Chamber and committees

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.

Oh, right—that is the next group of amendments.

Thank you, cabinet secretary—that is probably the best birthday present that I have ever had. You have just provided an acknowledgement of a process and a practice that is not delivering for everyone in the justice system, an understanding of the issues and the implications of the changes and a promise to seek to do something about that. I could not have asked for more.

On that note, I am happy to work with the Government ahead of stage 3 on a suitable amendment that expands the franchise for solemn cases, perhaps with a view at some point to looking at the knock-on effects of expanding that to summary cases. I understand the implications for resources and the volume of cases. Nobody wants trials to be delayed and no one wants to unnecessarily re-traumatise victims, but that step change is the right direction of travel.

I believe that there is a constructive consensus around the table and among political parties in the Parliament to make that work. I look forward to working with the cabinet secretary and her officials to lodge such an amendment at stage 3. For that reason, I seek to withdraw amendment 240.

Amendment 240, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 241 to 245 not moved.

Bear with me; it has been a long week. I will not move it.

Amendments 237 and 238 not moved.

Amendment 239 moved—[Jamie Greene].