 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.