All right, John, so when we're ready, we're going to count you down. Okay. Okay. Five, four, three. Good evening. Welcome to this evening's candidate forum presented by the Bridge and Orca Media. I'm John Holler, this evening's moderator. This is the first in a series of forums that are sponsored by the Bridge and Orca Media that are intended to provide candidates with the opportunity to share their views and to make their case to voters as to why they should be elected. Tonight we have candidates running for Barry Washington to House Legislative District, which has two seats. This is the first in a series of forums that will be held here. Before introducing the three candidates we have with us, I want to go over the format. So we've asked the public to provide us with questions in advance. We've used those in developing the questions that we're going to ask tonight. We'll also be taking call-in questions. A volunteer will write down those questions and pass them on to me. And we'll ask as many questions as we can fit in during the hour that we have allotted for this forum. Candidates, we're not giving the questions in advance. If you have a question that you'd like us to ask, please feel free to call in. It's<PHONE_NUMBER>. Again, that number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Each candidate will have two minutes to introduce themselves, to explain why they're running and to make opening remarks. After that, candidates will have a minute and a half to answer each question. And then at the end, each of them will have one minute to give a closing statement. I may make minor adjustments as we go along, should those be needed. This isn't a debate, so the candidates won't be questioning each other. If you have a timer in the studio, they'll help candidates keep track of how much time they have left for each of their comments. After the opening statements, I'll randomly vary the order that candidates are called on. Let me briefly introduce the candidates before turning it over to them to give an opening statement. So, first, on the left here is Tom Kelly, Republican for Berry City. Second, in the middle here is Jonathan Williams, Democrat for Berry City. And on the right is Peter Anthony, Democrat for Berry City. There's a fourth candidate running, a Brian Judd, Republican for Berry City, who is not here this evening, apparently chose not to be here. So, let me start with opening statements and we'll start with the left. Tom, do you want to lead us off here? Two minutes, please, for your opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Holler. I would like to begin in a different way by mentioning a topic that I believe has not received balanced coverage in the Vermont media, Article 22 or Proposal 5, which if passed would add to the Vermont Constitution a right to, quote, personal reproductive autonomy, end quote. I have spoken to numerous Berry voters who are unaware and uninformed about this proposed addition to the Vermont Constitution. A free unbiased press would challenge the proponents of the amendment with tough questions. It should not be ushered in without real debate. Sounds okay on the surface, but I would ask voters to take a closer look. We should avoid tinkering with our state's most permanent and hardest to change law when the proposal is one, too extreme, two, too uncertain and vague, and three unnecessary. I'm going to go over these three points very briefly. Two, extreme. The amendment would most certainly enshrine the taking of innocent human life up to the moment of birth. Most Vermonters are not okay with that. Some I have spoken to did not know that that was currently the state of the law anyway. The amendment would forbid any effort to prevent late term abortions. You should vote no because it's too extreme. The amendment does not mention the word, it's also too vague. The amendment does not mention the word abortion, the word woman or gender or any age. This was intentional. They told us the courts will decide the meaning of personal reproductive autonomy in all contexts. We simply don't know where the clever lawyers and unelected judges will take this amendment. And finally, it's unnecessary. Title 18, Chapter 223 explicitly prohibits any legislation which would curb abortion. And without any law on the books, there are zero restrictions or even regulations of abortions in Vermont. The statute that I just mentioned prevents the enactment of any restriction. You should vote no on this amendment because it is unnecessary. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Jonathan. Thank you, John. And my thanks to Orca and the bridge for hosting us tonight. My name is Jonathan Williams, and I'm running to be your next Barry City State Representative. I'm running because I see every day how much Barry does for our surrounding communities and for Vermont.  I work for the Vermont Food Bank, a Barry organization, and so many of my co-workers and our volunteers all live and work in the city. For years, I've helped distribute food to people in need. And now more than ever before, so many of the resources and the leadership that the state requires is based right in Barry. Organizations like Capstone, CVABE, Downstreet, the Health and Wellness Center, and others, all headquartered where we live, work, and celebrate. But we need to change how the state works. We need to make it easier for Barry to lead the way. We need to make it easier for individuals and families who struggle with things like housing and hunger and homelessness and poor health and employment. Not just one-time aid, but sustained support for those businesses, nonprofits, and municipalities that are on the front lines every day helping our neighbors in need. I am originally from New Jersey. I moved to Vermont to go to school after serving in the United States Peace Corps. And I have spent my entire adult life trying to make Vermont a better place for everyone, for all of our neighbors. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Peter. Thank you very much, John. And again, like my colleague, thanks to the bridge and ORCA for the opportunity. I will be running for my third term. I have to say, as part of my opening statement, I was flabbergasted, thrilled at the first two terms. There is no time in legislative history, I am told, where we had so much uncertainty, so much going on. Not only did we, because of COVID, were unable to get out and campaign and meet with voters in 2020, but it happened to be time for the disennial reapportionment. We had a meltdown of the state employee's pension. We had a record number of vetoes by the chief executive, which, needless to say, was disappointing to the majority of the legislature. In a couple of cases we came within a couple of votes of having, if you will, passed child care bills, medical leave bills, family leave bills, our down payment on essentially clean heat and climate change. And each of those were a disappointment. It was including, I might add, the pension bill, which was vetoed. That was one of the exceptions overwhelmingly, that is to say, unanimously overridden by both parties, members, all 150 members of the House. I come out of the tradition of a local government, and that's where I believe my strength is and my service to the city of Barrie, add to which my four years of experience already in the House. And thank you very much for the opportunity. Thank you, Peter. All right, the first question is, what is the most important legislative issue facing your district? And if you're elected, what would you do to address it? And the order of this in response to this question will be Peter. You'll be first, Tom, and then Jonathan. Certainly housing in the city of Barrie, coupled with the grand list. As many people know, the city of Barrie is a full service community. The emergency services consume half and then some of the city budget, which does not leave a lot of wiggle room for us to invest in grant programs to improve the housing stock. Unfortunately, there was an attempt by the legislature to take this statewide. Barrie has already had a rental registry. We tried to do that statewide to take some of the pressure off Barrie and older communities from people seeking housing. That failed. We are very proud we have a registry, but the amount of funds and allowable building lots in order to apply those funds is very limited in an older community. So we will keep working at it, but this is a very difficult situation. A lot of existing housing has already been bought up by people who actually have removed it from the permanent housing market, and that is something we want to reverse, but it is not something that's regulatory easy. Thank you, Tom. I would say the cost of living is an issue that Barrie voters are concerned about, and I must say I'm not entirely sure what the legislature can do about that. One thing I could say, I believe the state has received an influx of COVID dollars. I think the tax burden is a serious concern and has an impact on the cost of living. So I think we should do what we can do to reduce the tax burden, and the reason I mentioned the COVID dollars is because while they're there to be spent, they should be spent on programs that like infrastructure and not new programming that will require additional funding. I also think the schools, the funding of the schools is a burden to the community, and the teacher-student ratio, we should help our communities reduce that. The inflation is driven also by national policy, and I think what individuals can do is vote with that in mind when they vote for folks running for national office. Milton Friedman said inflation is made in Washington, and only Washington can create money and any other attribution to inflation is wrong. Thank you. Jonathan. Thank you, John. I would echo the sentiments of my friend Peter that housing is the issue that I hear from folks again and again when I'm door knocking in Barrie City. I think there are things that the legislature can do to make it more affordable to live in Barrie City. Also for renters and homeowners, we can certainly tweak Act 250 to alleviate some of the requirements for downtown municipalities, make it easier for new housing projects and developments to go up. I think we can tax corporations that are buying up a lot of the housing stock in Barrie. Barrie is blessed with a significant amount of housing stock, but it is a lot of it older and needs an infusion of cash and resources. Tom was referring to the COVID monies. Those are ARPA dollars. My work at the food bank is exclusively devoted to drawing down millions of American Rescue Plan Act dollars for persons in need to make sure that those who struggle with hunger have access to food. And I believe we can invest those monies very smartly in our housing stock. There's a number of things we can do, restricting Airbnb from operating in our municipalities such that persons can still afford the homes that they are. We have a right to have access to affordable housing in Barrie. And I think we can do quite a bit to make that, to do some quick fixes to make things easier for folks. Thank you. The 2020 national presidential election and the challenges to the legitimacy election have become a very divisive and ongoing issue nationally. But I want to ask you each about your views about it because I think that also has resulted in a lot of questions about electoral policies at the state level and likely to play out here in Vermont. So the question I have for each of you is whether you believe that President Biden was legitimately elected president in 2020, and if not, to explain your position. And related to that, I'd ask you if you support the policy of providing mail-in ballots to all voters, which I believe everyone received in this past week. So in response to this question, we'll go with Tom first, Jonathan and then Peter. In the midst of COVID, there was an effort nationally to mail out ballots, which may or may not have been necessary. But then on the heels of COVID, the Vermont legislature enacted legislation which required for general elections, everyone to get a ballot. I don't think that's wise policy, and I wish it could be reversed. I don't know if the legislature will be of such a mind to do that this coming session, but I don't think it's necessary for every person to get a ballot. I have no problem with ballots that would be requested. Absentee ballots are fine, but as far as the outcome of the election, I think there's legitimate questions about the election and what happened. The circumstantial evidence is quite persuasive that there were irregularities. And I think a thinking person can question, but the president of the United States is Mr. Biden, and I respect that that's the way it is. And I think we should have a voting day instead of a voting season. People are getting their ballots 40 days out before they even really get a chance to dive into the—and I know they can keep them for long, but I think it's unwise policy to provide the ballots that far from the election. Thank you. Jonathan. Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president of the United States. I don't think there is any solid evidence at all to question that. The Secretary of State's website in Vermont has a really great page dedicated to combating misinformation. And they, even in Vermont, of any of the ballots called in to question, only one out of 370,000 ballots cast was determined to be irregular. That's less than one one-hundredth of one percent. Voting fraud is not an issue in Vermont, nor do I believe it is an issue nationwide. I am all about providing access to folks who need—who want to engage in our civic life and our voting processes, but can't because they are homebound older adults, seniors, persons with disabilities. I think it is very, very difficult to conduct voter fraud in Vermont. And there are so many steps that would need to—so many chances that would need to occur in order for ballot to be miscast. I think the ballots should be mailed out. I think folks should have every opportunity to register to vote and to vote in as easy a way as they can. Thank you. Peter. Thank you, John. Just to go back, recap, your first question was, am I convinced that President Biden was elected legitimately? The answer is yes. And also, do I think that mail-in ballots should continue to be mailed? I do. I'd like to go back a little bit to people's memory. For those of you who forgot, COVID struck in March of 2020. It was right on the heels of town meeting. Additionally, that election had passed before the Vermont Commissioner of Public Health said we have an emergency here. The legislature went to work and said, well, how are we going to proceed in 2010 with primaries and the fall election? Answer, we're going to rearrange it so you do not have to go to your polling place. That was an act of public health necessity. The feedback I got was, gee. This is pretty neat. It's fine to request it. But what if I forget? But I really cannot come that day. Too bad. Well, that's not right. Too bad is not an excuse. So I'm in favor of continuing the mail-in ballots for all registered voters ahead of time. And I would remind everyone that there is actually a federal law that requires the Secretary of State to have ballots for the military out a certain number. It's 40-plus days. So that has to happen whether we wanted in Vermont or not. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. I wanted to move on to another topic, and that is climate change. The effects of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent in Vermont and the rest of the world. I don't believe there's any real scientific debate about the impact of climate change now and the effect of carbon emissions on climate. Vermont has taken a number of steps to address it, but I want to ask each of you whether you believe Vermont should take additional steps to reduce carbon emissions in this state. And on this question, we'll start with Jonathan, go to Peter, and then Tom. Thank you, John. With all due respect to my colleagues here tonight, I think I'm the only person under the age of 40 running for this, running for a house seat in Berry City. I have faced the real threat of climate change my entire life, growing up from watching Captain Planet on Saturday morning cartoons to serving as an environmental education volunteer in the Peace Corps. Climate change is real. Climate change is the single most critical devastating issue that we are called upon to address as Vermonters, as Americans. I think we have done quite a bit here in Vermont. I believe that we can do more. I believe that we can adopt the clean heat standard, which is not an increase on those with low to moderate incomes in expense. I think it makes things more affordable and lessens our dependence on foreign oil exports, which are subject to the volatility of world events like the war in Ukraine. I think we need to make sure that low income Vermonters can afford things like heat pumps and electric cars. And I think this issue is a holistic one. It concerns food security. It concerns economic security. It concerns our education standards, literally everything that we do. Now moving forward until the end of my life must be directed at solving the climate crisis. Thank you. Peter. Thank you, John. I was, of course, present at the moment of the veto and failure to override the clean heat standard bill, and it was a great blow. We failed by one vote as it happens. Really a tragedy. But let me go back to the wider, if you will, issue. I was fortunate to attend one of the early rollout meetings by the Agency of Natural Resources talking about their strategy, which is already, if you will, adopted, codified to attack transportation. For those folks who don't follow the debate, we're really talking about major contributors, a third roughly transportation, a third home heating, and the other miscellaneous sources. We're well on our way with the Agency of Natural Resources to literally get out of gasoline and diesel by 2035. That's great. What we failed to do, as my colleague has mentioned, is attack the home heating contribution. That will return for sure. It is hoped that we will get some affirmative suggestion, urging support from the administration. That was what was missing. We were flying blind in the legislature in the sense that the administration had not participated in that bill, and yet they veered it. So we'll be back. Stay tuned, and that's the section, the sector that really needs some attention right now. Come. Thank you. Proponents of the Global Warming Solutions Act have admitted candidly that Vermont cannot stop climate change. In fact, Scott Campbell was quoted in a published article in an email, Scott Campbell, a representative. No one, least of all me, believes Vermont can stop climate change. The Global Warming Solutions Act will not mitigate climate change. So the governor was correct in vetoing, and I'm happy to say it was affirmed, the veto was, and I'm hoping to go to the legislature to support him in similar matters. We're risking economic ruin with no payoff. And Obama, appointee and undersecretary of the Department of Energy, wrote a book called Unsettled, referring to the science of climate change, and he wrote as follows, it's clear the media, politicians, and often the assessment reports themselves. Really misrepresent what the science says about climate and catastrophes. Science is never not open to debate. It can be questioned. And there should be a discussion about the underlying causes of warming, but it's not an imminent catastrophe. Despite the media and political narrative, that's my time's up. If I may respond to that, John. I'm going to give you a chance, Jonathan, because this is really not a debate and he hasn't referenced you specifically, so if you'd like to throw that in during your allotted time, that would be fine. I appreciate it. All right. So I'm going to move back to housing. A couple of you, Peter and Jonathan mentioned housing as a priority issue in Berry City. So I'm assuming that you do, when you did say that you supported the legislature doing more to promote housing development and Vermont, I want to talk a little bit more specifically about that. Often the housing issues have resulted in debates between environmental community and the housing advocates and trade-offs, and I want to ask you if you would be willing, if you, well, two-part question, what specific measures would you support? Jonathan, you mentioned better development in downtown areas, and the second would be would you support those even in light of opposition from environmental organizations who in the past have insisted on trade-offs, that is, tightening Act 250 in some areas in exchange for loosening it in downtown areas, which I think has resulted in nothing happening in terms of the policy changes you're talking about. So what would your position be if it came down to that kind of a trade-off between promoting housing development in urban areas versus tightening it outside? I don't know if that's clear, but I'm trying to get at kind of how far and would you support those policies in the face of opposition from the environmental community. All right, so on this one, Jonathan, you're going to go first, Tom and then Peter. Yeah, thank you, John. You know, Berry City is a city in Vermont, and so we are quite urbanized relative to the rest of our state, and I think we can strike a balance between ensuring that we preserve the natural spaces that we all know and love. It's the height of foliage season right now. It's beautiful outside, while welcoming those who want to move to Vermont. You just spoke of, we all spoke of climate change. Climate refugees are already a reality here, and it is going to get worse. The seasons change more rapidly. As we sit here and talk now, a good portion of Florida is still underwater due to a recent hurricane that was devastating in its effects. So we need to strike a balance between providing for housing, making things affordable for folks who live in Berry City, while also preserving the natural spaces like the cow pasture in Berry, where I walk my dogs. I believe we can do it. We must do it. We cannot change the beauty that is Vermont. We cannot endanger the wildlife that makes it such a wonderful place to live here. But we must prepare and must continue to address an influx of persons who are seeking homes who want to live here, and that would better our economy simultaneously. Thank you. Thank you. John. Oh, was that, I'm sorry. Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah, Tom, you're next. So I think the pendulum has swung so far in the last 50 years to the side of away from human flourishing here that I think we should take a look at some of the regulations. I think we can take care of our environment at the same time. I also want to point out that the governor signed a bill passed by the legislature, actually two of them, S226 and S210 that called for reform of Act 250 and incentives to developers. I think we need to consult more with the private sector and identify how the government may be getting in the way of the market meeting the need for housing. But I think we should see how those two bills will produce success in our state. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, John. For the city of Barry, the question you posed or the dilemma, I should say, is really for me a non-issue. And I say that because every single proposal that involves Act 250, land use planning, revisions insisted upon changes in density at the state level have not offended Barry's pathway. We do have an approved plan. We have zoning. We have density requirements. We have complied with every revision that the legislature has insisted upon, where your question bites, if you will. And I concede it does, is the collision, frankly, with what we treasure as a landscape, it's farms, forests, living off the land. And the potential for McMansions to arrive because the threat of the market depends on people with lots of money. And there are people with lots of money who want to come to Vermont because it's unspoiled. And the question is, how far do you want the unspoiled to, if you will, displace what we have as our advantage in the name of tourism? And that is a real problem. And I certainly will try and strike a balance, but I am in no way going to Katie bar the door to the market. That's been the ruin of a resort area that once was desirable precisely because it was aesthetically and physically and naturally attractive. Thanks. Thank you. Tom spoke pretty sensibly in his opening comments about Article 22 that is a proposed amendment passed by the legislature, I believe, over two sessions to the Vermont Constitution that guarantees individuals reproductive autonomy. I know Tommy's made extensive comments about your opposition to it. And I'll let you elaborate on this as well. And I'd also like to get the responses, views from Jonathan and Peter as well. So in this one, we'll go with Tom first, then Peter, and then Jonathan. Well, I feel real strongly about it. That it's at first really unnecessary. We have a statute that prohibits it was enacted in 2019, I believe, that says the legislature and the executive branch and the judiciary should not interfere with abortion. And the word abortion is actually mentioned. And so the only way for that to go away would there have to be some legislation to repeal it. And the governor would have to agree to that repeal. It would seem to me. I don't think that's likely. And even if that did go away for there to be restrictions in Vermont, there would have to be affirmative legislation to impose such restrictions. My point is, if there was no legislation on the books and no amendment, which was true until 2019, there were no restrictions in Vermont at all on abortion. So it's at first unnecessary. It also enshrines a right to an abortion up to the end of the term, which I think is so extreme and frankly barbaric. And it's not a statement of values which a constitution is that Vermont holds. So I think it's wrong to do this. And I'm hoping and praying that the people of Vermont will say no to Article 22. If they don't, our prayer to end abortion will continue. Thank you, Tom. I got thrown off a little bit because my chart here has four candidates and we only have three. So we had Tom, Peter, and then Jonathan. Thank you very much, John. I did preside in the government operations committee with extensive hearings on both sides of the issue. It is true that by statute, there is non-interference, if you will, in personal reproductive choices, including any and all chemical and medical surgical treatments. However, every year that I'm aware of, there have been five bills introduced in the legislature. And so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that that, if you will, repetitive attack on women's right to control the medical treatments that they elect to have or not have is constantly under scrutiny. The value of the Constitution is that, frankly, a statute cannot trumpet. And I'd go a little bit further. You probably are aware that there has been introduced in Congress a national attempt to statutorily pave the way for regulation of abortion. I can tell you with a certain surety that if the Vermont protection of personal medical treatment choice, including reproductive medical treatment, is adopted, no federal statute can trump a Vermont Constitution article. And I support it. Thank you. OK, moving on to another. Oh, I'm sorry. Just to let's skip over there, John. Sorry about that. Yes. So yes, I echo the sentiments of my colleague and friend, Peter. I support Prop 5 Article 22. The difficult decision to have an abortion should be exclusively the purview of an individual and their health care provider. I do not think that we should limit access to reproductive services or abortion care in this state. I think we need to be more proactive about providing protections to those seeking abortions. I am very grateful to have the endorsement of Planned Parenthood, and I wear it with a badge of honor. 70% of people in Vermont support Prop 5 Article 22. It has gone through two years in the legislature, an entire legislative biennium. It has been vetted by Peter and many others. There are no late-term abortions performed in Vermont after 22 weeks unless there is a danger to the individual carrying the child, unless there is a real threat to their life. And so when people talk about late-term abortions, this fear of late-term abortions, it's a red herring. And we need to do our best to provide abortion care in Vermont for those not just in Vermont here, but those seeking abortion from other states where it has been inappropriately restricted by those states' governments. Thank you. Thank you. So now I want to turn to another issue that might generate just as much emotion in Vermont as abortion and that is gun control. Do you believe the legislature should enact further regulations on the purchase of firearms, such as assault weapons, and elaborate on any views you have about that? And this time, we're going to start with Jonathan, and then Tom, and then Peter. Yes, I am in favor of an assault weapon ban. When it comes to gun reform, I am fully supportive of Vermont's sportsmen's culture. Fishing and hunting is a way of life for many folks here. But I don't think assault weapons need to play a part in that. They are far more deadly and frightening and difficult to use than many other types of firearms. I also would like to see the end to online sales that exploit loopholes for one-on-one gun sales between an individual and a purchaser, such that background checks don't need to be performed. I think we can strike a balance between ensuring folks can continue to hunt and fish. I am a fisherman myself, though, a very poor one.  And that says to me that folks who value and learn the proper use and storage of firearms, that valuable education is not being transmitted from generation to generation. And that concerns me. Thank you. Peter. Yeah. I am, I too am, against open use and the value of assault weapons. I cannot see any purpose other than in a military scenario. And that's not something I want to import into civilian life. I, like a lot of people, were crestfallen at the failure to have reformed, if you will, the waiting period so that there wasn't the default that if the report did not come back in a certain number of days, I believe it was six, that the permit to purchase would automatically be rendered. And that had tragic consequences, both in the Charlotte loophole as it's come to be known, and also in the situation involving the student at Fairhaven. That was close. That was a very close call in the sense that it was not clear whether that student, as it turned out, could have purchased a firearm. We were very fortunate that, in fact, the report did come back in time, that that was prevented. But frankly, that loophole was part of a larger bill, which unfortunately was not adopted. And I will support returning to that. So the default is not someone who can buy a firearm, but otherwise is frankly ineligible. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. I don't think we need more gun laws. Guns are not the problem. The people that use them are the problem. The Second Amendment wasn't crafted to be sure we could have a good weekend hunting. The governor, Governor Scott actually signed an initiative today, October 5th, an executive order, that reconstituted the Violence Prevention Task Force. It's headed by Dee Berrick. She was a state police officer. She's now known as the Director of Violence Prevention. She's been, I think, in that position since September. But among other things, this task force will identify needed reforms of existing criminal justice laws, regulations, policies, and advocate for legislative and programmatic changes. I believe they're going to be looking at school safety and other things along those lines. So that's what I support. Let's take a look at what we need to do. But I don't think we need more gun laws. Thank you. Thank you. This is an issue that I think has had some discussion recently in Barry, and that is the question of racism in our communities in the state. Do you think the state legislature has a role in addressing the legacy of racism in Vermont and its ongoing impacts in this state and in its communities? This time we're going to go Peter, Jonathan, and Tom. Thank you. John, yes, again, in government operations we heard lots of testimony, sad stories. They may be outliers. They may not be outliers. And the issue here is what is a person's redress, whether it's in the context of the workplace or school. I think the legislature has traditionally treated Vermont a little bit leniently in the sense that it has assumed that we're all good folks and that doesn't happen here. Sadly, the testimony I heard says it does happen here. And we beefed up, if you will, with personnel and funding, the Office of Diversity at the state level as a resource for local folks. And that's, at the moment, the best we could do, if you will, with the support of the administration. But yes, I take it seriously. And yes, I have heard stories in Barry that are very disturbing. Thank you. Jonathan. Thank you, John. Systemic racism is very real. BIPOC individuals in Vermont are much more likely to be pulled over. Black Americans are three times more likely to then be searched by a law enforcement officer in the state of Vermont. And this is something I can speak to with a great deal of confidence in my figures. BIPOC individuals in Vermont are much more likely to be economically insecure and food insecure than white Vermonters. There is so much that we can do as communities in Barry City and statewide to ensure that our neighbors who are in need, who are suffering because of institutions that were built or founded on racist principles, we can do so much. And I've learned that we can do so much more working at the Vermont Food Bank, where we go out of our way to address those root causes of hunger and, like economic insecurity, which BIPOC individuals in Vermont, refugees and migrants are much more likely to experience. Why not help our neighbors in need who are struggling because the system itself is unfair? And I will do everything in my power to make sure that our partners, our friends, our neighbors are welcomed and made to feel safe and respected in Barry and in the state. Thank you. Thank you. Tom. I think to some extent it's demeaning to suggest that people of different races are subject to systemic racism. It's so vague. I suggest that people viewing this video check out two films that Larry Elder has produced. One is called Uncle Tom, and one is called Uncle Tom, too. And they make a very persuasive case that systemic racism is not real. And I just leave it at that. Take a look at those two films. I haven't heard any persuasive argument that there's systemic racism in this state. I'd like to turn to the topic of economic development. Vermont has struggled at times to attract new investment to grow jobs in this state. What role would you play in the legislature in promoting economic development in your community or statewide? And this time we're going to start with you, Tom. Go to Peter and then Jonathan. Well, I think I've alluded to this a minute ago about the market. I think we should trust the market for things like employment. So who would drive the creation of jobs? And I think we should look to employers and businesses and maybe try to find out why they aren't coming to this state. We need to improve the economic environment for businesses so that they come here and stay here. And we all heard about the $10,000 payment to entice people to come up here to Vermont to work from their homes. I think we need to do more to bring real blue collar jobs to our communities, particularly Berry City and Berry Town, which would benefit Berry City. So I think that's what we need to do. And I would support any effort to work with employers, whether they're in the state or out of the state. I think Lieutenant Governor Duby had that as a mission one time when he was Lieutenant Governor. And I think I would encourage more of that to create that environment. Thank you. Thank you. Jonathan. Oh, did you want Peter to go? Oh, did I? No, let's say it was a track. I'm sorry you're right. It was Tom and Peter. Sorry. OK. Thank you, John. I have two observations. I think we are far, far advantage superior in the area of specialty manufacturing. That's why we have roughly 10% of our GDP is in manufacturing. And that has shrunk as more traditional industries like Granite have declined, partly from imports. I think specialty manufacturing will and can expand. It has two constraints, which the legislature has started to work on, workforce training. We have not created a bridge for people who do not go to college, who graduate from the Spalding High School or the Central Mont Career Center. We have not created a, if you like, transition into apprenticeship programs, workforce training programs, or community college that weds, if you will, an associate degree with the trades, training in the trades. That's one constraint we're working on. The other constraint I've already talked about is housing. If you want to encourage young people to stay here, where are they going to make a down payment on an affordable house when they are fighting with student loans? They don't clearly have a career path, and they don't have an insurance of a job or a credential. Thank you. May I respond? Yeah, sure. Thank you. Yeah, this is my bread and butter. I love talking economic development. I think the state can do a lot more to support organizations like Bury Area Development and the Bury Partnership. The Bury Partnership operates low interest loans for businesses in our city to purchase facilities, to pay rent, to make equipment purchases, to pay salaries, that sort of thing. I think we could do a lot more to support those local economic development entities, chambers of commerce, regional planning commissions that are making it easier for businesses to do business in Bury and statewide. I think I, as a town administrator, have applied for every alphabet soup, government, grant, and loan under the sun for both the food bank and for municipalities that I've worked in across the state, Pomfrey, Calis, Essex Junction. We need to make it easier for businesses and nonprofits to tap into the money that is already there, those ARPA dollars that we talked about earlier.  Whereas communities like Bury that don't necessarily have the staffing or the bandwidth who are reliant on volunteers are able to are struggling, because we can't tap into those funds. The money is there. We just need to cut through the red tape. Thank you, John. Thank you, John. This is probably going to be our last question. So let's talk for a second about education. I know we're covering a lot of ground here. It's going to be difficult to respond fully in a minute and a half. But I want to talk a little bit about both education spending and the way we raise money. We spend a lot of money in Vermont near the top of all the states at more than $20,000 per student. Do you believe that we're getting a good return on our investment? And the second part of this question is, do you think we need to change the way that we fund education in this state? So the best you could do in a minute and a half, and we'll go. And this one with Jonathan, you'll be first Peter than Tom. And then in a half, Dan, this question. Yes, I do think there are fixes we can make. We need to tweak how the monies travel from are collected in the municipalities and then doled out, collected by the state and then doled out to school systems. I think we can do a better job in lowering cost per students. If we tweak that, it'll take much longer than the time I have remaining to delve into that. I think we need to make sure that we are paying teachers a thriving wage, not just a minimum wage increase, but a thriving wage for our educators. My sister is an educator. The job they have is enormous. And I think we could do a better job recruiting and retaining educators that'll cut down on cost as well. And I think we could do, even as the number of students decreases across the state, I think we can cut down on costs. I'm very honored to have the endorsement of the teachers unions in Vermont and higher education unions. And I believe that we can strike a balance between affordability and accessibility for our students. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, John. I was privileged to be one of the committee that heard the first report from the University of Vermont education team essentially say the way you weight students, that is to say, instead of simply a body count, we actually weight students according to their characteristics. And we formulate resource, if you will, availability based on those weights. Those weights existed in a way which was irrational. The report said you cannot defend how they're apportioned out. Barrie City, to be really specific, was disadvantaged by the old weights. We finally, just this session, passed a bill out of the Education Committee, bless them, to transition to the new weights. Barrie City will be rewarded. Having said that, part of the 20,000 that you referred to is not only made up of outliers, which are not Barrie City, Barrie City frankly has, I think, the third lowest per pupil cost spending in the entire state. We're not the problem child. But having said that, the real issue of why it's so big is we are doing all kinds of things that otherwise health and human services might do. After school, preschool, kindergarten, things that were simply unheard of 20 years ago. That's eating up resources that are not traditionally part of the education budget. Thank you, Peter. I'll be quick. I think three things. We should look at the teacher-student ratio. It's very, I'm not sure if you say it's high or low, but there's, I guess, low. There's, I think, way too many teachers. And we need to take a look at that as they retire and leave service. We should take a look at the standardized tests and see how we're performing. It's been a struggle sometimes to get straight answers to those questions. We also should let the local community have more, say, in the budget. And I realize there's the decision the Supreme Court decision that impacted that tremendously. But I think there's some room to let the principle of subsidiarity take place in a lower level and make some decisions about things like student-teacher ratio. And finally, I think what would help schools improve performance is expanding school choice. Let everyone, not just those in certain districts, I think that may be a constitutional requirement, by the way, given a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. And while some legislators, I hope, not Peter, have suggested that we would do away with our school choice if religious schools were one of the options. That would be very regrettable if a legislator were to take such a position. And I'm not saying he has. But I have heard that one did. But anyway, I think the vouchers should be expanded, and that would improve all schools, I think, if people saw that people could go elsewhere. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. All right, it's time for closing comments. We have one minute. We'll do the reverse in the order that we started. So let's go with Peter and then Jonathan and then you, Tom. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. I want to serve a third term. I got a background in local government. I was privileged to be, if you will, baptism by fire over the last two terms. There isn't an issue, including changes in school funding, property tax, workforce training, tax policy. You name it, it came across, if you will, my debate desk. And I'm happy to do that. I feel perfectly competent. And I'm always open to suggestions from my local constituency. Thanks. Thank you, Peter. Jonathan. Thank you, John. It has been the greatest privilege of my life to campaign for this office, to seek out, serving in the House of Representatives here in Vermont, to represent Berry City. It has been so fun going door to door, talking to people from all walks of life, to hear their stories, to hear not just what issues they're concerned about, but to hear why they're proud to live in Berry City and why they love living in Vermont. I believe that I have the capabilities to serve in the legislature, my background from the time serving in the League of Cities and Towns as an advocate to working in municipal governments across the state to now, for the last half decade, working for the Vermont Food Bank, helping my neighbors in need. Make sure that they have the food that they need. I believe that I am ready. And I believe that my skill set complements that of my friend, Peters. And I am prepared to serve. And I look forward to it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jonathan. John, thank you. I want to say too that thank you for this opportunity, by the way, to Orca and the bridge, and to you, John. I want to agree with Jonathan that it's I'm surprised that it's actually been fun, the campaigning, going door to door. I didn't think it would be, but meeting people, renewing acquaintances. I've lived in Berry, called Berry Home since the mid-60s. There's three real reasons why I'm running. I want to bring a more conservative voice to Montpelier, particularly after seeing some of the legislation in the last few years, which we've talked about a little bit here today. Friends and acquaintances asked me to run. That was another reason. And I think with my education and experience, I think I could contribute as a legislator. Why do I think I'm qualified? My education includes a degree in government, criminal justice from Norwich. I have a master's in human resource development from the University of Utah on a law degree from Notre Dame. I've served in the US military, in the JAG Corps, and the military police, a total of 29 years, 25 years of active duty in Germany and Kuwait, the rest with the Vermont Guard, and other portions of the reserve forces. I'm going to ask you to wrap up. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. And then I served 30 years as a prosecutor, and I think that all lends itself, if you will, of a life experience. Six children lived in Berry to the job. Thank you. Sorry for going over. No, that's fine. Thank you all for the three of you for participating. Foraging democracy requires that we have candidates who step up to run for public office, and I greatly appreciate the fact that each of you has chosen to do that, given Berry voters a very good choice of candidates, and so really appreciate your participation. Democracy also requires that people vote. You should have received your ballot by now if you haven't contacted your city clerk, but be sure to vote. Thank you again for your participation, and thank you to The Bridge and Orca Media for hosting this event. Thank you. Thank you.


Fesgir Malhaludynia, wrth gwrs, wrth gwrs, I welcome to the Justice Subcommittee. It's our sixth meeting of 2019. We have apologies from the Deputy convener, Margaret Mitchell. Our first item of business today is to consider whether to take agenda item 3, which is consideration of the evidence heard in private. I think that the reality is that time will be good as doing that, but are we agreed, if required? Agreed. Thank you. ond daeth i'r siwethefn o'r ffimio am y gael eich gyllidoedd o'r famen a'r fforddau i'r ddiwrn seuthwr yn Gwydiannau Cymru, a'r ddod o'r ddod o'r sengw presents Cymru i Gwydiannau Cymru i Gwydiannau Cymru, os yw ddod o'r sengwpio armaeddyn Seaver Casp. Rydw i'n cael ei ddifu mor gennyn ni, aeth ythod ar gyfer cyllid yma, astud i ei edrych ar gyfer cyllid yn colliysigol astid o'r Sengwp, a ddod o'r sengwpio ar gyd, a fydd mae'n I welcome our panel of witnesses today, Hamza Yousaf, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Ewan Dick, interim deputy director, police division and Juliet Hargan's director of legal services at the Scottish Government. Before we move to questions, I would like to invite the cabinet secretary to make some brief opening remarks. Thank you, convener. It will be very brief. I would like to begin my remarks, first of all, by thanking the subcommittee for the time that they have taken to consider the important issue. As I noted in my letter to the subcommittee yesterday, this is of course a complex and rapidly evolving area. While it is obviously for Police Scotland to ensure that the exercise of their powers in accordance with the law is removed towards implementation of the new devices, both they and SPA bodies agreed with the subcommittee that additional clarity in the future legal framework may be required to ensure that Scottish criminal justice can keep pace with technological change. I believe that the subcommittee shares my commitment to the legal, ethical and proportionate use of new technologies. It is for this reason that I plan to form an independently chaired reference group to scope the possible legal and ethical issues arising from emerging technological developments. The overall aim is to ensure that Police Scotland can continue to have both the powers to keep our community safe but also, crucially, the right safeguards in place to protect the rights of the individual. I believe that the use of independent expertise has delivered a real improvement for Scottish policing in areas such as stop and search, for example, and biometrics. At present, this is simply a policy intention, so I am unable to go into much detail about the full remit of membership of the group, but I am very keen to hear thoughts of the subcommittee. I am keen to see Scotland's criminal justice system at the forefront of using new and developing technologies to fight crime, but I am clear that that requires absolutely to be balanced with the human rights and ethical consideration. I would be very interested in hearing the views of the subcommittee about how the group could move forward and, of course, look forward to question answers specifically about digital triage devices. I thank you very much for that opening statement, cabinet secretary. Do you, cabinet secretary, believe that the overarching legal framework requires to be updated? I think that people are aware and, of course, the committee have on record that we want Police Scotland to have the best possible equipment. You talk about legality and proportionality, that obviously has to apply, but do you believe that the overarching legal framework needs to be updated? We have also things like facial recognition that are with us. I thank the subcommittee for the question. I reiterate once again my thanks to the subcommittee. This has been scrutiny that has been my welcome mission of a shy away from scrutiny. It has shown a light on some important issues and the legal framework. You have described or asked the question about whether I think that the overarching is the word that you used, the legal framework, is adequate. You also spoke about facial recognition in your question, which is obviously into the biometrics sphere. I suppose that it depends on what our definition is of overarching legal framework. The purpose of the independently informed group, in my opinion, is a policy intention at this stage. I will seek views of members of this committee on how to develop it further, but my policy intent would be that it would bring together the likes of human rights advocates, as well as, of course, academics and those with particular expertise. I am looking at almost a horizon scanning of what the next technologies to emerge will be in the coming years. That can be difficult, of course, to predict, but whether or not there are issues that we have to consider from an ethical point of view, a human rights point of view and, importantly, related to your question, a legislative and legal framework point of view. On overarching legal framework, on this particular issue of digital triage devices, otherwise known as cyber kiosks, obviously Police Scotland are the ones and SPR are the ones that have to satisfy themselves around the legal advice that they have received before proceeding with this. Obviously, from their evidence, they believe that they have that legal basis. When it comes to other issues, and you touched upon facial recognition, that is why the biometrics bill that we are bringing forward is going to be hugely important. That biometrics bill will create the role of a biometrics commissioner in Scotland as well as a code of practice. It is always important that we, as a Parliament, legislate where we can and where it is appropriate to give as much reassurance—I think that it is important—as much reassurance as possible around some of these ethical considerations so that the public are reassured. I have heard the chief constable say on many occasions that he is right to say that policing in Scotland is by consent and consent of the people. Therefore, I think that those safeguards are hugely important. You touched on the reality. I have a couple of questions on that before passing to other members, cabinet secretary. One of them is about whether you believe that there is a legal basis to introduce the use of cyber kiosks. The committee has heard from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, both in person and in writing. Those communications are available on the committee's website. I have also heard from the Faculty Advocates and the Scottish Criminal Bar Association that there is not a legal basis to introduce. Can you comment on that? Do you believe that there is? I am going to resist the temptation in some regard, convener, for a couple of reasons. One is that I am not a lawyer, not a QC. Therefore, I rely, as all other Government ministers do, on legal advice from Lord Advocate or, indeed, from the Scottish Government legal department. However, the member is absolutely aware that we do not disclose whether that legal advice has been taken or, indeed, the nature of that legal advice, which I think is an important principle on a convention. Although I can understand some things called frustration to our colleagues in the opposition, I know that sometimes our own backbenchers are important, but that remains and retains the case. My job in that regard is to look at the future landscape and to see whether there are any legal but also ethical human rights considerations that have to be taken into account. Some of those will be legislative, some of them not. However, I must reiterate that it is absolutely for Police Scotland and the SPA to satisfy themselves in any issue, including this one, that they have a legal basis to proceed with it. They have reflected—I think that they came to this back to this committee in a very reflective and considered manner—reflected on what the sub-committee has had to say. They are satisfied that they are operating within that legal framework. You asked me personally what I think I am. I am afraid that it is the justice secretary. I do not comment on my own personal opinions, although I am a member of the Government. I do not have legal expertise. I am not an advocate, nor a QC, nor a lawyer or solicitor. As I said, we do not divulge whether we have taken legal advice or, indeed, the nature of that legal advice, which is for Police Scotland to satisfy themselves and the SPA in that regard. I absolutely understand that long-standing convention. However, our job is to scrutinise and to understand about concerns, because there may be occasions when, quite legitimately, the Government has concerns that no-one is going to ask whether they have taken legal opinion on it or those concerns are often openly expressed. Can I ask them and maybe try a different attack in relation to what Police Scotland and the Police Authority rely on to provide that they understand their reassurance? That is Mr McCloud's legal opinion. The concerns that have been expressed to us about the restricted remit in information that that covers. I absolutely readily accept that a legal opinion cannot cover every conceivable scenario, but it did exclude elements that concerns have been raised with the sub-committee about, and again, those are a matter of public record. Can you give any view on the reliance that Police Authority and Police Scotland are placing on Mr McCloud's opinion? I salute your indifatigibility to coin a phrase on this. In pursuing. No parallels are drawn either of you or me in coining that phrase. I suppose that, in an attempt to somewhat give further reassurance perhaps, I noted that the legal advice that was taken from Mr McCloud, of course, was taken on the back of concerns raised by the sub-committee but also those that you took evidence on. It was a safeguard that Police Scotland wanted to use and to bring forward to further strengthen their legal case around digital triage devices. I do not doubt that there are some concerns and qualifications that, in fact, I have seen them in the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and I think that Ico had also expressed in relation to that legal advice. I would draw some committee's attention to Mr McCloud's opinion, which states, and I quote directly, that my principal conclusion is that there is a lawful basis for the use of cyber-key else. The convener asks a very legitimate question on behalf of those organisations that question the remit of that legal advice, the questions that the legal advice was exploring. Ultimately, what I would say is that, if there is a difference in opinion of law, then obviously—I am not advocating for this—if there was a legal challenge, it would be up to the courts to make that determination. We saw that recently in a more local case in Glasgow City Council and the decisions that they took around rerouting marches and parades. Ultimately, there was a difference of opinion about whether that was lawful or legal by those who were taking part in advocating those parades in the city council and, ultimately, the courts. By this termination, which I thought was helpful, I think that those things can sometimes be helpful, costly at times but can be helpful. I suppose that the only thought that I would offer in that regard would be that, if the police, the SPA, are on one side and a number of organisations believe that the legal basis is not there, then, of course, it would be open for them to test that at the courts. Clearly, you have an oversight role, cabinet secretary. Are you satisfied that the Scottish Police Authority has taken appropriate legal advice on this matter? Yes, they obviously have their own internal processes around legal advice but they have obviously gone a step further, going to murder my cloud QC. I have an oversight role. I found it interesting being cabinet secretary for justice the last year that Police Scotland, in my opinion, is one of the bodies that has more scrutiny than many other public bodies for good reason. They also have a lot of power and authority that many other public bodies simply would not have. However, they have two committees that they answer to in this panel, including this one. They have the Park, HMICS, Audit Scotland as well as the scrutiny body, which is the Scottish Police Authority and, of course, my own, as you describe it rightly, the oversight role that I have as cabinet secretary for justice. There is no shortage of lights being shone on to Police Scotland and that is a good thing. It is perhaps fortunate that there was this committee that shone the particular light on the concerns that there are about this introduction. Of course. I would not disagree with that. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Fulton. The convener has covered a lot of the area that I was looking at, so I am just going to ask if you could specifically comment on the evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission that the law around the use of cybercurses lacks sufficient quality to be accessible and foreseeable. I know that you have already commented on this. The current legal framework does not provide sufficient and robust safeguards for people's privacy rights in this context. I had a couple of questions around that, but I think that you have answered most of it to the conveners. It is just really a specific comment on the SHRC. Yes, but I am happy to give a caveat response to those concerns. Again, that caveat being the one that I have already mentioned, I am not an advocate, because she is a lister lawyer, despite my mum's best intention. I am not any of those. So all that I can give you is the landscape as I see it. I have met with the SHRC recently, and it has probably been a couple of months since I met Judith Robertson, and they have, of course, raised this and a couple of other issues. The explanation to me, and the reiteration of this in the letter to the committee, is that phrase to quote, in accordance with law, which is essentially the use of the devices requires to be accessible and foreseeable to an individual who may be subject to its use. So if there are guidelines accessible to the public, then this may well go in some way to meeting this requirement, but again, that is a matter of contention, no doubt, in terms of law. So Police Scotland, from their point of view and all that they have given reassurances, that the devices will be used very much within strict parameters when conducting the initial search that takes place on a triage device, and also putting in place digital forensic examination principles. A commitment to how Police Scotland will carry out examinations, and that will be accessible to the public, and that is the important point, because the in accordance with laws about accessibility and foreseeability, so they have said that those principles very much will be accessible to the public. There has also been the training of 410 police officers on the proper use of the triage device, that is now complete, and written guidance to the officers is in the process of being finalised, in co-operation with stakeholders, that part of Police Scotland's stakeholder and external reference groups. So that will be Police Scotland's response to that particular criticism from SHRC around in accordance with law. Whether that satisfies SHRC, they can obviously speak from self, I suspect, probably not, and it just goes back to my point to the convener that, ultimately, when there are those disagreements in Police Scotland, they are very certain that they have a legal basis for these devices, then one option that can be settled is within the co-ops, but there is obviously a genuine disagreement on this matter. I am sure that it is sincerely held, but it is a genuine disagreement. I think that the cabinet secretary's comments lead us into the whole issue of a statutory code of practice as one way of creating a publicly visible framework for digital forensic principles and other parts. I wonder, cabinet secretary, whether, if we were to have a statutory code of practice, it might include the principles more generally, because it seems to me that there are two principles involved here. The kind of triaging that we are talking about here has the benefit to both suspects and third party witnesses in returning their equipment to them sooner than the current systems might provide and it might be useful to include that. More fundamentally, the overriding principle is that it enhances the investigatory powers of the police to gather proper evidence in relation to a suspected or reported crime. Does the cabinet secretary think that having a statutory code of practice is not simply for those devices, but more generally for the seizure and examination of IC devices? Indeed, taking that a little further, the examination of data that may be stored beyond the device that is physically held by someone in what is now generally called the cloud. I thank my very learned friend for that question, because he is often one that is well in advance of many other members in this Parliament, including myself, when it comes to technology. I know that he has a great interest in those matters and a great knowledge of those matters. Let me try to give him some reassurance, as best I can, which is the new independently chaired group that I am advocating. I will look at the horizon scanning of the future technologies that might be coming our way, and I will look at whether there is a need for potentially legislation, potentially statutory guidance, codes of practice and so on. I will explore the issues that my intent is, of course, to feed back from others, but that would be the intent that they would very much look at that. On where we are currently, the work that we have done to get to the biometrics bill, which was that independent advisory group looking into the issue, examining, exploring and then suggesting that the next steps would be a bill, a biometrics commissioner, and a code of practice. That is exactly why I want that group to be set up to look at other technologies. On biometrics, the purpose of the bill that we have introduced is to create the office of the commissioner, but also very much for that commissioner to develop a code of practice. How that code of practice looks like and what that code of practice involves will be up to the independent commissioner. Although I have put a focus on future proofing, future technologies, it would be absolutely up to the commissioner to look at current technologies, including digital triage devices or anything else, to say in his or her opinion that there needs to be an additional safeguard of some sort, be it codes of practice, be it statutory guidance, be it even legislative. However, at the moment, as I say, Police Scotland is satisfied that the legal framework that they have at the moment is a legal basis for statutory as a devices is sound. Let me just ask for a fairly brief comment on this. EHRC is a set of principles in considerable detail that has endured decades. Are we anywhere near being able to lay down some principles that will endure beyond our ability to see to the current horizon and set a more general, higher-level principles that are sufficiently simply expressed that they will be accessible to at least an engaged proportion of the lay public? That is a great question. One that I am afraid I am not going to be able to answer particularly well in that just the pace of technology is fascinating. Maybe, but if you just let me attempt to at least give you some thoughts and reflections if not a particularly particular answer, the pace of technology is so fast. I think about my own mobile phone and members will be able to appreciate this too. I think about my own mobile phone. The previous model that I had to this mobile phone did not allow me to have fingerprint technology. It did not have Irish recognition. It did not have facial recognition. That is not an advert for the mobile phone I have. It is true of whatever brand of mobile phone that you have. What will the next models and the next models after that? It is truly mind-boggling when you start to look into this. I do take an interest in technology and how that might advance. Are we able to put in place any sort of principle that will be able to capture the issues that that technology may well bring? The independent group that I am now hoping to form, and I will take views again of the sub-committee on that, will attempt as best as it possibly can to horizon scan and put together those principles, be they guidance, codes of practice or legislative vehicles. I am happy for my officials to come in if they have anything particular to add to it. They agree, huh? Wonderful. Yes, thank you. If I could maybe just follow up on that and ask a wee bit more about the independently chaired reference group. Can you say when it will be established? At the moment it is genuinely a policy attempt but I would not want it to wait too long at all. I think that those things should move at a good pace. I am really keen to hear views. I appreciate that I have only just told the sub-committee about it, but I would be very keen to hear both the sub-committee and the general justice committee's views on potentials for membership and remit, but there should not be a linky process to get this group up and running. With regard to remit, do you envisage or include consideration of the use of digital device triage systems prior to their introduction or to the latest scrutinisation? It has not been created to look specifically at digital triage devices because, as I say, Police Scotland and the SPA believe that they have that kind of legal basis. It does not preclude them from looking at that. The independent group should have, because of its independence, has wider berth to look at whatever technologies in the past, present and future that it wishes to do so, but it is more than just digital triage devices looking at, as I say, more so. The pace of technological change, what do we envisage, will come away in the next five plus years. Are we sufficiently ensuring that we have the ethical and human rights protections to go alongside that technology? It will be working with the proposed biometrics commissioner. At this stage, will you envisage it? Will it meet in public and will it be public membership on it, or is it going to be transparent, is that what I am trying to say? I think that views are very much so, but they should be as open and transparent, particularly on the issue that it is considering. There may be issues of particular sensitivity if they take advice or evidence from particular intelligence services or so on and so forth, but I would imagine that, for the most part, it should be the rule that these things should be open, transparent and public. In terms of membership, as well, I would be keen that those human rights organisations that have an interest in this, if they are not members, and they give that consideration, they should be able to interact with that body in that group in a very open and public way. Police Scotland would presumably be involved in it as well, if not members, and they would certainly be liaising with it. I suspect that whether the members are better liaising, let's give that some thought about what is the correct and most appropriate, but it really is important that the ethical and human rights considerations are central to this group. Therefore, the independent chair of that group will also be very important as well, so we have to give that some, and we are giving that some very detailed thought. Okay, thank you. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Daniel. Thank you, convener. Back on the 13th of September last year, when we were taking evidence on this topic, we heard that there were severe doubts about the legal basis and severe doubts about the human rights compatibility of the introduction of these devices. That was at a point in time where the police were actively planning on rolling out that these devices were out within weeks. When I put it to chief superintendent McLean that devising training and planning to roll out when there wasn't that clarity, and he acknowledged there wasn't that clarity, he responded to me saying that it was extremely ambitious. I was just wondering what the cabinet secretary's reflections are on that, because in my view there is both a particular issue around whether there is the legal basis and human rights basis, but there is also the general point around the process and procedures that the police have in place themselves to check and qualify whether it is technologies or other operating procedures or other equipment, whether there are questions regarding their locality or human rights. Is the cabinet secretary satisfied that they have those checks and balances in place now? What is his reflection on what this situation says about the checks and balances that they had in place at that time? I think that Daniel Johnson has a question. It is an absolute legitimate question to raise and a legitimate concern to raise. When I listen to the evidence from Police Scotland and the SPA on this, when they last came to the sub-committee, I thought that their tone was right and that they were very reflective. This is no small part, but it is a big part to do with the work that all of you in the sub-committee have done, showing that light on that process. We have to remember that Police Scotland is on a journey, of course, and we are well into that journey now. However, if the question is where are the lessons to learn from the roll-out of digital triage devices, yes, for sure, I am confident that those lessons have been learned for future technological advances that may well come out. Yes, I am confident, particularly with the processes that are in place in terms of various panels, but, to be honest, just living through some of those experiences, I think that I would hope and I do believe that we would give Police Scotland a lot of food for thought when it comes to future issues in the future. I think that as a Parliament, we and as a Government, I would hope that we have demonstrated that when it comes to issues that have those considerations and are not always technological, stop and search would be an example. When issues are raised that taking an approach that invites experts that is independently chaired, that is done in a very open manner and conducted in an open investigation, then we will always benefit from that, as opposed to be any worse off for it. I can promise you that there will not be issues in the future that the sub-committee will question the human rights basis or legal basis. Of course, that would be operational for Police Scotland to give that confidence and reassurance, but I do believe that they have the processes in place to hopefully be able to give those assurances. On that last point, I would say to the cabinet secretary that there is only one thing that would worry me more about us than finding issues, which is not finding them, because, indeed, there are always going to be issues that need to be found. That being said, I am just wondering on what basis the cabinet secretary has confidence that those checks and balances are now in place, because when we took evidence from Wilco and Police Scotland, there was very heavy reliance on the introduction of a new ethics committee, but my understanding was that that had not been instituted as yet. Can I just ask the cabinet secretary what communication he had with Police Scotland? What assurance has he had? Indeed, what structures is the cabinet secretary relying on that now exists within Police Scotland, which would ensure that those checks and balances are regarding the localities, ethics and human rights for equipment and operating procedures is now in place? I have had conversations directly with the chief constable on the issue of digital triage devices, and I am sure that he would mind me saying that I found him to be very reflective of the process. He gave me assurances around the panels that the member mentions as well. The digital forensic examination principles, which have been put in place in our offices, are trained for 110 of them in terms of how to use these devices. All of that gives me confidence that they have learned those lessons and put in place the processes. That does not stop me from saying, and I do caveat—this is an important caveat—that there may well be issues at this sub-committee through its exploration, investigation and examination picks out that they still believe that Police Scotland needs to go further. Now, hopefully, the independent group that I am advocating will be able to assist Police Scotland in looking down the road at what technological advances there will be as hard as they are to predict and ensure that Police Scotland is not caught out with any potential issues around legality, human rights or ethics. The first part of his comment was your concern as to whether we will find those issues. I will go back to what I said to the convener, which I think is a good thing. I do not think that a public body that is under as much scrutiny as Police Scotland is rightly so. SPA, HMICS, Police and Justice Committee, Audit Scotland and oversight role by the Government. There is a lot of scrutiny on Police Scotland, so I would not have too many concerns if I can say respectfully to the member that if there are issues that they will not be found and no doubt flushed out and discussed in a very frank manner. Of course, cabinet secretary, the issues that have been identified are not just related to legalities or human rights. Substantial questions raised the evidence that we received last time from the police regarding the way that the money was spent. In particular, the two issues have risen from that. One is that the fact that the spend seemed to be just below the threshold that would have required explicit approval from the SPA board. However, more critically, in terms of the evidence that we received last time, was the fact that, when the police made the decision to spend this money, they did not take into account the on-going costs of this equipment. They simply looked at the upfront costs. That seems to me an extraordinary thing for an organisation of any size, but let alone an organisation with the importance and size of Police Scotland, that, when they are looking at a business case, they do not look at the totality of the life cycle costs of any equipment that they are purchasing. Does that not raise serious questions regarding their own internal spending procedures? Has the cabinet secretary asked any questions regarding that, because ultimately it is the cabinet secretary's responsibility in terms of how taxpayers' money is spent within the justice sector in Scotland? I have confidence in both Police Scotland and the SPA's financial scrutiny of those matters and the financial scrutiny. More generally, I have met their financial officers on many occasions to discuss many projects, but that does not mean that the Government will not question often some of the rationale for particular spending. I will make an example of that, which has been heard very publicly. In fact, it might have been the topic of the discussion in the last time that I was here, potentially, if I remember correctly. It was the DDICT investment that the Government has been asked to make. Because of issues like I6, we cannot ignore those issues. The issues that the members raised as well as the Government. Yes, I will always do this. I will make no apologies for continuing to get as many assurances as possible on the spending in the business cases, for various projects. The same breath is important for me to say, and I think that Daniel Johnson will understand this. As a cabinet secretary for justice, I cannot spend my time micro-managing the budget of Police Scotland—I do not think that there is an expectation that I would do that—but it is important that we give the SPA its due place when it comes to scrutinising that spend. Of course, I have confidence in the people who are both in Police Scotland and the SPA to be able to manage that appropriately. On that note, there is a bit of a difference between scrutinising individual items to spend an overall process, but I would just like to move on to one final point. It is a mistake in this area to look at this technology and simply think that this would be used in terms of taking evidence from people who may be suspects in a particular crime. It will also be the case that people who are complainants or witnesses will also be asked to surrender their device and may even be doing so subject to warrant. The council's advice on this is relatively brief. Indeed, the open rights group has highlighted that very fact. Given the issues that have arisen south of the border in recent months, the way that the police have been asking people to surrender their devices, in particular victims of sex crimes, is the cabinet secretary satisfied that there is a legal basis for using the equipment in this way with regard to witnesses and victims? How can that be resolved? I am confident that, because of what I have heard from Police Scotland on this and particularly on the back of some of the reports that we heard from down south in the CPS, I am confident. I have often shared a stage in a platform with the chief constable in the last year. Almost on every single one of those platforms, he has made the point that policing is by consent and not by consent of this Parliament or of any cabinet secretary, but consent of the people. I have been given a number of reassurances that, when it comes to the digital triage, that, particularly when it comes to witnesses and complainants, they would want to do that in a way that is with the individual's consent. They are developing the appropriate form to capture that consent. There may be times when the police would have to seize a device either through warrant, as you mentioned, or if there are issues around protection, the obligation to protect life, or terrorism-related issues that they would have to bypass that consent, but that would be the exception—absolutely not the rule—so it would be by consent. I try to think about this from a personal point of view. I have been victim of a number of online crimes, such as racial and Islamophobic abuse that has come my way and are subsequently reported to the police. In fact, there is a case coming up shortly in this regard. I, being able to hand over my device at that time—if I think about one case that was involved shortly after the Paris attacks—was really important for me to get the reassurances even back then that I got from Police Scotland. I was not cabinet secretary for justice at the time, but to get those reassurances from the police that this is what we will do with your device, this is how it will be used. You will get it back as soon as we possibly can. It was that day, luckily, for me. I think that things have moved on since then quite a lot, but throughout all of that, the issue of consent is absolutely pivotal, particularly when it comes to victims of crime but equally. Of course, even those that are being complained about, the police will aim to take their advice with consent. It is important that that is what the record is, but if they can, then they have the options of judicial warrant and so on and so forth. I start by apologising. I was slightly relating to the committee. You talked earlier, cabinet secretary, about an honest difference of opinion, which still appears to be there. Is it a concern to you that, notwithstanding what you said earlier, that there appears to be a lack of confidence in the approach that has been taken by Police Scotland of the legal basis underpinning that approach, with key stakeholders such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Information Commissioner and the Faculty of Advocates. I think that I have also expressed their concerns. Is that a concern to you? I mean, as you said before, you see it as an honest disagreement, but it is fairly fundamentally important, is it not? It is fundamentally important, of course, and it is why I am in front of the sub-committee, rightly being interrogated, or that would be a harsh word, but being questioned about this issue is right that I am, of course. It is an issue of absolute fundamental importance, I agree with Liam McArthur. On that, I have an immense amount of time for organisations such as the Scottish Human Rights Council for iCo, of course, and many of the others that have raised concerns that Liam McArthur mentions. I would certainly never be dismissive of those concerns, and I hope that I never keep that pressure. I just simply think that what we have got to now is initial concerns being raised very legitimately. Police Scotland pausing what it is doing and reflecting on those concerns, taking further legal advice on those concerns, satisfying themselves of those concerns. At the same point, we still have particular, quite niche, legitimate concerns still coming from the likes of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. I am actually legitimate—again, I caveat all this, I am not legally trained—but I do not doubt very honest concerns that they have. To be honest, the only way that I can really see it being resolved, if they wish to do that, is potentially that the option that is open to them is going to the coach. I am not advocating again for that, but it is an option that is open to them. You point to that, and I suppose that would give rise to very serious concerns. It would represent a fairly fundamental breakdown in that relationship. As we have observed as a sub-committee, the way in which Police Scotland has engaged with those stakeholders has improved markedly over that period, and we are in a better place as a result. Convincing the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Information Commission and even the faculty of the value of continuing to engage in that process, if the concerns that they are raising at this stage are acknowledged, but then set aside by Police Scotland in proceeding with the roll-out, is that a realistic concern? I am not sure that I would quite characterise it the way that Liam McArthur does. I think that it would be unfair to suggest that, from the moment that Police Scotland paused the roll-out of the district as the device is further reflected on SHRC's concerns, and many other stakeholders' concerns, as well as the sub-committees' concerns, took advice. I do not think that they swept aside the concerns by any stretch of imagination. Perhaps what they have not been able to do from the correspondence that I have seen from SHRC and ICO is to fully satisfy them in terms of the concerns that they had. However, I would say that my genuine belief is in it, and I do think that sub-committee members would, hopefully, agree that the police have then attempted to engage with the likes of SHRC and others in a very open manner and way. The independently chaired reference group that I have just mentioned and written to committee about, I think that the likes of the SHRC, if they are willing, would be a very, very important voice in that, so that when it comes to, again, the future advancements in technology, then we are in a place where we can gain their concerns absolutely from the beginning and do our best to satisfy them. There may well come a point where, despite that, they are still not satisfied. They are, again, a very honest, legal difference of opinion, and it is often mentioned in joking and passing. Maybe I should not say that this is Cabinet Secretary for Justice, but you get two lawyers in the room and you might well get five opinions. Now, there can be many opinions on matters of law and legality, so I think that, as I said, there are options open to be able to resolve that. I do not think that I would quite characterise it as a total breakdown of trust, I do agree. It is quite a step to take to take these matters to the court, but, ultimately, that could be a place to resolve those differences if you cannot do it through dialogue, through changing procedures, through improving processes and so on and so forth, but it is an option that is open. I just conclude with what I mean. I am not entirely sure the basis on which you would make this assessment, but what in your opinion is the public view of the roll-out of these devices? Is there public confidence, do you think? Given the concerns that have been raised around data protection and human rights, do you reckon that that is going to have slightly undermined public confidence? In some respects, of course, I am correct, as it is sometimes difficult to judge these and make an assessment of where absolute public opinion is. All of us will claim to always represent public opinion from the job that we do and will always have vastly different opinions on that. I think that it is incumbent upon Police Scotland and the SPA to do their utmost when it comes to issues that are potentially infringing on individuals, ethical considerations, human rights considerations and anything else, that the onus has to be on the bodies like Police Scotland to give as much confidence as possible to the public. That is why they have gone out to get a further goosey opinion and why their examination principles will be accessible and open to trying to give that public reassurance. We know that, from data that more and more crimes are committed in the digital space, often involving very young adolescents and children, we can forecast that the issue will only become more important in the investigation of crime and not less important. We had a very interesting presentation from SCJR yesterday at a victim's task force about the views of rape victims and their journey throughout the justice process. One of the comments from one of the victims was that months had gone by and she still did not have her device back with her. As she said, she made a comment around the lines of and I am paraphrasing, but I do not know where my pictures have gone, who has viewed them, what is it, so on and so forth. I thought that was quite heart-hitting. Therefore, I think that we absolutely have to, when I say we certainly police Scotland to an SPA on this issue, which involves such important ethical considerations, have to ensure that they are giving the absolute maximum public reassurance. If that means having, as they have done in this case, pausing things, reflecting further, improving processes, guidance, training, whatever else, then that is what they should do. Daniel Hamilton will supplementary, and I am conscious of time, because members have to be in chamber. I am struck by the fact that neither Liam McArthur nor you are able to point to a place that would demonstrate public support for this or not. Indeed, I am heartened by the fact that you are highlighted the importance of policing by consent. Indeed, Susan Deacon did exactly the same thing when she was before us. However, is it not the case that we have a structure where you appoint the chair of the SPA and the SPA appoints the chief constable and nowhere in that loop of accountability is there the public voice? Is there a need now to look at how consent, not just on an individual basis but collectively, is sought and established? Indeed, is there a role here for some form of deliberative democracy so that we can understand whether or not the public really do consent to equipment and procedures such as those being used in terms of the way that they are policed by Police Scotland? I think that we should always give careful consideration to any proposals that enhance the public voice, potentially. Excuse me, appointments. What I would say in the appointment of the chair when you say that I appointed the chair, of course, ultimately the decision would be for the cabinet secretary, but my understanding was that the former convener of the sub-committee, Mary Fee, played a role in the appointment of the chair on the appointment panel. Therefore, in terms of capturing that public voice, you could make the argument that potentially the convener of the sub-committee in policing represents that public voice as you often will lay out those public concerns at this committee. However, if there are further proposals that we should explore, they should be presented to us. We just have to be careful of potentially unintended consequences. On the first part of the question, although I am not able to give you an exact assessment of what the public thinks on digital triage devices, I can refer to the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey or something that members here will read when it comes out. That found that the majority of adults said that the police were doing a good or excellent job in the local area. We are never complacent about that matter and, no doubt, we always have to improve the percentage. However, I think that there is a lot of confidence in the police and how they do their job. Arguably, a bit of the future has just landed at Police Scotland and will shortly be taking to the air to gather data from which information will be extracted to provide evidence. I speak of the drones that have been purchased. We understand that they were purchased prior to human rights and data protection assessments being carried out. Is the cabinet secretary satisfied with the process surrounding the introduction of this particular new piece of equipment, because it kind of sounds like a bit of a repeat of the issue around the triage devices that have been the subject of our discussion up till now today? I think that there has been a fair bit of learning in relation to the roll-out of the drones. If you want, I am more than happy to ask Police Scotland to write to the member to give him those assurances. I think that if you are right to the committee rather than the member, it is the first point that I would say. Equally, let me just be quite robust, I did ask you if you were satisfied. I do want to hear from Police Scotland on the subject, I am sure that committee members will wish to, but it is really about the line of accountability to your office that I am inquiring about. Yes, and forgive me, that is obviously a fair question to ask. In terms of the roll-outs of the drones and the technology, I am aware that Police Scotland carried out full data protection assessments and equality and human rights impact assessments ahead of a launch. My understanding is that the sub-committee has asked for those particular documents. On the privacy aspects of the new drones, Police Scotland has informed the SPA that, given its mobility and potential deployment across many communities, the approach that has been taken to community assessment will very much be at a local level. That is absolutely right that it has done so. Yes, I am satisfied, I have to say, in relation to the issues that using that drone technology could raise. However, I know that the sub-committee has requested additional information from Police Scotland and, of course, I await its response to receiving that information. Thank you, cabinet secretary. We have come to the end of our session. Thank you very much indeed for your time. The sub-committee will maintain an interest in the reference group and I hope that you will keep us updated on developments with that. Indeed, we need to provide some feedback to you as you requested on membership. I thank you and your officials for your contribution. I now close the meeting.