 Gwyn i chi, 가�fod eich cyfannol, a字wch i gael i gael i transferredoedd gyda Gyrgyrchu Morhwyng ondg clywedeg, a ddawn i chi siarad i gael pause arnyntiaeth John Finney a Margaret Mitchell. Y gynllun yw'r ydym ni wedi ddatgwadau i gael gynllun prifo'r teulu, mae y cymryd yn nion i gael i gael i gael prifo, y dyfodol sy'n gweithio arno y cyf Surely honi. Y cysylltu i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael gyda'r dynnu and our forward work programme will also be taking in private a meeting on the 2 February. Are we agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is the Stop and Search Code of Practice Appointed Day, Scotland Regulations 2017, draft. The purpose of this session is to increase our own understanding of this issue and to help inform a letter to the justice committee who will be considering whether to approve or disapprove the regulations next month. I know that the justice sub-committee in the last session took a very keen interest in stop and search and this is one of the reasons why we are considering the draft regulations today. I welcome John Scott, QC chair of the independent advisory committee on stop and search, assistant chief constable Mark Williams from Police Scotland, Pauline McIntyre, member of the independent advisory group and parliamentary and policy officer for the Children and Young People's Commissioner for Scotland and Callum Steele from the Scottish Police Federation. Given the time constraints that we have today, I am grateful to John Scott, QC, for agreeing not to make an opening statement and I intend to move straight to questions. We have about an hour for this evidence session and can I refer members to paper one, which is a note from the clerk in paper two, which is a spice paper. I perhaps start by putting things into a bit of context and ask our witnesses a very general opening first question. I have been interested in their comments and whether they are satisfied that the code is a significant improvement in the way that stop and search will operate in Scotland or are there particular elements of the code that are giving cause for concern? I would quite like to start with John Scott. Thank you. There are no particular parts of the code that are giving cause for concern. The drafting process for this code has perhaps been different from many others in that ordinarily the legal directorate would be tasked with drafting it. What happened here was that although we had assistance from the legal directorate and Craig French in particular, a whole of the advisory group was involved in the redrafting of the code from the original draft that was attached to our initial report. We also had great assistance from the national stop and search unit of Police Scotland input from academics such as Cath Murray and Genevieve Lennon and other groups with a particular interest in children and young people, and Pauline co-ordinated our new chapter on that. David Harvey, the Crown Agent, drafted the section on vulnerable people. The code, as it was laid before the Parliament, has changed quite a bit from the original draft that was based fairly heavily on PACE code A, but it now better reflects the situation in Scotland. It also addresses the fact that it is intended for more than one audience. It is not simply supposed to be a working document for police officers, although it is that, but it is also intended as guidance for the public, for specific groups as well, children and young people, and to address what I have seen during the last period of 18 months or two years and in my day job as well as a really poor awareness of rights and responsibilities on the part of our citizens. Ideally, I would like to see the code as part of civic education in schools so that, to address what was a power and balance before, which affected the question of consent, we are way beyond that stage. That is probably what I would like to describe as the final of the first steps, but an important first step in putting us in a much, much healthier position than we were just a very short number of years ago. I should record my gratitude to Police Scotland for the very great willing that they have shown to get to the stage that we are at so that, even ahead of the introduction of the code, the position is significantly better than it was before. That is very helpful. Thank you. Liam, do you want to come in just now before I bring in any questions? No, I am happy to follow with an answer. Mark Ruskell, do you want to perhaps comment now? Yes. In answer to your question, yes, Police Scotland is satisfied that this is a significant improvement in how we will codify and apply stop-and-search in the future when the code is passed by Parliament. We are very grateful to John Scott and the IEG for consulting with us and working closely with us throughout the drafting of the code. We have been very much involved in the detail of it, in supporting that drafting process, and it has indeed been a key part of it over the piece. Of course, when the code is passed and we apply it operationally, then we will very closely monitor and evaluate its effectiveness, how front-line officers will use it in practice, because it is very important that it meets the needs that it is set out to deliver. I am confident that that will very much be the case. Of course, there are and will be reviews built into the code over the period of its existence. After six months, 12 months and thereafter, we will regularly review how it is being applied. If there are any areas whatsoever that give us any cause for concern, we will be able to gather that evidence and bring it back for appropriate scrutiny review and consultation in the future. In short, yes, we are satisfied that it will lead to a significant improvement in how we apply stop-and-search in Scotland. From our perspective, we are particularly pleased to see the chapter included on children and young people. As John has alluded to, there have been massive steps forward in terms of Police Scotland and its rights-based approach to a number of areas of work. They should be commended on that, because there has been significant progress in a short period of time. The other thing that I find particularly useful is that the way that the Scottish Government has approached consultation with children and young people is that they have done so by engaging with groups such as the Children's Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament. They have done so at a very early stage in the process, and I think that that has been incredibly helpful. Normally, when children and young people are consulted, it is often when adults have created something on their behalf and they want to know their views. The process that was taken for the code of practice was very much about shaping it with their views and minds. We started from that process. Stephen Jones from the Scottish Government should be commended for the work that he has done on that, because it has been quite groundbreaking and sets a tone for a range of work that could be taken forward in the future. Thank you, convener, and at the risk of breaking the love in the room. The Scottish Police Federation has had a fairly strident position on the issue of stop and search for a long period of time. Before I answer the very specific question of whether the code will lead to an improvement on it, I think that it is important that I try and lay that out again, because there are some very heavy nuances in our position. The first one is that we believe that the practice that was heavily promoted by the police service of Scotland effectively poisoned the well of police tactics and the ability to engage with large elements of our society. We roundly dismissed the notion that the well-publicised figure of half a million stop and search was undertaken in Police Scotland, and others, including HMICS, subsequently conceded that our position was correct. We were ardent critics of the target approach within the service that was perverting the behaviours. We have little doubt that, had it not been for that, we would probably not have found ourselves dealing with that particular issue. The issue of consensual stop and search was, of course, a large part of what the code was designed to overcome, given the provisions of section 56 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act that was passed recently. That is something that we have great concerns about. It might be something of a moot point, given that Parliament has already legislated in that area, but a certain hour belief us and the belief of our members is that that will have a very limiting effect on the ability, not exclusively for the detection of crime, but for the prevention of crime, which is something that is often overlooked in this particular regard. Turning to the specifics of the code, like those that I have gone before me, I would like to pay a tremendous testimony to John Scott for the work that he has done in this. I know that it has not been easy. I know that he has come up against some fairly strident views, most notably our own, I would think, but I have to say that he approached the Scottish Police Federation with courtesy and willingness to listen, certainly in all the dealings that I had with him. At the risk of repeating what is laid out in the written submission that we made, we think that, by and large, there are lots of things in the code that are uncontroversial. There are bits that are unnecessary, and I think that, to some extent, that might relate to the fact that it aims at more than one audience, which is, to some extent, also a slight peculiarity given the provisions of the expectations of the code that is laid out in section 73. We have some concerns that there are, still remain some gray areas, and ultimately the limiting or the removal of the capability of people to cooperate with the police in a free and unfettered fashion is something that we believe will not ultimately lead to a safer Scotland. I am glad to bring in Liam and then Stuart with supplementaries. Thank you very much, and thank you for your time this afternoon. As well as paying tribute to my PGSS Alison McInnes in relation to where we have got to now clearly, Dr Kath Murray has played an absolutely pivotal role. He has described the code of conduct as a major milestone in reform of stop and search, but, interestingly, there appears to have already been quite a shift in practising. The recent figures suggest that there has been a 93 per cent reduction in stop and search and a 99.5 per cent almost eradication of consensual stop and search. I would be interested to know particularly from what Williamson Callum has said about whether we are now at a level of stop and search, which, going forward, would be your expected level of stop and search, or whether it is too early to tell. I think that at this stage, when the code is introduced, when passed by Parliament, there will be a new framework around which stop and search is applied. We have worked very hard over recent years to move in the direction that the code will take us in terms of presumption on statutory stop and search, not consensual stop and search, hence the significant reductions that you have mentioned in your question. Although that has now moved us to a position where only, as we speak, about two or three per cent of all stop and search are consensual, and that will, of course, cease when the code comes into place, I think that it is too early to say what that will mean in terms of overall volumes of stop and search. What is important is that the framework facilitates good engagement and communication on the part of police officers right across Scotland when they are dealing with members of the public. When it is appropriate, unjustified and reasonable, they feel confident to use stop and search as a tactic in the right circumstances when dealing with the right incidents. That is what we are very much trying to achieve by applying the code. As we speak, we are training every front-line officer in Scotland to better engage, to better communicate, to understand the powers that they have and to work within the code so that when it comes into place, we are ready to apply it effectively and professionally. Any way that puts communication and engagement first, but always remembers that, where it is justified and reasonable, it has a power that it can use. I do not want to steal Calum Steele's thunder here, but, in a sense, the reductions that we have seen in overall levels of stop and search, that has happened and, to my knowledge, has not seen a spike or a noticeable change in crime detection or prevention. The assumption from that would have to be that there have not been significant issues arising from reduction in a tactic, as you say, which, I think, all of us accept is still a legitimate and very necessary tactic under certain circumstances. I think that it is too early to say and what we also appreciate, and I think that Dr Kath Murray lays it out very clearly in our written submission. It is actually very difficult to draw direct correlations academically between the volume of stop and search and the levels of crime that prevail in society. It has been tried over many decades, but we have never been able to isolate violence and stop and search and link them together in a way that justifies either an increase or decrease or a link between the two. We know that tackling crime in Scotland is a complex issue. Stop and search is a very narrow tactic that can be applied in some scenarios to certain incidents, but it certainly is not the only one that can be applied. I think that it is too early to answer that question in truth. I think that what we will do is ensure that we have officers trained across Scotland to deal with the code and to apply it as best as possible. We will evaluate and we will review it after six months, after a year and thereafter to ensure that it is delivering what we expect it to deliver. If there are any challenges in there that we identify, it is for the service to, again, credibly evidence them and bring them back to the IG, to the Government and to others so that we can deal with them then. Calum, do you want to add something? I think that, to some extent, Liam McArthur's question highlights the very real difficulty that we have of dining off the fruit from the poison tree, because 93 per cent reduction is based on numbers that were largely made up. We are claiming reductions from things that were not real in the first place, and that in itself is inherently problematic. I am conscious that we are trying to make progress on issues of today rather than constantly harking back at the problems of the past, but when we were recording, for example, a seizure of alcohol from one young person who might have been in a group of 10 or 20 as 20 positive searches, when, in fact, nobody had been searched, we are not resulting in any reductions in the use of search, we are just making sure that we are recording things in a different manner. Those statistics, the 93 per cent reduction, is in itself a false flag. They are what might be termed, topically, alternative facts, as they are not factual at all. The issue of causation versus coalition is one that, of course, I do not think that we are ever going to be able to answer, and we could set academics on the course for, I think, probably 100 years, and they are never going to be able to get to a position that would support that. Anecdotally, and I appreciate that that is about as much use as alternative facts, our members are reporting to us just now that they are in certain areas of the country. They are coming under pressure from their commanders because violence is on the increase in their areas. Whilst I suspect that it is too early to say that there is a causation or a need of collaboration, there is undoubtedly the fact that that pressure is coming to bear at this point in time. Even yesterday, and I know that John Scott will know what I am about to say because I mentioned him in a tweet yesterday evening, even yesterday the BBC carried a report that there is a knife crime committed in the UK once every 15 minutes. It is difficult to see that we are going to be improving that by getting to a situation where there is a belief that the only time that we are going to be searching, those that might be suspected of having weapons or have been in the habit of carrying weapons, is every single time we have got a specific piece of intelligence or information to support that. That is why I am so concerned that, again, I acknowledge that it is a moot point, but losing this consensual approach to search and, to some extent, ties the hand of police officers and how we deal with members of the public, not least because of some of the issues that are laid out in the code. The opportunity to discourage through the notion that there was a likelihood of searching in the first instance is something that has gone on. I believe strongly that there is a very strong likelihood that there are communities that suffer as a consequence. The searches that will not now be made, was there a bureaucratic burden associated with them that will now be eliminated, the recording and reporting? We record all recordable stop-and-searches, and the code defines them clearly. Every stop-and-search that is carried out in Scotland is audited and checked and accounted for by the national stop-and-search unit. We audit 100 per cent of them. It is very important to us that our data is credible and our information is credible. We will continue to do that once the code is introduced, as we are doing at this present time. When officers stop-and-search a member of the public, yes, there is a requirement on them to record that activity and to do so on the stop-and-search database. If we are carrying out less stop-and-search activity, then there are fewer getting recorded, and therefore there is less bureaucracy around it in terms of the officers themselves when they record it. However, what is very important, and I think that it strikes at the heart of the code and what it is about, is that we are seen to be legitimately acting, that we have the trust and confidence of the public, that we do assure the data that we have, that it is credible and properly recorded and analysed. The journey that we have been on over a number of years now puts us in a place where we can be confident of that fact. Indeed, every three months, we publish all the data on stop-and-search, nationally and online for the public to scrutinise and study as well as others. Of course, that will continue as we introduce the code and start applying it. In addition, local area commanders across Scotland will be furnished with specific information for their own areas of responsibility. That will be shared with scrutiny committees and other accountable bodies to allow them to further delve into the detail of activity in those local areas, which I think is appropriate in terms of how it is applied locally, because that will be different across Scotland based on the different needs that communities have. In answer to your question, yes, there is a correlation between recording and bureaucracy and officer time, but it is equally very important that the data that we have is accurate, that it is audited, that it is accountable, that it is published, that it is open and transparent. We have been very committed to ensuring that that is the case, and that will continue when the code is introduced. I am just testing the assertion that has come from the Federation. I quote, it will be a heavy bureaucratic burden, and I just wanted perhaps very concisely, given that we have eliminated some of the burden, but we are increasing the recording associated with the searches that remain. What your sense of is what the balanced effect of that is in terms of bureaucracy and the amount of work effort that has to be devoted to that. Fairly concisely, if I may. The recording is electronic, it is done on a database, it is computerised, it is pretty short and sharp and does not take a lot of time to carry out. Of course, at the time of the stop and search, there will also be a receipt issued to the member of the public who is being searched, so there is a record kept. I think that the benefits that are brought around by that accountability and legitimacy outweigh any small bureaucracy that goes with recording that activity. I am sure that we will come back to benefits later. Yes, I just wanted to explore with you the principles of the code and to summarise that they are in accordance with law, necessary and proportionate. I am just wondering if you can tell me if you think that those principles are sufficiently clear enough for officers to be able to use their judgment and to establish whether the rights of an individual in a particular circumstance outweighs the perceived benefits of a search. Is there anything there that you feel could be a bit ambiguous in those principles? I do not believe that there is anything that is ambiguous in that sense. The principles of necessity, proportionality and justification are principles that are very well known within the police service. They feature in a great many of the judgments and decisions that police officers take every day. Of course, we entrust our front-line officers with a huge burden, and that burden of judgment but, importantly, the burden of discretion as well. We trust them to act in a whole host of different situations and in a whole host of different incidents to deal fairly with the situation that they are involved with. Of course, the principles of fairness, integrity and respect underpin that behaviour as the force of values. I am very comfortable that the principles governing stop and search and the ones that are articulated in the code are appropriate, necessary and allow for that justification and that necessity to be evidenced in each and every incident that they are dealing with. Thank you. Does anyone else have a view on that? My impression is exactly the same. Those three lawful necessary and proportionate will also get them from the European convention. There is considerable familiarity in Scotland, the Parliament, the Government and Police Scotland with those principles. It ties in, as I understand it, with other aspects of training of police officers. That is one of the things that the national stop and search unit has assisted us with, so that it does blend with other training and they are not being presented with an entirely new way of approaching the question of a defensible decision. Thank you. I am happy to wait for the next question. Well, just to pick up on one aspect of it, talking about necessity, perhaps you could explain just the difference between locating a harmful item and confirming the possession of an illegal item. Is that one and the same thing or is it a different? Is it just the terminology that is a bit confusing? Which page or section of the code is that? I have a lovely folder that has all of my paperwork in it but it is not here, unfortunately. It is part of the necessary principles, if that is here. Yes, I have to go at it. Thank you. It may be the same thing but I suspect there will be situations where it could be two separate approaches. So it is really just a question of the way that it is worded but it essentially means the same thing. Yes, I suppose that what I would suggest is that in a given scenario, for example, if the necessity of the search is required to locate a harmful item, it may be that, based on intelligence and other information that a police officer has, they believe that a member of the public is in possession of something that is harmful or illegal and therefore they will stop and search them to ascertain if that is the case. The alternative there in terms of confirming the possession of would be, for example, where they perhaps see the person with something that is put in their pocket or it is intimated to them that they are in possession of something that is illegal by a witness or another member of the public and then you are confirming that that is the case. It is a subtle use of language but I think that both are appropriate. I wonder if I might illustrate it thus. There are quite different things. An unloaded hang gun would be illegal but not necessarily harmful but a pen equipped to stab someone in the eye is not illegal but could be harmful. It does strike me that there are different things, both of which are necessary. Is that a fair comment? It is but, of course, it is how you use that item that perhaps may generate the legality or otherwise. John Scott's point about the familiarity with the called being picked up in training, is the expectation that this is going to require additional training for officers and if so, whether that could be quantified or whether or not Police Scotland is confident that familiarity and a degree of comfort with the new code is something that is just going to be brought in through the initial and on-going training that police officers undergo? I am very happy to quantify that for you. We are training all front-line police officers, constable, sergeants and inspectors. There are two forms of training. First of all, there is a pre-half-training day, which is online. It is done through a mechanism that we use called Moodle, where they undertake some online training around the code and its application. Thereafter, there is a half-day of face-to-face training with trainers around the code and its application and some of the key elements of it. Key elements of that include, for example, engagement, communication, with a particular emphasis on children and young people. It covers issues such as unconscious bias and goes into some detail about the lawfulness of their activity, statutes and how they might be applied. We are taking training very seriously. Over 8,000 officers have now been trained and obviously there are still several thousand to be done and that will be finished prior to the code being introduced. That involves a half-day training, face-to-face and the precursor training, which is online. All the training is mandatory? Yes, it is. For front-line police officers, yes, every officer in Scotland will be trained in advance of the code being introduced. Calum, do you want to come in? Thank you, convener. Just before we get too far away from the questions that Rona Mackay asked about the code and its relevance and that necessary and proportionate views on the law, in many cases it goes beyond what the law provides. If we look, for example, at the code of practice requirements in section 73 of the 2016 act, it does not, for example, talk about the requirement of the code to set the standard for which constables have to be scrutinised and evaluated. Those are matters that are properly determined by the chief constable and should not be determined in any code. Of course, it is right and proper that the chief constable sets those standards in accordance with the parameters and governance expectations laid upon him or her by the Scottish Police Authority. In some regards, I think that the code actually goes beyond that and steps into an area that is not properly in its remit and therefore goes beyond the limit of the law. However, there is probably one real area that I know everyone around this table recognises. For understandable reasons, I can see why the code seems to suggest that, in one area in particular, the provisions of the legislation, the 2016 act, particularly section 56, should be set aside and that is in respect of the protection of life. The 2016 act says that no search shall be carried out unless in accordance with a statutory provision. Yet the code says, forget that if you need to save a life, you can search regardless. I can understand why the code says that and I can understand why police officers should want to do that, but one definitely sits against the other. As opposed to some extent, it would take us into a whole host of discussions about many of the unintended consequences of what would fall out from the things that Parliament has legislated for. I also want to touch briefly on the question of bureaucracy that was asked by Stuart Stevenson. It is difficult on one hand to reconcile the statement that you have complete trust in police officers and the ability to use the discretion when we then ally that to the previous statement that we have 100 per cent audit on activities in respect of stop-and-search. Those two do not do me to sit side by side. The issue of bureaucracy is one that is very relevant and hugely salient to the way in which police officers undertake their day-to-day activities. If we are faced with a process that is overly onerous in terms of the bureaucratic expectation, whether on the street, whether when someone returns to a station or whether then in responding to the stop-search effectively compliance unit, that in its own right is going to dissuade individuals from being involved in the activity in the first place. That in its own right cannot be understated. Prior to the police service making a right royal horlicks of this whole issue, the whole approach to the recording of stop-and-search was largely tick box. It was not onerous, difficult and, of course, to some extent, that allowed the ability for numbers to be completely made up. However, when you move from that to something that is so heavily specific in its expectations, that creates a bureaucracy that will be off-putting and discourage people from using their powers of stop-and-search and sustain an industry that will, ideally, journalists will feed off forever—it is terrific from that perspective. Ultimately, if Parliament determines that these are the kind of activities that you want police resources to be utilised for, then the police service will end up having to fall on nine accordingly. John or Mark, do you want to come in on any of the points that Calum has made? I think that we are in a position where there is going to be a better use of police resources than what we saw previously with unrestrained or even targeted use of non-statutory stop-and-search, where the chances of finding something were far less than in a situation where it was properly intelligence-led and based on reasonable grounds to suspect. Previously, officers were engaged to a significant extent, albeit because of poor counting and the accurate figures that are unknown, in searching for things that were not there. It is about getting a balance as well. There is a level of bureaucracy that is required in order for proper accountability and scrutiny. One of the problems that the Federation was early to identify was the lack of proper accountability and scrutiny in this area. It is bearing in mind that, although stop-and-search is an important police tactic for which there is still and always will be a place, being just one of a number of measures, the majority of searches will still involve nothing being found. The code has to cater not simply for those who are in possession of illegal items and are found in possession of those after a proper search for which there are reasonable grounds, but also for a huge number of people. As yet, the baselines have not been determined, so we do not know what the right number is, but we will find that out, I think, over time, and it may change. However, the code has to cover the situations in which officers are engaged with individuals and may have reasonable grounds. They do not need to be right about those, but they search someone and do not find anything. How the person is left at the end of it, as a result of the code, I think will be a far better place than previously, where the question that we were given by a lot of young people was why we were searched, and they did not have an answer to that. As a result of the code, they should have an answer to that. I will deal briefly with Callum's point about the protection of life situations. Callum is right about this, and it is specifically flagged up in the supplementary report from the advisory group on pages 8 and 9. We have identified that, ideally, there would be legislation. There was not a legislative slot, but we felt a sense of responsibility to officers because of the changes that we were involved in. Therefore, there is a comfort from the other pieces of legislation, and article 2 of the European Convention all read together. Although there is no specific power of search in those situations, it may well be that, in the course of the review process, this Parliament, this committee, perhaps, we will review that and will allot a specific power to deal with that situation. In the meantime, I think that what we have put in the supplementary report is intended as a comfort to officers who are asking the right questions and who at training are saying what is my power to do this. Just a wee observation. There is precedent in the air navigation order, which explicitly says that pilots may override any rule or regulation in the interests of safety. Can I ask now about the code at paragraph 16, where it states that constables must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the person understands why they are to be searched and what that search will involve? Can you explain to me, in layman's terms, exactly what that means? If I think of an example of someone who has perhaps a mental health condition, it almost seems to me as if we are going into a grey area, where is the line drawn between we have done as much as we can and the person still does not understand? Where do you stop? I think that the code is intended to leave a great deal of the assessment there to the individual officer and it is a hugely complicated area, which I think is touched on in some of the other work of the Justice Committee and perhaps of this committee and evidence that Callum has given about front-line policing, because the identification of different types of vulnerability is a hugely complicated area. It might be that, as a result of healthcare professionals working for several weeks, that a full assessment can be made, but officers very often called upon to make very quick decisions. They might not be able to fully identify particular communication issues or vulnerability issues or understanding issues. The reason why it is practicable is that the code is intended to make sure that efforts are made, but, clearly, officers cannot guarantee that a person will understand them and there may be hidden or not obvious reasons for that. That is going as far as we can, but recognising that it would simply be impossible to guarantee. Obviously, everyone would fully understand, but, in the absence of that, I think that we have gone as far as we can, recognising the very difficult job involved. I think that this is a really, really interesting issue. To some extent, it is one worthy of further exploration of the question of vulnerability, because this question is, of course, predicated on the notion that a search is going to be undertaken and the understanding capability of the individual with which we are dealing. We, as police officers, come across a lot of people on a daily basis who may find themselves in a situation—we may find ourselves in a situation where the ability to communicate and their ability to understand is somewhat limited and there may be concerns about their safety, their wellbeing, just because of the general nature of the environment in which they find themselves or in which police officers are dealing with them. Nothing criminal, nothing to suggest that they are at harm to themselves, but clearly something that would leave individuals uneasy about leaving them behind if they are not able to establish their identity. Even the fact that we are now not able to say, do you mind if I have a look in your pockets to see if you can either find a driving licence, a bank card, something to help, find out where you are, where you might be able to belong to help, then maybe if it is necessary to find someone to come and help you. The fact that we do not have that any more is going to be problematic. Then, of course, there are the questions of what happens if you find something illegal whilst undertaking that activity to try and support the individual in the first place and how that sits in respect of the overall provisions of the code about not undertaking any search unless it is in accordance with a statutory provision. Pauline, could I just ask you specifically in relation to children what impact you think this may have? There is a specific section within the children and young people section that deals with that. It was really to make it clear in particular in relation to children and young people that it was important that other options were considered to safeguard the child or young person so that it should not automatically be assumed that a search is the best way of safeguarding that child. It might be a case of taking them home to their parents, finding someone else who can support them and then taking it forward in that way. As John has alluded to, we were very careful when considering this as the group to look at where there was flexibility. We had to balance often the rights of the people that this code would affect against the operational side of things in terms of the way that the police would be operating on a day-to-day basis. I think that there was a very careful balancing act that happened there. I hope that the code as it is now captures that. It allows for enough flexibility in that individual approach to be taken. We have gone through the principles, but I wanted to touch on something that Calum Steele raised there, which was almost the concept of suspicion within the whole scenario. I am curious as to what steps will officers be expected to take in forming a genuine suspicion that they are likely to find an object during a search. On the federation, I wonder whether you could elaborate on your concerns around the issue of suspicion generally and whether there are any circumstances in which the code will restrict officers' capability and capacity to deal effectively with individuals who may be acting suspiciously. I think that that is a very clever question, if I may say so. The difference between acting suspiciously and having suspicion for a search are two entirely different things. In terms of the second part, how will the code impact on where suspicion exists to search? The short answer to that is that it would not make a jota difference, because the suspicion will be the providing principle. However, people acting suspiciously is something inherently different. Whilst I know the example that was provided in the written submission from the SPF was, perhaps, at the more extreme end of emotions. It was provided for a very specific reason. That is that sometimes people are acting suspiciously because they are up to no good. They may not have committed any criminal offence. They may not have any article on them. They may be carrying, for example, £10,000 of money as a consequence of organised crime. You are not going to get a smell, unless you have a nose like a cash dog. You are not going to smell that money on them. You are not going to see that people are dilated as a consequence of them carrying that kind of money. The ability, therefore, to deal with people acting suspiciously in a non-confrontational way, using your awareness and their ignorance, which is often an advantage and doubly one that the code seeks to address at some point is going to be lost, so the ability to have that skill is taken away from it. On some extent, the code again probably goes beyond what the law expects. The code is clear that there is nothing intended in what is written to prevent police officers from engaging with any members of the public in any issue. I could approach you in the street and I could say, all right, what's going on, what's your name, and all of those things that would engage in idle chitchat. The second that I come to any notion that I'm going to search you, I've got to say, what's your name. By the way, you don't have to tell me. That seems somewhat odd that we would be introducing something akin to a second tier police caution when we're dealing with individuals. The whole issue of suspicion, of course, is one side of it. The area that causes the greatest concern for us is the one of vulnerability. If we consider for a moment that, to some extent, this has got a really strong relevance to the discussion that was had at the main justice committee just on Tuesday of this week about the opportunities to exploit or the dangers of exploitation of some of our young people, when we have, for instance, children and young people that go missing from care establishment regardless of the provider, there is a danger that some of them are exposed to risk of sexual exploitation. I know that there are inquiries of that nature being undertaken in the service at this moment in time. Those victims of crime do not appreciate that they are victims of crime and they are being exploited by being paid, if you like, through money on a very rare number of occasions, through drugs, through electronics, to phone top-up cards. Now, whilst none of those things in their own right to save drugs are illegal, we have now got to a situation where the ability to gather intelligence through what was a non-invasive activity—and I use non-invasive in the roundest possible sense, because, of course, searching is by its very nature-invasive, but it is certainly largely non-confrontational—we have lost the ability to gather intelligence that would support the GERFEC agenda to look after the vulnerabilities of those individuals. That, in itself, is a real difficult circle to square when it comes to the kind of activities that we expect police officers to be involved in. I am not sure that I would entirely agree with Calum Steele's assessment of that. From my perspective, the use of stop-and-search, as we have mentioned earlier on, has been fairly ineffective in many ways. The consensual stop-and-search essentially often did not find items, so it was clearly not a useful tactic in terms of children and young people. I think that the idea that you can police on the basis of somebody's up to no good really moves quite far away from the whole process that we have gone through with the code of practice and certainly the progress that Police Scotland themselves have made in terms of accountability, in terms of taking a rights-based approach. The code tries very hard to build in flexibility and to allow police officers to use their instincts, but also to be able to justify those instincts and to be able to give a clear reason for why they are taking things forward. I know that, at the time when there was discussion around the use of stop-and-search and the potential new power in relation to stopping searching young people for alcohol, quite often the argument was used that it would prevent crime and it would stop terrible things happening to children and young people. Again, it is very difficult to evidence that. The evidence was just not there that that would be the case. There is a danger sometimes in using the very worst examples of things that happen to children and young people to justify or to move away from something that I think is very helpful for children and young people. The code of practice is moving us in the right direction, is doing what the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is saying that we should be doing in terms of being accountable, looking at the way that it is happening, making sure that stop-and-search itself is targeted in the right way and that officers are heard accountable for their actions. Everybody has reflected on it in their response that, at the heart of the code, and one of the key principles of it is that communication and engagement is absolutely the first and most important part of any interaction with a member of the public. That alone has enormous benefits if it is done well, if it is done openly, if it is done transparently and routinely. I think that the code definitely advances that agenda, the training that we are undertaking and that it advances that agenda as well. Officers are excellent communicators. They are also excellent judges of situations and of incidents. That comes through usually years of experience in dealing with members of the public and with various scenarios that they have to deal with. Their ability to, for example, gather intelligence comes from a whole host of different approaches and different mannerisms. It is complicated and complex, but engagement and communication in the first place in itself potentially generates some incredible intelligence and useful information, which I think that the code allows us to focus on, train officers in relation to, to the benefit of the wider policing purpose that we seek to pursue. So, while acknowledging some of the challenges, I think that there is a sufficient flexibility in there. I think that the communication and engagement element is very, very important, and I think that that is very welcome. I think that it is something that the investment that we are putting into through the training will reap genuine benefits, not just in terms of the legitimacy, the accountability and the trust and confidence that the public have in us, but in the gathering of more technical issues such as intelligence. I think that that is the great benefit that that is in there. Thank you. Just before I bring Liam in with a brief supplementary, can I make a plea that members make their questions as brief as possible and that the witnesses make their answers as brief as possible, because we still have some areas that we need to cover? I will do my best. Thank you. Just following on the issue of suspicion and acting suspiciously, one of the other concerns that has been raised in this area from the law society is that the argument that generalisations and stereotypical images in certain categories of people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity can be used to underpin reasonable grounds and that this appears to be at odds with the approach taken south of the border. I welcome the views of the witnesses on that and whether that is an area of divergence that we should be concerned about or whether it is something that is in accordance with the principles of the code and, therefore, entirely raised to all. Could perhaps also answer, because one of the specific concerns of law society raised, and it relates to the question that Liam asked, was the use of the word alone. Perhaps when you answer, you could answer that question as well. I saw the law society's paper and I spoke yesterday to the head of policy there to better understand that and to discuss it with him. I do not think that there is actually in practice going to be a different approach north or south of the border nor is there intended to be, but the wording in England, if anything, is probably slightly misleading. To say never protected characteristics would never be possible as a basis for search and then to say unless, as it does in England. It is really just another way of saying, but perhaps a less straightforward way of saying what we are saying, which is not alone. None of those are on their own, but an example that Callum had given me before relating to a Scottish island that had a limited population. There is a description given by a witness of someone, including reference to what would also be categorised as a protected characteristic. There, it would be possible in terms of the code for the officer to proceed to act and to search, because it is not the protected characteristic on their own. It is the addition of a description of the witness, which is really the same as the position in England. The intention north and south of the border is the same. I think that we are a bit more straightforward about it. Perhaps the wording in England is more because of the special issues that they have had around race, so the wording was chosen in that way to address that. I am sorry to ask a question. Can I perhaps come to you then and ask if you feel that the application of the code will safeguard children's rights effectively? Is there anything else that you think should be there, or is there some monitoring that should be done to ensure that children's rights are protected? I think that the monitoring that has been suggested by the code is sufficient. I think that we certainly had an input into that process, so we are happy from that point of view. In terms of the content of the code as well, children and young people themselves were very clear about what they wanted to be evident within the code from their point of view. They wanted a clear explanation of the process of stop and search. They felt that, at present, when it happened, they did not quite understand what was going on. They did not know what their rights were. I think that the code has worked quite hard to set those rights out. They also wanted a clear compliance route to be available to them. What we have tried to do in the code in terms of looking at children's rights is that we have looked at the need for officers to use age-appropriate language to make sure that they think about the level of understanding that a child of a different age might have. To be conscious of the fact that that might not always be the same an eight-year-old might have a different understanding depending on their background and their upbringing. It also recognises a child's life experience as well. It makes officers think about—it moves away from the idea that you assume that a child has the same life experiences that an adult has—that a child will be familiar with. It also thinks about other factors that would influence a child's behaviour. The power and balance that we alluded to earlier on between a police officer and a child and a young person is very explicit in terms of stating that. I think that that is incredibly helpful because it allows police officers to think about what the experience is like for a child or a young person. It means that they essentially look at whether or not a child has a particular disability that might be affecting the way that they are behaving—a hidden disability in particular. It also looks at whether or not the child might have experienced previous trauma and how that might impact on their behaviour. I think that what the code does in terms of children's rights is that it looks at the wide range of children and young people that police officers might come into contact with and it equips them with the tools to be able to think, actually there's something here that I need to think about. I might approach this differently. From that perspective, I think that we're quite happy with the way that the codes approach that issue. How will information about the code be taken out to organisations that support children and work with young people? There's two things that we've committed to at the moment. One thing is that we're looking at providing a guide to the code of practice for children, young people themselves, so written in accessible language so that they will be able to read about it and know about their rights. The other thing that we're looking at at the moment, and this is still in the process of development, is whether or not to create some kind of resource that tells you about 10 key things that children and young people need to know about stop and search and to have this in an accessible format, such as an infographic, something that would be easily accessible to them. The other thing that perhaps I should mention to us very briefly, as I'm aware, we're short of time, is that we're also looking at providing some feedback to the groups of children and young people who input it into the consultation on the draft code of practice. Just to make it very clear, we've talked about some of the nuances today that exist within the code, and it's to make it clear to children and young people where their views have been taken on board and where sometimes we've had to take a slightly different approach to allow that flexibility on an operational basis. Just before I bring in Rona, I just wanted to ask a specific question. It's to mark in relation to training. It's the training for officers that deal with adults and young people with multiple disabilities or communication impairments, and I know you've said that the training will be given and it's mandatory training that will be refreshed. Are you working with outside organisations to develop and improve that training on an on-going basis? Yes, that's the simple answer to that. In terms of children and young people, we've worked with a whole host of different organisations. We actually have one of the many groups that we have currently in terms of the governance of stop and search, specifically in relation to children and young people. It's got representation from a wide variety of organisations that represent children and young people. We also carried out workshops specifically with young people themselves as we were addressing our changing policies around stop and search, and the feedback from children has influenced the syllabus of training that we undertake. I perhaps should have said earlier that the training that we're undertaking is actually a full day, a half day on stop and search and in the afternoon a half day on mental health awareness and vulnerability. That isn't specifically in relation to stop and search, but it is in the wider piece in relation to how we better communicate and engage with people who are vulnerable, who have mental health issues or other disabilities or language challenges. That has been influenced through consultation with a number of different organisations. We are evaluating that training as we go and we will also evaluate it formally afterwards. We will amend it and, of course, build on it as is appropriate as we move forward when we learn from experience. I am confident that at this stage that our training is appropriate in terms of covering a whole host of scenarios and equipping officers as best we can with the skills that are needed to communicate in some very challenging circumstances. That will continue and be evaluated. Will officers also have the ability to give feedback on stop and search to say that this is what happened and that this is how we dealt with it and that it would be beneficial if we did that going forward? We have an online database that I have described already, and part of that offers a feedback function for officers to be able to contact the national stop and search unit directly and to tell us any particular issue or suggestion that they may have. A key element to the application of the code when it comes in will be getting feedback from officers. Is it working in practice? Are there any issues that you have come across that you felt that you could not deal with or address because the code does not cover or account for it? That is a very important aspect of the evaluation of the code going forward. Very briefly, on the issue of a child who becomes distressed during a search, the code does not have anything in it that says that the search must be stopped at that point. Would you not have preferred it to have said that it is a directive to say that the search should be stopped until an adult is present? We considered that very carefully when we were drafting that because we did think about whether or not it might be appropriate to stop the search, but again it was to do with allowing some flexibility. We would imagine that in the majority of cases that that search would stop. Someone else would be found to support that child or young person. It would be left to the officer to judge. It would be left to the officer, but the other thing that I was supposed to say is to go back to what Mark has said in terms of training, that we were very clear that this should form part of the training, that they should be very clear as officers that if a child is becoming particularly distressed in common sense, it would dictate that they would stop. I will pick up a point that Gallum had made in the written submission from the federation, which is that if the search was going to have to happen anyway and delaying for a responsible adult to be located, it was actually going to increase the distress of the young person then in that situation. That is an example of where the consideration would be towards continuing completing the search, which could be done perhaps quickly. The key thing in all of the code in relation to children, as far as I am concerned, is having the best interests of the child now recognised front and centre and obviously in the legislation as well. One of the areas where there was specific concern about the move away from any sort of unregulated stop and search was in instances where those under the age of 18 could be searched previously for alcohol. I note that we have had the consultation and all the rest. It does appear as if there is still a question there, albeit that the advisory group took the view that a new power is not required. Is that because there is a belief that the statutory provision for stop and search is adequate for covering that particular area, as well as the other methods that Mark Williams has identified as being part of the initial engagement, or are we going to have to come back to that in due course? Do you feel that? I think that it will depend on the data. The Police Scotland response to the consultation said, let's revisit it after six months' worth of data. After some discussion on the advisory group about that and guidance on new baselines, we thought that 12 months would be sensible as well, because actually after six months you might not know terribly much more, but it's something that can be kept under review. We made some comment in the supply centre report on the persuades of arguments against such a power, even if the evidence exists. It's not necessarily a debate or a discussion that's gone away entirely, but it will be driven by data and also by feedback from officers and the views of young people. Okay. Many further questions? It's for Mark Williams. Given that this, in essence, as a code touches upon operations, I wonder if the chief constable and the command corridor generally is comfortable that it strikes the right balance of politicians keeping their nose well out of place operational matters, and the discretion that should lie properly in that command corridor? Yes, that's a simple answer to that. We believe that the benefits that will come in terms of trust, confidence, legitimacy and accountability outweigh any negative. Do the members have any further questions for our panel? It remains for me to thank all our panel members today for coming along for what has been an extremely useful evidence session for the committee and we look forward to working with you in the future. I now suspend and then we'll move into private session.