Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I do not sit on the committee week in and week out any more, but I hear what the member says. We should bear in mind the fact that this is a victims bill. The point of changing from criminal justice reform to a victims bill was that the Government understood that there was a need to refocus on some technical changes to the judicial system, some of which are substantial. Equally, there was an opportunity to improve practices within the justice system, including the parole process, which seems to be a major and common theme that comes from victims. I therefore do not think that any of this is new.

I do not know the reasons why the committee did not take evidence on parole, and I do not know why the Parole Board for Scotland has not engaged with the committee on the bill. That is for the committee to understand.

At the end of the day, this is the only bill that is on the table at the moment. I could come back in the next year with a bill that is focused solely on reforming parole, but I do not think that the committee or the Parliament would have the time for it. This is the only bill in town at the moment, and that is why I am trying to use this bill to do what I want to do.

I know—I am sorry. I hope that, if the committee agrees that this is an important issue, it could take further evidence ahead of stage 3. That would be useful and important.

That is a very good point. There are ways and means to do this. We have to put faith in some of the pre-hearing reports that are considered. We know that justice partners will be engaging with the prisoner in advance of a hearing, whether that be SPS staff, clinical psychologists or a third party. I am sure that everyone will be aware—perhaps off the back of the recent television show “Adolescence”—of the key role that is played by someone assessing an individual who has committed a very grave crime and that there are ways and means to elicit an understanding of what underpins that person’s attitude towards the crime that they have committed.

I still believe that it is possible for someone who has communication difficulties or additional needs, for example, to demonstrate remorse. More important, I believe that there should be a moral obligation to do so. However, if they are unable to do so, the proposed amendment would not prohibit their release, nor would it ensure that they are kept in prison; it would simply be one of the factors that must be taken into account during a hearing. That is what campaigners are asking for. Some campaigners are asking to go a lot further than that, and I accept that doing so might be difficult. I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on that.

I do not sit in those hearings and I do not know all the information that the Parole Board has in front of it, but I am pretty sure—I have some faith—that the members at a hearing should and will request access to all information that they deem necessary. That might involve extra support being provided in those very particular scenarios.

I will also try to rattle through this group, which has quite a lot of amendments. I am just checking how many amendments there are so that the cabinet secretary does not get me into trouble again. There are nine amendments in this group, of which seven are mine—I think that that is correct.

I have grouped the amendments in a particular order, so that I can speak to them en bloc, based on what they are about. The group is entitled “Decisions to release prisoners”, which is ultimately one of the end results of a parole hearing: a decision to release or not to release.

There is quite a lot in here. First, I will talk to amendments 249, 251 and 260, which all relate to the central factors that I believe the Parole Board must take into account when it considers a decision to release a prisoner. There is good reason for that. I and, I believe, many victims feel that there is a lack of transparency in and, on occasion, logic behind many of the decisions that are made about releasing a prisoner. Of course, it will never be the case that everyone is happy with all the decisions, but an overarching theme that has come through during my discussions with victims in the past couple years is that the safety of victims and their families must be the principal driver of the decision on whether to release an offender.

With that in mind, committee members will note that all three of the amendments start in the same way, by amending the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. The 1993 act already states that the Scottish Government can set out which factors

“may be taken into account by”

the Parole Board. That is fine, but I want to go a step further. I would like to see on the statute book the factors that the Parole Board “must” take into account—the things that “must” be central to that decision-making process.

Amendment 249 is, in my view, the most important of the three amendments. It states that one of the matters that the Parole Board must take into account is what the impact of a decision to release a prisoner could have on the safety and security of a victim and/or their family members. The amendment is a key part of Michelle’s law, which was a component of my proposed member’s bill on victims. It was named after the well-known case of Michelle Stewart, who was tragically murdered in 2008. Her killer was released in January this year. Michelle’s family, to their great credit and through very difficult circumstances and times, have spent many years campaigning for the welfare of victims and their families’ views and feelings to be taken into account in parole decisions. That idea underpinned much of that section of my original consultation.

We hear of many laws that are named after people, such as Michelle’s law and Suzanne’s law, which I will come on to talk about, and many others. The common theme, as I have said before, is that they are all named after women who were the victims of horrific crimes, some of whom were tragically murdered. They underpin the sense that the whole parole process should be aimed at the board deciding whether it believes that the victim of a crime and their family will be safe upon a prisoner’s release.

For my proposed bill, I consulted on the specific proposal that has been translated directly into amendment 249, and it received an 82 per cent positive response from respondents. I will mention one organisation—this is on the public record, so I am sure that the group will not mind—called Support after Murder and Manslaughter. In its response to my consultation, it said:

“Bereaved families are usually terrified of coming face to face with offenders after they are released. This is a very real fear that families live with every day and they can be deeply traumatised by the possibility of seeing the offender”.

The Government may argue that the Parole Board already takes into account the safety of victims and their families, as due consideration as part of the parole process. If that is the case, why do so many prisoners who leave prison then go on to harass, abuse, assault and even murder within weeks, or even days, of their release? I believe that, by putting it in the bill that the safety of victims is the principal decision marker, we can offer victims and their families a much-needed cast-iron assurance that their safety and security are taken into account at all times by the Parole Board.

Amendment 251 is on another matter that I consider that the Parole Board “must” take account of. It states 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.”

Let me explain the amendment first, and then I will happily hear what you have to say.

Victims who are calling for such an amendment want any remorse that a prisoner shows to be part of the consideration of their release. Contrary to what some media headlines have suggested, we are not proposing that we force an offender to admit guilt in order for parole to be granted, because that would be wrong and probably illegal. Also, we are not saying that, if someone who has been sentenced to a crime and their sentence is spent, they will be denied release in perpetuity if they do not admit guilt.

Some people argue that, on moral grounds, if someone does not admit guilt or express explicit remorse, they are not truly rehabilitated and should not be released. That is a school of thought, and I have some sympathy with that, but I also understand that there would be large numbers of defence solicitors and human rights lawyers lining up to counter such a proposal.

I must be clear that that is not what I am proposing. Instead, I propose that, if an offender refuses to demonstrate remorse or to acknowledge the hurt and pain that they have caused the victim, that should be a major factor in the Parole Board’s consideration. Is the person truly fit to be released if they express no remorse?

I think that that was best put by another victim of crime, Hannah McLaughlan, whom the committee has also heard from on the matter. She said that she needs that “validation” that the offender is “taking responsibility” for what they did. I agree.

That is the difference between what has been mooted that the amendment seeks to do and what it does in black and white. I wanted to make that absolutely clear.

I am happy to take the intervention at this point, if that would be helpful.

I thank committee colleagues for their helpful feedback and for that discussion on scrutiny, which is really important. As you will know from my time on committees, I am always calling for more time for bills, to ensure that the widest range of people sit at the table and feed back. I invite any justice partners who are following proceedings to do so—the amendments are a matter of public record, so, if they have a view on them or on the comments that have been made today, I encourage justice partners to engage with and feed back to the committee. I would like to know—as would the committee—what the Parole Board thinks of my proposed changes. If they are achievable in a relatively short space of time, that is great; if they require legislative change, so be it.

The reason why we are doing this now is that we are almost in April 2025 and, in my view, the window of opportunity to do anything in this parliamentary session is now. I certainly do not want to kick the can down the road, into the next session of Parliament, and end up debating the same things in another five years’ time. I think that victims deserve better.

To recap—so that I am correct when it comes to not moving amendments—the cabinet secretary has indicated that the aims of amendments 246 and 247 could be achieved without primary legislation but through changes to the Parole Board rules. The next stage would be a consultation process. I suspect that that process would happen after the bill was passed, however, so I guess that we would need some confidence that the consultation would not be just a consultation but would lead to meaningful changes in the Parole Board rules. If we are not going to make those changes in the bill, they must happen somewhere down the line. There would be some comfort in that.

Thank you, convener. Good morning to committee members, the cabinet secretary and officials.

Amendment 240 seeks to remove restrictions that limit the types of crimes for which victims are allowed to make victim impact statements to a court. At the moment, only victims of certain offences may make a statement to a court during solemn proceedings. Essentially, my amendment seeks to extend the franchise by allowing more victims the opportunity to provide a victim impact statement to court if they so choose. Those last few words are important; I do not think that any of us believes that a victim should be forced to make such a statement.

On a technical level, for the benefit of those who are new to it, amendment 240 would repeal sections 14(1) and 14(16) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 and remove the word “prescribed” from the term “prescribed offence” in section 14(2). That is the means to the end.

The reason for my amendment is that the prescribed list of offences that allows victims to make statements was originally drawn up in 2009 and excludes many new and quite serious offences that have been created since by legislators and Governments, such as new offences around stalking, domestic abuse and aggravation. I am sure that the committee is familiar with the many wide-ranging changes that have been made over the past decade or so. Of course, any new offences that have been or that still could be created in law are not covered in the list of prescribed offences. That feels to me like a bit of a loophole, and it also means that the provision is by no means future proof.

There is also a more important argument to allow victims to make statements to a much wider range of crimes—that the seriousness of a crime does not necessarily correlate to how the victim has been impacted by it. I will explain what I mean. Three years ago, when I first consulted on the measure in my proposed victims bill—the victims, criminal justice and fatal accident inquiries (Scotland) bill—Victim Support Scotland summed up perfectly why an amendment of this nature is needed. It said:

“The supposed ‘seriousness’ of an offence often has little to no bearing on how the individual has been impacted. Therefore, anyone who has been impacted by a crime should be able to make a victim impact statement, should they wish to, regardless of the nature of the offence, or the court in which it is to be heard.”

That was the view of VSS at the time, and I agree with it.

I realise that the Government might respond by arguing that it is too big a jump to go from the current situation to an all-encompassing scenario in which any victim in any court is able to make a statement. Therefore, I am, of course, willing to work with the Government and its officials. However, in essence, I want to expand the eligibility criteria and give more victims the right to make an impact statement in court proceedings. I cannot see why we would not want to do that.

I move amendment 240.

Please bear with me, convener—there are 11 amendments in group 13 and they are all pretty chunky in their own right. Group 14 will, similarly, address issues around the wider parole process.

Essentially, all the amendments in the group—I will break them down in logical order—seek to improve victims’ experiences of the parole process in a number of ways. Let me explain what I hope to achieve from the amendments. All the amendments in the group have been drafted in consultation with many victims, victim support organisations and victims campaign groups, some of which helped to form the wording of the amendments.