MS-3: Expanding Police Powers Through Stop and Search

Post Reply
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

MS-3: Expanding Police Powers Through Stop and Search

Post by Will Frost »

MS-3: Expanding Police Powers Through Stop and Search

Issue: Over the past few years communities across the United Kingdom have suffered as a result of an ongoing knife crime epidemic. The number of individuals illegally possessing an offensive weapon is growing at an alarming rate, and the number of innocent people being threatened and harmed by knives continues to grow. In response to this crisis, the Home Office launched a pilot program in 2018 that removed regulatory burdens associated with the use of Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act for the seven police forces most affected by knife crime. This pilot expanded the number of officers who were able to use search and stop powers under Section 60, expanded the time frame under which a Section 60 order could be in place, and reduced the legal threshold of certainty required to initiate a Section 60 search. The pilot was shown to be overwhelmingly successful, with nearly 8,000 arrests being made last year as a result of a stop and search.

Intervention and Implementation: Effected immediately, the Home Office will be expanding the pilot scheme to all 43 police forces across England and Wales. This will result in the lifting of all conditions in the current voluntary Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme over the use of Section 60. In practical terms, this will mean that:
  • The level of authorization for which type of officer can deploy and extend Section 60 will be reduced from only senior officers to now include inspectors and superintendents.
  • The degree of certainty required by the authorizing officer will be reduced so that a Section 60 can be authorized when an officer reasonably believes that an incident involving serious violence, “may” occur, as opposed to the existing standard that one, “will” occur.
  • The initial period of time that a Section 60 can be in force will be extended from the current 15 hours to 24 hours, and the overall period of time that a Section 60 can be in place will be extended from 39 hours to 48 hours.
This relaxing of the use of Section 60 will mean that some 8,000 additional police officers across England and Wales will now be able to authorize a Section 60 stop and search, that the regulatory standard to do so will be reduced, and that the time in which a Section 60 can be in force will be expanded. As a result, the Home Office is empowering many more officers to utilize this critical crime-reduction strategy to ensure that police forces across the country are more equipped to combat crime.

Police forces will be legally obligated to record every use of stop and search, and to effectively monitor its fair and proportional use. The statutory obligations surrounding Section 60’s fair use will not be altered. In addition, the ongoing consultation by the College of Policing on the development of new guidelines relating to the use of Section 60 and its impact on community engagement will go forward. The results of this consultation will be presented to Parliament, and any ensuing recommendations made by the College of Policing will be reviewed and considered by the Home Secretary.

Cost: There is no additional cost associated with the rollout of this pilot expansion.
Mr. Speaker,

As always, I believe the action I have taken via Ministerial Statement 3 is relatively straightforward and specific, so I will do my best to keep my remarks brief and allow the House the time they need to consider the MS and ask any relevant questions they may have.

Last year, the Government approved a pilot program where the rules and regulations related to the use of Section 60 stop and searches were altered for the 7 police forces most adversely effected by knife crime. Today, I am announcing that the Home Office will be expanding this trial program to the whole of the country. This means that each of the 43 police forces across England and Wales will have access to a swath of new powers relating to Section 60, arming them with the tools and authority they need to clamp down on knife crime and other crimes related to concealing and using an illegal offensive weapon.

In practical terms, this means a few things. We are expanding the types of officers who are able to deploy and extend a Section 60 order to include more than just senior officers, now including both inspectors and superintendents. This decision, combined with nationalizing the program across all police forces, will mean that over 8,000 police officers across the country will be armed with this critical crime-reduction tool. In addition to this decision, we are changing the regulatory burden faced by police officers that determines when a Section 60 can be authorized. Now police officers will not be required to prove that a crime with an offensive weapon "will occur," a ridiculously high burden that is virtually impossible to meet, but simply that a crime with an offensive weapon, "may occur." This will make it far easier for police officers to intervene and prevent a serious, and potentially deadly, crime from being committed before any innocent citizen has been harmed. Lastly, we are expanding the amount of time that a Section 60 order in any given community can be in place, allowing expanded access for police officers dealing with high-crime communities who need these orders to be in place for longer periods of time.

This decision is the right one for our police, and it is the right one when it comes to keeping our towns and cities safe. There is nothing worse than having a hard working, dedicated police force trying to fight crime, only to have their hands tied behind their back by bureaucratic red tape put into place by people who don't know the first thing about the realities faced by police officers. The trial program put into place last year has proven that empowering police officers to engage in fair and appropriate stop and searches reduces violent crime, and so it is sensible that we give every police force these new powers. I was pleased to have a productive meeting with the chair of the NPCC, who welcomed these reforms, and will continue to work closely with police chiefs across the country to ensure they have the power, tools, and funding they need to get the job done.

I understand that some in the Labour Party are arguing that I, "talk a tough game," when it comes to crime reduction. I hope that this order from my office, that gives unprecedented and much needed powers to every police force across England and Wales dispels this notion once and for all. There is no responsibility more important for any Government than the protection of its citizens, and I take that responsibility incredibly seriously. While the Labour Party rip each other apart in the process of deciding what form of modern Corbynism they will adopt next, we in the Government will continue to work closely with the police and local communities to address rising rates of crime and keep our people safe. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud of the actions that the Government has taken today.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Liam McMahon
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:27 pm
Constituency: Wansbeck
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: TrashPotato

Re: MS-3: Expanding Police Powers Through Stop and Search

Post by Liam McMahon »

Mr. Speaker,

I thank the Home Secretary for his statement today.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the Home Secretary has again talked a tough game. It's easy to do that. But when it comes to implementing real strategies to deal with crimes and ensure we're clamping down on criminal behaviour, we are left wanting by this Home Secretary.

Instead of a comprehensive strategy to tackle knife crime, we're left with sticking plaster solutions. And who created those cracks, Mr. Speaker? Who created the, I quote, "bureaucratic red tape put into place by people who don't know the first thing about the realities faced by police officers" that the Home Secretary is removing today? The Home Secretary the other day told me to employ the use of google when I quizzed him on his own selective amnesia, Mr. Speaker. I don't need google to tell me who was in power to create the regulations the Home Secretary seeks to get rid of: the Conservatives.

And they further presided over those regulations while knife crime rocketed and the government still fails to get a grip on this issue.

So we should remember what the Home Secretary deems his own government that he participated in going forward, Mr. Speaker: "people who don't know the first thing about the realities faced by police officers." I'll confess, Mr. Speaker, he will find an agreement between us in summarising this government's dismal record in the past few years.

Mr. Speaker,

Where my sympathies do lie with the government is that the balance between giving the powers they need to employ in the fight against crime, especially preventative powers, whilst balancing concerns around civil liberties and the rights of a population is a delicate one that is hard to get right. I believe the government was sincere in its 2014 reforms in trying to find that balance. For all his bluster, I want to make clear to the House I believe this Home Secretary is trying to get that balance right too.

To that end, I welcome government's decision to maintain the statutory obligations surrounding fair use of Section 60. They should serve a reminder to the Home Secretary that often, safeguards and regulations are not just red tape to be burned but fair and just regulations to ensure policing serves communities and policing is effective as it can be in the fight against crime. The Home Secretary should make no illusions: there are still communities across Britain, mostly consisting of BAME Britons, who have a deep rooted distrust in the police, in section 60 in particular and in how it is applied. As long as that distrust exists, the police lose a valuable asset in the fight against crime. They deserve this government's acknowledgement and respect.

Fair use regulations go a fair way in attempting to rebuild that trust in policing and in making Section 60 what it says on the tin - fair. But the government still has a long way to go before it rebuilds trust. It is of crucial importance that the consultation by the College of Policing on the development of new guidelines relating to the use of Section 60 and its impact on community engagement doesn't just go ahead, but that such recommendations are listened to in full and implemented.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, it would be wrong of me to oppose this decision outright before all the data has been collected. That was the purpose of the pilot. But, Mr. Speaker, to give us an insight into the efficacy of Section 60 in the fight against crime.

But the question now begs: what is the justification for this expansion? As the Home Secretary has outlined, we have yet to hear back from the consultation by the College of Policing on the development of new guidelines regarding section 60.

It is my understanding the Home Secretary's justification for expanding is that further arrests have been made in areas where the pilot scheme have been trialled. Mr. Speaker, if I'm to be blunt, more arrests does not tell us very much. It just tells us there have been more arrests. If knife crime is to rise, like it has under this government, then we're going to see more arrests made as a result. The College of Policing has found that other than drug related offences, section 60 has a minimal impact.

Drug offences are serious, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome the government's move to empower police officers to do what is necessary in the fight against crime.

But what this reveals is that the government does not have a plan to get serious with knife crime.

The government could be following examples we have seen that do work while we wait to get some more comprehensive data on its Section 60 reforms on community engagement and its effect on crime. Since Glasgow introduced the Violence Reduction Unit, it saw knife crime slashed in half. Glasgow was transformed from the murder capital of Europe to a safer, more secure city. It is my understanding that the Home Secretary's predecessor invested £30 million to assist other police forces to establish their own violence reduction units. But this is much too little and we need this success replicated nationwide as part of a wider, more comprehensive strategy.

What are we left with instead Mr. Speaker? Electioneering, politicking and backtracking. That might do a lot for the Home Secretary's ego, but it does very little in the way of assisting those victims of knife crime and the vulnerable communities that have been most exposed to it. They deserve more than tough words. They deserve even more than our full support, Mr. Speaker. They deserve a plan, and today has exposed how little this government has to offer for them.
User avatar
Grant Kingston
Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury
Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:42 am
Constituency: Finchley and Golders Green
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: GrantK#5604

Re: MS-3: Expanding Police Powers Through Stop and Search

Post by Grant Kingston »

Thank you Mr. Speaker!

Mr Speaker, I rise today probably much to the chagrin of my party's frontbench, and I'm sure the Member for Ashford, the Government Chief Whip, will be noting my name as I speak – however I cannot support this policy put in front of the House today. It serves as nothing more than an attack on the liberties of the British people, and I know the Home Secretary, and know that if he wants to impress Labour by talking a tough game – he can do it better than this; he is better than this.

Mr Speaker, this policy is a return to what wasn't working just five years ago. Even as far back as 2007, a Home Office Committee Inquiry, concluded that stop and search is “not a notably productive means of tackling crime”, recommending an alternative be found. Yet he we are 12 years later, no further on.

I sat in the Cabinet in 2014, that saw a Home Office report recommend that we move away from the changes the Home Secretary is proposing today. That report was presented by the Home Secretary at the time – the former Prime Minister, the Member for Maidenhead - and I sat in the Cabinet that supported her proposals, and I stand by the scheme she rolled out to this day.

The current scheme the Member for Maidenhead created, known as the “Best Use of the Stop and Search Scheme”, only allowed authorisation from officers above the rank of Chief Superintendent; ensured Section 60 was only used when deemed necessary and made clear to the public; used under the reasonable grounds of a crime taking place – rather than may take place; ensuring the public are informed on the use; and finally a maximum duration of 15 hours, with possible extension to 24 hours. This scheme was supported both by the College of Policing, and the Metropolitan Police at the time.

Mr Speaker, the reasons for the introduction of the current scheme must not be forgotten, and a return to the old way is a total disregard for the public, and their liberties. At the time of the report leading to this scheme, the HIMC inspection found that 27% of stop and searches did not contain reasonable grounds to do so, which led to the conclusion that of a million searches carried out, a quarter of a million may have been done so illegally. Likewise in the 2018 crime statistics, only 14% of searches were for offensive weapons, and only 14% of these led to arrests. For every 7/50 searches that are successful, 43/50 people are having their rights infringed. Furthermore, changing the policy to only needing suspicion that a crime “may” take place, will only see this number go up. This is not the way to tackle growing knife crime – this is an infringement of human rights.

In 2010, an Equality and Human Rights Commission report also pointed out how stop and search was an infringement of human rights and liberties, something that was found true in a European Court of Human Rights case at the start of this year – and I believe any court worth its salt would agree. And Mr Speaker, I cannot stand by idly while I watch any Government infringe on the rights of the public.

Recent reports have also shown, that out of the 44 police forces that have the powers, only 18 forces actual used Section 60. Not even half of our police forces, want to use this power. At the time of the report in 2014, the then Home Secretary told the House, that between February 2012 to April 2014, the Met Police reduced overall use of stop and search by 20%; reduced no-suspicion stop and search by 90%; all while at the same time they managed to see stabbings fall by 1/3, and shootings fall by 40%! And on top of that complaints fell, and the arrest ratio improved.

Overall in England and Wales, the stats are there to back this up. Between March 2010 to March 2018, while the use of stop and search has reduced, the arrest rate has increased 9% to 17% - with significant change since the implementation of the current scheme. This shows that our forces are capable under the current scheme to on one hand reduce the number of searches, but to be more effective in them. So I ask, Mr Speaker, how will increasing stop and search give the effect the current Home Secretary is promising? The facts simply aren't there.

The other issue here is that it does nothing to address the disproportional use of these searches. At the time of the 2014 report, you were 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched, if you were an ethnic minority over being white. A Guardian analysis commissioned this year, found that according to figures from the London Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, that while Black people made up 15.6% of London's population, 43% of searches where black people. On the other hand, white people make up 59.8% of the population, yet only 35.5% of searches. This suggests abuse of the power, and disproportional use as well – something again backed by the aforementioned 2010 EHRC report. Stop and search is not the way forward, Mr Speaker, it is seen in these statistics to be another form of racial profiling, and that doesn't belong in modern Britain.

Based on that, this increase in powers will only serve to see further distrust created amongst the public, specifically ethnic minorities and young people. The 2014 inspection already found that only 38% of black people, and 38% of young people found the powers effective.

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the Home Secretary has ensured monitoring, recording use, and statutory obligations will remain unchanged, however I would like him to go on record and ensure the following:
  • that police forces still have to have lay observation policies that allow the public to see stop and search in action, and provide feedback.
  • that forces will still be required to fully ensure the suspect is made aware of what is happening and where they can complain to.
  • and that there still be a trigger point threshold that will compel forces to explain using stop and search?
These are all questions left answered in the overturning of the scheme by the Home Secretary, and I just ask for some clarity.

In closing Mr Speaker, I implore the Home Secretary to reconsider this change in policy. If he wants to try and look tough in front of Labour, I really hope he will find a better way of acting on crime. The answer is not returning to the old ways of stop and search, a way that has since been proven to be more hit than miss; better when used less, and thus more concise and effective; abused and used disproportionately; and one that is an infringement of human rights and liberties. The Home Secretary can do better than this, and as I said, I will not stand by while we see the British people have their rights infringed.
Rt. Hon. Grant Kingston MP
Prime Minister for the United Kingdom (April 2020-Present)
Member of Parliament for Finchley and Golders Green (May 2010-Present)


Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets (September 2012-May 2015)
Minister of State for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (May 2015-July 2016)
Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (July 2016-January 2018)
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (January 2018-April 2019)
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (January 2020-April 2020)
Post Reply

Return to “Ministerial Statements”