before; the figure was down by 74% from 2010-11, when
there were more than 110 searches for every thousand
black people. The number of Asian individuals being
stopped and searched has also fallen by 79% since
2010-11. By anyone’s yardstick, those figures represent
a significant change and show that things are going in
the right direction.
Nevertheless, the figures still show that if someone is
black, they are more than eight times more likely to be
stopped and searched than someone who is white. As I
said earlier, I think that to explore those statistics
further and perhaps understand what is behind them, we
should look more at our force levels.
-
I appreciate that the Minister is in a difficult
position, because he has to defend the remarks on
stop-and-search that the Prime Minister made when she
was Home Secretary, which are virtually indefensible
and which are unravelling, as we speak, on the streets
of London. However, it is reported in the newspapers
today that the Home Secretary is at the Police
Federation conference and will say that he has only
been in his job a few weeks and he is not going there
to tell the police how to do their job. Yet I get the
impression here that the Government are still trying to
tell police officers how to do their job. What I want
to hear the Minister say today is that we have a great
police force, they do a great job, we trust them to get
on and do their job, and the Government will support
them. Can he bring himself to give that message to our
police officers today?
-
Order. Before the Minister responds, I ask him to leave
a couple of minutes at the end of the debate for the
hon. Member who secured the debate to sum up.
-
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for
Shipley attended the debate in the main Chamber on
serious and violent crime yesterday. If he had, he
would have heard me say, as I also said on the radio
yesterday morning, that I believe we have the finest
police force and intelligence services in the world. I
have absolutely no doubt of that.
However I also know, from my own experience, the
tension between a tactical response and a strategic
response. Providing such responses is what I have
experience of doing in very dangerous conditions, and
yes, sometimes I stopped and searched. I stopped and
searched and found a grenade; I stopped and searched
and found a car full of Semtex, despite the mob that
appeared when I did that. But I also know, from when I
was an intelligence officer, that if the police either
stopped and searched in a heavy-handed manner or did it
in an untargeted way, all my sources dried up. And then
guess what happened? The IRA made a bomb and killed
lots of people.
One response is strategic and one is tactical, and we
can all play to the gallery and just play to the
tactical side for the daily headline. However, my hon.
Friend might want to reflect that my job is to deliver
strategic security for this United Kingdom, which means
balancing risks. Getting the right stop-and-search,
which is intelligence-targeted, without setting
communities against each other, will be the best way to
deliver a strong, strategic and secure community.
So I am not playing for the Daily Mail headline for my
hon. Friend; I am playing making my community safe.
That is the reality. The Prime Minister had the wisdom
to spot that and we in the Home Office are going to
deliver it. We will listen to the Opposition and urge
them to support us on some of our
intelligence-gathering measures, which may mean their
having to balance risks. It is important to do things
that way. I am determined to deliver, and we are on the
right track. I want to make sure our communities are
engaged with that approach.
We all accept that stop-and-search is a tool, and we
can use it and use it well. Nevertheless, the best tool
is when someone in the community picks up the telephone
and speaks to their local police force, and as a result
we manage to arrest the people carrying the knives and
dealing the drugs before they are on our streets.
-
I am grateful to the Minister for leaving time for Naz
Shah to wind up the debate.
-
Thank you, Mr Owen, for again calling me to speak.
I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have
contributed to this debate: the hon. Member for Shipley
(Philip Davies); my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing
Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Manchester, Gorton
(Afzal Khan); our shadow Home Secretary, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
(Ms Abbott); and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East
Falkirk (Martyn Day).
I will address a couple of the issues that have been
raised. My neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Shipley,
talked about valuing our police. I do value the police.
It is in that vein that I sit on the Home Affairs
Committee and that I am part of a national roundtable led
by Chief Constable Boucher, which looks at diversity on
behalf of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It is in
that vein that I am committed to the police. The hon.
Gentleman and I share the same chief superintendent,
Scott Bisset, and I have extensive and very good
relationships with my local police force. I have full
confidence in Chief Superintendent Bisset’s attempts to
create a diverse workforce in the police.
Talking about a diverse workforce, what my hon. Friend
the Member for Ealing Central and Acton said today was
really important. We do not have a diverse workforce,
despite the figures that the hon. Member for Shipley
quoted earlier. The truth remains that we are far from
having a reflective workforce. A reflective workforce
would benefit the police.
This debate was never about telling the police how to do
their job; it is about supporting the police. True
leadership consists of two things—challenging and
supporting. If we are to are to be real critical friends
to the police, we must both challenge and support them in
delivering the objective of keeping our communities safe.
This debate is about making our communities safer.
Every study that has piloted unconscious bias training
has shown a direct correlation between a change of
attitude, a change in crime and a change in the nature of
how we police, so that it is better for our communities.
That is what this debate is about; it was never about
hammering the police and having a pop at them.
Unfortunately, it has gone that way, which disheartens
me.
I thank the Minister for agreeing that policing is about
intelligence and relationships. We build relationships
with communities not just by attending the funerals but
by attending the weddings, too. It is about building
relationships between the police and their communities,
and that is not done by creating an experience for a
child, which will sit their mind, of being searched just
because they happen to be black or just because their
pigment colour is a few shades darker than that of other
people, which shows them that they do not belong, they do
not matter and they are not protected. That is what this
very important debate today has been about, and I thank
you, Mr Owen, for your chairmanship and all the Members
who have contributed to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of police stop
and search powers on BAME communities.
|