Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will come back to the issue at stage 3, when I have processed it. On that basis, I will not move amendment 49.

Amendment 49 not moved.

I am trying to understand and process everything that you are saying to the committee. You accept that some time may be needed, but what does that mean? Is the mandatory requirement to give that opportunity to be taken up or not? A social worker might want to give a report, which I realise could be oral or in writing. Does consideration need to be given to the formulation of that? There is already some misunderstanding about the provision. You do not want a situation where the accused is detained further while awaiting a decision on bail.

Jamie Greene puts that really well. That is where we started out, and it is where we are now. We are having to drill down into the details of the new test so that we are satisfied, which is one of the points that I now want to address.

On the new bail test, one view—to take another point that Jamie Greene made—is that we need to trust the judiciary to an extent within the parameters of the law to make the right decisions, and we set the parameters in the law. However, with regard to the new bail test, the bill clearly states that bail can be refused if the court determines that that is necessary

“in the interests of public safety, including the safety of the complainer from harm”.

I feel that that speaks to some of the concerns of victims organisations.

The other part of the test is that bail can be refused

“to prevent a significant risk of prejudice to the interests of justice.”

My reading of that provision would partly address the amendments in Russell Findlay’s name, which probe how prescriptive we need to be in that regard, and rightly so. It seems to me that that provision could cover the concerns of victims organisations, depending on how it is interpreted.

I will finish on a point that is similar to one that I made in the debate on the previous group. We have the judiciary asking for a definition of “public safety”, which leads me to be a bit concerned that there is no common understanding of what that provision is expected to do. The Government needs to be clear with us about that; otherwise, I feel that we need to be more prescriptive to ensure that the provisions are commonly understood by the people who will make the decisions.

That is the point that we needed to get to, so that is helpful. The question is what the equivalent would be of “exceptional circumstances”. I think that we are suggesting that the current test means that it would be that the information that was before the sheriff would include previous convictions and the sheriff would have to consider the matter under the umbrella of the provisions on public safety, including the safety of the complainer,

“to prevent a significant risk of prejudice to the interests of justice.”

I am not going to move it, convener. I hope that there is now some understanding between the Government and the judiciary, given the cabinet secretary’s comment that it is expected that the whole process will be conducted in one hearing.

Amendment 53 not moved.

Amendment 54 not moved.

Section 1 agreed to.

After section 1

Amendment 1 not moved.

Section 2—Determination of good reason for refusing bail

I re-emphasise Russell Findlay’s points. It is not clear what the blue-light collaboration means and whether it is practical. My major concern is the roll-out of body-worn cameras. We have talked to the Scottish Police Federation, and there is a need for body-worn cameras in the Scottish police force, but the length of time that it will take to roll them out is concerning. I am also concerned that it will be done division by division. That would indicate that one division will benefit from the roll-out straight away but another division will not benefit until the end of the programme.

That speaks to my concerns about the overall police budget. Police numbers, although not as bad as they could have been, have fallen to the levels that have been announced. I have a deep concern about where we have ended up on the overall police budget.

I thank Russell Findlay for bringing those cases to the attention of the committee.

Would you agree that the accounts that you have given seem to cross over into the area of how police officers are treated in the disciplinary process? You have outlined more than one thing. It is a cause of concern to me if it can be two years into an internal process before any allegation is made. I can understand how that would affect officers’ mental health. Is there another element to what you have outlined, which is that the internal processes of disciplinary action against police officers should not take two years?

Good morning. I welcome the minister to her post. I think that I have already welcomed the cabinet secretary.

I totally and whole-heartedly agree with your statement. In the Parliament, I have raised horrible cases in which people took their own lives because they should have been in secure accommodation, so let us be clear that this is something that I support. However, I am concerned—and I wonder whether you will address my concern—about how the Government will achieve this. Do you have a plan?

Given the very strong statement that you made, how will you create the spaces and the funding to make it happen? Will there be a stepped approach—for example, this year, will you create so many additional places? I realise that you cannot do it in one go, but the only way that your statement can have any validity is if you can tell the committee that you have a plan to reach, albeit incrementally, the number of places that you would need.

This has been a controversial issue in Parliament for some time. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of how far back the issues and sensitivities go around who gets a secure place. It is a fundamental question that needs to be addressed by Government.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to get a clear answer to the question whether it is a policy change that has resulted in a reduction in custodial sentences and is the reason for our having 12 vacancies. Have I understood that correctly?

But the question that I am asking is: why is that, and are you confident that that trend will continue? What I was trying to get at in my first question was whether you have planned adequately for your policy position, which I fully support. If you are saying in your evidence to the committee, “We’ve got a good starting point, because the policy is resulting in vacancies,” I just want to be clear that that is the case.