 I welcome everyone to the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing the 9th. It's our 9th meeting in 2015. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely as they interfere with broadcasting, even when they switch to sanit. No apologies, I welcome Roderick Campbell to the meeting. Decision on taking business in private item 1. Do you agree to take item 3 consideration about what programme in private? Thank you very much. Item 2 stop and search. This is the main item on today's agenda and evidence session on stop and search. I welcome to the meeting John Scott QC, chair of the advisory group on stop and search. As members are aware, the advisory group made recommendations to the cabinet secretary of justice on the policy and practice of stop and search in late August. Many of those recommendations have already been taken forward through amendments to the criminal justice bill, which made the delight of dealing with early in the week for a very prolonged session. On behalf of the sub-committee, I'd like to thank John Scott and the advisory group for their significant work in this area, which we've had an interest in for some months. It's right that we spend some time today exploring the port in more detail, and I'll go straight to questions from members if that's okay with you, Mr Scott. Of course, yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Right, who wants to kick off Margaret, then John? Oh, they're keen. Margaret, John, Elaine, then Alison, right, in that order, and then Kevin. Good afternoon. You'll be aware, obviously, of the problems associated with that, our collection, the reliability, availability and, hence, the recommendation 5. I wonder if you could give a little bit more detail on the regular reports to SPA, the nature, frequency level, et cetera. As far as that is concerned, I think that the SPA already had in mind that they would be looking for this data, and Police Scotland already had in mind that it would be provided, so the recommendation was to follow up on something that was already part of the plan. So far as the frequency of the reports, I can't actually now remember what the frequency was to be, but I think that it was no less than about four times a year. I think that we were certainly getting data on a monthly basis during the short time of the review, and, in particular, because there have been so many significant changes earlier on in the year, the data was being monitored to make sure that what had been the intention was, in fact, being implemented, and we were able to see the shift from non-statuary to statutory, and also to see the success rate improving in relation to statutory. It's such an important part data. We can't monitor, we can't evaluate how successful, how well a policy is working, or a certain initiative without that. Given that there was such a divergence in the information coming forward about the status of the data, if it was accurate, be it if there had been any reason not to provide all of those things hitting at the very centre of the accountability and transparency that public have a right to expect in this issue? Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more. Part of what we were hoping is that the data would be available for consideration by, for example, academics like Dr Kath Murray, who is here in the public gallery for this session, to make sure that there are additional checks on what is being represented as contained in the data. Have we any idea, has the report gone already? Is there a first date for when the next report is due with this? I'm afraid that I'm not sure about that. When we finished our work, the plan then was that we would retain an involvement, but it would kick in again after the various consultations that had been recommended and accepted. The advisory group then would become involved in looking at the code of practice once we had the detailed responses to the consultation and also on the alcohol and young people side of it. I've had one meeting with Police Scotland so far, and I've got another meeting next Friday. It's something that will stay very firmly on the agenda, but I'm afraid that I'm not sure I had to get back to dealing with some other things after the end of August. I'm sorry that I can't answer that question. I hope that the fact that it's being raised today will put it back firmly on the agenda. Of course. Thank you very much, Margaret. I've got John Foll about Alison, please. Good afternoon, Mr Scott. I thank the advisory group for all their work and you for the report. I found it very refreshing. We know why we're here, and I'm keen perhaps that we look forward a bit. There was a line right at the opening of your report, talking, listening is an essential part of good policing. Is that something that's recognised by the Scottish Police Service at the moment? I'm not sure. I think that this has been an extended period of transition. I think that there's a good number of police officers who've always known that. We've never forgotten it. I think, however, that there's perhaps been a newer generation of officers for whom that's not been made quite as clear, and that things like targets, unfortunately, have skewed things away from the Peleon principles, the approach that the public are the police, and that there's nothing to stop police officers talking to people, regardless of what we said, regardless of what the practice was before, but things had become target driven and therefore moved in to stop and search. Much more quickly, in situations where our view was that the police could simply have spoken to people and that would have resolved any suspicions concerns that they had and would have avoided some of the damage to public confidence that has resulted from the excessive use and disproportionate use of the tactic of consensual or non-statutory. Do you think that police officers who perhaps are fairly junior in service and have not known too much of a different regime will then need to be empowered to exercise their power of discretion, which is the most important power, arguably, to have? That's my sense, yes, from speaking to some officers. One thing that struck me very strongly was that the officers we met, even those who firmly believed that they should be allowed to continue using non-statutory stop and search, seemed genuine in thinking that they needed that in order to be able to do their job properly. We disagreed that they needed that facility, that tactic, in order to be able to do their jobs properly, but for those officers who have become convinced of that, there's clearly going to be a transition, which is one of the reasons that we talked about, making sure that the implementation stage is detailed and takes a bit of time to get those officers round to the point where some of their more senior colleagues perhaps still remember about individual discretion. You're answering for your own actions. Being told that there's targets isn't an answer if you have to go to court and explain why you did a particular thing, but also that you have extensive powers and that you don't need to fall back on something that couldn't be properly explained, couldn't be properly defined, couldn't be properly trained on, you can still do the job properly and that there's perfectly acceptable ways of doing it within a proper framework. I think that there will be a cultural shift there, there's training implications and that there are some officers that will need that support. Your appointment was warmly welcome for a number of reasons, not least your background with human rights. What role do Police Scotland play in human rights in Scotland? That's been an interesting subject for me for quite a while. Prior to Police Scotland, there was contact between various voluntary organisations that I've been involved with through human rights and some of the legacy forces. Lothian and Borders in particular, there was fairly regular contact. The Inspectorate of Constabulary, there was fairly regular contact. I was asked to contribute to a thematic inspection of firearms. Strathclyde Police used to send us a Christmas card when we had the Scottish Human Rights Centre, which was just around the corner from Pitt Street Police Headquarters, and we were in Holland Street. So human rights had always featured in it. Was it on the Christmas card? It became slightly embarrassing when we were having meetings with other human rights organisations from other countries, and they were explaining their experiences with police forces, and we had to confess that we got a Christmas card from ours. It's always been part of it. It's very important now, and I welcome the fact that human rights is specifically mentioned in the oath that officers take and understand that you had a part to play in that. That's been very important. There are very good officers within Police Scotland who I see as being personally committed to the idea of an ethical approach and to human rights, and some of them will remain in the organisation and be able to make sure that human rights and an ethical approach remain as an important part of how things are dealt with. Perhaps even recognising it more than has been the case in some occasions. The police are at the front line of defending human rights? That's right. In recent years, I've heard the now Lord Advocate, although I think he was the slister general at the time, saying that Crown Office is a front line human rights organisation, and the Police Service is a front line human rights organisation as well. Tying that in with the oath, that's a very good way of officers to see it and to embrace the idea of human rights. It offers them some protections, but it offers the public some protections, and it allows for frameworks to be put in place that it requires, frameworks to be put in place, and for scrutiny, which is something that, if officers are doing the job well, they should welcome, and indeed that was my experience, that there were officers who were saying, we want scrutiny because we have considerable powers and we want to have to answer to someone for them. Okay, and that positive note, I'll thank you again. Thank you. Do you mind if I take Alison Nets? We seem to have the names muddled up. Alison, then Elaine, then Kevin. Okay, thank you very much, convener, and thank you too, Mr Scott, for your very rigorous report. I think that it's certainly helped immensely in this area. I think that I was particularly welcome the fact that you put it in context and that you say in your introduction that operational matters must be for the police to decide, but defining the limits of police power is not an operational matter, it's a matter of public policy for the Parliament and I think that's a very important thing for us to remember. You must be in quite a unique position. You write a report and within a month its recommendations are transposed into legislation. That's really quite exceptional. Quite often reports sit for a long time on the shelf. One thing that the Government has done is gone a step further than what you've recommended and that is in relation to the issue of stop and search and alcohol possession. I wonder whether you would like to comment on whether or not you agree with the Scottish Children and Young People's Commissioner who felt that that was premature to take that step in the legislation. Dealing first with the uniqueness of the response, I think that there were a number of aspects of the review that were unique. I was entertained by the fact that the Scotsman at one stage described their report as the long-awaited report and I wondered, given that from start to finish it was five months, it was difficult to meet those sort of expectations. So far as the alcohol and the power of search in particular for young people is concerned, my understanding of that, and I've remained in contact with officials. I've not simply finished off the report and then put it aside myself, albeit I did have to take the family to centre parks to make up for an absentee period in August. As I understand it, the provision that has been put in place is only intended to be used if, in fact, the consultation responses once considered lead to the view that such a power should be introduced. It was a very difficult area for us. At times it seemed straightforward, but with about a month to go some of the complications then started becoming apparent. I should say in fairness to Police Scotland and those in the policing community that some of the complications and whether it was necessary at all were points that were made to me by people from within the policing community. The point was also forcefully made by those with an interest in children's rights. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the commissioner. I couldn't myself reach a firm conclusion on it. It did seem to be a significant part of the whole area of stop and search. There are clearly issues about vulnerable young people, and therefore it wasn't an area that we felt we could simply say, well, don't bother with it at all. However, it is important and it's why we made the recommendation in the terms that we did is that there be a full and meaningful consultation where all of these issues can be canvassed in a situation where we couldn't make up our minds that more people get an opportunity to have a say on it, in particular people from children and young persons groups and those involved with them, so that we can explore all of the issues and then make a decision. A decision can ultimately be made bearing in mind that there will probably be a price to pay for that decision. If the decision was that there should be such a power introduced, there may be implications for confidence of young people in policing depending on how that's handled and whether that's done. However, if the decision was that there shouldn't be such a power introduced, then care would need to be taken to make sure that the police still felt that they were able to deal with youngsters who were putting themselves in vulnerable positions, although there are child protection powers available that might come into play there. In five months, although we did a lot, I think that so far as that area was concerned, it would have been more complicated than would allow for easy recommendations in that period. The other thing, of course, is that we had the call for evidence, but it was over at the period of the summer. I entirely understand and agree with why we had the short timescale that we did for producing our report, but what it meant was that it was a period when lots of groups weren't able to get together and put in a response even to the call for evidence. I have gone out to speak to some people in those groups, and I know that they want to contribute to the consultation so that all of the issues can be properly canvassed and that the pros and cons examined before ultimately a decision is made, taking into account a fuller, a wider range of evidence than we were able to assemble. If I might say that just a bit further. Thank you very much for your answer there. Am I right in my reading of the report that you said that the majority of the group felt that there wasn't a gap in relation to it? No significant gaps. We know that it was difficult at first because the figures were all amalgamated, but since June I think the figures have been disaggregated and we can look at the pattern. We know that in June and July this year alcohol detections from seizures, which is a power that the police already have to hand, accounted for 91 per cent of the detections. Alcohol detections from non-statutory stop and search was only 306 searches, which is 6 per cent. It's a very small amount and the remaining 3 per cent was found obviously through statutory stop and search. We're talking about a very small area. Is there a danger that we do something disproportionate with this? That is clearly a risk and it's one of the things that would have to be taken into account when all of the evidence is in. I suspect that there will be evidence from the Children's Commissioner and others saying that given that that's a measure of the one measure of the problem that putting legislation into place for that would be disproportionate. As I say, it's part of what we weren't eventually able to answer, but the question of proportionality is a key aspect of it and it's one of the ways in which human rights challenges can come into play. The absence of a framework, which was a clear problem with non-statutory stop and search, but whether it's used proportionately is another aspect. That's something that a careful eye will have to be kept on and to come back to the point about data, it will be important to monitor the data to make sure that there's no unseen or unintended aspects of disproportionality in the use of statutory powers. Given that voluntary stop and search foundered because of its lack of legitimacy and the challenges to its lawfulness and compatibility with CCHR, would you like to comment on the legitimacy of the proposal to give police stop and search powers over something that's not in itself criminal? That again was one of the issues and I think it's a point that John Carnach and one of the founding co-directors of the violence reduction unit made as well. The whole question of alcohol and how we teach children and young people about it becomes extremely complicated and there's always risks of mixed messages there. I think that if the focus comes from the point of view of keeping young people safe and making sure that they are not criminalised, then that's a safer approach that will hopefully result in identifying the right answer but that is one of the many complicating factors about it. I certainly think that an approach that Luke Tatt is keeping young people out of the justice system and they recognise that stopping children getting access to alcohol in the first place was where the focus should be rather than risk in drawing them into either into the criminal justice system because we're not clear what we would do with those powers of search and damage in that relationship between the police and the communities. The Westminster Parliament in 1997 looked at the question of seizure and search. That was one of the things that troubled them and that's why there was no specific power of search of young people for alcohol given at that point. I'm not convinced that they had the most detailed debate or discussion about it. I think that the consultation that is going to happen allows for far greater consideration of the various issues involved but there isn't, I think, an easy answer or an answer that covers absolutely every aspect, I'm afraid. It would be the case and I hear about there might be child protection issues involved particularly when there's stopping search or alcohol that in those circumstances they might take up what my colleague did and they might then be referral to children's panel rather than going into the criminal justice system. Is that not the case? Yes, there are separate procedures for child protection. There are things that may go to the children's panel but the children's groups are anxious that there be no unintended drift into the youth or the criminal justice system. Absolutely. I thought that it was important to put that measure in. You would have a nine or 10-year-old that might be carrying alcohol but there's a huge issue there about child protection issues which will be an issue about the whole family situation and so on. Sorry, yes, Elaine followed by Kevin. Thanks very much, convener. You're probably aware that the Scottish Police Federation have produced a little publication in favour of stop search powers and I just wondered what sort of conversations your group had with the SPF and ASPs in terms of their approach to supporting their members if things change, how they will support their members in terms of a change of culture within the police? Of course. I think that we did mention the police federation document in our report although they didn't give separate specific evidence to us. I think that that document was prepared for the Parliament. I had a meeting with an official from Calum Steele and Niven Rennie from ASPs and they both made the position of their organisations and their members clear, although recognising in particular with ASPs that there were a range of views it wasn't as simple as there's a single superintendent's view on the matter. I think that it's perhaps safer to say that the federation was in a stronger position that there is a federation view. My view is that in the new landscape without non-statutory stop and search the federation and ASPs will be able to do the same good job for their members part of which will be helping to make sure that their members understand that they're not prevented from carrying out any necessary police duties at all by the change in the landscape. They do not, in fact, have less powers because what we were talking about before wasn't a power. Actually, a lot of police officers who spoke to me informally said that they didn't like non-statutory at all. We had a submission from someone who said that they were a serving police officer and he referred back to the targets obviously and that changed earlier on this year. He was very uncomfortable but felt that he was under pressure to do it and that was echoed by a number of other officers where there were some who said that they'd never used the power and never missed it. They never noticed a point where they felt that they weren't able to do something and we don't think that there should be any situations where there are officers frozen in an action and I'm not sure what I can do because I don't have non-statutory stop and search. Having reasonable grounds to suspect that the persons in possession of something isn't an enormous or insuperable burden for the officer to satisfy himself or herself of before searching. Statutory search is much more likely to produce an item, something more likely to be found because the officer has identified for themselves that there's a basis for doing it whereas non-statutory, arguably was a very, very poor use of police time given the small return, the small success rate in finding anything and that coupled with the damage that it did to public confidence along with a number of other issues. We were, I think, more troubled by the legitimacy than by the lawfulness but there were clearly issues over all of that means that it had to go but an offer that I made to Asps and to Police Scotland is that I will continue to meet with them, whether it's small meetings, private meetings, big meetings, public meetings, to go along to their annual conferences. I've already, I think, been lined up for the Asps annual conference in May to go along and explain our thinking but partly to explain to officers at all levels that this isn't about hobbling them in any way and that we don't think a necessary consequence of it but it's about regaining the confidence in the statutory powers which a lot of officers and prosecutors have spoken to were surprised that there had been such a shift, such an emphasis away from that, when that had been the more successful approach and that had been the traditional approach to the whole question of stop and search but I am sure that the Federation and Asps will be able to do the job in trying to persuade the members of the case for the new landscape as they did in trying to persuade others of the case against it. If it's handled properly and the appropriate information given to officers and taking SPF and Asps on board with us that you don't think there will be any significant difficulties in implementing the sort of change in policy. No, I don't and that was a very important part of it and trying to make sure that the report was set in that context, that it was not designed to be a report that was solely critical of Police Scotland or of particular practices. It was trying to put everything in a context where stop and search is only a very small part of police activity but was given a significant amount of attention because it was being used disproportionately. So I wanted to make sure that the whole policing community in Police Scotland and the members' organisations felt that they will be able to work with the new landscape. They won't be stopped from doing the things that they feel that they need to do and in fact it will offer them some protection, some safeguards that are missing in a situation where they are told to do something, there are targets to behave in a particular way and they lose the individual discretion or they lose their sense of the individual discretion and answering for what they did to the courts, for example, rather than simply answering to their sergeant at the end of the shift. Thank you. Your recommendation 10 said that discussions should take place between Police Scotland and other partners and the most appropriate methods of dealing with children and vulnerable adults who come to notice for protection and welfare reasons and situations. Can you expand on your thinking of that recommendation, Mr Scott? Of course, Mr Stewart, yes. While we were starting off our work one of the areas that we identified as a useful way into the whole subject was, rather than in fact any gaps that the use of non-statutory stop and search has masked and alcohol was mentioned first, second and last, but child and adult protection issues were also mentioned as something that the police used non-statutory stop and search to deal with. That puzzled us. We had Anne Houston on the group and Anne's obviously been heavily involved in child protection issues but also made contact with the protection committees for us as well. None of the conveners of the child and adult protection groups recognised the use of non-statutory stop and search as a police tool in the area of adult and child protection. A number of issues there but it was put forward to us as one possible gap. If you took away a non-statutory stop and search to deal with certain adult and child protection issues but looking at it from a slightly different angle issues of consent were perhaps even more troubling when you're talking about children there was general recognition that the consent that was sought and apparently obtained was not fully informed consent not least because of the power imbalance so that would also apply to some of the adult protection issues that we were talking about with vulnerable people in times of distress who were therefore not in the best position to be able to understand and to give informed consent to a search. It just seemed absolutely the wrong way into a situation where the use of what's effectively an enforcement power or tactic could exacerbate some of the factors creating the vulnerability of the individual concerned. But in speaking to Ann Huston and speaking to people from the Child and Adult Protection Committees also speaking to Colin Mackay at the Mental Welfare Commission it seemed that although everyone agreed that non-statutory stop and search was really the wrong way to think about getting into it clearly some officers thought that they had to. There are some powers there I think in particular responsibilities given to the local authority to some partners of the local authority however it's an area where the legislation there's a number of different bits of legislation it's all maybe not quite as clearly translated for individual officers about how they approach questions of protection but what we were saying was whatever it is it shouldn't be non-statutory stop and search there are responsibilities and there are powers in place but what seemed to us missing was the relation of the high level the statutory powers down to officers who thought that they had to use non-statutory stop and search as a way into it when that was neither appropriate nor justified so it was really just to make sure that the dialogue that we thought maybe was necessary came out of this process and that non-statutory stop and search was removed as one means of trying to engage with children and young people in vulnerable positions we have some despicable people out there who are involved in criminal activity who wouldn't give second thought to using children or vulnerable adults to carry out business for them Mr Finnie talked earlier about an officer's discretion and obviously there are occasions where officers probably have to use their discretion at a fair amount in terms of dealing with some of these kinds of situations do you think that the removal of non-statutory stop and search may actually in these occasions have a real difficulty in terms of the officer deciding how they carry out the business to deal with a possible safety issue for these children and vulnerable adults? No, it shouldn't part of the transition away from making sure that officers understand that they have got means of dealing with these situations other than by use of non-statutory Could you give us an example of the other means that they could use the other means at their disposal that they could use to deal with a situation? Of course, statutory stop and search of children is still possible If officers have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are in possession of drugs or something like that they can stop and search them and that's not changed at all we make no recommendation about that if it was thought that children were being used in that way then the police and the child was in possession of something the police can search them and then no doubt that the primary investigation is in relation to the adult involved but child protection referrals could be made it may be that the children's panel would become involved too but the use of non-statutory stop and search isn't an essential part of that so a child protection referral is one method of dealing with it involvement of the children's panel is another statutory stop and search is still possible if there are reasonable grounds to suspect possession of these items so it's not something that we see the police as being prevented from dealing with at all In the case of vulnerable adults in the case of vulnerable adults there are adult protection referrals possible but I struggle with the idea that an appropriate method an example that was given to us was say a family phone the police they say that the brother has had mental health issues recently he had a quantity of sleeping pills which aren't in the house anymore he's not in the house anymore and they think he's gone to a local spot known for suicides and if the police went along to the place and they found the person could they not use statutory or consensual stop and search in that situation now the first thing that struck me was in that situation with that vulnerable individual it cannot be said with any certainty that they would be in the state of mind where they could give informed consent to a search so the police asking for it would really be meaningless they would not be able to tell themselves or anyone else that the individual is in a position to consent secondly however with an individual in that situation there are a number of things that could happen which could exacerbate what occurs and I would have thought that the use of an enforcement tactic is one of those there's been a pilot in Glasgow of a mental health triage approach where a mental health nurse goes out with police officers and deals with situations involving vulnerable adults who may be vulnerable because of the excessive consumption of drink or drugs which they've taken voluntarily but you then use the mental health nurse as your way into it rather than two uniformed officers saying we want to search you if the person in a situation like that had said I don't agree to be searched then what could the police do if the individual said that they did agree to be searched and they found the tablets what could they do it would simply put them in a position where they had to consider the adult protection referral mechanisms one of the problems I think has been the fact that police in those sort of situations very often take the person to the hospital hospital will deal with them say that they're drunk and then discharge them the police understandably anxious not to simply let the person go out and do the same thing again may end up arresting them but the problem there is that the hospital is not dealing with matters properly or may not be dealing with matters properly and it then simply becomes part of the skip of activities that the police end up having to deal with but the answer isn't non-statutory stop and search I'm just thinking which was an excellent example but I'm just thinking they're forewarned that the police were placed in where they became aware themselves someone was going to self-harm would that not be grounds for letting them intervene just at that moment I appreciate all about the autonomy of the person and so on it's a very difficult area to know when they should intervene and it would be right to do so and wrong to do so I'm just wondering if there's any room at all for that my understanding is that adult protection powers the police could act with the necessary degree of urgency so if they were presented with the situation that's what they thought was happening then using adult protection powers not using non-statutory stop and search they could intervene, they could search the person but if at that point they're dealing with the person and there's the mental health issues there's various things that they can do take them to the hospital take them to a place of safety into it would be through adult protection powers in terms of those adult protection powers would they actually require consent to do that search? instead of non-statutory stop and search which we have we would use other methods within the law for them to carry out a search where there was no consent yes okay it is a difficult area definitely no I think it is I think there's a straightforward solution to these but I think what you've made me aware of and perhaps I should be aware is there are lots of other statutory routes for it and what you're telling us is that the police aren't necessarily a certain way of the routes that they are and that any code of practice or guidance would incorporate these issues would incorporate you can do this in these circuits I have an understanding particularly in these difficult areas of children vulnerable adults where if a police stood back and something dreaded the lamp they'd be in the front page of the papers so it's hard for the officers at that time so we don't want to inhibit common sense is it working in discretion yes I think that that would be a separate code of practice the code of practice that we've suggested is for stop and search but it may be that as a result of recommendation 10 and some of the discussion is there that at the very least there should be a protocol and how in particular to deal with emergency situations where primary responsibility is given by statute to local authorities but no officer of the local authority is likely to be confronted with it's more likely for example to be a police officer or someone in healthcare that deals with it first if it's a police officer then they need to know that there's an adult protection path that takes them right away from the criminal justice side I think that dreadful case of the lady down the mineshaft where we were so busy working out whose responsibilities were that nobody took over and did something at the scene whether it would have resolved matters or not I don't know but I think that's what we have to be careful yes I'm good you had the same issue and then I'll take Alison John Mr Scott in the course of your inquiry did you come across anything that substantially had changed in the way the world works in the last three years that had caused this particular movement to so-called non consensual non statutory stop and search because the issue for instance that Mr Stewart highlighted is something that in 30 years a police officer course you dealt with people in these circumstances and the reason you dealt with him because your obligation as a public servant is to protect life and property and it was never an issue of search so that's but there's nothing substantive that's changed there isn't anything, no there's now specific statutory powers and duties and they include the reference to protection of life thank you thank you for clarifying Alison thank you Elaine Murray touched on the issue of training and I'll note that you didn't recommend that voluntary stop and search or non statutory ceased forthwith but that it ceased after the core practice had been developed because you felt the need for a change and for training I think I was quite disturbed to read in your report that you said that you talked about the worrying example whether to tell an individual a non statutory stop and search that they could refuse to consent where Police Scotland training was pitched at what might be excused or tolerated by the courts rather than what was known to be good practice so are you saying that there is a need for a cultural change within Police Scotland in relation to this issue? Absolutely, there is a need for a cultural change and possibly a need for better legal advice than they got in that situation I mean the advice was strictly speaking correct if it said if you end up in court having failed to give someone the warning that they do not require to consent to a consensual search the court will nonetheless subject to other circumstances excuse that and admit the evidence but that is certainly not where you would pitch the training and we had understood that the training was to the effect that everyone would be told you can say no now that might seem obvious to all of us but I've certainly had clients over the years to whom that would not necessarily be obvious and if a police officer asks anyone of us something depending on the circumstances that might seem less like an open question to which a possible answer is no the power imbalance is definitely there and is felt even by people that are able to deal with themselves able to handle themselves better I am very honest I'd be reluctant to say no in case I was committing something else while I was busy doing it That's always the fear so a cultural change is the biggest change required there are officers who clearly to some extent may have felt that they need this I heard evidence from younger operational officers who said don't take this away from me because I don't think that I'll be able to do things properly I think that they were wrong I've agreed to go back and meet some of these officers and try to help as part of the process to explain it but training is going to be a big part of it but also the culture because what I understand is that if it's training where they simply go online that doesn't necessarily take hold in the same way if you go to the police college that doesn't necessarily take hold in the same way although I've been up at Tully Allen and seen some very impressive inspirational training but a lot of that gets shaken out of them when the sergeant is speaking to them at the start of the shift so it needs to get at all of those levels one of the ways of doing it is to have officers seeing alternative ways of doing things in practice so that they're confronted with real-life situations and they see colleagues who are more confident in the range of powers that they have without having to look at non-statutory dealing with it comfortably dealing with it well dealing with it effectively and I've heard suggestions of anything from a year to four years as to how long it might take to transition to go all the way through obviously it should be done absolutely as quickly as possible but the other example we gave of a policy that was announced and then implemented within five days it didn't work there was real misunderstanding then about what the change was with some officers thinking we can't search young people at all now even on a statutory basis and that was never the case so it needs to go from top to bottom in the organisation with every opportunity taken to say you can still do your job and you can still do it effectively we can get the Federation, we can get ASPs involved in that I've said that I'll become involved in any aspect of the training or trainer training if that helps and hopefully legal advice is given to him and the future will also say but you don't need to pitch it at the court you can pitch it higher and if good practice on occasion for whatever good faith reasons isn't possible then that can be explained and the courts will probably understand and accept that but if you're aiming for that level if you're aiming for the bottom unfortunately sometimes it's easier to go lower than that whereas if you're aiming for good or best practice and you drop below those standards then hopefully you don't drop so far and you'll get through the floor Thank you very much Mr Scott for your evidence and that concludes the session today it was extremely interesting moving into private session