here - United Kingdom Parliament

291WH
1 DECEMBER 2010 PACE (Stop and Search)
292WH
PACE (Stop and Search)
11 am
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): I appreciate the
opportunity to have this debate. The shorthand definition
of the code of practice that I wish to consider is “stop
and search”, but it also includes “stop and account”.
The draft guidelines recently issued by the Government
state:
“The primary purpose of stop and search powers is to enable
officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without
exercising their power of arrest.”
We would all recognise that that is an important part
of policing powers, but some issues arise from it and I
have some questions to which I should appreciate a
response from the Minister. My interest arises partly
from my membership of the all-party parliamentary
group on race and community and from conversations
that I have had with the Runnymede Trust and the
StopWatch coalition, both of which have alerted me to
issues of the context in which the proposed changes and
guidelines are being made. The most significant issue is
disproportionality between people of different ethnic
origins.
A black person is at least six times as likely as a white
person to be stopped and searched by the police. It is
twice as likely to happen to an Asian. That is grossly
disproportionate and those ratios have remained stubbornly
constant in the past five years. The report “Stop and
think”, which was produced earlier this year by the
Equality and Human Rights Commission, included
research findings that
“black and ethnic minority youths were over-represented in the
criminal justice system. This over-representation started at the
point of entry into the system, and largely continued as young
suspects and defendants passed through it.”
If the very first part of a person’s interaction with the
criminal justice system is disproportionate, there may
be consequential effects at other stages in that system.
The black population of England and Wales is
approximately 2.6%, but black people represent 14.8%
of incidents of stop and search, 7.6% of arrests and
14.4% of the prison population. I think that anyone
would find those statistics chilling. It is a rare thing for
me to say I agree with Bernie Grant, the former Member
of Parliament for Tottenham, but in 1997 he said:
“Nothing has been more damaging to the relationship between
the police and the black community than the ill judged use of stop
and search powers. For young black men in particular, the humiliating
experience of being repeatedly stopped and searched is a fact of
life”.
Of course society has moved on in 13 years, but, as the
statistics have shown, disproportionality is still significant.
Stop and search is not a power that is used occasionally.
Last year, there were more than 2 million instances of
stop and account by police and more than 1 million of
stop and search. That amounts to more than 10,000 a
day, which is not only disproportionate, but shows
widespread and pervasive use in our society.
I accept—and this is probably much of the intent
behind Government moves—that the recording of
information accounts for considerable police time. It is
estimated by the Daily Mail that the proposed changes
will save 450,000 hours of police time by eliminating the
stop-and-account element and 350,000 hours of police
time by reducing stop-and- search forms. Those are
welcome savings in police time, to enable our police to
spend more time in their jobs on the beat, and in
helping citizens by combating crime.
However, against a backdrop of considerable community
concerns, and severely disproportionate impacts, perhaps
the Minister could assist with the answer to some questions.
The first is about the removal of the requirement to
record stop and account. As I have said, that represents
2 million actions by the police each year, so it is certainly
clear that removing the requirement to record stop and
account will save considerable police time. However, as
we have not yet ended disproportionality, is the Minister
concerned that we would lose an important source of
information on fairness?
I understand that it would be possible for chief constables
to re-institute stop-and-account searches if local concerns
were expressed. That is a very welcome part of the
proposals, but how will the local pressure be voiced?
What would constitute a valid local concern and how
would it be differentiated from concerns thought to be
invalid?
I would also appreciate the Minister’s views on the
decision by Suffolk police to de-fund the stop-and-search
reference group. What message does that send to people
who have concerns about disproportionality and the
reliance on the raising of concerns by local voices? On
the same point, what role does the Minister see for the
Equality and Human Rights Commission? Are steps
such as the enforcement action warning that it issued
this week to Thames Valley police and other forces seen
as part of the community response to disproportionality
in stop and account and stop and search?
The Government have—and I welcome this—removed
parts of the justification for section 60 stop and search
on the grounds of race. The National Black Police
Association said the original draft proposal
“opens the door to racial targeting that could be based on gossip,
malice and outright racial prejudice.”
Perhaps I might use this opportunity to thank the
Minister for, and congratulate him on, the changes, and
for his statement:
“Previous guidance did not place any restrictions on use but
now it will make clear than an individual characteristic such as
ethnicity should never be the sole basis for any search.”
That shows the direction of travel of the Government.
They will look at areas where there is disproportionality
and seek to eliminate that. They will look at areas where
ethnicity is misused in policing, and ensure that that no
longer happens. I would welcome the Minister’s comments
on the background to the draft guidelines and the
change.
Section 60 stop and search is a very significant power
that we provide to the police. It enables the police to
stop and search an individual where there are no grounds
for suspicion of the particular individual, in a designated
area, for a period of 24 hours. Nationally the black
population of the country, as I said earlier, is about
2.6%, but they represent 32% of stops and searches
under section 60. That means that under the police
power to stop and search with no grounds for suspicion
of the individual concerned, a black person is 26 times
more likely than a white person to be stopped. That is a
shocking statistic and everyone, including members of
the police force, will want that ratio to be changed.