Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland: Consultation Analysis

Executive summary

1. Between 20 August and 30 November 2025, the Scottish Government carried out a public consultation on reforming the parole system in Scotland. An independent analysis of the responses was undertaken and the main findings are summarised below.

The consultation and the approach to analysis

2. The consultation contained 42 questions focused on two main areas. Questions 1 to 14 focused on transparency and communication – i.e. how communication and access to information could be improved to enhance understanding, trust and wellbeing for victims, people in custody and others involved in the parole system. Questions 15 to 42 focused on the parole process, licence conditions and recall – i.e. how the parole system could better support rehabilitation, public safety, and fairness.

3. The consultation invited views from all those with an interest in the subject of parole. The consultation questionnaire was published on the Scottish Government website, and a simplified paper-and-pen version was made available for individuals in prison custody.

4. The analysis was based on 242 responses – 23 from organisations, and 219 from individuals. Organisational respondents included statutory justice bodies, public sector organisations providing local justice services, third sector victim support services, and prisoner support organisations. Responses were submitted by 125 individuals with experience of custody and 73 individuals with no experience of custody. In addition, there were 21 responses from a single campaign.

5. It should be noted that a range of data quality issues linked to the prison questionnaire (including apparent misunderstandings of the consultation questions and difficulties in interpreting the meaning of some comments) presented challenges for the analysis (see Chapter 2 in the main report for details). Because of this, the responses from those in custody are presented separately in each chapter of the main report. However, this summary provides an overview of all the responses to the consultation.

Overview of the findings

6. In general, respondents thought it was important that the parole system command the trust of the public, as well as the confidence of those directly involved in it in different capacities. They thought it should be fair, open, and transparent – something that many respondents did not think was currently the case. The parole system was described as ‘complex’ and not fully understood – by those who experience it themselves and their families; by victims and their families; and by the wider public and the media.

Transparency and communication

7. There was widespread agreement about the need for (i) a clear definition of the purpose of parole, and (ii) more detailed information about how the Parole Board makes its decisions. Although there was a lack of consensus about the amount of detail that should be made public in relation to individual Parole Board decisions, there was agreement about the importance of protecting the identities of the individuals involved in the parole process (including victims, families, individuals in custody and Parole Board members) in any published information. In addition, there was broad agreement that any efforts to promote greater transparency should not involve giving the media and members of the public access to parole hearings.

8. Respondents generally thought that victims should be able to choose the way in which information about parole is conveyed to them (e.g. through letter, phone call, etc.). However, views were more mixed about the extent to which victims should have the right to be involved in the parole process. Respondents expressed some support for giving all victims the right to request to observe oral parole hearings but were less supportive of giving all victims an automatic right to attend hearings or give oral representations prior to hearings.

9. There was support from some respondents for the use of digital tools to increase awareness and understanding of parole, while other respondents favoured paper-based information or helplines to ensure access was available for everyone.

The parole process

10. There was a lack of consensus among respondents about whether there should be a single over-arching statutory test for release that would apply to all parole cases. However, there was general support for any test(s) to consider both risk and a person’s readiness to reintegrate into the community. There was no clear view on the need for change to the factors that should be considered in making decisions on parole.

11. There was some support for the principle of introducing post-release progress hearings, but also some concern about the potential for such hearings to duplicate existing supervision arrangements in the community.

12. There was also support for exploring the development of a formal review / appeal process for parole decisions. Most commonly, respondents thought any appeal process should be available to the person in prison only (not to the victim). However, there were concerns that many parole decisions would be appealed and that this would lead to increased costs and delays in the parole system.

13. In cases where parole is refused, there was a lack of agreement about how long the individual concerned should have to wait to have their case reviewed. Most commonly, respondents thought the timescales should be flexible and determined on an individual (case-by-case) basis.

Licence conditions

14. Respondents generally thought there was a need to review and improve the current approach to licence conditions. In addition, they thought the language used in licence conditions should be made clearer and more accessible.

15. There was a lack of consensus about whether licence conditions are currently well designed to support rehabilitation and reintegration. Respondents often made the point that services and support in the community were just as important as (or more important than) licence conditions in promoting successful rehabilitation and reintegration.

Recall and re-release processes

16. There was a general view that the recall process should be reviewed, and that more options should be available to the Parole Board when considering recall requests. This included support for the introduction of progress hearings as an additional option in recall cases.

17. There was no clear view about whether the re-release process works well. However, in relation to the timeframe for re-release hearings, there was a general view that these should be held within two to four weeks of recall.

Specific perspectives on the topics discussed in the consultation

18. More broadly, across the consultation questions, distinctive perspectives were often voiced in the responses from (i) those with experience of custody (and their families and support organisations) and (ii) victims (and their families and support organisations):

• Individuals with experience of custody and their family / friends thought that getting parole – which was seen to be vital for rehabilitation and the reintegration of offenders into society – was difficult. They said (i) the conditions for getting parole were not clearly explained or understood, (ii) it was difficult to access the programmes and courses that might help people get parole, (iii) the parole system was too ‘risk averse’, and (iv) a more flexible and individualised approach was needed at all stages of the process.
• Victims, their family / friends and victim support organisations wanted the parole system to have a greater focus on the rights of victims, and to prioritise risk management and public safety over rehabilitation and reintegration. They said victims should (i) be kept informed about the parole process at every stage (if they wish to be), (ii) have the right to meaningfully participate in the process at key stages and (if necessary) be helped to do so, and (iii) have their views fully considered in parole decision-making, especially in cases involving gender-based violence and domestic abuse.

Key points in relation to consultation topics

19. Key points made in relation to each of the consultation topics are summarised below. Chapter references relate to the chapters in the main report.

A definition of the purpose of parole (Q1–2, Chapter 4)

20. There was widespread support for the introduction of a definition that states the purpose of parole. Respondents thought this would improve clarity and understanding, and enhance consistency, transparency and accountability across the system.

21. Public (and victim) protection and the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders were seen as two key components of a definition of parole. Some respondents highlighted the need to strike a balance between these purposes. Some also thought that a definition of parole should include a description of what parole is, the principles that guide the system, and information about how the system operates.

Publishing Parole Board decisions (Q3-5, Chapter 5)

22. Among organisations and individuals with no experience of custody, there was a lack of consensus about whether summaries or full minutes should be published in relation to Parole Board decisions, although the most common view was that summaries are sufficient. Individuals with experience of custody thought it was crucial that the person being considered for parole had access to the full decision minutes.

23. There was general agreement that if decisions / summaries are published, they should be anonymised in some way – either fully (the most common view) or with all names and addresses removed. Respondents emphasised the importance of protecting the privacy, safety and security of all individuals involved.

24. There was strong support among respondents of all types for making more information available about how the Parole Board makes its decisions.

Information provision for victims (Q6–7, Chapter 6)

25. Respondents generally thought that victims should be able to choose how information relating to the parole process is communicated to them, and that information – in whichever format was chosen – should (i) be comprehensive, factual and clear, (ii) limit any emotional distress, and (iii) provide victims the opportunity to ask any questions.

26. A few individuals – usually those with experience of custody and the family / friends of a person in custody – thought victims should play no part in the parole process and should receive only very basic information or no information at all.

Hearing attendance and pre-hearing representations (Q8–11, Chapter 7)

27. Victim support organisations, victims and family / friends of victims were largely in favour of expanding the rights of victims in the parole hearing process, arguing that this would lead to greater inclusion, empowerment, equality and fairness for victims.

28. The views of other respondents in relation to Questions 8 to 11 were more complex. Organisations and individuals with no experience of custody expressed support for extending – to all victims – (i) the right to request to observe oral parole hearings and (ii) the right to make oral representations to the Parole Board ahead of a parole hearing. However, these respondents had reservations about (and were less supportive of) giving victims an automatic right to observe a hearing.

29. Individuals with experience of custody and family / friends of a person in custody were generally not in favour of extending the rights of victims in the parole process. These respondents expressed concerns that doing so could unfairly influence Parole Board decisions and compromise the privacy, safety and security of those involved in the hearing and their families.

Improving understanding of the parole process (Q12–14, Chapter 8)

30. For the most part, respondents of all types thought it was important that victims should have a clear understanding of the parole process, and be kept informed throughout – particularly in relation to Parole Board decisions about releasing an individual from prison and any licence conditions.

31. Organisations and individuals with no experience of custody thought the use of digital tools (such as videos and podcasts) could help to improve awareness and understanding of the parole process. Individuals with experience of custody were less certain about this because of a lack of knowledge / experience of such tools. These respondents were more likely to recommend use of leaflets, booklets, or helplines for victims.

32. Respondents suggested a range of ways to improve understanding of the parole process. One common suggestion was that the Parole Board should take a more active role in this, and that a more proactive communication strategy would help dispel misinformation around the parole system.

Test for release on parole (Q15–17, Chapter 9)

33. There was a lack of consensus about whether the current tests for release (which depend on sentence type and are focused on risk assessment) should be replaced by a single overarching statutory test for release. The most common view was that there should continue to be different tests depending on sentence type. All respondent types favoured a test (or tests) which included both risk and readiness to reintegrate but also thought risk should still be the priority concern. Individuals with experience of custody were more likely than other respondents to say that any test(s) for release should focus on readiness to reintegrate.

34. Respondents commonly called for a broader approach to understanding and assessing risk and deciding whether to grant parole. However, this meant different things to different respondents.

Progress review hearings (Q18–21, Chapter 10)

35. There was support, mainly from individuals (including those with experience of custody), for giving the Parole Board the power to hold post-release progress hearings. However, organisations were concerned that the introduction of such hearings would duplicate and undermine the role of justice social work.

36. Respondents were most in favour of the Parole Board being able to use post-release progress hearings to vary licence conditions (either making conditions stricter or relaxing them). There was less support for using the hearings as an opportunity to recall the person to custody.

37. There was a range of views about how long after release a progress hearing should be held and how frequent they should be. However, it was common for respondents to say that such hearings should only be held if needed, on a case-by-case basis, and / or that they should be held less often if a person is doing well.

Parole Board composition (Q22–23, Chapter 11)

38. There was a lack of consensus on whether the law should be changed to require certain professions or expertise to be represented on a Parole Board oral hearing panel.

39. Should such a requirement be introduced, respondents commonly suggested professions / expertise on the panel should include health professionals, psychologists, social workers, and legal professionals. Some respondents also suggested that panels should include victims or victims’ families (or groups representing their perspective) and those with experience of the parole system.

Factors considered in making parole decisions (Q24, Chapter 12)

40. There was no clear view on whether there should be any changes to the factors that should be considered in making decisions on parole. Respondents who endorsed the current factors (set out in legislation) considered that these were sensible and fair. However, some thought the Parole Rules should stipulate that the factors must be considered, rather than that they may be considered. Others said that further clarification was required on what was covered by the factors, the weight that should be attached to different factors, and how they should be evidenced.

41. Individuals with experience of custody mentioned three main things the Parole Board should think about when making decisions about release: engagement with rehabilitation and other opportunities while in custody; behaviour and conduct; and the circumstances which the person was likely to return to in the community.

Review and appeal (Q25, Chapter 13)

42. Most individuals – both those with and without experience of custody – thought that if a formal appeal process is introduced for parole decisions, it should be available for the person in prison only. There was a lack of consensus among organisations about who should be able to request a formal appeal of a parole decision.

43. Concerns were raised about the costs of introducing an appeal process – which respondents speculated would be taken up on a widespread basis.

Licence conditions (Q26–29, Chapter 14)

44. Respondents thought there was a need to review and improve the current approach to licence conditions. These were described as ‘inflexible’, ‘unrealistic’ and ‘overly restrictive’.

45. There was a general consensus that licence conditions should be explained clearly to offenders due to be released and any others affected (including victims and families), tailored to each individual case, written in plain English, and reviewed regularly.

46. There was widespread agreement that there should be more – and more ‘joined up’ – services available in the community to assist and support rehabilitation and reintegration. Employment and skills development, housing, substance misuse, and mental health services in particular were highlighted as vitally important in this regard.

47. There was a recurring view among respondents of all types that too many individuals were recalled to prison for minor, or inadvertent breaches of their licence conditions.

Recall to custody (Q30–34, Chapter 15)

48. There was broad agreement among all respondent types that the Parole Board’s current options when considering a recall request were limited and lacked flexibility. Respondents argued that many decisions to recall a person to prison are based on low tolerance of risk by public authorities and attitudes to those who offend.

49. Respondents thought additional options for the Parole Board in responding to a reported breach in licence conditions should include (i) providing increased support, (ii) giving people on parole a chance to explain and put things right, and (iii) introducing additional restrictions on liberty in the community – instead of recalling people to prison.

50. Victims, family / friends of victims and victim support organisations thought that any decisions regarding recall should, first and foremost, prioritise victim / public safety, and that recall should be the default response to any breach of licence conditions – especially in cases where an individual on parole has contacted, approached or threatened a previous victim or other women and children.

51. There was support for the idea of holding a progress meeting as an additional option when the Board is deciding on recall. However, some organisations saw problems with this proposal, noting that such decisions often need to be made very quickly. It was suggested that further discussion with a range of agencies would be needed to develop this proposal.

Re-release considerations (Q35–37, Chapter 16)

52. There was no consensus among respondents about whether the current re-release process is effective at supporting the initial decision to recall, partly because it was common for respondents to say they were unsure about how the process works.

53. Most respondents thought there should be a set timescale for holding re-release hearings – either within two or four weeks of recall. In the main, respondents said that a timescale of two to four weeks would allow individuals to return to the community with minimum disruption; however, others thought this timescale would not give the Parole Board enough time to fully consider the issues relating to the recall.

Deferrals (Q38–39, Chapter 17)

54. Respondents of all types had experience or were aware of parole hearing being heard. It was common for individuals (both those with and without experience of custody), in particular, to say they did not always know the reason for the deferral.

55. Respondents called for improved communication about deferrals, saying that those involved should always be contacted and told the reasons for the deferral, and that as much notice as possible should be given of the decision to defer. Respondents thought that tighter case management could help reduce the number of deferrals.

Timescales for parole reviews (Q40–42, Chapter 18)

56. There was no clear consensus on the appropriate timescales for reconsidering parole if an individual’s parole is denied by the Parole Board. The most common view among organisations and individuals without experience of custody was that timescales should be flexible and based on the individual case. The most common view among individuals with experience of custody was that reviews are not frequent enough.

57. Respondents generally thought the timescales for reconsidering parole should be determined by the reasons for previous refusal of parole, the conduct of the individual in custody, and their engagement with the rehabilitation process.