Consultation on the review of the Stop and Search of Persons in Scotland Code of Practice for Constables: analysis of responses

9. Data monitoring and record keeping (Q14, Q15, Q16)

9.1 This chapter looks at responses provided to questions 14, 15 and 16, which focus on record keeping, and data collection and monitoring following a stop and search encounter. Questions 14 and 15 are closed questions, requiring respondents to answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Don’t know’, while question 16 allowed respondents to provide any further feedback they have on how stop and search data is collected, monitored and reported.

Question 14: Does the revised Code clearly set out what information and records are to be kept in relation to a search of a person who is not in police custody?

Question 15: Does the revised Code clearly set out the right of someone to receive a copy of the information and record kept in relation to a search of a person who is not in police custody?

Question 16: Please provide further comments if there are improvements you would like to see in how stop and search data is collected, monitored or reported.

9.2 The sections below look in turn at the responses provided to each of these questions.

Question 14: Does the revised Code clearly set out what information and records are to be kept in relation to a search of a person who is not in police custody?

9.3 This is a closed question which required respondents to answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Don’t know’, to whether they believe the Code clearly set out what information and records are to be kept in relation to a search of a person not in police custody.

9.4 This question received 24 responses in total, 63% of responses to this question came from organisations, with the remaining responses coming from individuals. The table below shows that responses were positive, 75% of respondents answered ‘Yes’, 13% of respondents answered ‘No’, and the remaining respondents answered ‘Don’t know’ (13%). Of those respondents who answered ‘Yes’, it was 67% organisations and 33% individuals. While those who answered ‘No’ to this question, were largely made up of individuals (67%). The 3 remaining respondents who answered ‘Don’t know’ were made up of 2 organisations and 1 individual.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Question 15: Does the revised Code clearly set out the right of someone to receive a copy of the information and record kept in relation to a search of a person who is not in police custody?

9.5 This is a closed question which required respondents to answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Don’t know’, as to their view on whether the code sufficiently set out the right of someone to receive a copy of the information and record kept in relation to a search of a person not in police custody.

9.6 This question received a total of 25 responses. 64% of the responses to this question were submitted by organisations, while the remaining 36% came from individual respondents. Responses to this question were generally positive, with 76% of respondents answering ‘Yes’. Of the remaining respondents, 16% answered ‘No’ and 8% answered ‘Don’t know’. For the respondents who answered ‘Yes’, it was made up of 63% organisations and 37% individuals. Out of those who answered ‘No’ to this question, the respondent type was split, 50% organisations and 50% individuals. The two remaining respondents who answered ‘Don’t know’, both were organisational respondents, both of which offered further information in reply to question 16.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Question 16: Please provide further comments if there are improvements you would like to see in how stop and search data is collected, monitored or reported.

9.7 This is an open question which allowed respondents to expand on their feedback given to the two previous closed questions, should they have further comments on improvements that could be made on how stop and search data is collected, monitored and reported. This question received 19 responses, 68% of these were from organisations and 32% were from individuals.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

9.8 Overall, respondents were broadly supportive of the revised Code’s provisions on data collection and transparency but identified opportunities to strengthen clarity, consistency and practical application. Feedback highlighted the importance of ensuring that data collection supports both effective scrutiny and operational usability.

Data collection, sharing and record keeping

9.9 A key theme across responses was the need to balance robust data collection with operational practicality. Respondents voiced that recording requirements should support transparency and accountability without placing undue administrative burden on officers or deterring proactive policing. There were also calls for clearer articulation of how data is used to distinguish between appropriate intelligence-led activity and potential discriminatory practice.

9.10 Ways to improve the quality and usefulness of recorded data was also suggested. This included ideas such as capturing additional contextual information, such as whether individuals understood their rights and the search process, and whether communication or language support was required. There were also suggestions to ensure that data recording better reflects engagement with individuals, including any support or adjustments provided.

9.11 Respondents highlighted the importance of transparency and individuals’ access to information about searches. Suggestions included improving how individuals can obtain records of their search, with some proposing more accessible systems such as reference numbers or digital access. There were also calls for greater clarity on record‑keeping requirements, including retention periods and officers’ responsibilities to record encounters.

9.12 Some respondents also emphasised the value of sharing data with scrutiny bodies and providing clearer commentary on trends, to help build public confidence and support ongoing oversight.

Equalities monitoring

9.13 A number of responses focused on strengthening equality monitoring. Respondents highlighted the importance of collecting and analysing disaggregated data, including by age, sex and ethnicity, to identify potential disparities in practice was highlighted. There were also calls for clearer guidance on how such data should be collected and used, alongside stronger mechanisms for scrutiny and reporting to support accountability.

Sex and gender

9.14 Feedback on the recording of sex and gender reflected differing views. Some proposed that recording practices should be updated to better reflect gender identity, while others raised concerns about the clarity and consistency of such data, emphasising the need for clear definitions and reliable categories. Overall, respondents highlighted the importance of ensuring that any data collection in this area is clearly defined, meaningful, reliable and consistently recorded.

Accessibility

9.15 Accessibility was also identified as an area for improvement. Respondents highlighted the need for information about stop and search data, and individuals’ rights, to be available in accessible formats, including British Sign Language and easy‑read materials. There were also suggestions to record any requests for reasonable adjustments and whether these have been met, to support accountability and inclusive practice.