Ministers will not scrap 'reasonable grounds' stop and search rule

The government has ruled out changing stop and search rules to allow police to use the power without reasonable grounds to suspect wrongdoing, while saying they want to “reduce bureaucracy” over such operations.

The statement from the junior Home Office minister Nick Hurd follows the revelation in the Guardian that police have been in talks with advisers to the home secretary, Sajid Javid, about loosening the rules because of worries about an increase in knife attacks.

Police chiefs had hoped to scrap the requirement that “reasonable grounds” were needed before a person could be subjected to a search, a condition introduced when Theresa May was home secretary, following concerns that the blanket use of stop and search was inefficient, discriminatory and damaged community relations.

Afzal Khan, a shadow Home Office minister, was granted an urgent question to ask the government about the police request.

Responding, Hurd said there were no plans to return to “the bad old days” of mass stop and search, but there were plans to help police use the powers more effectively.

He said: “The government fully supports the police to use their stop and search powers, when they have lawful grounds to do so. It is a vital policing tool when used correctly. We will always ensure the police have the necessary powers to keep people safe, and that’s why we work very closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to keep under review the stop and search powers we need to help keep the public safe.

“The house should be clear that we have no plans to change the requirements that reasonable grounds for suspicion are needed before a routine stop and search is carried out.”

There were plans, he said, “to see how we can reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiency in the use of stop and search”, details of which would be announced later.

In response, Khan said routine stop and search was “colossal waste of police resources” and urged Hurd to resist any pressure to reintroduce it.

Hurd said: “We are not going back to the bad old days when over 1.4 million people were stopped, with only 8% or 9% of them arrested. That is not what this is about.

“It is about recognising that we now have a million fewer stop and searches than we did back in 2009-10 and we are, I think on a cross-party basis, absolutely determined to bear down on this horrendous spike in violent crime, and we need to make sure that the police have the confidence to use the tools at their disposal. And stop and search is one of those tools. There is evidence that they have lost some confidence in using it.”

The debate follows a spate of violent attacks, particularly in London, where five people were stabbed to death in less than a week, with Labour arguing that police cuts had played a part in the problem.

Speaking earlier on Monday to ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Javid conceded that policing resources were part of the issue.

“Police numbers have to be an important part of the solution. Let’s not pretend that it’s not. There has been a big increase in police funding in the last three years,” he said. “There was a big increase last year. That said, I’m the first to admit, we need to take a fresh look at that and make sure that police – not just in London, but across the country – have the resources that they need.”

The police proposals to Javid’s team were confirmed by Adrian Hanstock, the deputy chief constable of the British Transport Police and national lead on stop and search for the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

The ideas, which apply to England and Wales, would make it more likely that those caught with a knife could be dealt with by an education programme, the so-called public health approach, rather than ending up before the courts.

Hanstock told the Guardian: “There are a lot of calls for officers to do more stop and search. But the current individual threshold that officers have to meet is very tight and precise. So is there any appetite to reduce that threshold where [an] officer has a genuine fear that the person is at risk, or there is a safeguarding threat, or is a risk to others?”

In a statement issued on Monday, the NPCC said that despite Hastock’s comments, there had not been any formal proposal put to the Home Office.

“We regularly hold discussions with key partners, including government departments, civil liberties groups and others to discuss a variety of issues. These conversations enable us to consider the best ways to use our powers,” said a spokesman. “The reasonable grounds threshold was not discussed as part of these representations.”