Let me begin by saying that this is no ““magpie Minister”” but an eagle, willing to swoop down and deal with all the dreadful criminals who are engaged in such awful behaviour.
I think we all share the concerns that have been expressed by both my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) about the high-profile crimes that were committed in the summer this year: crimes such as the one against Rhys Jones which have literally shocked the nation. Although crime has been falling, it is right for the Government to try to ensure—especially in this Bill—that the police are given sufficient powers to be able to deal with an increase in serious crime. It is also right for that to be done in this place, and for us to debate the issues.
I think the Minister will find that there is all-party agreement about the need for us to give the police the powers that they need. However, I want to strike a note of caution over the proposals for extension of stop-and-search powers. I will not oppose the Government, because I believe that the thrust of what the Minister has said is correct, but I ask him to bear in mind a number of key facts, and I hope he will do so with the care with which I have always associated him.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) served on the Home Affairs Committee before I became its Chairman, and participated diligently in a report on young black men and crime which was published in the summer. The Government's response arrived last Wednesday, within the time limit of two months but at a time when the Committee was abroad taking evidence on counter-terrorism. Nevertheless, it addresses the Committee's concerns.
On the issue of stop-and-search specifically, the Committee's view is clear. Although there are benefits in giving the police additional powers, the Committee concluded unanimously that they were outweighed by the implications for the community trust and co-operation that the police need if they are to do their jobs effectively. That is, I think, the key fact.
Our debate has been enlivened by the comments of Keith Jarrett, chairman of the National Black Police Association, who said over the weekend, in an open and transparent way, that he considered it important for the powers to be extended because that would give the police a better way of reaching those who commit crimes. I disagree with that view, as do other members of the association. I think that we need to look at the factual information before deciding to increase any powers. I have received no representations suggesting that the community want more stop-and-search powers because they would result in more people being apprehended; nor, I think, did the Committee during its extensive inquiry, which included the taking of evidence from young black people themselves. It is right that there should be engagement, and both the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the Minister, in their measured responses to this problem, pointed out the need for us to work within the community. Neither of them specifically said that the community itself was calling for increased powers.
It is worth examining the statistics to get a brief flavour of the facts that have emerged as a result of the police use of stop and search. In 2004-05, 839,977 persons were stopped and searched and 12,400 stops of vehicles were recorded by the police under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and other legislation. Of those, 118,165 or 14 per cent. were of black people; 59,954 or 7 per cent. were of people of Asian origin; and 12,733 or 1.5 per cent. were of people of other ethnic origins. For England and Wales as a whole, the number of stop and searches rose by 14 per cent., from 737,137 in 2003-04 to 839,977, although that was less than the figure in 2002-03. Most of the rise was accounted for by an increase in the stopping and searching of people who were not black or Asian.
Overall, black people were six times more likely to be searched than those who were not black—the ratio in 2003-04 was 6.4 times; if the figures for London are excluded, the ratio falls to 4.9 times. Asian people were 1.8 times as likely to be stopped and searched as white people, compared with 1.9 times as likely in the previous year. The important fact is that 11 per cent. of stop and searches resulted in an arrest. The proportion varied between police forces, from 7 per cent. in Gwent to 20 per cent. in the City of London. The problem facing us, which was correctly identified in the Select Committee report, is that the hit rate was still too low. People are prepared to accept an extension of powers if the hit rate will be improved or increased, but there was no indication from the Minister that that would happen as a result of what he proposes.
We need to be cautious about the impact of this proposal. The hon. Member for Hornchurch, in his usual eloquent way, talked about proportionality. It is the big buzz word whenever we discuss such an issue, be it the 28-day detention period or another civil liberties matter, and it becomes extremely important. That is why I ask the Minister to examine the impact that the proposal will have on the black community. It is not right that we should have a certain set of laws that will result only in certain types of people being affected by an increase in police powers. It is important that we examine those figures.
In conclusion, I accept the thrust of what both Front-Bench spokespeople say, although I do not support new clause 8, because it is not right when dealing with such serious issues that we should level down the rank of the person making the important decisions. The Minister is right to say that that should be kept at a certain policing level, because the difficulty of levelling it down is that things will increase. We need people of sufficient seniority to be able to deal with these important issues. He says that his proposal will help in the fight against serious crime, and I believe him, because he would not have brought the measure before the House unless he had felt that it would help in the fight against crime. However, I ask him to examine the impact on communities, because once we start stigmatising communities in our country we shall be on the road to ruin for our multicultural society.
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Keith Vaz
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
465 c75-7 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:02:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418853
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418853
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418853