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.

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 of 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 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.

Will the member take an intervention?

On the latter point, the victims commissioner seems like a good place for the charter to live, because, if we are to create a commissioner’s office, it is important that it is more than just an expensive quango—it needs to have teeth. If the commissioner’s remit is very much to have a social contract with the public, in that they know that there is an advocate out there who is looking after their rights and whose sole focus and raison d’être is to improve outcomes for victims, the relationship should be between the commissioner and the public—in this scenario, victims.

I have drafted another version of the amendment—amendment 236—which would place the onus on ministers instead of the victims commissioner. It could be argued that the charter should be the responsibility of ministers. However, when I have lodged such amendments in the past, there has been quite a lot of pushback from ministers. Both options are available for the committee and, ultimately, it can vote on either option. I am interested in hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Amendment 236 is a back-up, if amendments are agreed to that would remove the commissioner from the bill. I would still like to see the charter in place, so placing the duty on ministers is a fallback position. Personally, I am not that fussed. Victims want improved outcomes and all justice agencies to work together with a shared common goal. The charter is one method of achieving that. I will stop there and listen to what other members have to say.

I move amendment 234.

Happily so.

Thank you.

Will the minister give way?

I do not disagree with that. The minister will perhaps share her feelings on the matter, but my personal view is that the victim should be informed of any sort of release, including when someone will be released on licence when they have come to the end of their sentence or when someone will be released for other purposes. For example, as part of the reintegration process, some people go back into the community to work and to participate meaningfully in their community.

I do not have a problem with that, but we do not want a victim to bump into that person on the platform of a train station or in a supermarket, which happens too often. There have been high-profile cases in which family members of someone who has been murdered have bumped into the offender because they have not been told in advance. At one end of the spectrum, no one is told, and, at the other end, everyone is told. I understand that, in the real world, it is not always possible for everyone to be told.

If my amendment 244 in its current form does not work, I would like to sit down with the Government and come up with wording that will make the system better, so that as many people as possible are informed, with as much time as is practically reasonable, in advance of release. I will not reiterate that point too much, because I think that I have made it.