SCOTTISH police don't know what stop-searches are and don't know how to count them.

That, at least, is the damning conclusion of a major independent review in to the tactic.

HM Inspector of Constabulary Derek Penman has uncovered a real lack of clarity over stop-search powers and practices among Scotland's rank-and-file officers.

Crucially, Mr Penman also found that many officers felt there were targets for them to carry out more searches and that this drove "negative behaviours".

The watchdog on Tuesday formally recommended an end to all performance indicators on stop and search and called for statutory code of conduct as a detailed, definitive guide to what exactly constitutes a stop and search.

His report was immediately followed by a series of co-ordinated responses from Police Scotland itself and Justice Secretary Michael Matheson.

The force unveiled widely trailed options for ending or reducing the use of so-called consensual searches - when members of the public volunteer to have their pockets turned out.

Mr Matheson appointed a new group chaired by respected defence advocate and human rights lawyer John Scott to review such options.

This group will report back by August.

Mr Penman's views echo outstanding concerns from within Police Scotland over the tactic, which has been championed by Chief Constable Sir Stephen House since he first took over the old Strathclyde force in 2007.

Sir Stephen last month admitted that hundreds of thousands alcohol seizures were wrongly counted as a stop-searches.

The national force has come under increasing political scrutiny over what its own numbers have made look like a tactic of mass frisking, including of children.

The Scottish Police Federation (SPF), which represents the rank and file, has long argued that Scottish statistics for stop-and-search were being inflated - and that resulting meaningless figures were sparking political controversy. The SPF has also complained of a target culture.

Last month an an SPF said the situation could be "best summarised by saying 'the numbers are guff'".

Officers have told The Herald they find the whole terminology around "stop-search" - an English concept - to be confusing.

Some two-thirds of such searches are described as "voluntary" or "consensual" but this is not language that was traditionally used in Scottish policing. Police, the watchdog found, had not been given refresher training in consensual searching.

Mr Penman, describing his key findings, said: "We found that officers in Scotland do not have definitive guidance or a common view of what should be recorded as a stop and search.

"This makes it difficult to fully understand what is contained within the current stop and search data set.

"- There is no guidance on how stop and search should be counted and there is a lack of data validation and quality control processes;

"- Routine audit mechanisms have not yet been established and there is no definitive guidance for supervisors in relation to their quality assurance role.

"- Due to the lack of guidance and processes to maintain this dataset, we do not have confidence in the stop and search data currently held by Police Scotland."

Mr Penman - also in line with academics - suggested that there was not enough evidence on how effective stop and search was in reducing crime. Some officers - and critics - believe its overuse can alienate certain vulnerable groups, such as young men in deprived areas who may feel targeted.

Moreover, Mr Penman said it did not believe it would be possible to go back in to Police Scotland figures on stop-searches and sort them out.  He also found the numbers of positive searches, when officers detected something during a search, were skewed because they were compared with what police were looking for and not with what they actually found.

The Inspector of Constabulary made 22 detailed recommendations.

They include:

- developing definitive guidance and counting rules for officers to provide clarity on what constitutes a stop and search and how these should be recorded and counted;

- Introducing "mandatory recording" of the reasons for a non-consensual legislative search, one where an officer must have reasonable suspicion before compelling a member of the public to be search;

- Considering a policy under which the "general presumption amongst officers that stop and search encounters should be legislative";

- Introduce a separate data base to record seizures of alcohol so that such activity is not confused with stop and search.

Mr Penman summed up: "We have suggested a way forward that should result in significant reductions in consensual stop and search across Scotland, whilst at the same time building a reliable evidence base to allow a more informed view on the future need for consensual stop and search.

"We have recommended a move towards legislative stop and search which, combined with improvements in recording practices, training, supervision and audit, should give communities across Scotland more confidence in the use of stop and search.

"We believe the development of a statutory Code of Practice would establish clearly understood principles and safeguards for the public and would be particularly beneficial in providing clear and transparent guidance on the conduct of searches.

Police Scotland said it would implement Mr Penman's recommendations in full.

The force on Tuesday also unveiled its own plans for how to proceed with the tactic. It did so in a letter to Justice Secretary Michael Matheson and at a meeting of another watchdog, the Scottish Police Authority, from which press and observers were excluded.

The force supported a code of conduct and outlined three options for the future of so-called voluntary or consensual stop and searches.

These were:

- first, keeping the consensual option open but moving to a presumption of greater use of English-style statutory stop and searches.

- second, end consensual stop and search completely;

- End consensual stop and search for a defined age group.

The options - which can be implemented with a variety of legislative or executive policy changes - were drawn up by a Short Life Working Group chaired by Deputy Chief Constable Rose Fitzpatrick.

The police findings often co-incided with those of Mr Penman, who also served on the Short Life Working Group.

Ms Fitzpatrick said:  "We recognise that stop and search must be undertaken within a public consensus - reflecting our values of fairness, integrity and respect, have consideration of equalities and human rights at its core and meet the policing needs of Scotland's local communities."

She added that she believed a decision on the various options should only be taken after current improvements, many in line with Mr Penman's recommendations, were implemented.

She said: "This includes the recording and reporting mechanisms for stop and search data, greater guidance on its use - both internally and to the public, and any training needs going forward.

"This work, alongside additional academic research and any wider consultation and engagement that may be needed, will provide the strongest foundations on which to build any future changes."

Mr Matheson, meanwhile, welcomed both the HMICS report and the force's own commitments.

He said a review under Mr Scott would report back to ministers by August, meaning that any final legislative recommendations could be rolled in to the a scheduled Criminal Justice bill within the current parliament.

Mr Matheson said: "Stop and search can be a valuable tool in combating crime - but we must get the balance right between protecting the public and the rights of the individual.

"As such, it is vital that stop and search powers are used appropriately, and we need to make some key decisions on how such powers should be used going forward. We need a clear, consistent approach which, as a society, we can all be agreed upon."

Mr  Scott QC, who is also chairman of Howard League Scotland, said:  "The last year has seen considerable publicity regarding "stop and search" by police officers. Subsequent scrutiny has revealed considerable uncertainty and confusion on the part of the public, and even the police, as to when stop/search is justified and how it should be done when it is considered necessary.

"Questions arise about the use of the considerable powers already available to the police and the circumstances, if any, in which it is appropriate to carry out "consensual" stop/searches.

"This is an area in which it is important to strike a balance between, on the one hand, allowing the police to continue to address crime in all its aspects, including prevention and deterrence, and, on the other, the right of the public, including our young people, to go about their daily lives untroubled by unjustified police activity.

"Striking a proper balance is not possible while confusion continues."

Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie, reacting to Mr Penman;s findings, called for Chief Constable Sir Stephen House to come before parliament to explain why data was so poor.

Mr Rennie said  "I am tired of playing cat and mouse with Police Scotland bosses over the use of stop and search. It is high time we were given clear cut answers to our

"This is a guddle which lies squarely at the door of Stephen House as Chief Constable and leader of this organisation."