 Welcome to the Justice Committee's fifth meeting of 2017. Agenda item number one is a decision on whether to take item six and seven in private item six is a paper on future scrutiny of the real way policing Scotland Bill in item seven is consideration of a discussion paper on our inquiry into the role and purpose of the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service and also could I ask members if they're content to take a future draft report of our inquiry for the Crown and Procurator Fiscal in private also all subsequent draft reports. Are we agreed? Thank you for that. Next item on the agenda is an affirmative instrument on the draft stop and search code of practice appointed days Scotland regulations 2017. I welcome Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary for justice, Stephen Jones, head of policing powers and Craig French, directorate of legal services at the Scottish Government to the committee this morning. Remind members that officials are permitted to give evidence on this item but may not participate in the formal debate on the instruments under item three of the agenda. I refer members to paper one, which is a note by the clerk and ask the cabinet secretary if he would want to make an opening statement. Thank you for your invitation to appear before the committee today to discuss the stop and search code of practice. Members will be aware that the justice subcommittee on policing took evidence on 26 January from John Scott QC and others, and the subcommittee has already considered issues raised in written evidence. I thought that it would be helpful if today I made some brief opening remarks before taking questions. Stop and search is at the heart of the delicate balance that we need to strike between the need to protect people and keep them safe, and the need to safeguard the rights of the individual. As such, I have been keen to achieve consensus on this issue. I have also been keen to ensure that any changes to stop and search are evidence-based and that we use legislation to effect change where necessary. I thank members of the committee, both at past and present, for their interest in this area and for their constructive engagement with me during the passage of the criminal justice act. I was keen to continue that collaborative and evidence-based approach when revising the draft code after the public consultation. That is why I established the stop and search advisory group chaired by John Scott QC. I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to John Scott and the group for their significant contribution to the work. I would also like to recognise that Police Scotland has already made significant improvements to stop and search in advance of the code coming into force. Police Scotland has engaged willingly, positively and constructively with the advisory group and with the Government in the production of the code. I know that John Scott and the group greatly appreciate that. It is important to note, convener, that there is consensus among advisory group members about all the changes that have been made to the draft code as a result of the consultation responses. It is also important to note that the code will be kept under regular review and will make any further changes to the code based on evidence. I have asked the advisory group to continue to play a role in helping the Government to assess evidence after the code has been in force for 12 months, with an interim assessment after six months. If the evidence points to a need for any change in the code or changes to legislation, then this is something that we will consider in due course. In summary, convener, we have taken an evidence-based collaborative approach to drafting the code. The code gives us a sound framework to record and monitor how stop and search is being used and to gather further evidence. I will continue to work with the advisory group, key stakeholders and the committee to assess and act on evidence as it emerges, and I am happy to take any questions from the committee. Questions from the committee. Liam, John Finlay and Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We did, as you said, have a very useful session with John Scott and others in the sub-committee a week or so ago. I think that it was encouraging to hear the level of consensus that there is around where we have got to, both from Police Scotland and members of the advisory group. I suppose where there was one area of dispute and disagreement among those that we had evidence from was around the figures. I quoted the figures that I am aware of in the public domain of a reduction in stop and search as a whole of around 93.5 per cent in a very short space of time, 99.5 per cent in terms of consensual stop and search, which seems to back up the arguments about being attacked inappropriately. Those figures were called into question. Do you have a view of whether or not the baseline figures for the use of stop and search, generally and for unregulated stop and search, were robust? If there are figures that you are aware of that would give a clearer picture, a more accurate picture, of the change that we have seen in terms of the use of that tactic in the last year or so? It would be fair to say that the historical figures were not robust in HMICS and their report recognised that they were not robust. Part of that is down to the recording methods of the previous legacy forces and a combination as to how some of that followed into Police Scotland as a single force. It would be fair to say now from the evidence that you received from ACC Williams last week that there is a much more robust system in place now for recording stop and search and how that is now collected at a national level and it is analysed at a national level. The more up-to-date figures in the last year in particular are a more accurate reflection of stop and search being used by Police Scotland, but there is no doubt from the report that HMICS conducted into stop and search data is that there were significant flaws in how that information was being collated and handled. I think that what the code allows us to do is to make sure that we now move into a much better place in having a clearer set of rules around the use of stop and search and how that should be recorded both at an officer level and right through into how the service will then collect that data and publish it in an annual basis. As you will be aware, a requirement under the Criminal Justice Act is that an annual set of data has to be published and it also sets down the categories as well from age through to gender through to national origin all of which have to be published now by Police Scotland on an annual basis. What TCC Williams was saying last week it appeared was that officers and parts of the force had almost got into a habit of using this tactic almost as a first resort rather than a last resort and that what had been witnessed over the last year or so was the deployment of other techniques, so to speak, in ensuring that policing remains effective but which in a sense leaves the stop and search option as effectively the last option or where there is a suspicion of something that would merit a search under regulated terms. What happened was that there was a piece of work carried out by the Scottish Police Authority looking at the issue of stop and search and then a piece of follow-up work carried out by HMICS looking at the data collection around stop and search and one of the suggestions that was made by HMICS was that there should be a presumption against the use of consensual stop and search and Police Scotland has been operating on that basis since March 2015 that they have no longer been using or they have been reducing the use of consensual stop and search. What has happened during the course of that time is that there has been a concerted effort in the part of Police Scotland to have more accurate recording of stop and search and phasing out of consensual stop and search. As a result of that, the data that we now have over the last year with the national unit that we now have in stop and search is that we can be more confident about that information, but the code that we will specifically do is that it will set that framework in a much clearer fashion so that there are no doubts about what has to be recorded, how it should be conducted, when it should be conducted as well, and we will place it all on a statutory footing. Part of the issues that you have raised highlights some of the uncertainty around the way in which stop and search has been used and the various approaches that there were to stop and searches in the previous legacy forces and how some of that was then taken into Police Scotland, but I think that the code will put us into a much better place given its greater clarity in a way which we haven't had historically and will give the committee and others a much clearer insight into exactly how Police Scotland is using stop and search and when it is using stop and search, and also to make sure that the police are using it as an effective tool in order to prevent and to tackle crime, because it is an effective tool as and when it is used appropriately and the code aims to support and assist the police in being able to do that. I think that the point that you make about it being an effective tool is something that is often lost in the wider debate about how it has been used in the past, but given the dramatic fall that we have seen in the removal of the consensual stop and search as an option and the significant drop in stop and search overall, there isn't any evidence at this stage that policing has been less effective either in the generality or in particular areas as a result in that reduction in the use of that tactic in particular? No, there isn't any evidence. I know that there have been suggestions that the loss of consensual stop and search could result in particular types of crime increasing, so in particular there's been reference made to the possibility of an increase in knife crime. From the evidence that we have considered, the evidence that the advisory group has considered, there is no evidence that provides a correlation between the two. It's also worth keeping in mind that the stop and search in England and Wales has been in a statutory footing for almost 30 years now, and there were issues around how stop and search was being used in the metropolitan police division. At that time, they looked at the issue of whether there was a correlation between some forms of violent crime that were taking place and stop and search. The Home Office came up with the same view that there is no evidence that actually links the two. There is a greater level of stop and search that results in a reduction in those crimes or there is a reduction in stop and search that results in an increase in particular types of crime, and there is no evidence to support a correlation between the two. Having said that, I think that it's an area that we need to keep and a very careful review. We need to continue to monitor that. If there is any new and emerging evidence that would suggest that there are issues that need to be considered in the way in which stop and search is used and in the way in which it's applied by the police then, I think that it's a responsibility for us all to make sure that we consider that. That's why the code has been drafted in such a way that it will allow us to revisit it at any point in the future, as in when there is any new evidence that would suggest that we need to change it or we need to alter it. It's also incumbent on the police that if they believe that they require powers for particular purposes, there should be evidence to support a justification for that so that powers that we provide to the police are based on clear evidence that can demonstrate that they will have a beneficial effect in keeping our community safe and in preventing crime. On that particular issue around consensual stop and search, there hasn't been any evidence that I am aware of and that the advisory group was aware of that demonstrated that. I think that, in the evidence that the sub-committee received as well, although there were those who were putting the proposition, they felt that they potentially could lead to an increase in some types of crime. They accepted that there was a lack of evidence to support that proposition at this particular point. John Finnie Fallon 5, Douglas Ross. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I don't think that anyone to dispute that stop and search is an important tool in the police armory, but only if it used appropriately and to my mind appropriately would be used very sparingly. Both the impact assessment and the consultation highlighted the need, quote, for an easy to understand guide to the code aimed at members of the public. I think that it's important that we have informed citizens, particularly young people. Can you advise how the Scottish Government, and I'm aware that you're going to post these guides on your website, but you'll understand it not necessarily to be a first port of call for young people, how that information will be got out so that people fully understand their rights but also their responsibilities? You're correct. It will be placed on line for individuals to access. It will also be made available at all police stations. We're also working just now with the advisory group to produce a plain English version of it, which will be available to members of the public. The member who knows that a long-standing interest in the issue, as well as Mr MacArthur, is that the particular impact that it had on young people and children is that we're also working to develop a children and young people's guide to stop and search as well, which would be appropriate to that particular age group. A combination of having it available online, having it available in police stations, but also producing a plain English version of it and also a children and young people's version of it as well, to try to help to support individuals in understanding what their rights are and how stop and search should be applied. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Douglas Rona, then me. The code of conduct removes some options that the police have previously had. It puts it on a formal basis. I just wonder if the minister can confirm that notwithstanding the existence of the code of practice and the essentially restrictions that it can place, the police can address overriding issues of safety and do whatever is necessary to preserve life in the circumstances in which they find themselves. There was an issue of concern that part of section 3 of the code and section 3.3 of the code around how that would be applied in instances where officers in a private place may be dealing with someone who felt that there was a threat to their life, someone who was potentially suicidal and whether they would be able to search that individual to check to see if they had any items that were a matter of concern that could result in them harming themselves. Following the consultation on the draft code, section 3.4 was introduced by the advisory group, which in effect gives the police that additional comfort in reminding them that they have that overall responsibility to the duty to protect life. In an instance like that, they would have the ability to be able to search that individual to see if they had any items on them that could cause them harm. During the evidence that the sub-committee received, John Scott explained that a combination of what is being provided in the code to address the concern that was there. I think that it would be fair to say that Police Scotland is also comforted by that provision in the code, but if you also keep in mind that, in the Police and Fire Reform at Scotland act, there is explicit responsibility on constables to protect life. When that is read alongside ECHR and the need to preserve life under article 2, both of them give comfort to the fact that, from a legislative point of view, there is legislation that would support the police in acting in that way. In a private place, someone who thought was at risk, particularly if they were at risk of suicide, who may have something on them that could cause harm to them to be able to have the power to be able to search them and do so. That was an issue that was picked up during the course of the consultation exercise. What we will do in going forward is we will continue to monitor how that is being applied. Police Scotland feels though that gives them enough comfort as it stands at the present time. However, if there is a need for us to look at any further list of changes going forward to address that, we can consider that in due course. Just to follow on that point from Mr Stevenson, at the moment you have got no intentions to legislate for that element? No, we have got no specific intentions to it at the present time. What are the timescales that you allow for that? Is it just that Police Scotland can back you at any point? Will you review it in six months, a year? I know that Dr Scott's group is reviewing it at intervals. Will it be on recommendation, or further recommendation, from him? He has included in his evidence to the sub-committee that he believes that a legislative solution may be required. Is it his evidence? Is it Police Scotland's evidence? How would you view the competing demands that you legislate in this area? Over the course of the next year, when we are reviewing how the code has been implemented, there will be a six-month interim review, and then there will be the complete review at the end of the year. If there is a following on from what we have in the code at the present time, if there is a feeling from Police Scotland in advisory group that we should bring forward some form of legislative change, we will look for an opportunity to go forward to do that. Once we have completed the first fuel full year, we will then be in a better place to make a decision on that. Can I ask your response to the comments by Callum Steele on behalf of the Scottish Police Federation? Liam McArthur started off asking about some of those issues, but his specific points about the bureaucracy might turn some officers away from using those powers. I am not entirely sure whether that will be the case. I think that there is a need to make sure that we have in place a system that is robust and effective, that allows effective recording of the use of stop and search, that the balance between preserving the rights of the public around stop and search and the need for the police to effectively record that are important. In the evidence that was provided by Police Scotland's ACC Williams, he felt that any additional bureaucracy that goes alongside that is balanced out by the public trust and the public confidence that comes from having a code in place. We are trying to get that balance right. I think that the code by and large achieves that. If, over the course of the six months to a year, once the code has been applied, if there are issues being highlighted that are a particular problem to Police Scotland, that allows us the opportunity to revisit that. Police Scotland has been heavily engaged in this whole process to make sure that we try to get it as right as possible. Any small amount of additional bureaucracy that is attached to the application of the code is outweighed by the benefits that we get from public trust and public assurance around how stop and search has been used by the police. Do you think that Callum Steele is incorrect in his assumptions? No, I just do not agree with his particular view on this. I think that the code gets it broadly quite probably right and I think that over the course of the year we will be able to monitor that. Finally, do you anticipate any areas in Scotland where the number of stop and search will increase as a result of that? Not at the present time. Do you not think that there is a possibility that in some areas it did not take the approach that the former Strathclyde area took and that it resisted some of the demands under the previous leadership of Police Scotland, that now, with the extra training that some officers who were not particularly used to doing stop and search under the old procedures with new training, new awareness among officers in certain parts of Scotland, we will see for a period a spike in the number of stop and searches? No, not necessarily. The reason being is because the significant increase that we had in some areas was because of the use of consensual stop and search, which the code will bring an end to. All stop and search will have to be conducted on a statutory basis. What will happen will be, as a part of the code, that the data for local command areas will go to local commanders on how stop and search has been used at a localised level. They will be able to consider that to make sure that it is appropriate and that it is in compliance with the code and that it will then be applied at a national level. If you look back at the history of the issue, the big numbers around stop and search were to do with consensual stop and search, not statutory-based stop and search. I put that same question to Dr Scott and I reiterate what you said. The work that he and the advisory group have done has been excellent. I also welcome the opportunity that he gave for party school persons to meet with him and discuss it. However, he accepted that there could be some parts of Scotland that previously did not use stop and search powers at all. They did not go down the route that could be seen in the west of Scotland, central Scotland, etc. They could now, with the new training coming in, officers go along to a training session, get the information about stop and search and then go out and use it more readily. He accepted that that could happen, but you are suggesting that it will not. We will find out over the course of the next year. I do not think that there is any evidence that suggests that it will, because statutory stop and search has always been there. Unless there is a change in tactics in the way in which it has been used in a local command area, we are not providing any additional powers here. It is always a provision that has been there. Police officers are trained in the use of statutory stop and search. What we are doing is that the training that officers are now going through is because of the application of the new code, so that they are familiar with that. Any officer who has gone through their training would have been trained in the use of stop and search both in a consensual and in a non-consensual basis. I was encouraged by the evidence from the Children's Commissioner, who said that the early consultation had been with children and young people and had been particularly useful and helpful. I am also encouraged by the fact that you are producing a children and young people's guide. Are you content that the child protection issue is robust in the code? There was a significant and concerted attempt to make sure that we captured the views of young people around the use of stop and search, given that there had been such a significant level of concern about the way in which consensual stop and search has been used by young people. In fairness, I credit to my officials in the way in which I have taken forward this work and in making sure that young people were fully involved in the process. I am content that the code gets the balance right and that we have been able to make sure that the views and issues of young people have fed into the process in shaping it. As you will be aware, the code has a specific part to deal with children. What we need to do is to monitor that going forward and to make sure that that balance is the right one. If there are any issues of concern or areas where we can improve it, we should address those going forward. It is reasonable to say that over the next year, six months to a year, as we review, we will be able to identify whether there is any further work that needs to be undertaken. Once the code is introduced, the level of clarity that we will have in those issues is way beyond anything that we have ever had before when it comes to stop and search and the way in which we will be applied to children and young people. I am confident that we will have much greater clarity and understanding of that and we will have much clearer data on the use of stop and search. You will be aware that one of the issues that was raised during the course of the consultation exercise was whether there was a list of gaps around being able to search young people for alcohol. I was open minded on the issue of whether there was a legislative gap that needed to be closed to give the police a specific search power to be able to search young people for alcohol. Considering that, the advisory group has not been able to come up with evidence and data that would support the provision of such a specific statutory power that should be given to the police. However, we have said that we will review that over the next year. Over the next year, Police Scotland will be collating data specifically on that matter and will then share that information with the advisory group, which will then provide an interim report to myself at six months and then a report after a year. If, after that period of time, there is evidence that demonstrates that there is a gap, it is an issue that we can consider and look at then. However, if there is no evidence to support the need for any further statutory powers in that area, I do not think that it will be justified for us to then look at providing a particular statutory power when there is no evidence to support the need for it. I want to ask you for a bit more detail around the review and assessment process. I think that the new chapters that have been included in the guide, chapter seven, where a child is involved, are particularly welcome. Pauline McIntyre was very pleased to see the new things included in that chapter. Chapter eight on vulnerable people is also very welcome. I am thinking specifically about adults with mental health. I think that it is a huge improvement in the code to see that new chapter there. However, I wondered whether the interim review in six months, until a code is used, you will not know how good it is and if it is working effectively. I am thinking specifically about the new chapters seven and eight. At the six months review, will you be able to drill down sufficiently to see that the new chapters, the new guidelines, are working effectively? If you find any gaps or any concerns raised, will you be able at that point to change them or will you have to wait for the year to be up? My only note of caution here is that six months might be too early to give us a true understanding of how the code is operating overall. The reason that I have asked for a six-month interim report is that, if there are some trends emerging, it will allow us to then look at whether we need to do some further work over the coming six months to understand that information more fully so that by the time we get to the end of a year, we can supplement any information that is gathered over the course of that year by Police Scotland with any other additional work that we might want to do during that period if trends are emerging. What I would say to you is that, if it is six months, there are issues around how it is being applied to individuals who are vulnerable, whether it is someone with a learning disability or someone with mental illness, that we need to consider. At that point, it would allow us to then look at whether we need to do anything further to understand that more fully so that, hopefully, by the time we get to the end of a year, we will be in a better place in understanding the full extent and the nature of the issue. A year is probably a reasonable timeframe for us to give us a broader understanding, but that is a six months almost health check that allows us to then identify whether there are any emerging trends. In those areas, if there are emerging trends, we need to do a bit further work to understand that more fully so that we can then look at the issue and the overall review after a year. That is helpful. Thank you. I wonder if, cabinet secretary, the code is very much welcomed and has been well thought out, and I think that everyone is very relieved that there will be a review and it will be monitored as it goes along. If you could comment on some of the reports in the press about the cost of implementing the training, etc., which was, I think, monitored or mutated at £3 million at a time when the police budgets are under quite a bit of pressure. The figures are nothing new in that. The figures are part of the Bria, which went alongside the drafting of the code. It is already information that we have provided and calculated. The way in which it is being managed is through the on-going training provision for officers through Police Scotland, and it is on-going training of constables. The information is information that we had calculated on the basis of some of the IT changes that had to be made, and some of the work around training of officers, and it is being absorbed into the on-going training programme for police officers. I was going to ask you about the separate powers in relation to stop and search around alcohol, but you have probably given as much of an answer to that as you can. Following up on Douglas E's earlier line of questioning about the potential for an increase in use of stop and search in any areas where it has historically been lower, I quoted the figures previously of a reduction of 99.5 per cent in consensual stop and search and an overall reduction in 93 per cent of stop and search as a whole. What has been the figure for the use of statutory stop and search over that period? As you said, consensual stop and search has made up the bulk of the figures up until that point. I do not have those figures to hand, but I can get you the most up-to-date figures if that would be helpful around the use of statutory stop and search. That would be helpful, but even in terms of the trend that we have seen over that 12-month period, has it remained largely static and that 93.5 per cent has just made up principally by the number of consensual stop and search following off a cliff? Or has there been a reduction in statutory stop and search as well over that period? On consensual stop and search, the more up-to-date figures will show that it has declined even further. That is all in preparation for the code coming in, where consensual stop and search will no longer be used. In terms of the overall figure, the most up-to-date figure on the use of statutory stop and search, I can come back to you with accurate details on that from Police Scotland and where the figures are at at the present time. I think that the point that you were making in relation to the additional bureaucracy, and Douglass quite rightly highlighted the concerns that Callum Steele was raising, but I think that ACC Williams, as well as talking about the increase in public confidence and transparency, made a point of saying that, in the interests of police officers themselves, that transparency very often provided them some protection from allegations of inappropriate use. In the sense that the benefit was not simply to do with public confidence and the relationship between the public and police officers, but to some extent was actually presenting additional protection to police officers. The way in which they were using it was far more transparent and therefore the opportunity for allegations to be made about misuse were much reduced. Is that something that you would recognise? Yes, I do. You can see from the evidence that you received from ACC Williams in response to the issue that Douglass Ross had raised. That was about the way in which the stop and search is one way for officers to gather intelligence on a particular issue. There is a range of ways in which officers can gather information and intelligence. The point that ACC Williams was keen to impress on was to make sure that stop and search was being used in a legitimate, accountable way that the public could have confidence in. It is important that our responsibility in Government empowerment is to set a framework in which the police can operate and to give the police clarity about what their role is and how they should fulfil their duties. We are doing everything possible to support them in the very important and very good job that they do for us. Some of the amendments that have been made to the code at a draft stage are reflections of the views that have been expressed by Constables in saying that we need greater clarity about some of those matters, particularly the point about being able to search someone who may be a vulnerable individual who may be at risk of committing suicide, to provide them with additional assurance and clarity. It helps them in having an understanding of what the rules are and how they should be applied in a way that previously has not been there. Some of the historical issues that you raised earlier about the collection of data and the reliability of that data reflect a considerable level of different interpretations on how it should be applied and when it should be used and how it should then be recorded. What the code will do is remove all that uncertainty. It will provide the police with clarity, but it also provides the public with clarity and ensures that it has been taken forward in a way that ensures legitimacy of its use as a valuable tool as and when it is necessary and that there is appropriate accountability around how it is being used. Given the very invasive nature that stopping search is, it is an invasive tactic that invades an individual's personal privacy. We need to make sure that we get those checks and balances right. The code, by and large, probably gets that balance right, but we will be able to make sure that we continue to assess that over the next year. Just more broadly, we have all accepted that the place that we are at now, in terms of the code of practice, is very welcome. It is also acknowledged that we have come a long distance from the point where my colleague Alison McInnes and John Finnie were raising this routinely in committee in Parliament. Has this prompted the Government to look at other areas where almost established practice might need a bit of challenge function exerted? I appreciate that that is the role of ourselves as members of the committee. Has the Government asked Police Scotland to look at other areas of the tactics that it uses, the approach that it uses and carrying out its duties? It is up to the cabinet secretary if he wants to respond to it. It would be fair to say that I established an advisory group recognising the concerns that there were about the use of stop and search. I had concerns when I became cabinet secretary about the data and the quality of the data and the information that was available to us and understanding how it was being used and the way in which it was being used. There is a danger that if an appropriate tactic is used incorrectly or inappropriately, it can undermine public confidence in the validity of its use. The code of practice helps to give us that level of assurance and will help to support public confidence in how it is being applied. In that way, as I mentioned earlier on, it helps to give the police legitimacy and accountability around how it is being used but also public confidence in the way in which it will be used and the rights that individuals have in how it is being applied. On some of the broader issues around it, I am always conscious that it is important that the police are able to use a range of tactics and approaches that can help to make our communities as safe as possible. For example, one of the areas that I know that the member has an interest in is the use of biometrics. Biometrics is growing considerably and its application in tackling crime is an important element of how we meet some of the challenges around new and emerging crime. As that develops, it is important that we have appropriate safeguards in there and how biometrics are going to be used and the way in which they will be used and what the oversight role will be outwith the police and how biometrics are being used. That is an area in which HMICS is raised, which I welcomed at the time. It is an issue that I am giving a considerable amount of consideration to at the present time. The reason why it is important to address that is not because I do not want the police to be able to use those things but to have a structure in place that provides accountability, legitimacy and can give public assurance on how they are being applied. As that whole area develops, it is important that we make sure that we support the police and that we are able to use those things appropriately and legitimately when it is necessary. One of the most effective ways that we can do that is by providing the right type of oversight structures that can give us that level of public reassurance and accountability. That might be an example of what the Government's perspective is trying to help to support the police but to do so in a way that also gives the public confidence in how they are going about using those types of new and emerging technologies as we go forward. John Finnie. I just wanted to, Cabinet Secretary, pick on something that my colleague McArthur said there. I am paraphrasing on one interpretation of what he said could be that this code is writing some historic wrong. The reality is that there are common powers of search. There have been statutory powers of search in relation to drugs, in relation to offensive weapons firearms, which were applied largely without incident for decades on end. The legislation goes back over half a century. The aberration was the so-called nonsense of consensual search, which it now addresses. Rather than bringing in some brave new world, it is reinforcing something that has been properly operated in the past. Do you agree with that characterisation? I agree with that. There is a whole range of different statutes to provide search powers in different situations. Of course, that only deals with search powers when it comes to individuals who have not been arrested. There are then obviously search powers that are dealt with under standard operating procedures within the police for anyone who has been arrested. My view gets into a much better place and provides much greater clarity on officers and the public. It allows Parliament to have oversight on what the rules are and how they should be applied. It will also provide greater data so that we can see much more transparency around the matter. If Parliament is minded at some point in the future to look at amending and changing the code, Parliament will decide whether there should be any amendment or changes that the Government might bring forward at some point if that is necessary. I think that it gets us to a much better place and it gives Parliament a much clearer role in setting down that framework for one of our most important public services in the country, the police, but also balancing that against the rights of individuals to go about their daily life. The third item on the agenda is formal consideration of the motion in relation to the affirmative instrument. The motion is motion 03459 that the Justice Committee recommends that the stop and search code of practice appointed days Scotland regulations 2017 draft be approved. I put the question then, are there any questions from members? Everyone is satisfied, I think that we have had a good session on that already. I put the question therefore that the motion 0349, in the name of Michael Matheson, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes consideration of the affirmative instrument. The Fitties report will note and confirm the outcome of the debate. Are members content to delegate authority to me as convener to clear the final draft report? Thank you for that. I now suspend to allow the minister and his officials to leave. We have on the agenda today consideration of the negative SSI. This is the title condition Scotland Act 2003 rule lousing bodies amendment order 2017, SSI 217 oblique 7. I refer members to paper 2. Do members have any comments? No comments? Okay. Then is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? I agree. Our next agenda item is feedback from the convener of the justice sub-committee on policing on its meeting of 12 January 2017. This will be a verbal report and I refer members to paper 3 and invite Mary Fee to provide that feedback, after which there will be an opportunity for any comments or questions. Mary Fee, the justice sub-committee on policing met last week to agree its findings on the draft stop and search code of practice and its forward work programme. The letter outlining the sub-committee's views is included in the paper as well as an updated work programme and I'm happy to answer any questions or any comments that anyone may have. Any comments on the report? If not, then we move to the next item, which is private session. The next committee meeting will be on 21 February, when we will take evidence on the limitation child abuse Scotland bill and consider our draft report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal inquiry. The next item on