Michael Howard’s speech in Middlesbrough on crime yesterday attacked ministers on a range of issues. Some of his points concerning excessive bureaucracy will attract broad support. His proposed solution, that all existing targets should be scrapped in favour of the single objective “to prevent crime and disorder”, is inanely general. His most specific pledge, however, that a Conservative government would not proceed with an outstanding recommendation of the Macpherson report, namely that all those stopped by a police officer must have a written explanation and receipt handed to them, is more sensible. It has prompted private applause from sections of the constabulary, but provoked the charge that he is indifferent to the sentiments of minorities.

Although the term “stop and search” is often used as if it were two parts of one activity, there is, at present, a major distinction recognised in legislation. If a police officer stops an individual or group, requesting an account of behaviour or presence, but does not proceed further, no record is required of the engagement. If a search is initiated, by contrast, the officer is then obliged to explain why this occurred, the outcome, and the self-defined ethnic status of the person being investigated. The Macpherson report asserted that stopping was deeply resented by many in the black and Asian communities, particularly young men. It was claimed that by introducing similar bureaucratic requirements for a “stop” as of a “search”, the reputation of the police would be enhanced.

This is a flawed supposition. As a matter of principle, there is a difference between a verbal inquiry and physical intrusion. Much of policing consists of what might be termed the “soft stop”, nonconfrontational questions, often of a very general kind, that en-able the police to impress their authority on a troubled neighbourhood and also acquire a sense of whether problems might be looming. This is not the same as a search, an exercise that carries with it an implicit accusation of serious wrongdoing. Those searched are entitled to reasonable courtesy, the continued presumption of innocence and a formal explanation of why they were subject to the process. The present distinction is an appropriate one. It would be unwise to blur the line between a stop and a search.

This is reinforced by practical considerations. There is an argument about exactly how much paperwork will be generated by the new rules if they are implemented nationally, as planned, in April. The Home Office contends that three quarters of stops can be completed in less than five minutes. The Tories insist the enterprise will consume an average of seven minutes per person. The pilot projects held so far have produced diverse results. There can be no dispute, nonetheless, that if a police officer were formally to stop a gang of a dozen youths, a substantial amount of paperwork would result. This would not assist the cause of crime prevention and could act as a disincentive to officers contemplating whether to take the trouble to stop.

There is a need for the police to show they are not stopping people on the basis of stereotypes. This has happened in the past. The world of policing and of the policed has, though, changed dramatically over the past two decades. The force is more aware today of the importance of inspiring confidence in all sections of the public than it was 20 years ago. Those who believe they have been harassed by the police now have several avenues through which their complaints can be made. Mr Howard should not be presumed to be playing with prejudice by raising this matter. Ministers also would not be dabbling with racism if they looked again at this dubious bureaucratic initiative.