Seòmar agus comataidhean

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].

Yes.

Thank you very much. That was exactly the summary that I was hoping for, and it all makes complete sense. I am very grateful for the opportunity to revisit some of those amendments ahead of stage 3—I will, of course, do so—and I hope that we can make some of those changes to the bill.

On the point that the Labour members have made, there should be an opportunity to scrutinise any amendments that are lodged either by me or by the Government ahead of stage 3, so that everyone has a chance to feed in to them and consider the effect that they might have. When they come back to the Parliament as a whole, that information will be available to all MSPs.

I am sure that the Government and I can work on those amendments together, to ensure that members are informed and that due consultation, if needed, takes place ahead of stage 3. I appreciate that it is a tight window of opportunity, but we need to know what effect those changes would have on justice partners. That willingness to work with me will be warmly received by many of the people who, I know, are watching the session this morning, and I am very grateful for it.

Amendment 246, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 247 and 248 not moved.

I have not.

That is all the amendments that I have in this group. I move amendment 249.

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.