I will play devil’s advocate, just to probe and test the issues a little. I will start with Keith Gardner, because you are in the room.

If we are saying that legislation is required to reduce our remand population, is it not a valid observation that the remand population is so high because of the backlog of court cases and the number of people who are being held on remand for unlimited periods of time awaiting trial? There is an inevitability that, had those trials been dealt with far more quickly, some of those people would have been released or would have served enough of their sentence to be released. That is an observation. That number could come down quite quickly if we got through the backlog more quickly.

The second one is maybe more of a philosophical question. My understanding is that the Crown opposes bail only when it feels that there is good reason to, based on the information available, including information given by police and other protagonists. The judiciary will therefore remand someone only if they feel that there is good reason and they are satisfied that the argument has been made well by the Crown to do so. That is not something that we need legislation to fix, surely, because all legislation will do is tie the hands of the judiciary in the parameters that it uses to make those decisions. What do you say to that?

I can.

Thank you—you have answered the question perfectly. The premise was whether this could be addressed through changes to guidelines rather than through statutory changes that are, if you like, a bit more forceful or permanent. The question is: are we exhausting all the opportunities that guidelines might present before we take these bigger steps? I think that you have answered that, though, so thank you.

Convener, can I make a comment?

That is probably a question rather than an answer. It is a much wider point, and I hope that you will all be able to input into the solution. I really appreciate those responses.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us remotely.

I will start with a follow-up question to Russell Findlay’s opening question, and I will start with Lynne Thornhill, as she was the last to speak—apologies for that. You said that some people are being remanded who should not be. Will you elaborate on that a little? Are you talking about types of offences or types of people? Are you saying that sheriffs are working with the wrong criteria or that they are working with the right criteria but are making the wrong decisions?

That is helpful. Again, the committee probably needs more detail, but my understanding is that the approach is not aimed at people with long-term alcohol addiction. It tends to be better suited to cases in which alcohol was an aggravating factor in an offence and the person does not require a more hands-on, day-to-day treatment approach—it would probably not be suitable for someone who required that kind of support; you make a fair point there.

I have another brief question. If your organisation has any role in the provision or monitoring of bail conditions, what is the likelihood of, as a result of any legislation that passes, more people—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am getting some feedback. Will the increase in the number of people on bail put any additional pressures on what you do, and do you have any comments on the use of technology as part of that solution?

I ask Rhoda MacLeod to answer that, as she has a top-notch microphone on.

How is your organisation and the work that you do funded, especially at a local level? Is it through the wider local authority funding settlement, or is there direct funding from the criminal justice budget or other directorates of the Government?

I am sorry to keep pressing on this, but I am just picking up your language and words. Is it your view that there is a wider lack of understanding of the decision-making process, or is the decision-making process itself faulty?

Let me clarify what I mean by that. I get the impression that judges and sheriffs do not take lightly the decision to hold someone on remand, so they use all the information that has been presented to them at the time by the Crown and defence solicitors and, where necessary, social workers and other stakeholders who are involved in the case. Do you think that they do not have enough information to make the right decision—that is a bit of repetition of my first question—or do you think that, because of the backlog and the volume of cases that they are trying to get through, they are not taking enough time to look at all the factors involved in individual cases and are therefore make the wrong decisions? I am still a bit unclear about what your criticism of the system is.

Thank you very much. That really helps. It clarifies your position.

I will ask the other two panel members a question. The other side of that has been mentioned. I realise that it is difficult to conjecture on this, but maybe there is concern that decisions are made because there is a lack of confidence in alternatives. That is an easy thing to say, but it is quite difficult to prove that because, surely, we would think that sheriffs and judges make decisions that are the right ones based on the information—or lack of information—that is available to them at the time. However, it would be a problem if they are making decisions to remand people in custody because they have little faith or confidence that the alternatives are there or will be delivered appropriately, safely and confidently. Is that a problem? Is it a fact that there are no proper alternatives for many people? There should be, and that would give another, better option.

That question is for Charlie Martin and Tracey McFall.