🔍 Use of Stop and Search

• Rising Knife Crime and Stop and Search: Saqib Bhatti, MP for Meriden and Solihull East, initiated a debate on the use of stop and search, driven by a 12% increase in knife-enabled crime in the year ending September 2024. He emphasized the high rate of knife crimes in the West Midlands, surpassing even London, and shared tragic cases of knife crime victims such as Jack Donoghue and Leo Ross.

• Effectiveness of Stop and Search: Bhatti argued that stop and search is crucial for disrupting crime, supported by research showing it can reduce attempted murders by 50% or more. He called for more stop and search powers, highlighting public support for these measures across various ethnic groups.

• Police Support and Challenges: Bhatti praised the efforts of police officers and expressed concerns about the police not using stop and search fully due to fears of litigation or accusations of racism. He suggested amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to facilitate easier use of these powers.

• Northern Ireland Perspective: Jim Shannon from Strangford discussed the use of stop and search in Northern Ireland, where it is employed to maintain public safety amidst a backdrop of past terrorism and current crime issues. He stressed the need for sensitive application to avoid alienating communities.

• Disproportionate Impact and Community Trust: Bell Ribeiro-Addy from Clapham and Brixton Hill raised concerns about the disproportionate use of stop and search on black and ethnic minorities, arguing that it has eroded trust in the police within these communities. She supports intelligence-led stop and search but called for the abolition of section 60 powers.

• Community and Policing Balance: Lisa Smart from Hazel Grove emphasized the importance of trust in policing and criticized the disproportionate application of stop and search. She advocated for a return to community policing and the abolition of suspicionless stop-and-search powers.

• Technology and Funding Concerns: Matt Vickers from Stockton West underscored the necessity of stop and search, citing statistics on weapon seizures. He urged for technological advancements in policing and raised concerns about potential funding cuts affecting police capabilities.

• Government’s Stance and Initiatives: Minister Dame Diana Johnson reiterated the government’s support for stop and search as a tool to combat crime but stressed the need for its fair and effective use. She highlighted initiatives like the police race action plan to reduce ethnic disparities, the introduction of new knife detection technologies, and efforts to enhance community policing through increased funding and personnel.

• Focus on Prevention: The government also emphasized preventive measures, including youth programs and violence reduction units, to address underlying causes of crime, alongside enforcement efforts.

• Call for Collaboration: Bhatti concluded by expressing willingness to work cross-party to ensure stop and search powers are used effectively to save lives and prevent future tragedies.

The session on the use of stop and search displays a moderate level of disagreement among participants, which supports the rating of 3 out of 5. Here is a detailed breakdown of the disagreements noted during the session:

1. Disproportionate Application of Stop and Search:
   • A significant point of contention was the disproportionate use of stop and search, particularly against black and ethnic minority communities. Bell Ribeiro-Addy emphasized the disproportionate targeting and institutional racism in its application. She argued that this not only affects community trust but also that it criminalizes innocent individuals. This view was supported by Lisa Smart, who called for the abolition of suspicion-less stop and search, highlighting the discrepancy in figures and the impact on community trust.
   • In contrast, Saqib Bhatti and Jim Shannon both supported the use of stop and search and argued that it is essential for public safety. They insisted on the need for the police to have confidence in using these powers. The disagreement here lies in how these powers are perceived to affect different communities disproportionately versus their necessity for safety.
2. Effectiveness versus Fairness:
   • Matt Vickers and Saqib Bhatti voiced support for increasing the use of stop and search due to its perceived effectiveness in removing weapons from the streets. Vickers pointed out the number of weapons seized as a result of stop and search, reinforcing its effectiveness as an argument.
   • However, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Lisa Smart’s concerns for fairness and community relations indicate a disagreement with this stance. They suggest that while stop and search might be effective, its current application is not fair and could be more intelligence-led to balance effectiveness with community trust.
3. Legislative and Operational Changes:
   • Saqib Bhatti encouraged the amendment of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to improve the ease with which stop and search could be used. This view was echoed by Matt Vickers, urging the government to adjust the legislation to make stop and search simpler for officers.
   • Contrarily, Bell Ribeiro-Addy argued that the police already have significant powers and that increasing them further would not solve the issue. Instead, she stressed the need for better application of existing powers. This presents a disagreement on whether legislative changes should focus on empowering or restraining police action.
4. Community Trust and Policing Models:
   • Lisa Smart advocated strongly for neighbourhood policing as an alternative approach that could build trust and engagement within communities. This reflects a disagreement with the heavy reliance on stop and search as the primary tool for crime reduction.
   • Saqib Bhatti and Jim Shannon praised the efforts of police forces and argued that stop and search is a vital tool that should be supported and utilized, suggesting confidence in the existing model despite calls for a different approach.

In summary, while there was some consensus on the seriousness of knife crime and the need to protect public safety, disagreements arose primarily on the implementation and impact of stop and search, the necessity of legislative changes, and contrasting views on policing strategies and their impact on community trust. These disputes indicate a moderate level of disagreement, hence the rating of 3.