Stop and Search

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 2 April 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09557, in the name of Alison McInnes, on stop and search.

Photo of Alison McInnes Alison McInnes Liberal Democrat

It is a privilege to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Yesterday marked the first anniversary of Police Scotland and the abolition of Scotland’s eight regional forces. As members will be aware, we opposed the creation of the single force, because we feared that it was based upon deficient legislation, that savings claims were unproven and that it would lead to a one-size-fits-all approach to policing in our local communities.

Many of our concerns have been justified. However, one issue that we did not anticipate was Police Scotland’s zeal for stop and search. Willie Rennie and I have regularly questioned the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice about the matter. They have both assured us, as recently as last week, that there is nothing that we should be remotely concerned about—even after the chief constable admitted that figures are being falsely recorded.

The manipulation of statistics is just the latest in a series of revelations about the extent and basis of stop and search in Scotland. Under the Scottish National Party Government, the use of stop and search has risen many times over. Since the formation of Police Scotland, the increase has been extended outwith Strathclyde. A Liberal Democrat freedom of information request uncovered an unprecedented surge in the use of the tactic in every other region. There was a 516 per cent increase year-on-year in Fife during the first four months of Police Scotland’s existence, and the number of searches in Tayside more than doubled.

Why does that warrant the attentions of this Parliament? Why should we worry about the pervasive deployment of this tactic throughout Scotland if, as the police and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice claim, it is keeping communities and young people safe? It should worry us, as legislators, because there is no legal basis for three quarters of the searches conducted in Scotland—all those that are non-statutory. The power to search an individual without legal cause has been appropriated by the police without due parliamentary scrutiny or approval. I think that that is intolerable in a mature democracy.

In the absence of codification, police are conducting so-called consensual searches when there is no suspicion of any wrongdoing. There is no requirement to tell people that they have a right to refuse, and without that any consent acquired is surely ill informed. To all intents and purposes, it is a command based on exploiting the power gap between the officer and the subject.

No authority has yet been able to explain to me how the 500 children under 10 who were stopped and searched in 2010 alone—almost certainly without their parents being present—or, indeed, the dozens of children aged seven or under who we know have been searched, are qualified to give consent.

Furthermore, the police do not record any details if a search is unsuccessful—as is the case on four out of five occasions when such a search takes place—nor is the subject given a written record of the encounter, which is a crucial safeguard in England. Such poor governance and recording procedures have led to Alan Miller, the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, describing the practice as “largely unregulated and unaccountable”. It renders the system vulnerable to challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998, which dictates that deprivations of liberty and invasions of privacy by the police must be lawful and properly documented.

Discrepancies in how the tactic is employed around Scotland mean that there are disparities in access to legal safeguards. The extensive use of non-statutory powers in Strathclyde meant that three quarters of those who were searched in 2010 were told little or nothing about why they were being subjected to the procedure. Conversely, 90 per cent of searches in the then Northern Constabulary region were statutory and subjects were given more information.

We are regularly told by people who defend stop and search that crime is at a record low. However, there is no robust evidence of a causal link between low crime levels and increased prevalence of the tactic. Indeed, drops in serious assaults and weapon carrying predate the growth in stop and search. England and Wales boasts a similar record low in crime, but that has been achieved with only a quarter of the number of stop and searches per person in 2010 compared with Scotland as a whole.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice also tells us that, because only a small number of complaints have been received, we can safely assume that everything is fine. I fear that that shows that people do not know their rights and are not told them, and that they do not know about the Police Scotland and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner complaint and review systems. I fear that it may reveal a great deal about those who are disproportionately and persistently targeted—young people who are disaffected and disengaged, whose concerns are too often not heard and whose views of the police, in the absence of any perceptible form of redress, may be irreparably tainted by such experiences.

The Scottish centre for crime and justice research’s recent study of stop and search in Scotland made compelling reading. It concluded that the disproportionate use of stop and search against young people is out of kilter with both offending patterns and the welfarist approach to juvenile justice in Scotland. It also highlighted concerns that that could amount to discrimination that contravenes the Human Rights Act 1998.

On average, each 16-year-old male in Glasgow was stopped on four occasions in 2010. Such figures led Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Tam Baillie, to warn that a mass exercise of searching young people without safeguards risks “negative and unintended consequences”. Together, the Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights, which consists of Barnardo’s, Children 1st, Children in Scotland and many other organisations, agrees.

The Justice Sub-Committee on Policing last month heard from Chief Superintendent Garry McEwan. He told us that officers in Fife visit high schools once a month to help children to understand that their being stopped and searched deters violence and protects their safety. There was no suggestion that they are enlightened about their rights during such forums; therefore, I wonder whether such exercises compound the lack of understanding, unduly normalising the procedure and suppressing genuine grievances.

There is no scope for effective scrutiny of the stop and search tactic. Ghost entries may be only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, there is a real risk that the recording of positive results on which the policy is justified is at best inconsistent and at worst similarly manipulated. The public are unable to find out how many times any one person has been searched or how the police have responded to so-called positive searches, and they are unable to access information even on negative searches to which they were subjected.

Last weekend, the Sunday Herald reported that it had submitted a freedom of information request asking where the 500,000 searches that were carried out by Police Scotland between April and December took place. Police Scotland told the newspaper that it could not release the figures because doing so would be “harmful” and could lead to “misleading conclusions being drawn” by non-experts.

Although I appreciate that a Scottish Police Authority review is being undertaken, Police Scotland seems to be hushing up the information for public relations purposes. The fact that it prevented publication because the public might have used the facts to draw their own conclusions is both astonishing and patronising. People must be able to find out what is really happening in their area. Such an attitude to transparency will do little to dispel the concerns of academics, charities and watchdogs, and the minister’s blasé approach to the protection of civil liberties and ensuring that there are sufficient safeguards does not inspire confidence.

On Saturday, the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference in Aberdeen unanimously affirmed our concerns about the way in which this tactic is being deployed.

Photo of Alison McInnes Alison McInnes Liberal Democrat

Not at the moment.

We will, therefore, introduce amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and present Parliament with an opportunity to improve the regulatory regime and ensure that every search has a robust legal basis.

Let me be clear: we do not intend to confiscate statutory powers. As the motion notes, if it is applied properly, the tactic is an appropriate and legitimate part of the policing toolkit. However, the extensive use of unregulated stop and search powers threatens civil liberties. It threatens to alienate whole sections of our communities and to erode the trust, relationships and public respect on which the police depend. It also threatens Scotland’s model of policing by consent.

Statistics from the Scottish centre for crime and justice research show that statutory searches are far more successful and proportionate because they are based on robust suspicion, targeting suspicious behaviour rather than types of people. If detection is the aim, that is the only commonsense option—and from a civil liberties perspective it is the only tolerable option.

I remind the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who has asserted in his amendment that stop and search is “an operational matter”, that police independence does not equate to allowing them the freedom to do what they want; rather, it is our responsibility as legislators to provide the framework within which we expect the police to operate. A legal framework that ensures that the use of the tactic is transparent, fair, consistent and evidence-led is the least that the public would expect. Failing to respond to the problems that have been identified, illiberal and arbitrary intrusions and a system open to all manner of abuse would reflect badly on the police and this Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that Police Scotland carried out 519,213 stop and searches across Scotland between April and December 2013; understands that the use of this tactic in Scotland has increased dramatically under the current administration and that, in 2010, the comparable rate per capita was approximately four times higher than in England and Wales; notes that, in the same year, 500 children aged 10 and under were stopped and searched, and that three quarters of all searches were conducted on a non-statutory basis, without any suspicion that the subject was involved in criminal activity and therefore dependent on acquiring verbal consent; understands that, in these cases, subjects are told little, or nothing, about their rights; believes that transparent and rigorous recording procedures are not in place to measure basic information, such as how many times any one person is stopped; notes that such shortcomings have led to Alan Miller, the Chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, to describe the practice as “largely unregulated and unaccountable”; considers that this must be rectified to ensure that the system of stop and search is transparent and not open to abuses, including harassment and the falsification of figures; recognises that the repeated targeting of individuals based on broad criteria such as age can lead to a negative relationship with the police that is damaging to community relations, and further believes that it is essential that recording best practice is used for stop and search in Scotland to enable public scrutiny of whether the use of the tactic, which is a useful part of the policing toolkit if applied properly, is effective, appropriate and fair.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to speak to and move amendment S4M-09557.2. You have seven minutes. I make it clear that we are tight for time.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

I welcome the chance to respond to the motion lodged by Alison McInnes.

Stop and search is an important issue, so it is disappointing that the Liberal Democrats have chosen to be so negative in how they have addressed it not just today but in the past weeks. Alison McInnes’s motion sets out a number of concerns about stop and search but brings little, if anything, in the way of evidence of problems to the Parliament. She talks about unfounded searches, children being stopped without reason and people’s human rights being abused. On top of that, Graeme Pearson has lodged an amendment claiming that there is no oversight of the stop and searches being carried out and is calling for investigation by Audit Scotland.

I must tell the Parliament that I do not recognise much of that story at all. I have therefore lodged a detailed amendment to set out the position as it is on our streets and in our communities. Let us be clear: the responsibility for operational issues, such as stop and search, lies firmly with the chief constable. That is why this Parliament set up Police Scotland a year ago and why we appoint a chief constable in the first place.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

I have listened with interest to what the cabinet secretary says, and I have looked at the text of his amendment. When it comes to policing in Scotland from a single authority, will the end always justify the means?

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

Not at all. I have just come from a meeting with the police and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. We established through Parliament—by a majority in the chamber and not simply this Administration—a view that we should have a police authority that holds the chief constable to account. We have the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing to provide a challenge function because of the importance and in recognition of that national agency. We also have Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary. Therefore, we have established a situation in which there can be and must be review. We gave individuals and authorities challenging remits, and I believe that they are performing remarkably well.

In carrying out their duties, the chief constable and his officers have a clear policy on carrying out properly conducted and targeted stop and search operations. That is an important part of local policing; it targets problem issues and areas. It reassures communities and helps to prevent crime, particularly violent crime.

What is the effect of the policy? Stop and search is taking drugs, alcohol and weapons off our streets. More than 90 per cent of the searches are targeted at those areas, and around 20 per cent of all searches are successful, which is up 6 per cent from 2012-13.

What does that mean? It means that, between April and December, 4,273 weapons searches yielded a positive result, which accounts for 5 per cent of all weapon searches; that nearly 37 per cent of searches targeted to detect firearms yielded a positive result, which is 261 positive results; that, since 2006-07, crimes of handling an offensive weapon have dropped by 60 per cent; and that almost 37 per cent of alcohol-related searches were positive, which is 61,541 positive searched.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

The cabinet secretary is fond of quoting statistics, but what was the success rate of the so-called voluntary stop and searches?

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

I cannot give the member that precisely, but what he will see is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Alcohol and knives are taken from many of these youngsters and Scotland is a safer place. As the First Minister said in his answer to Mr Rennie last week, stop and search is not just about detecting those who would perpetrate crime and harm other individuals; it is also about protecting those who want to go about their communities safely and do not want to be prisoners in their own home.

We know that those most likely to perpetrate an offence—certainly one with a knife—are young men. We also know that those who are most likely to be victims are young men. I speak to many of them, and they welcome the fact that Scotland is a safer place, and that stop and search plays a role in that. That is why crime is at a 39-year low. That is why the fear of crime is down. That is why people feel safer on our streets and in our communities. The recent Scottish crime and justice survey shows that 72 per cent of people feel safe walking alone after dark. Mr Rennie should compare that with the 66 per cent figure in 2008-09.

The real point is that people welcome this approach. Just last week I was at an event in Greenock, where I spoke to young people about the no knives, better lives campaign. Many of those I spoke to understand that education and prevention tactics combine to make our cities safer. They welcome stop and search.

It is not just me. In January, Jackie Brock, the chief executive of Children in Scotland, said:

Police Scotland’s track record” in supporting young people

“means they are well placed to understand how to get young people on board with sensible and fair measures to prevent crime.”

Ross Deuchar, professor of criminology, echoed that. Even the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman in the previous parliamentary session, Robert Brown, acknowledged the important impact of stop and search when he said in 2010:

“The single thing that deters people from criminal behaviour is the likelihood of being caught. The stop and searches that Strathclyde Police has carried out have been effective”—[Official Report, 30 June 2010; c 27865.]

In 2008, the former Tory MSP and Justice Committee convener, Bill Aitken, said:

“If one in 12 searches is positive then that is a crime that has been detected or a knife that has been taken off someone. These searches save lives.”

In response to a knife attack, Bill Aitken said:

“Police must use their stop and search powers.”

I do not know what has changed for the Tories since we have moved from a success rate of one in 12 to a success rate of 20 per cent.

Let me make it clear that the chief constable has a responsibility to ensure that stop and search procedures on our streets, whether founded in a particular piece of legislation or undertaken on a voluntary basis, are used carefully and appropriately. I believe that he does. Police Scotland is making our communities safer, and stop and search is a part of that.

I move amendment S4M-09557.2, to leave out from “Police Scotland” to end and insert:

“stop and search is an operational matter for Police Scotland and is making an important contribution to local policing and the reduction of violent crimes, including a 60% fall in crimes of handling an offensive weapon since 2006-07; welcomes the fact that crime in Scotland is at a 39-year low and officer numbers are more than 1,000 higher than in 2007; recognises that Police Scotland is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority, which is currently undertaking a detailed review of stop and search; further notes that less than 0.01% of all stop and searches have resulted in a complaint since April 2013, and believes that the proportionate use of stop and search makes Scotland’s streets safer and thereby reduces fear of crime.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Graeme Pearson to speak to and move amendment S4M-09557.1. Mr Pearson, you have up to five minutes.

Photo of Graeme Pearson Graeme Pearson Labour

I rise to move the amendment in my name, which, because of the Government’s pre-emptive amendment, is unlikely to be voted on. To that extent I am disappointed. What the cabinet secretary forgot to quote in his speech was the effective oversight that my amendment seeks to pass comment on.

I must congratulate the cabinet secretary. It takes a fair amount of effort to generate anger in the Liberal Democrat Party, whose motion seems to reflect a great deal of anger. To that extent, I believe that we should amend it.

Nothing in my amendment criticises the staff involved in stop and searches in our streets across Scotland; nor do we criticise the support staff who provide the intelligence that leads to many of the positive searches. Indeed, Police Scotland is the latest in a long line of organisations that have policed the streets of Scotland, which goes back to 1799. However, that policing was always maintained with the public’s consent.

At a time when we have 1,000 additional police officers on our streets and in our offices, there are more than 0.5 million fewer people under the age of 25 in Scotland compared with a couple of decades ago. The Government made a very significant comment about a 39-year low in crime, so it seems illogical that stop and searches here are at a level four times higher than the level in England and Wales.

I am questioning not this particular police tactic, which I think we recognise is effective when properly used, but the policy endorsement of such tactics and strategies. When did the Scottish Police Authority decide that it agreed with this tactic? Was there a debate at that level about the huge rise in the number of stop and searches? Did the cabinet secretary know ahead of time that the authority had agreed such tactics, and did he assess for himself the impact that they might have on relationships between the police and the public?

We live in a democratic country and expect democratic accountability of any police activity that is conducted in our name. However, when the cabinet secretary is questioned on such matters, his lament is that they are operational matters and that, as such, he leaves them to the chief constable. It is one thing for the chief constable as a professional to decide on the way forward on behalf of Police Scotland, but those who represent our communities are under a duty not only to question the chief constable but to ensure that the Scottish Police Authority, too, questions him about that way forward.

The chief constable is on record as acknowledging that some of the numbers are made up, which calls into question the integrity of the reporting system. That impression has been reinforced by the chief executive of the Scottish Police Federation, who has said:

“Because we have this bizarre approach in terms of stopping and searching, we have police officers that are making numbers up. We have not searched 500,000 of Scotland’s citizens—I am telling you now, that has not happened.”

When I raised the matter with Mr MacAskill in this very chamber, he responded that the words had been taken out of context. I do not know what context they were taken out of, but they seemed clear to me. The quandary over how the numbers have been made up has resulted in a quandary over the policy that is being adhered to and its effectiveness.

The cabinet secretary told us that the Parliament has a sub-committee to scrutinise policing, but he will also acknowledge that it took nearly 18 months to persuade the Government that we needed such scrutiny. In fact, when I questioned him at the Justice Committee, the chair of the Scottish Police Authority seemed to believe that he was responsible for the democratic oversight of policing in Scotland. That is certainly not the case; the police need to justify their way forward.

In today’s Holyrood magazine, the chief constable acknowledges that crime is likely to rise in the foreseeable future—

Photo of Graeme Pearson Graeme Pearson Labour

I will indeed, Presiding Officer.

In the same magazine, the chief constable asks whether people “seriously think” that the police should go to the public to ask whether something is a good idea, and says:

“I think the concept that we consult the public on all of this is not right.”

Do we know what the chief constable should be consulting the public on, and do we know to whom he should be accountable?

I move amendment S4M-09557.1, to leave out from “considers” to end and insert:

“regrets the absence of any effective oversight evidenced on the part of the Scottish Police Authority on this and other issues of significance; notes that a request has been made for Audit Scotland to formally investigate crime statistics and reporting practices in Police Scotland, and expects the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to take responsibility for the future direction of the police service that the current Scottish administration created.”

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

At the outset, I confirm that I very much support the ability of police officers to stop and search suspects. It is an important power in the fight against crime and a useful tool in tackling knife, alcohol and drug offences.

The good news is that, according to police statistics, 100,000 of the stop and searches carried out by Police Scotland last year resulted in officers finding and confiscating weapons, drugs, alcohol and stolen property. However, the bad and decidedly alarming news is the chief constable’s admission that statistics on stop and search are being made up.

Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation was right when he recently pointed out that, if more than 500,000 people were stopped last year, that would equate to roughly 10 per cent of the population. No one can seriously believe that 10 per cent of Scots were stopped last year; if that were true, we would all know several people who had been stopped. The logical conclusion is that either police officers are being coerced into meeting stop and search targets or that some police officers have a relaxed approach to the accuracy of police statistics. Given the extent to which the Government relies on police statistics on recorded crime, the fact that there are questions about their accuracy is deeply worrying.

Alison McInnes’s motion and Graeme Pearson’s amendment are right to highlight those concerns and others about the manner and circumstances in which stop and search is currently carried out in Scotland. It is clear that reform is needed, but it must be undertaken in a way that ensures that public safety is not jeopardised.

Stop and search can be classified as legislative, where the power derives from specific law and does not require the consent of the person to be searched, or, under common law, consensual, where the member of the public consents—or at least in theory consents—to be searched. Despite guidelines that state that refusal to agree to a search should not be treated as suspicious, research has shown that officers treat refusal as a reason to move on to a statutory search.

Furthermore, in January 2014, the Scottish centre for crime and justice research carried out an evaluation of the use of stop and search until 2010 and found that

“Neither Police Scotland, the Scottish Government nor the Scottish Police Authority routinely publish stop and search statistics, as such”.

The evaluation went on to say that therefore

“it is difficult to assess” how stop and search is being carried out

“either comparatively across Scotland, or at the national level.”

More rigorous and transparent recording of stop and search statistics is essential to ensure that transparency and accountability are achieved.

A key conclusion of that evaluation was that non-statutory stop and search lacked safeguards and accountability. Due to the lack of “key procedural protections”, it was

“unlikely to meet basic standards of consent”, as there is no duty on officers to inform people of their right to refuse searches.

We know that young people are significantly more likely to be searched on a non-statutory basis and that, in 2010, 500 children under the age of 10 were stopped and searched.

In England and Wales, the vast majority of stop and searches require reasonable suspicion, and non-statutory stop and search has effectively been ruled out since 2003. That approach works well, and there is no great concern that police officers do not have sufficient powers.

By contrast, Scotland seeks to deter offenders through high-volume search activity, although, as the research confirmed, there is no evidence that that approach reduces crime. Instead, it is likely to

“damage people’s trust and confidence in the police, and undermine public support for policing”, especially among young people, whom we know to be the likely subjects of stop and search.

It is clear that those issues must be addressed. If hundreds of thousands of stop and searches are carried out and no crimes are detected, that is a waste of police time; even worse, it may be counterproductive. The approach that has been adopted in England and Wales proves that it is possible to make changes to stop and search without jeopardising public safety. The cabinet secretary should take note.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We now come to the open debate. We are very tight for time, so speeches should be a maximum of four minutes, please.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

I think that we agree that we all want crime to be tackled and our communities to be made safer. It is to be welcomed that recorded crime is at a 39-year low. The fact that violent crime has halved and crime involving knives and other weapons has fallen by more than 60 per cent shows that we must be doing something right.

Stop and search is an important tool that the police use in detecting and preventing crime. The cabinet secretary mentioned Robert Brown, who was a justice spokesperson for the Lib Dems, and we should remember that he said that stop and search carried out by the police had been very effective.

The Liberal Democrat motion mentions children, and Alison McInnes and Margaret Mitchell also mentioned children in their speeches. I will give an example of what I saw, first hand, when I was out with the police in Glasgow city centre during a very busy weekend.

We wandered down to the waterfront, where the police stopped and searched a number of kids, finding really cheap alcohol on them. A couple of sips of that would have made them very ill and vulnerable not just to committing crime but to having crime committed against them. Some of them were under the influence of alcohol. They were taken into the police van, where we were, sat down, talked to, and asked where they lived. They ended up being taken home, which was very positive. It meant that they were not taken to a police station and did not get a criminal record. Their parents were phoned and they were taken home. Those children were very vulnerable, and stop and search protected them against crime.

Photo of Sandra White Sandra White Scottish National Party

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

If those kids in Glasgow had been down by the Clyde drinking alcohol until midnight or 1 o’clock at night, something could have happened to them. In that respect, stop and search is a positive thing. It protected those kids from harm, rather than anything else.

The Lib Dems ask for scrutiny and the Labour Party ask for Audit Scotland to intervene. If they had listened to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice last week and worked with us rather than against us, they would have known that the Scottish Police Authority has already announced that it will carry out a review of stop and search. That body, which has oversight of the police, is the correct one to do that. Graeme Pearson did not recognise that in his amendment for the Labour Party or in his speech. His calls for the cabinet secretary to take control of the police are somewhat bizarre. We have had three parties, working in tandem once again, alleging that the Scottish Government is already interfering in police matters, but now they say that they want it to interfere and intervene. They need to say exactly what it is that they want.

We should support the police in the tough job that they do, and it is of concern that members who are here today question police officers’ professionalism. What would those members say to police officers, who risk their lives?

We should welcome the record drop in crime and recognise that the policy has helped to achieve safer streets and communities. The policy has prevented crimes. What would those members say to people in local communities who would be victims of crime if we did not use stop and search to deter it? I ask them to look at themselves.

Communities also have rights, and they have seen an incredible drop in crime and the carrying of offensive weapons—knives and other weapons. Stop and search is working in that respect, and we are looking at a review. Is that not the proper way to go, instead of supporting the motion, whose purpose is basically just to score political points and which does nothing whatsoever to help communities out there or the kids I mentioned? The Lib Dems seem not to realise that stopping and searching those kids protected them from any further harm.

Photo of John Pentland John Pentland Labour

I thank the Liberal Democrats for lodging their motion. Disappointingly, the amendment from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice merely reinforces the impression that he thinks that his job is to sit back and applaud Police Scotland without question when it stops and searches more than half a million people in a fraction of a year.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Mr Pentland, will you pull your microphone round towards you, please?

Photo of John Pentland John Pentland Labour

We do not know whether that is a tenth of our population or fewer people suffering more searches, but we know that the figure is four times that for England and Wales. Why does the justice secretary think that our citizens are less trustworthy than those in the rest of the UK?

Furthermore, what about the concerns over the hundreds of young children who have been stopped and searched; the question of consent in cases where there is no suspicion of criminal activity, which are the vast majority of cases; the recording of incidents; and the consequences of stop and search? Those are real issues of public concern, but not, it seems, in the eyes of the justice secretary. In common with almost everything that Police Scotland does, they are considered to be operational matters and not his responsibility. As long as Police Scotland maintains officer numbers above a certain level, the justice secretary leaves it to that body to slash its budget by closing down facilities and shedding thousands of civilian staff.

On that point, I note the publication of Police Scotland’s corporate strategy, which is full of operational matters that are none of our business and further cuts for which the Scottish Government cannot be held responsible. Funnily enough, I have yet to find any reference to stop and search in the document, so we might assume that its prevalence is not a deliberate, strategic measure—unless, that is, it is an attempt to make the police more visible so that we do not notice the extent to which civilian jobs are being backfilled.

The cabinet secretary will welcome and take credit for the evidence that there are still enough officers on the streets to stop and search so many people, but really he ought to be addressing the dire state towards which policing in Scotland is heading, with staffing policies retreating towards the era of “Life on Mars”—the TV programme, not the song by the nationalists’ bête noire. Now, it seems, policing tactics and civil liberties may be heading in a similar direction.

What about that toothless tiger, the Scottish Police Authority? As MSPs, we do not get much say, but the SPA is supposed to provide the public with accountability. Does it do that? Has it ever sent Police Scotland “homeward” to “think again” when proposals such as those for control rooms have been shown to be lacking consultation, evidence and scrutiny? Why is the SPA just rubber-stamping everything, regardless of that lack of consultation, evidence and scrutiny?

If the SPA was a football team, the public would be demanding the resignation of the person who picked the team. Why should it be any different for the justice secretary?

Photo of Roderick Campbell Roderick Campbell Scottish National Party

I will begin by stating what is perhaps the obvious, which is that I am completely against the idea of fiddled or made-up figures from any public body. I am sure that, across the chamber, we all share that view. I am sure that Sir Stephen House shares it, too. However, let us not distort the facts and lose sight of the purpose of stop and search powers, and let us not overlook the merit of intelligence-led, respectful person searches, which give law-abiding people the freedom to walk down the street free from the fear of violent crime. That is real freedom.

Photo of Roderick Campbell Roderick Campbell Scottish National Party

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

I am sure that we all accept that we live in a very different world from that of 50 years ago or even 20 years ago. Over the weekend, I happened to spot a picture of Willie Rennie sporting an unusual pair of glasses while touring a brewery in Ellon. It may be that those glasses were a necessary safety measure, or it may be that rose-tinted glasses were handed out at the sunshine party conference last weekend. Whatever the case may be, I cannot help but think that the Liberal Democrat view of modern policing would be better suited to the 1950s, when bobbies on the beat would stop for a chat about the weather and all citizens were law abiding and never carried knives. Indeed, one commentator yesterday said that Willie Rennie had a “Dixon of Dock Green” view of policing. Of course, that programme has not been broadcast since 1976, so perhaps he is not familiar with it.

Regrettably, we simply do not live in that kind of society. People commit crime. Sadly, people become victims every day. We need the police to be rigorous in ensuring that people are as safe as possible. The value of community policing is universally accepted, but we need to ensure that the police have the ability to protect people. I am instinctively against profiling people. In most cases, discrimination is morally dubious, if not illegal. However, we simply cannot ignore the fact that, when age and gender are taken into account, more crimes are committed by young men than by any other demographic group.

In my view, the most effective use of police resources is a focused but not target-driven approach to stop and search. The police must, and do, formulate an intelligent approach to stop and search. Clearly, if the police concentrated on searches of elderly women, a demographic group who do not commit crime, there might be cause for concern.

As for searches of children, we should bear it in mind that, in February, Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick said that when children are stopped

“it is usually for their own welfare or child protection issues, and often instigated from reports by teachers, social workers or third sector agencies.”

Stop and search is a question of balance. We need to balance individual liberties and policing by consent with the protection of the public. However, I accept that the balance is not perfect. Although stop and search may be an operational matter, proper records should be maintained. They need to be accurate and should include information about when individuals are repeatedly searched.

I acknowledge the legitimate concerns about regulation and accountability raised by the Scottish Human Rights Commission. However, let us also consider the proportionality of stop and search. Thirty seven per cent of searches undertaken to detect possession of firearms had a positive result; likewise, 37 per cent of searches to detect underage possession of alcohol had a positive result. It is somewhat wide of the mark to suggest that the searches are an indiscriminate intrusion into individuals’ personal freedom. Of course the searches are targeted; if it was otherwise, the success rate would be negligible, and I imagine that it is a bit of a misconception to say that 37 per cent of the population illegally carry firearms.

Photo of Roderick Campbell Roderick Campbell Scottish National Party

I am sorry, but time prevents me from doing so.

In evidence to the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing on 20 March, Police Scotland revealed that the rate of complaints about stop and search is about one in 19,000—a fraction of 1 per cent. Alison McInnes referred to Fife, where, according to the evidence that Assistant Chief Constable Mawson gave to the sub-committee, there were no complaints about stop and search. We therefore have a low ratio of complaints. I would have thought that widespread dissatisfaction among those stopped and searched would have been reflected in a high number of complaints.

When we look at the Scottish crime and justice survey, we can see that the risk of being a victim of crime has fallen from 20.4 per cent in 2008-09 to 16.9 per cent in 2012-13. That is important and encouraging. As Sandra White said, the SPA is due to consider a report on stop and search this month; let us not prejudge that review.

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

I want to put on record my support for stop and search. Indeed, as a minister, I played some part in ensuring that additional powers were made available to the police to carry out stop and search across Scotland. I have absolutely no doubt that stop and search has had a role to play in tackling inappropriate behaviour, in removing knives from people carrying them, in removing alcohol from young people and, generally, in making our streets safer. I therefore have no problem with additional powers for the police, nor do I have a problem with the use of those powers in stop and searches.

I agree with the cabinet secretary on a number of things. Indeed, I agree with Sandra White that there is a record drop in crime—right across Europe, including in England, there is a record drop in crime. The drop in England is even bigger than the drop in Scotland. It would be inappropriate to try to predicate the defence of an important power such as stop and search on bogus arguments that its use is the sole reason for the drop in crime, because other factors are at play. The reduction in crime in the developed world is a strange phenomenon. It ill behoves us to try to cloud the argument about that with the argument about stop and search.

Let us look at stop and search on its merits in Scotland. The record shows that stop and search is effective and is an important part of police powers. However, if concerns are raised about the use of stop and search, it is right that we look objectively and dispassionately at the arguments and criticisms. It should not be beyond us to accept the criticisms on the chin if things are going wrong and if powers are being used inappropriately. Indeed, it is in the interests of the police to ensure that public confidence in the use of stop and search powers is retained. When we see statistics that should give us cause to stop and think again, such as the statistic that, in a three-year period from 2010 to 2013, the rate doubled from 64 per 1,000 to 131 per 1,000, we need to ask ourselves why. Had behaviour deteriorated during that period? Were we more at risk of crime? What led to those figures?

We have heard concerns about the comments of the chief constable, who admitted that figures were made up. We have had a lot of debate about corroboration, and the chief constable’s comments were corroborated by other senior people in the police service who also admitted that figures were made up. When we hear such comments, we should stop and look at the issue, not to undermine or seek to abolish stop and search, but to strengthen public support for it. It would be wise for the cabinet secretary to take a step back and in his regular meetings with the police service ask it to look at the criticisms and consider in detail what is happening. When the cabinet secretary talks to the SPA, he should ask it to do its job in holding the police to account. It is in the interests of the SPA, the police and the public that we support stop and search and that it is done properly.

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

I am delighted to participate in the debate, as it is always a pleasure to respond to Liberal Democrat members who want to compare Scotland’s achievements in supporting our police force with Westminster’s abysmal record in dismantling another public service. I wonder whether the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition at Westminster will privatise this one as well.

Alison McInnes said that she is deeply worried about the power to stop and search, yet she added that the “tactic”, as she puts it, is a useful part of the policing toolkit, which, when applied properly, is “effective, appropriate and fair”. I remind the Parliament that the Liberal Democrats had a campaign on knife crime a few years back, in 2010. The cabinet secretary referred to the then Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, Robert Brown, who is now a councillor in Rutherglen, and who said:

“The priority must be to stop people carrying knives in the first place.”

On 18 March 2010, Alison McInnes said:

“If the Scottish Government is really committed to making Grampian safer, then it will work with the police to tackle the root cause of crime and target the gangs who promote carrying weapons.”

Photo of Alison McInnes Alison McInnes Liberal Democrat

That demonstrates what I do support, which is statutory stop and search, on reasonable suspicion and intelligence led. What I am debating this afternoon and what I am asking Parliament to take a view on is the use of non-statutory stop and search without any reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

I thank the member for that intervention. As Hugh Henry pointed out, everybody supports stop and search, yet they are asking the police to stop using stop and search, or at least to limit the number of stop and searches.

Members: No.

That message has been very clear in the debate so far. We have heard that the numbers are too high. Do members really think that?

Photo of Margaret Mitchell Margaret Mitchell Conservative

We are against disproportionate stop and search. The huge numbers that are there to deter do not reduce crime.

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

I thank the member for backing up my point—huge numbers indeed. Members want to stop stop and search—to have less and less of it.

I take a different point of view. I congratulate Police Scotland on the 6 per cent increase in the stop and search success rate. That is what we should look at. Since April last year, less than 0.01 per cent of all stop and searches have resulted in a complaint—near perfect customer satisfaction.

There is another reason why the public feel safer in our communities. We promised 1,000 extra police and we delivered and maintained that number, despite the Westminster cuts imposed on us. In England and Wales, where the Liberal Democrats share power, the number of police officers has plummeted by 11 per cent. In their 2010 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats committed to pay for 3,000 more police on the beat. I do not know whether Alison McInnes signed that pledge with Sir Robert Smith MP and Sir Malcolm Bruce MP, but I would like to know what has happened to it now that the Liberal Democrats are in government at Westminster.

The debate comes down to two simple questions: who do we trust to protect our communities, and who do we trust to protect public services? I trust police officers throughout Scotland to protect us, and I trust this Scottish Government to protect Police Scotland against Westminster cuts. A visible police presence is what Scotland’s communities all want, in Glasgow and in the north-east of Scotland, and that is what they are getting from this Government. I am proud of Police Scotland’s early achievements in building on the service’s past successes. Stop and search is an important part of Police Scotland’s toolkit, and it is effective, appropriate and fair.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

Perhaps I can frame the debate within parameters with which I think everyone in the Parliament can agree. On the one hand, we all want the police to be effective law enforcers. On the other hand, we all want the fundamental right of the freedom of the individual to be respected and protected. There will always be a tension between those two objectives. A functioning balance has to be identified.

Let us be clear why. An omnipotent, unaccountable police force delivers a police state. A totally unchecked, unregulated environment for the individual delivers anarchy. There is nothing new about such debate. Constitutional law has wrestled with those issues over decades and centuries. However, in Scotland in 2014 there is one significant difference: a single police force, Police Scotland, closely liaising with Government but with no democratic facility for public transparency and accountability.

That structure per se weighs the scales in favour of the police. That has to be counterbalanced by overt action from Police Scotland to compensate for its powerful status as a law enforcement monopoly. On such a sensitive issue as stop and search, without that counterbalance the cards are stacked against the public interest. That leads to suspicion, resentment and—very undesirably—anger. Those are precisely the emotions that no police force wants to generate.

In relation to stop and search, what do we know? We know that between April and December 2013, more than half a million stop and searches were carried out throughout Scotland—that is about 10 per cent of the population. We do not know, but we understand, that some of those proceeded on a statutory basis, requiring the officer to have either “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity or “reasonable cause to suspect” that an individual member of the public was in possession of a certain item, for example drugs, weapons, or stolen goods, in order to have the power to conduct such a search. However, we know that the vast majority of stop and searches are carried out on a non-statutory basis, which requires verbal consent.

Astonishingly, it appears that Police Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Police Authority do not routinely publish stop and search statistics, nor can they confirm the reliability of such data as is published. I do not think that I am alone in finding that staggering. On an issue as fundamental as this, we need basic facts. The point is that, without those basic facts, there is no counterbalance. Therefore, perversely, it is every bit as much in the interest of Police Scotland as it is in the public interest to have those facts. For example, in each year, how many actual incidences of stop and search are there? Are they statutory or voluntary? What does the search disclose? What is the geographic spread, based on local authority area?

If greater reliance is being placed on voluntary stop and search, as seems to be the case, I am a little uneasy. People do not readily want to fall foul of the police, and they may be apprehensive about refusing consent. Equally, if they considered that police interest was excessive or overzealous, they may be reluctant to complain, for exactly the same reason.

The point is that, in a free society, there is a presumption of innocence—a presumption that we are going about our lawful business—unless the police have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a reasonable cause to expect that an individual member of the public is in possession of some incriminating item.

What is unacceptable is that a single police force, with no meaningful public accountability, can act in such a powerful but opaque and unaccountable manner. Hugh Henry is absolutely right to say that, for the sake of the police force and the public, that has got to change.

Photo of Elaine Murray Elaine Murray Labour

This is an important issue, which has raised significant concern, especially as instances of stop and search in Scotland are much higher per head of population than they are in England and Wales, where crime is also falling. That shows that falling crime in Scotland is not a consequence of increased stop and search.

I am old enough to remember the sus laws in England in the 1970s and the riots in various cities that resulted from the anger that those laws engendered in ethnic minority communities. I want to be clear from the start that no one on these benches who raises concerns about the current stop and search practices in Scotland is in any way equating the behaviour of Police Scotland police officers today with that of police officers in England and Wales in the 1970s and 1980s. As others have said and Hugh Henry amply demonstrated in his speech, if properly applied, stop and search is a useful tool. Nevertheless, the use of those powers must be robustly monitored and evidence must be fully transparent and easily accessible if concerns about the use of the powers are to be allayed.

Last summer, I was contacted by a constituent—a local doctor of Asian ethnic background—who had been stopped by officers of Police Scotland as he left Glasgow airport. He was briefly questioned and left amicably. However, from anecdotal discussions with others afterwards, he felt that those of ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to have similar experiences.

I took up the matter with the cabinet secretary and was advised in a letter from him dated 18 August that, although there had been a lack of consistency between forces in the past, since April last year, Police Scotland had been recording

“all stop and search incidents on to a single national database which collates information such as the individual’s age, gender and ethnic background.”

When the cabinet secretary sums up, can he confirm that all stop and search incidents are now recorded by Police Scotland? Will he also say whether that includes non-statutory stop and searches, or whether that use of “all” is relative?

In a recent paper on the use of stop and search powers, Kath Murray, a postgraduate researcher at the University of Edinburgh, stated that neither Police Scotland, the Scottish Government nor the Scottish Police Authority routinely publishes stop and search statistics. She also noted that the former forces outside the central belt tended to have a more reactive than a proactive approach to stop and search. The central belt approach now seems to have been rolled out across Scotland.

Perhaps coincidentally, the day after the SCCJR published Kath Murray’s research, Police Scotland issued a press release claiming not only that stop and search had marginally decreased on the same period in the previous year but that it had been markedly more successful. However, without access to the data that the cabinet secretary has advised me is now being collated by Police Scotland, there is no way of checking either the grounds for the fears that have been expressed or the claims of improvements that have been made. Moreover, since then, the chief constable seems to have admitted to the Sunday Herald that some police officers have been making up stop and search incidents. Have they been entering those made-up incidents into the national database?

There are a number of concerns, such as the frequency of use of stop and search in Scotland compared with elsewhere in the United Kingdom and the spreading of the central belt proactive stop and search methods, rather than the reactive methods that were applied by other former forces. Officers in various former forces have said to me that they feel that the Strathclyde way is being imposed upon them. Other concerns are the application of stop and search to young people and children and the possibility that some of the statistics might be unreliable.

Surely it is time that the cabinet secretary stopped reiterating his usual refrain of, “It’s an operational matter for the chief constable”—to be frank, that will be inscribed on his political gravestone—and took steps to ensure real transparency and real accountability to the Scottish public with regard to stop and search. It is an important tool, but it is sensitive. It must be used correctly and there must be transparency about the way in which it is used.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

I listened carefully to all the points that were made during the debate and I welcome members’ contributions to the issue, which is important.

When I spoke earlier, I expressed disappointment that Alison McInnes had chosen to take such a negative tone to the subject in her motion. A justice debate this week would have been an ideal opportunity to mark a successful first year of Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. It is only a year since we established the new single service, safeguarding front-line policing in Scotland and maintaining more than 1,000 additional officers across Scottish communities, helping to keep people safe and delivering on our commitments to tackle crime.

Photo of Alison McInnes Alison McInnes Liberal Democrat

We talked about debating Police Scotland one year on, but the afternoon is not long enough to talk about all the problems.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

I do not recognise the problems that Ms McInnes mentions. I will detail what the results say: crime in Scotland is at a 39-year low; fear of crime is down; and people feel safer and are able to go about their daily lives and business. In addition, policing is more local than ever before: local policing is shaped and delivered by designated local commanders and there are now local policing plans for all 353 council wards in Scotland.

We should celebrate those achievements and, indeed, more, such as the lowest recorded homicide stats since we started keeping such records and the drop in violent crime. Instead, we are discussing concerns about uncontrolled and apparently unaccountable police stop and search tactics. If there really is such concern, where is the evidence?

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Should we, at the same time, celebrate the closure of dozens of police stations and the sacking of hundreds of police support staff? Should we celebrate those one year on?

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

There has not been the closure of hundreds of police stations nor have there been sackings. There has been voluntary early retirement, which we agree is necessary. It is part of what had to be in a single service and what the Labour Party supported when it signed up for a single police service.

There appears to be no evidence of widespread concern. Police Scotland has received 32 complaints about the searches conducted since April last year. That is less than 0.01 per cent of all searches or less than one in every 15,000 carried out. I met the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner just over an hour ago. He is not carrying out any investigation because he has had no complaints as the PIRC or when he was the Police Complaints Commission for Scotland. There is simply no evidence.

I will deal with Graeme Pearson’s point about a lack of accountability. It is simply not the case. First and foremost, the police are accountable to the Scottish Police Authority. The SPA has considered the issue and, as we speak, is carrying out a detailed review of stop and search procedures. Its report is due at the end of this month. Graeme Pearson will have his evidence of effective oversight then.

I mentioned that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, whose office was established to deal with any formal complaints about policing, has had no complaints about stop and search. We also have Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which oversees policing. That is the correct body to investigate issues, and not Audit Scotland, as Mr Pearson seems to believe.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

I am in my final minute.

As if that were not enough, the chief constable and Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick have given evidence in recent months to the Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing on stop and search.

All that shows clearly that our police officers are accountable to the authority, to Parliament and—most important—to the people of Scotland. I suggest that we allow them and the other organisations that the Parliament has set up to get on with the job of protecting our communities and keeping people safe from crime.

I ask the Parliament to reject the motion from Alison McInnes and the amendment from Graeme Pearson and to support the amendment in my name. I also ask the Parliament to give the police credit for the outstanding service that we as parliamentarians and our communities receive from them daily.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

If police stations closing to the public, control rooms closing, public spats between the chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority’s chair, no local democracy, low morale, SNP representatives being derided at the police staff conference and police staff balloting for a strike represent success, I would hate to see failure.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Not just now.

I put beyond doubt our clear admiration for what police officers and staff do on our behalf. When we question the Government’s police policy, no one should interpret that as questioning the men and women who help to keep us safe daily. Because we admire our police so much, we have all the more reason to regret deeply the Government’s approach.

The traditions of the police are steadily—sometimes not so steadily, despite what the justice secretary says—being eroded. Annabel Goldie was right to say that the issue has been described as involving a balance between effective policing and our personal freedoms.

The Government has adopted a mixture of ill-prepared, ill-thought-out and poorly legislated-for reforms, together with a laissez-faire attitude to police power. It interferes when it should not and looks the other way when it should step in. Police centralisation is an example of when the Government should have left well alone. Stop and search is a clear example of when action is required.

I commend Sandra White for her loyalty to her Government’s ministers. She not only supports the power of stop and search, but is on the streets of Glasgow to do stop and search herself.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The member is not giving way.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

We have heard the numbers. We estimate that the rise in stop and search means that, in the past year alone, 750,000 searches have been made. I say to Christian Allard that the bulk of them were non-statutory. Our point is about non-statutory searches. We support the use of evidence-based, intelligence-led stop and search, but the non-statutory use of stop and search dominates the stop and search landscape. It is clear that there is an unprecedented surge in non-statutory stop and searches, as Alison McInnes said.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

How many of the 20 per cent of stop and searches that were successful should not have taken place?

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

The justice secretary could not answer my intervention about the success rate for non-statutory stop and searches. Our point is that that rate is 7 per cent. If he was doing his job, he would know that it was 7 per cent—not 20 per cent.

Of course we want to clamp down on crime, but Annabel Goldie was right to say that the issue is about the balance between personal freedoms and the effective use of the police. Kenny MacAskill’s laissez-faire approach is not helping.

We have heard serious concerns about stop and search in England and particularly in the Met. However, as John Pentland pointed out, the rate of stop and search in Scotland is many times higher than the rate in England, and Kenny MacAskill does not bat an eyelid.

It is farcical for the chief constable to claim that there has been a reduction in the use of stop and search in the past year. A 6 per cent reduction that is based on a 400 per cent increase is negligible, and the chief constable should not create such a false impression in addressing such a serious matter. There have been 750,000 searches, and yet the First Minister tells us that he is “comfortable” and “satisfied”.

The University of Edinburgh’s report addresses the issue of consent, stating:

“Whilst the principle of verbal consent is not codified within Scottish policing, it is commonly understood that consent is underpinned by three core requirements:

A person must be fully informed with the relevant information to make a decision

A person must have the legal capacity and competency to give consent

Consent must be given voluntarily”.

It concludes that:

“Non-statutory stop and search is unlikely to meet basic standards of consent. There is no duty on officers to inform people of their right to refuse searches, and searches are more likely to fall upon younger age-groups, whose ability to provide consent” is questionable.

The report also notes that

“interview data suggest that despite guidance to the contrary, refusing to be searched voluntarily may be treated as ‘suspicious’ and used as grounds for moving to a statutory search.”

It is not clear that those who are subjected to stop and search are aware that they can refuse; that they have been advised of their rights; and that, if they refuse, they will not face further action. It is certainly not clear how a seven-year-old girl can ever give her consent.

Rod Campbell says that searches should be intelligence led, but non-statutory searches are based on no suspicion and not on intelligence. He says that he is against profiling, but that is exactly what non-statutory stop and search is, so he is contradicting himself.

We have been told that there are no targets for stop and search other than for results. That is the case now, as of two weeks ago. However, on 1 January the Herald reported that police officers had accused the police force of making them carry out “unethical” and “illegal” searches to meet targets. There were targets in January for the number of searches, but now there are only targets for results or success. That change is a clear admission that a mistake has been made, and the justice secretary should admit it.

There have been some good contributions to the debate, and Annabel Goldie spoke about the end justifying the means. How far is the justice secretary prepared to go? Why do we not increase stop and search even further if he reckons that it is the most effective method?

The justice secretary cited Jackie Brock from Children in Scotland—rather embarrassingly, as she was the co-signatory to a letter from Together, the Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights, which spoke out against the extensive use of stop and search.

The organisation said that there is a “worrying concern” about the “disproportionate” use based on “targets” rather than “intelligence”. It said that stop and search should not

“subject children to unnecessary and arbitrary intrusion into their daily lives.”

Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People has said that there is a need for appropriate safeguards, and the SHRC has said that stop and search is “largely unregulated”.

All those people are speaking out and calling for action, but the justice secretary sits there and does nothing.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The member should draw to a close.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

The justice secretary says that stop and search is an operational matter, but it is for him to set the framework.

I see that he is smiling, and not considering the seriousness of the matter.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Mr Rennie, you must come to a close.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

The justice secretary must take responsibility for the framework in which the police operate. If he does not implement an appropriate framework, he is not doing his duty as this country deserves.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

That concludes the debate. I am afraid that members must keep strictly to their times this afternoon as time is very short.