Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Session 6: 13 May 2021 to 8 April 2026
  7. Current session: 14 May 2026 to 27 September 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 147 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts, Delays and Workforce

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

We will resume, colleagues. Our colleagues in the official report are now capturing the information that they need to allow us to continue our proceedings, and I will hand back to Ms Bland, who was in the process of pursuing her line of questioning.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts, Delays and Workforce

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

No, I think that we can pick up from where we were.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts and Court Users

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

That is great.

I have a question that is pertinent to articles in The Scotsman and The Herald today about the use of Taser guns on children in custody. I understand that they were used 43 times and that there were 262 strip searches of children. Given the topicality of the issue, would Children First wish to comment on that? We will want to have conversations with Police Scotland about how children in custody are being treated.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts and Court Users

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

Ms Willder, we heard a lot earlier about summary case management and the reforms that are apparently making a difference or having an impact. Will you talk a little bit about the impact on advice services and what more you think needs to be done on that side of things?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts and Court Users

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

Will you say a bit more about that? Silo working is pertinent to the Parliament’s discussions on public sector reform, which I suspect will dominate session 7. You have given the example of disabled people and health and social care partnerships. Are there any other examples that you can share with the committee?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts and Court Users

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

In the interests of time, I will bring in Ms McNeill and I will bring you in again towards the end, Ms Chapman.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts, Delays and Workforce

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

Thank you, Mr Lenehan. That was wonderfully brief and brings me on quite nicely to my next question, which is probably directed more to Mr Graham.

Mr Graham, in your 2 September letter to the committee, you say that you are

“expanding High Court trial provision to 26 courts per day from January 2027,”

which will mean that there will be 10 more courts than there were pre-pandemic. Realistically, how much of an impact will that have? With an ideal budget—in other words, if budget constraints did not come into play—what would be the optimal number of courts to really move the needle on the issue that Mr Lenehan just identified?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts, Delays and Workforce

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

Yes, of course.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts, Delays and Workforce

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

I am very conscious of time, and we will return to some of those issues in pre-budget scrutiny. I appreciate my colleague Marie McNair being so patient, so I give the last round of questions to her.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Courts, Delays and Workforce

Meeting date: 9 September 2026

David Linden

That is great. I know that some of my colleagues have questions on resourcing and capacity for you.

Ms Greener, on page 2 of your letter of 26 August to the committee, you say that

“remand continues to serve a number of important purposes, with risk management being a key consideration.”

The committee is well aware that the remand population in our prison system is astronomically high, and I am keen to drill down and understand Crown Office thinking in opposing bail and seeking remand.

At last week’s meeting, Sheriff David Mackie told us:

“By virtue of human nature, a prosecutor or a sheriff will err on the side of caution. When the only information available is that an individual has a record as long as your arm, and not much else, it is hardly surprising that a decision to remand them is then made. If, however, the same sheriff has information that the individual is, in fact, already on a community payback order or a drug treatment and testing order, and that remand would undermine work that is already under way to enable them to lead a more law-abiding life, a different decision might be made. That is an illustration of an area where the information that is available to the decision maker can be crucially important”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 2 September 2026; c 31.]

I am therefore keen to ask the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about the information that is presented to decide that bail test and what is being done to ensure that people are not being added to that ever-growing list of folks on remand.