���˿���

I thank Katy Clark for raising that point. That is probably a good place to start, before I go into the detail of the amendments.

I will say a few things. My proposals, which form the amendments today, have been in the public domain since 2021. They were published as part of the consultation on my proposed victims, criminal justice and fatal accident inquiries (Scotland) bill, and a wide range of stakeholders responded to them, which is a matter of public record. I will not bore the committee with the individual responses but, essentially, support for the reform of many parole practices was around the 70 or 80 per cent mark in each of the questions that I proposed in that consultation. I do not believe that the Parole Board responded to that consultation, although it had every right to do so, had it wanted to. Perhaps it is disappointing that it did not.

The issues that I am raising are not new. While I speak to the amendments, I am sure that anyone who has been a member of the Criminal Justice Committee for some time or pays close attention to the justice system in Scotland will hear that they are not by any means new issues, and should not come as a surprise to anyone.

I am no longer a member of the committee, and my locus in seeking the Parole Board’s views and evidence is limited. Perhaps the committee has done that, or could do more, but I am happy to work with the board between now and stage 3, for example, if it has a view on the proposals that are now in the public domain. I am sure that, as a result of reading the Official Report of this meeting, it will be keen to hear our debate, because Katy Clark is right that some of the amendments directly relate to the board.

I will refer to some of the amendments with comments from the Parole Board, which has expressed an optimistic willingness for reform. There are some quotes from it on the record that I hope will alleviate any concerns that the amendments are, somehow, news to the Parole Board. I think that there is an appetite for change, and I will elicit some of that as I speak to the amendments. I hope that that is helpful.

I will now power on through the amendments, if the committee will permit me. Amendment 246 asserts that a victim, or a victim’s family member, if the victim is deceased, must be given the opportunity to observe parole hearings in relation to the offender’s case. It would do so by adding a new sub-section to section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which states that a victim or their family member

“must be afforded the opportunity to attend, for the purpose of observing proceedings”,

oral parole hearings.

Let me be clear on what amendment 246 would not do. It would not force the victim to participate in proceedings or hearings—I believe that that choice should always be reserved to them. It would not give the victims or their families the right to speak at hearings, and it would not give them the right to interrogate the panel, the offender or the offender’s legal representatives. It is important to put that on the record.

It would also give the Scottish Government the additional powers that it needs to set out how the reform might work in practice. For example, during the Covid pandemic a number of hearings took place electronically or remotely, and the ability to observe those hearings was established. When that single-path videolink was made available to some victims, the technology made the process much simpler, more cost-effective and perhaps less traumatising for them. That is an example of a practice could be part of the regulations and guidance that are developed around hearings.

I appreciate that the Scottish Government might wish to further consult the Parole Board on the specific proposal, but I think that it is abundantly clear that many victims feel excluded by the current practice. I say that they want, but also deserve, the right to observe hearings, at the very least.

I also understand that it might not always be appropriate for the victim to observe all or some of a hearing. Amendment 246 takes account of that scenario. In its proposed new section 17ZB(2) of the 2003 act, amendment 246 makes it clear that the chairing member of the parole hearing would retain the power to exclude a victim or a family member from the hearing if they considered it appropriate to do so. If the chairperson did that, however, they would have to notify the victim or family member in advance and—which is more important—inform them of the reasons for their exclusion. That is a fair and balanced caveat to my proposal, and it is perhaps a much-needed power for the parole chair to retain.

Amendment 246 has the backing of many campaigners and support organisations, who simply believe that what happens in parole hearings too often takes place behind closed doors. Although some victims can observe hearings, they have no absolute legal right to do so. Anything that we can do to improve transparency is key.

I will give an example. I spoke the other week with Ellie Wilson, who will be well known to the committee. She was excluded from her attacker’s parole hearing because her attacker’s lawyers objected to her attendance at the hearing. I understand that Ms Wilson raised that issue directly with the First Minister. It is well documented. It was reported at the time—I stress that it was reported—that his response was that that decision was

“odd, strange and not very transparent.”

I agree and I hope that the committee does, too.

Amendments 247 and 248 relate to the Parole Board’s consideration of written statements by victims. That is another issue that came up in my conversations with Victim Support Scotland. When the Parole Board asks a victim for a written statement, the victim is left with a choice: they can choose to relive the trauma and make a written statement to the board—often a statement that has been written time and again—or not to have their voice heard in that hearing and thereby risk the Parole Board making a decision without their input. That is exactly the opposite of trauma-informed practice.

My amendments 247 and 248 seek to make that process more flexible for victims by maximising choice and minimising the chance of retraumatisation. Amendment 247 would do that by ensuring that the Parole Board has access to all statements made by the victim throughout the entirety of criminal proceedings, including the victim impact statement and the statement of crime from the initial trial, for example. It would do that by inserting a new subsection into—this is a technical bit—section 20 of the Prisoner and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which would require that, when they refer a case to the Parole Board, the Scottish ministers must send to the board any and all victim statements made by the victim throughout the proceedings. If that has not made sense, I am happy to answer questions on it.

Amendment 248 would allow for a victim statement—a previous written statement, representations that were made to the Parole Board, police statements, victim impact statements or any other formally recognised statement that was given during the process—to remain valid for as long as a victim wishes that statement to remain valid. I could go into detail about how it would do that, but I will not.

The point is that amendments 247 and 248 together would allow the Parole Board to receive and consider, at the point of sentencing or earlier in parole hearings, every and any statement that a victim has made to a criminal justice partner throughout the process, from the initial police statement, through to other previous submissions during the case.

The reason for that should be self-explanatory. Far too many victims are forced to be retraumatised and to relive their experiences every time a parole hearing takes place. In many parole hearings, the offender knows fine well that their chances of parole are slim, but nonetheless instructs their lawyers to push for it. In my conversations with victims, they have told me that, at that point, often within a few short months, they are required to submit to parole hearings repeat statements. At the moment, the law does not seem to account for historical statements that have been made, and that needs to be fixed, which is the purpose of amendments 247 and 248.

In essence, amendments 252 to 255 all relate to delays in parole proceedings. One of the biggest issues that came up in my discussions with victim support organisations is how damaging the delays to parole proceedings can be to victims and their recovery journeys. Unfortunately, there is a lack of statistical evidence on the number or length of delays to parole proceedings. We have tried, but it is very hard to unearth that information. Despite that lack of statistical evidence, I know anecdotally through my discussions with victims that delays to parole proceedings are exceedingly common. I am sure that the committee has taken evidence of that nature.

I understand that parole proceedings can be delayed for a number of reasons, and it is not always any one organisation’s fault. However, amendments 252 and 253 seek to place a reasonable but statutory duty on both the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board for Scotland to ensure that delays to hearings are minimised and are avoided as far as possible.

Amendment 252 would place a duty on the Parole Board to

“take reasonable steps to prevent any delay in”

scheduled oral hearings by ensuring

“that the documentation required for the hearing is prepared in advance of the hearing.”

That might sound as though it is stating the obvious, but it is clear that that does not always happen, which is one of the reasons why hearings are delayed.

Amendment 253 would place a similar duty on the Scottish Prison Service to

“provide the documentation required for the hearing ... to the Parole Board no later than 7 days before the hearing.”

Anecdotally, the rationale that is given for delays to parole hearings is sometimes that the information that is required to allow the Parole Board to make a decision was not given in a timeous fashion by the Scottish Prison Service, for a number of reasons. The reason that is most often given—again, this is anecdotal—is workload and the SPS’s focus on its core duties, in respect of looking after the current prison estate and those who are contained therein.

We know that delays happen, and we know some of the reasons why they happen. I would like to put both those statutory duties into section 20 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

Victims also tell me that when those delays happen, they receive little or no notice. Unfortunately, victims often find out after they have already arrived at the prison where the hearing is taking place. That is simply unacceptable and is absolutely not a trauma-informed way to manage parole.

Amendments 254 and 255 offer the committee two options that would require the Parole Board to notify a victim as soon as is reasonably practical of any delay to proceedings and the reasons for such a delay. That would not have to be anything onerous or to be done in writing—it could simply be a phone call. What is important is that the victim is, at the earliest opportunity, informed that there will be a delay to the hearing.

Amendment 255 would do that by giving the Scottish Government the power to require the Parole Board “to notify victims” if the hearing is being delayed. Amendment 254 would do the same thing as amendment 255, but in a slightly different way: it would instead require that the Parole Board inform a victim of any delays to proceedings and provide a reason for the delay.

The amendments go about the same thing in slightly different ways. I believe that amendment 254 does so in a slightly clearer way, but I would be interested in hearing what the Government has to say. Again, I offer the committee both options as a means to the end.

I want to talk about my experience last week, when I met Linda McDonald, who was attacked in 2017. I am sure that many members, and the cabinet secretary, will know her story. That meeting was certainly a very emotional experience for me, as I went about lodging what are quite technical amendments.

In the long conversation that we had, one story really struck me, and it underpins the amendments. When Linda’s attacker was up for parole early last year, she travelled from Dundee to Perth to observe the parole hearing, only to be told, on her arrival in Perth, that the hearing had been delayed. Fine—she complained to the Parole Board, which told her that she should instead complain to the Scottish Prison Service. She then complained to the SPS, which told her that, actually, she should complain to the Scottish Government’s victims and witnesses unit.

It is an endless loop and, in my view, it is unacceptable that people in that situation are being passed from pillar to post. Linda had not been informed of the parole hearing delay until after she had travelled to the prison. That should not be the case. Parole hearings can be distressing and traumatic for victims. They can necessitate time off work, and they might require the organising of support networks for the victim if the victim chooses to physically travel to and from the parole hearing. That underpins the rationale behind amendments 254 and 255.

Finally, amendment 262 is slightly different; I am not sure why it sits in this group. It is about reporting requirements—I am sure that we are all used to seeing those pop up in legislation. It suggests a very simple reporting requirement that would ensure that the Scottish Government will, within one year of the bill coming into force, “undertake a review” on the wider parole process and how it can become more trauma informed.

I would like to ask the Government to conduct an end-to-end review of the parole process, taking into account, for example, the information that is provided to victims, the ability of victims to attend or participate in hearings, the level of participation that is afforded to victims, and how we can make the whole process more trauma informed.

In the light of my contribution this morning and other amendments by other members, it is clear that the current parole process does not always work for all victims. It often leaves them feeling excluded and retraumatised. We need to fully understand what we are getting wrong in order that we can get it right. My amendments in the group will kick off that much-needed and long-overdue conversation.

I move amendment 246.

There is a slight conflict here, cabinet secretary. At the beginning of your comments, you said that remorse is, of course, a factor that the Parole Board may take into account. However, you have just highlighted exactly the problem in saying that you do not see how the board can do that, because of the nature of remorse. Either it does take remorse into account, or it does not—I am not quite sure which.

We have not spoken to that amendment yet.

I thank my colleagues. It is interesting to see members from three different political parties expressing the same thoughts about access to court transcripts. That is really positive and it is good to see the convener speaking on the subject.

The previous two speakers have said that their amendments are probing amendments, but my amendment 263 is not: it is a substantive amendment that I hope the Government will give some thought to. The reason for that is that, over the years, I have listened to the arguments about access to court transcripts. We have all heard the same evidence on that and have heard the same points of view being expressed regarding how ridiculously expensive and difficult that is.

As a result of those conversations, many of which happened a number of years ago, there is an element of pressure both within and outside the Parliament for the Government to do something about that. The pilot, which was specifically in relation to access to transcripts for victims of rape and sexual offences, was a welcome one and the extension of that pilot is also welcome. I understand that those things come at a cost, both monetary and in resourcing.

I have gone about things in a slightly different way with amendment 263. I understand that it would probably be quite impractical, unfeasible and expensive to make all court transcripts accessible for free to everyone, all the time. I would like to think that we can get to a position in the future where that is possible and do not really understand why that is not currently the case in a digital age. We have been here for three hours and four minutes so far today and every single word that has been said in this meeting will be made available to the public, within 24 hours, for people to scrutinise and interrogate and will form the future content of the riveting memoirs that I will no doubt publish.

My point is that, in the modern landscape it is possible and doable to make what is said in public available to the public when they need it. That is the key to the argument about court transcripts, which can offer a vital resource to victims in their future interactions with the justice system.

If passed, my amendment 263 would establish a permanent fund that would allow people to access court transcripts. I appreciate that producing those transcripts comes at a cost. I hope that that will come down, but we are where we are so, in the meantime, I have created something that is almost parallel to the legal aid system and that would allow people to apply for access to a fund to pay for court transcripts. That would be a more permanent solution than simply having trial after trial of free access to transcripts without any long-term solution. I believe that we could amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to create permanent access to transcripts via a dedicated fund for that purpose, and that purpose alone.

My amendment 263 would enable the Scottish Government, to determine—perhaps through secondary legislation or regulation-making powers; I am willing to look at that—how applications would be made, the eligibility criteria and the process to be followed. In coming up with that process ministers would have to consult the relevant parties, all of whom are those that members would expect to have to be consulted.

I consider the pilot scheme to be a short-term fix to a long-term problem. Although the Government’s willingness to proceed is welcome, I note, from a letter that the cabinet secretary sent two days ago to the three members who have an amendment on this aspect, her view that

“further thought is required regarding how we deliver the principle of free access in a way that is deliverable, sustainable, fair, and cost effective”.

I do not disagree with that, but about three years ago, I was sitting just over there, on the other side of the table, when we had a similar conversation. There has been plenty of time for further thought as to how we might deliver a long-term solution. Through my amendment I have tried to come up with a practical solution.

I, too, believe that access to transcripts should not be restricted to rape and sexual offences cases. That is why I believe that we should approach the issue in a slightly different way. By creating a fund that sets criteria about who can apply and in which cases, we could widen access outside the scope of those particular areas. People might require access to transcripts in other cases, such as those involving domestic abuse, so I would like to extend the franchise, as it were, to include a whole range of factors.

I accept that there is not an unlimited pot of cash for doing that. However, I hope that members would understand that, by putting aside money for that purpose and setting ground rules about who could apply, fairness and rationale would be involved. I hope that the cabinet secretary will reflect on that.

It is good to see members addressing the issue and trying to get something on the face of the bill. If we could bring the matter back and work together on it at stage 3, I would be happy to be part of that discussion. I hope that we could have something in the bill by stage 3.

On the basis of what we have heard, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 263 not moved.

Rona Mackay is right to raise the issue. We all know the nature of the demographic of our prison population and some of the challenges presented in many offenders groups and sub-categories—those are common themes that run through all of this. Some people in prison might struggle to demonstrate remorse verbally, even if they want to. I just think that that is part of that process.

However, we also have to put some faith in the parole process and those involved making an informed decision, based on their experience of listening to offenders in those scenarios and using their gut feelings—a huge amount of that is probably involved in such decisions. My amendment is quite simple in that respect; it simply says that any provision must include

“provision that the Board must take into account any remorse shown by the prisoner in relation to the impact of the prisoner’s offence on any victim of that offence.”

Remorse, therefore, is taken into account; it is not the deciding factor. I just want to make that clear.

On that, I am unapologetic. The premise of the amendment is my belief that the issue of remorse should have a bearing on the decision—if that answers your question.

I am sure that we will find out shortly, in the cabinet secretary’s response to my amendments, whether that is a consideration. I suspect that the answer will be yes, which is good news, and therefore this debate is important.

Amendment 249 is the simpler of the amendments, as it is all about the effect of a prisoner’s release on victims and their safety and security. We will probably all agree that that should not be up for debate, but the point that I am making with this amendment is that it should be a principal factor in the decision-making process, because many victims tell us that it is not.

I have a lot of amendments to get through in this group, so I will rattle through them, and perhaps members can contribute as I go along.

Amendment 260 is in a sort of mini-group on its own. It requires the Parole Board, when considering the release of someone convicted of murder or culpable homicide who has not disclosed the location of their victim’s remains, to take that into account before making a decision on release or otherwise.

This amendment is better known as Suzanne’s law and was another key aspect of my original victims bill consultation, attracting 84 per cent support from respondents. Suzanne’s law, as I have previously rehearsed in Parliament, was named after Suzanne Pilley, who was tragically killed in 2010. Unfortunately, her body’s location has never been disclosed by her killer, and the wider expectation is that that individual might be up for parole in a couple of years.

Suzanne’s family have campaigned vociferously and valiantly on the issue. Regrettably, Suzanne’s father passed away in 2019 without ever knowing where his daughter was buried. However, what Suzanne’s sister told the BBC thereafter—and what underpins the amendment—was this:

“For the past decade we have lived in a state of limbo, waiting for the news that Suzanne’s body had been found, but we’ve never been able to get that closure. We accept that Suzanne was murdered and believe that the person responsible is in prison, but we feel we cannot say a proper goodbye until her body is found.”

When I first mooted an amendment of this type, we looked at numerous versions spanning quite a wide spectrum of legislative change; after all, there is a spectrum of views on this matter. At one end of that spectrum, people believe that a murderer’s release should be automatically denied if they have failed to reveal the location of their victim’s remains; others argue that that breaches a whole heap of international laws and human rights and sits outside the competency of this Parliament; and there is a wide range of views in the middle.

I probably sit in the middle, and I have sought to come up with a middle ground for the bill. I have tried to find a pragmatic and realistic compromise that does not automatically block the release of a prisoner but which also does not agree that the status quo is fair to the relatives of victims, such as Suzanne Pilley’s family. I believe that we can meaningfully implement Suzanne’s law, and I believe that we can do so through amendment 260. I therefore hope that we get the support of the Government and the committee for the amendment.

There are a few other, perhaps less substantive amendments, covering some of the issues that I have already raised—for example, the release of prisoners on licence. I have also tried to cover the issue of temporary release, because we know, anecdotally, of instances in which offenders have been given temporary release for various reasons and then have committed crimes.

Amendment 250 would require the governor of a prison, prior to deciding whether to grant temporary release, to consider what impact that decision could have on the safety and security of a victim or their family member. I believe that that often happens in prisons and that governors are aware of their obligations in that regard, but it is essential that we put it in legislation, due to some well-publicised failings.

In fact, going back to the example of Michelle’s law that I quoted earlier, I have since discovered that Michelle Stewart’s parents knew that their daughter’s killer had been granted temporary licence only by reading about it on social media. That is just not acceptable. I refer also to my conversation with Linda McDonald, about whom I spoke in another group.

Many victims say that, in any scenario in which someone is released from prison, be it temporarily or otherwise, the safety and security of the victim and their family should be a key consideration. Given that those decisions are made by governors, I would argue that, off the back of amendment 260, amendment 261 would provide that, when considering the granting of temporary release to someone convicted of murder or culpable homicide, the governor must take into account whether that prisoner has disclosed the whereabouts of their victim’s remains. That is linked to Suzanne’s law, and I hope that the Government will consider both amendments in that light.

Amendments 256 and 257 are about transparency and openness in the parole process. Amendment 256 states that the Parole Board must provide a victim with a summary of the reasons behind a decision whether or not to release someone or a decision whether to impose conditions. The amendment would do that by inserting such a requirement into section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003.

When I originally consulted on the issue, I asked respondents whether they supported the idea that the victims of crime should have access to the full reasons why the Parole Board had come to its decision. The responses were 86 per cent positive, which tells me that there is an appetite for victims to be given more reasons for the decisions that are made. Indeed, in response to that particular question—which, by the way, goes much further than the amendment that I am pursuing—Victim Support Scotland, said that the offender

“being released can cause significant anxiety and distress. Where the parole board does decide to release someone, the least victims deserve is—where they wish it—an explanation of the reasons behind this”.

It goes without saying that improving transparency of decision making is fundamental to restoring full trust and confidence in parole hearings, which often take place behind closed doors. The victims might not be content with the outcome of a parole decision, but there is a greater desire for them to be offered the rationale for how and why those decisions were taken.

I believe that there is an appetite within the Parole Board for Scotland for that, too. I am happy to circulate this after the meeting, but there was a very interesting interview last August between the board and The Courier newspaper, in which the chief executive was quoted as saying:

“Our position, I think, is that we were quite happy to publish all of them—every single decision—but there”

may be

“quite a resource implication.”

That is fair.

The Parole Board chairman, John Watt, was also quoted on the record as saying:

“I think that would be important to generate an understanding … I wouldn’t be beyond going a bit further and giving some broad context for the decision. If we were able to, we would be quite happy to extend the categories of case where we give summaries.”

He went on to talk about the anonymisation of published decisions, which I will look at in the next amendment. I should also say that, when asked about such changes seven or eight months ago, the Parole Board gave positive feedback on the record. There is an openness and a willingness to publish the reasons for decisions, which is a good starting point.

The last two of my amendments in this group—amendments 256 and 257—in essence try to ensure that there is more transparency in the public domain. Amendment 257 is about the publication of decisions. Some decisions are already published online, and the public can go and look at them, but many are not. In many cases, decisions are anonymised for good reason; the identity of victims or witnesses might be required to be protected, or the chairing member might consider anonymisation appropriate.

The key point is that, at the moment, the only decisions that are published are those made on releasing people who are on a lifelong restriction order. There is an appetite, and an opportunity, for more decisions to be published by the Parole Board for Scotland, and for more decisions to be in the public domain.

This has been a good debate. It has taken some time, but it was very important. I thank members for their contributions.

The debate has raised some important issues about the parole process, the decision making that goes on in parole hearings, victims’ understanding of the decisions and the levels of communication that they are entitled to and are receiving—or are not receiving, as the case may be. It was important to put some of that out in the public domain.

I am pleased on a number of counts, particularly with what the cabinet secretary said on amendments 249 and 250, which I said at the outset were the most important in the group. They would insert into legislation that the consideration of victims’ safety and security should be paramount throughout the parole process. If the cabinet secretary, as I think she alluded to, is willing to work with me on something in that vein ahead of stage 3, I will happily do that. I would very much like to see the proposal come back.

I take on board the comments that were made about some of the other amendments, with which there were some problems. Amendments 256 and 257, which are about the Parole Board more generally, might be about things that do not require primary legislation, but they might feature as part of a future consultation. I am pleased to hear that the Government is about to take a much wider and more comprehensive look at parole. People have been calling for that for quite some time, and I look forward to seeing that piece of work when it comes out in August, the subsequent responses to it and any legislative changes—through secondary legislation or otherwise—that arise from it. I know that the committee will do that work justice. If I can play a meaningful part in any of that, please let me know. It is an important step and probably a good way of looking at all of this holistically.

Some of my amendments in this group and in the previous group proposed tweaks to and reforms of the process in quite a piecemeal way, but I felt that they were important. If they form part of wider changes to the Parole Board rules—if the rules change, and the cabinet secretary knows that I will hold the Government to account on that in due course—that is all very positive.

I will not revisit the arguments on amendment 251 and the expression of remorse. There was a good discussion, and I appreciate that the language that is used in relation to some of this is very complex. It is very hard to define remorse. How do you demonstrate that you are sorry for something without just saying, “I am sorry”? I appreciate that complexity, but I did not make up the amendment for the fun of it.

I pay particular tribute to Ellie Wilson, who has been calling for an amendment of this nature. As I said, we are being asked to go a lot further by some people who believe that someone who does not show remorse should stay in prison—that is effectively what some people think. I tried to find a compromise as best I could. I felt that it was important to try to put into legislation the idea that remorse should be a factor in any release decision. However, I can see that my attempt will be futile.

After today’s meeting, I would be interested to hear how the campaigners respond to the debate that we have had and whether they feel that there is room for something ahead of stage 3. I will leave that to them to consider, and I will happily work with anyone who approaches me on that ahead of stage 3. However, for now, I will not move amendment 251, for all the good reasons that have been given.

Finally, I put on the record my thanks to the cabinet secretary for accepting amendment 260, which, in my consultation and again today, I dubbed the Suzanne’s law element. It is really important, and we have debated it as a Parliament for many years. A former justice secretary, Mr Yousaf, promised to look at it and tried to tweak the system as best he could. The cabinet secretary and I also had a good exchange on it a few years back, and I have kept the issue live and on the table for good reason. Amendment 260 is a more legally sound compromise that meets the needs of those who have asked for it. I understand that it might not keep everyone happy, but I have certainly tried my best to get the provision on to the statute books, and I hope that we will do that today. Again, I am happy to tweak the amendment ahead of stage 3 if that would make it more legally sound.

I am grateful for the debate that we have had, for colleagues’ comments and, indeed, for the support that the Government has offered for some of the proposals that I have made this morning.

Amendment 249, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 250 to 257 not moved.

It is coming up.