I will deal with the uniqueness of the response first. A number of aspects of the review were unique. I was entertained by the fact that, at one stage, The Scotsman described our report as “the long-awaited report”. The process took five months from start to finish, so I wonder how it would have been possible to meet such expectations.
I have remained in contact with officials. I did not finish the report and just put it aside, although I had to take the family to Centre Parcs to make up for an absentee period in August. As I understand it, the provision on the power of search for alcohol is intended to be used only if the consultation responses that are considered lead to the view that such a power should be introduced.
It was a difficult area for us. At times, it seemed straightforward but, with about a month to go, some of the complications started to become apparent. In fairness to Police Scotland and those within the policing community I should say that people within that community highlighted some of the complications and asked whether the provision was necessary. The point was also made forcibly by those with an interest in children’s rights, and I agree with the sentiments expressed by the children’s commissioner. I could not reach a firm conclusion on the provision, because it seems to be a significant part of stop and search. There are issues about vulnerable young people, so we did not feel that we could say, “Don’t bother with it at all.”
That is why we made the recommendation in the terms that we did. It is important to have a full and meaningful consultation in which all the issues can be canvassed. That will offer more people an opportunity to have a say on the matter, particularly people from children and young persons groups and those involved with them. The consultation can explore all the issues and a decision can ultimately be made, bearing in mind that there will probably be a price to pay for that decision.
13:30
If the decision is that such a power should be introduced, there might be implications for the confidence of young people in policing, depending on how it is handled. That is an area where the code of practice might help. If, however, the decision is that such a power should not be introduced, care will be needed to make sure that the police still feel that they are able to deal with youngsters who put themselves in vulnerable positions, although there are also child protection powers that might come into play in such situations.
We did a lot in the five months that we had but, as far as that issue is concerned, we were able only to identify that it was more complicated than would allow for easy recommendations within that time period. Also, the call for evidence came over the summer. I entirely understand and agree with the reason why we had the short timescale for producing our report, but it was over a period when lots of groups were unable to get together to submit a response even to the call for evidence. I have been out to speak to some people in those groups and I know that they want to contribute to the forthcoming consultation. In that way, all the issues can be properly canvassed and the pros and cons examined before a decision is ultimately made, taking into account a wider range of evidence than we were able to assemble for our report.