In 2025, SPARC participated in the Scottish Government’s consultation, Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland. We also attended a national round table, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Angela Constance, and met senior figures from the Scottish Prison Service, the Parole Board for Scotland, social work, and academic colleagues. We were invited because our collective brings lived experience of imprisonment and parole, along with direct advocacy that exposes how the system actually functions. It is positive that government and justice agencies are beginning to ask questions of those most affected. As we said in the room, however, listening only matters if it leads to structural change rather than polite acknowledgement.

Why Parole Matters

Parole is intended to act as a bridge home — a mechanism that supports people in safely and sustainably reintegrating. Our advocacy and research show that, in practice, parole in Scotland often operates as a continuation of punishment rather than a step towards recovery and stability.

The system has been dominated by abstract discussions of “risk”. That language often replaces evidence – while purporting to be evidence based. People are kept in custody beyond their minimum term because a required programme is unavailable, or because reports rely on vague concerns about “insight” or “attitude”.

This approach does not reflect the purpose of parole, nor does it reflect what public safety looks like.

Research from the WHO Health in Prisons Programme and multiple European studies confirms that people leaving custody face sharply increased risks of drug-related death, suicide, and unmet mental health needs. Stable housing, income, continuity of healthcare, and social connection dramatically reduce these risks (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2021; Council of Europe, 2003). Our consultation response made this point clearly: parole must be understood as part of a public health response, not an extension of security or punishment.

What SPARC Said in Our Submission

We argued for a simple, rights-based, reintegration-focused statutory definition of parole. It should make clear what parole is, and what it is not.

Our proposed definition states:

“Parole exists to enable safe and successful reintegration from custody to community by supporting recovery, rehabilitation, and the reduction of social and health harms, while ensuring that any restriction of liberty is necessary, proportionate, defensible, and rights-compliant.”

That definition centres on proportionality and public health. It places responsibility not on imagined future threats but on creating the conditions for a safe and supported return to the community.

We called for several key reforms:

• Publishing full parole decisions (appropriately anonymised) so people understand the reasoning behind outcomes.
• Using clear language in all communication to make the process accessible.
• Creating an independent review or appeal mechanism so people can challenge decisions without resorting to judicial review.
• Ensuring Parole Board panels include expertise in health, psychology, social work, and lived experience — not just law.
• Approaching licence and recall through a humane, public-health lens, recognising relapse, distress, and missed appointments as indicators of need, not danger.

These changes would make parole more transparent, fair, and aligned with reintegration rather than control.

The Problem with “Risk”

We challenged the way “risk” is currently constructed. Existing practice treats risk as something located within a person — a trait that can be measured through checklists and actuarial tools. That framing ignores the structural realities that shape behaviour: poverty, trauma, stigma, health inequalities, and housing instability.

Risk is relational. It arises from social and environmental conditions. When those conditions aren’t addressed, no amount of paperwork can make the community safer.

Our submission argued that parole decisions should consider whether society, not just the individual, has been properly supported. The question should be whether enough has been put in place to enable a safe return to the community, not whether someone has learned to use the right language in a hearing.

Licence, Recall, and the Cycle of Control

A significant proportion of our advocacy concerns people who have been recalled after long periods of successful community living. Many recalls result from what the system classifies as “technical breaches”: missed appointments, moments of distress, or relapses related to addiction and mental health.

These situations are health issues, not public-safety threats.

One of our service users — with the express consent of the next of kin — took their own life following a relapse and the overwhelming fear of being recalled and left in custody indefinitely. That fear is widespread. It silences people who need support and undermines rehabilitation. We told the consultation that recall should occur only when there is a clear, evidenced, imminent risk of serious harm — not on the basis of speculation or defensive practice. We also argued for a health-first response: partnerships with addiction, mental health, and crisis services must come before any consideration of recall.

Being in the Right Rooms

Our participation in the round table with Angela Constance marked a shift for SPARC. We were present as an informed collective grounded in lived experience, research, and daily advocacy, not as a token gesture.

We sat alongside senior SPS management, Parole Board leaders, social work, and academic colleagues. We ensured that the realities of parole were clearly articulated: people’s lives are affected by systemic delays, information gaps, inconsistent conditions, and a culture of caution that prioritises institutional protection over reintegration.

We emphasised that reform must move the system away from fear-based governance towards evidence, proportionality, and care. Whether that message will shape policy remains to be seen. What matters is that the Scottish Government and justice agencies commit to meaningful reform — transparent processes, trauma-informed practice, and decisions rooted in rights and reintegration rather than defensiveness.

What Comes Next

SPARC will continue advocating for people on parole who experience inconsistent supervision, unclear conditions, or unnecessary recall. We will continue documenting what happens in practice and supporting individuals navigating a system that remains confusing, slow, and sometimes harmful.

We will also continue engaging with researchers, families, and practitioners who share a commitment to a justice system built on support rather than surveillance.

Our goal is straightforward: a parole system that recognises people’s capacity for change, measures progress through stability and connection and treats public safety and public health as the same objective.

Until that system exists, we will continue speaking up in consultations, meetings, round tables, and wherever decisions about liberty are made. Parole should be a bridge home — not another barrier on the way there.

This blog summarises SPARC’s submission to the Scottish Government’s 2025 consultation on parole reform and reflects our participation in national discussions on the future of parole in Scotland.