 The next item of business could remind guests leaving the gallery that this Parliament is still in session and ask that you leave the gallery as quietly as possible, please. The next item of business is the member's business debate on motion number 15486, in the name of Graham Pearson, on support for families affected by murder and culpable homicide. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put I would be grateful if members who would like to contribute to the debate could please press the request to speak buttons now. I call in Graham Pearson to open the debate seven minutes or so, Mr Pearson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the Parliament for giving me the opportunity to propose a motion in support for families affected by murder and culpable homicide. I start by thanking my colleagues from all parties here in the Parliament who signed in support of the motion. It gives us the worthwhile opportunity to vent some of the issues that affect a surprising number of people who are affected by homicide across Scotland over the period. I checked the statistics this morning before coming to the chamber. In the last 10 years, 887 separate victims were affected by murder and homicide across Scotland from 2005 to the current date. We have many families in Scotland who unfortunately have to face the trauma and upset of receiving police officers at their homes to tell them that they have lost a family member. Hither, too, many public agencies were involved in supporting those families. Obviously, the police family liaison victims support Scotland, many of the public agencies social work and local authorities, victim information and advice centre et al. A great deal of work has been done on all our behalf by charity groups, particularly Pettle, who have existed based at Hamilton for well over two decades now, and more recently the Moira fund, who have done a great deal of work recently in supporting those families who face such difficulties. Much has been said over the past years that there are too many agencies who pass clients between them necessarily as the system works currently. First, they are being involved with the police, then passed on to the procurator fiscal system, then victim information and advice being involved in it and victim support Scotland on many occasions alongside police family liaison means that the trauma, the emotional demands and the demands from officials for necessary responses in terms of registering a death, dealing with insurance companies and so forth are all being met by families who are ill served at that time to deal with such demands. In England and Wales, a victim support homicide service was created. I have to admit that, even having had more than three decades of experience in this kind of work, it had passed me by that for some families who are affected by homicide and to our entire economic circumstances, how did they deal with funeral expenses in the heart of the trauma that they face? The truth is that very often they deal with it very badly. In some communities, they are looking enough that communities will gather together funds and pass it on to families in order that they can bury their loved ones with some dignity. In other circumstances, extended family members collect together and support. However, in England and Wales, families who are in dire economic circumstances can approach the Moira fund and other voluntary agencies who, although they are not in receipt of huge public support in terms of finance from Governments, find the means to gather money together to assist families as and when they require it. It dawned on me that it should not be left to charities to try and find the money when members of our communities face such dire circumstances. It is not beyond the width of us all to come together to find the means to help with arranging funerals and financing funerals in the short term. Covering travel expenses in the short term, too, when they are required to attend various necessary outcomes and they have to find the money to get there. Providing the financial support that allows burial to be done with some dignity. In many circumstances, families may well find that insurance companies come forward in the long term. In some circumstances, after some months, they might even be able to save the money themselves in order to pay many of the expenses that we are talking about. However, what I offer to Parliament is to consider that, when you face the trauma of knowing that you have lost a loved one, worry about the economic impacts should be the furthest from your mind and we should find a way of taking the necessary burden that those families face. I have spoken to those within victim support in the last year over the notion of extending their services to cover. Although, by no means do I say, it has been appropriately audited, they estimated that, in a year, in order to offer the whole range of services that might be required, in the last year it would have been 59 families that might have been considered for support, but many of the families, thankfully, would be financially secure and would not need the support. We are talking fewer than 59 families to begin with. The whole range of support would not demand more than £1 million a year in terms of provision. That would offer not only the things that I have spoken about but the counselling that some of those families require during the process and after the court process is completed, offering support during appeals processes, because, very often, the families are overlooked and forgotten. In the longer term, when it comes to parole, after many years, families receive a letter through the post to tell them that people convicted of homicide or murder are going through parole processes. To cover the whole range of services that victim support had estimated around £1 million. It would be right for us, as a Parliament, to seek to provide that support and to invite the minister to consider the implications and look to initiating a broader service. In conclusion, I would also invite the Government at this time to think about unifying the victim support services rather than having a separate victim support in Scotland and a victim information and advice service that unifying both services together without any additional allocation of budgets would allow a seamless service provision from the point of view of victims and their families. I again thank the Parliament for giving the opportunity for members to express a view. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes, please, and I call Christian Allard to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to thank the member to bring this to the debate. I did read his motion and I didn't sign it, because it was, if I can say, in his contribution. It only talked about the motion at the end, really, of what he said. So the rest of his contribution are absolutely griffin. He opened our eyes with all his experience, and I know he's got vast experience, professional experience, on the matter. He opened our eyes of what families have to endure and particularly the economical burden. I think it's quite an important one. So I do very much agree with most of what he said. I'm not so sure about, as I said, the motion. I thought, as a member of the Justice Committee, we've done a lot over the years. I think that, for example, in the Victim and Witness Act 2014 and more recently in the Victim's Rights Regulation 2015, we improved very much the support provided by the various organisations within our justice system. I do agree that, for too long, victims have been treated and met, feel maybe like bystanders in the criminal justice system. But the recent changes, you know, we all voted in this Parliament, have seen more and more consideration given to the rights and the needs of victims. They're not only victims of witnesses as well, and it's important to realise that witnesses need the support. I think the new legislation will put forward, this government has put forward, and voted in by this Parliament, really improves the experience of all those people into the system. Because, at the heart of what we do at the Justice Committee, everything that we do, you know, the right of the victims and their families is always there. You know, in every legislation, we debated it, it's always there. The Minister is here, and I'm sure he will talk about it, but the recent launch of the Victim's Code for Scotland has been great news, and it's been applauded by Victim Support Scotland. I think it's very moving the right direction. I know that Victim Support Scotland is delighted about the support for services to young victims and witnesses of crimes. The Victim Code for Scotland set out the right of victim of crimes, and who to contact to help and advise. This right has been put in place, like I said, for the Victim and Witness Act 2014 and the Victim's Right 2015. So you can find a lot of this information online, of course, and we can get all this advice there. Susan Gallagher, who was the Victim Support Scotland acting chief executive at the time, said, the new code is an important step, and let me quote what we said, presenting officer, which said, Victim Support Scotland worry well comes the introduction of the Victim's Code. Victims and witnesses now have access to information which highlights what the legal rights are in the aftermath of crime, and it's a huge step forward in the journey to ensuring victims have a role in the criminal justice system in Scotland. So we are in a journey, presenting officer, and we want to continue on that journey. There is a lot, I agree, with Victim Support Scotland, particularly when we added, at a very important point, but it's still a long way to go before victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system, but the code provides us that step closer, and it's a question of step, and I'm thinking of that first step. I could talk as well, presenting officer, about the many family needs officers of Police Scotland who are doing a fine-acting job today, and now we have to realise that. We've got multiple roles, and these multiple roles are very important. We've got these expertise and these skills to manage those roles, and we'll have to find them for that role. But that is the role, of course, of the third sector organisation as well. We provide fantastic support. We discussed, for example, in the committee justice bill, that the system is maybe a bit crowded of all those organisations, when you're talking about surrounding what the member is saying in his motion, and it's a past work of organisation. But when I hear that, I always respond that this fantastic mosaic of third sector organisations is reflecting the diversity of our communities and, you know, rural or urban communities, and it's in this case that it enriches the quality of the support given to families across Scotland. So, as we are in the victims of the witness bill, as the time can come, I must decide not to opt out, for example, for a victim commissioner. And it's what he said, what was said on the matter, is giving the excellent work by victims support Scotland. It will be an unnecessary extra level of expensive bureaucracy using resources that could be better spent. So, I'm quite happy the way we've seen just now in conclusion, Presiding Officer. Let me something a bit controversial. The lack of apathy, the lack of feeling and emotion and interest is recognised by many as the most common reason for why someone would commit such an act of ending the life for another human being. And it is right, rightly apathy that makes us stand today to speak up for the people who have experienced the death of a family member from murder and culpable homicide. We do empathise with the victims, with the family members of the victims, because it could happen to us all. My last thought is for the other family, the family that will suffer because one member of this family has committed such a crime. Society, we need to reflect on this. We don't choose what members of our family will do and we will likely to suffer the consequences of whatever happens. Thank you. I now call Patricia Ferguson. We've followed by Ann Belfordi. Can I add my thanks to Graham Pearson for securing today's debate on a very difficult but important subject. I, too, praise the work of the Moira Fund and the Petal Fund. The support that it gives to people affected by murder and culpable homicide is vitally important and should be supported. Today, I wanted to highlight just two of the several cases that I've been involved in to explain why the support from those two organisations is so important and why, in Scotland, we need a dedicated victim support homicide service that provides comprehensive support, not just in the immediate aftermath of the particular crime, but throughout the time the victims' family are engaged with the justice system. Here is why. In 2008, my constituent, Giselle Ross, waved goodbye to her two sons, six-year-old Paul and two-year-old Jay, as her former husband, Ashok Kalyangie, took the boys to visit their grandmother. Ashok later took the boys to the camps he fells to a spot that he knew their mother loved and there he put them in his car and stabbed them repeatedly. One of the boys witnessed what happened to his brother before being himself the subject of an attack. Kalyangie then telephoned Giselle and Tontota about the boys before setting fire to his car with himself and the two boys inside. He was found alive by police but his sons were dead. Kalyangie was examined by three psychiatrists and found to be sane and fit to plead. He eventually pled guilty. In delivering his verdict, Lord Brailsford apologised in court to the Ross family and for the protracted process and the requirement to obtain so many reports before a verdict could be arrived at. It had taken some eight months to get to the point of conviction. Of course, that was not the end of the matter as though there ever could be an end for Giselle Ross. Kalyangie then had his lawyers ask for a review of his conviction upon the grounds of his mental state at the time of the incident. That application was refused in early 2012, but later that year a further application for review was submitted and this time was granted. After a number of harrowing court hearings, Kalyangie's bid to have his conviction quash was rejected in May 2014. The case did not end with the conviction of Ashok Kalyangie. It continued for another five years while he used the justice system to argue his case, as he was entitled to do. However, one could be forgiven for thinking that he simply wanted to continue his vindictive campaign against his former wife Giselle. However, the question that arises is that what support was available to Giselle during all that time? The answer is very little and she is not alone. I also want to consider another but very different case where it seems to me that the system could have done more to support a family. My constituent Charles Howe took his wife and young son out for a drive one evening. Out of the blue, another driver swerved across the road and crashed head-on into Mr Howe's car. Mr Howe suffered facial injuries and a shattered knee while his nine-year-old son had a broken arm and facial cuts. Mrs Howe, who was nine months pregnant, died of her injuries as did her unborn son. The driver of the other vehicle suffered some injuries but ran away from the scene and debated arrest for some six months. Because of the illness of a witness, Goldie Plead, who was the driver of the other car, plead guilty to failing to report an accident, driving without insurance while disqualified and was admonished on a charge of dangerous driving. I do not intend to rail against those sentences or those charges here today, although there is much to rail about. However, I want to highlight an aspect of the case that has added to Mr Howe's concerns in the 20 years since the death of his wife and son. That is this, that his son, who was to be named Dylan, was recorded as having been stillborn in spite of the fact that he died at nine months gestation, possibly and probably hours away from his natural birth because of the incident that his family was involved in. This is something that I think is fair to say has tortured Mr Howe in the 20 years since that his son did not have the recognition and law that he feels he should have had, that his birth and most importantly, his death are summed up in the term stillborn. I wonder if that might be a matter that the minister could consider. In conclusion, we owe people like Giselle Ross and Charles Howe more support than they currently get. If there are systems in other places that work better than ours, we should surely be brave enough to acknowledge it and follow the example. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, am very pleased to participate in today's member's debate. I also want to thank Graham Pearson for securing parliamentary time for such an important and such a very worthwhile topic. Crime affects many thousands of families across Scotland each year from antisocial behaviour and housebreaking to the unimaginable horrors of child abuse, but with the loss of a loved one by another's hand, crime exacts a very tragic toll. In 2014-15, 59 homicides were recorded and that means 59 families suffered the trauma of bereavement with the added complexity and emotional difficulty of dealing with the criminal justice system often for the first time. The work of organisations such as Victim Support Scotland is both immeasurable and invaluable in this regard. They offer emotional support in partially helping families to understand and cope with a whole range of emotions at a fraughtened, particularly overwhelming time. That is compounded by a common but devastating trend in homicides that most victims are killed by someone they know. The most recent figures show that last year, 49 per cent of male victims were killed by an acquaintance while 43 per cent of female victims were killed by their partner. For bereave families, such a betrayal is almost impossible to understand that it is vital that they are supported in their grief. I think that we all agree that Patricia Ferguson spoke very, very movingly of a situation in which families find themselves in that awful position. Charities such as a moral fund and Victim Support are to be commended for the help that they provide. People experiencing trauma and loss, petal to which Graham Pearson referred, also carry out excellent work in harnessing the services of volunteers, sectional councillors, holistic therapists and psychotherapeutic therapists to provide free support, advice and counselling to those who need it the most. Without doubt, families affected by homicide also need practical support, guidance and navigation through the system. From the moment that a homicide has been reported to the point of conviction and beyond that, Patricia Ferguson strikingly illustrated, she will come into contact with any number of official agencies, Police Scotland, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Scottish Courts, Scottish Prison Service, the Parole Board for Scotland and the Criminal Injures Compensation Authority. She will also have to identify the body of the deceased liaison with the Procurator Fiscal about the timing of the funeral arrangements, which may be delayed significantly if a suspect is not arrested expeditiously and potentially co-ordinate with police about the victim's personal possessions because they may be used as forensic evidence. Families may also be exposed to the media, the media may follow the circumstances of the death, they may follow any subsequent court case, media attention can mean intrusive and often unwelcome attention as the bereave tried to go about their day-to-day business. This can be very distressing, especially as family members may not be aware that anything that they say could also be prejudicial to any ensuing court case. All of this, Deputy Presiding Officer, can be intimidating and overwhelming. The Scottish Government has prepared a very helpful document for bereave families, and I think that that is to be commended. However, it is a lengthy document and I think that it is quite challenging to digest. I agree with Graham Fierce that there is a distinct risk that families are passed from one organisation to another, leading to gaps and inconsistencies and provision. I think that there is merit in replicating the victim's support's homicide service, which is already operating in England and Wales. It helps families not just to navigate the criminal justice system but to provide much-needed emotional support and practical services. When I looked at the website just a moment ago, apart from anything else, how links, if I counted correctly, to 70 other specialist organisations. I again thank Graham Pearson for bringing the Parliament's attention to this very important issue. I urge the Scottish Government to look carefully at that system in England and Wales. I think that we should seriously consider if we can adopt that scheme, if it is practicable to do so. I would also like to congratulate Graham Pearson on securing this debate and to add my support and praise to the list of organisations that he has referred to, both in his motion and in his introductory remarks. Graham Pearson has referred to 887 separate victims over a period of time. I recognise that culpable homicide and murder are terrible crimes, but I welcome the fact that Scottish Government crime and justice figures 2014-15 show that between 2013-14 and 2014-15 there has been a decrease, albeit only one, down from 60 to the 59 that Annabelle Goldie referred to. That 59, however, is the lowest number of recorded homicide cases for a single 12-month period since 1976. However, that still means 59 grieving families and loved ones, which is 59 too many, and Patricia Ferguson spoke movingly of the impact on some families. Those crimes and the effects that they have on victims are so devastating that the provision of services for families affected by those crimes ought to be a high priority. I would like to say that I appreciate fully the point that Graham Pearson has made in his motion with regard to one-to-one support for families who are coming to terms with a loss of a loved one in tragic circumstances. For anyone who has not suffered such bereavement, the thought of having to go through the process is unimaginable. The services provided by the likes of Petal and the Moira fund are truly invaluable, and we must not lose sight of the hard work that people in those organisations and in organisations such as Victim Support Scotland carry out every single day. I believe that it is fitting that this debate is taking place immediately after Victim's week 2016, at the beginning of which the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs is sitting in front of me, unveiled the Victim's Code for Scotland. When he unveiled the code, he said that, quote, anybody who has been a victim of crime should have confidence that they will receive the right support and advice through the criminal justice process. I sincerely hope that the publication of this code and those words goes some way to ensuring that this is the case. However, I recognise that this code is by no means a silver bullet. It is important that support organisations work together, where it is appropriate, to provide the levels of support that Victim's require and their families. I would certainly hope that this would not result in, as Mr Pearson described it, people being passed around the organisations. I recognise that there ought to be a significant amount of work taking place behind the scenes at third sector organisations to provide the support that those families need at that time, not least of which, of course, is the support provided by Victim Support Scotland, being the largest organisation providing support and information services to victims and witnesses of crime in Scotland through their community-based victim services and court-based witness services, supporting around 200,000 people affected by crime every year. However, I recognise their calls for the development of a national support service to provide an enhanced personal response to families and loved ones, bereaved by murder and culpable homicide. The effectiveness of the approach down south cannot be ignored, and I share the calls of others for the Government to give some consideration to the lessons that can be learned from that approach. Notwithstanding this, collaboration, communication and cohesion between existing organisations is vitally important. The Moira fund, which has been referred to, created after the tragic murder of Moira Jones, is an extremely good example of a charity that provides grants to individuals the third through official organisations such as the police. To those charities, which care for families who have lost a loved one through homicide, I pay my homage. The fact that the Moira fund is backed by patrons such as the right hon. Ailish Angelini, who was the then Lord Advocate of Scotland and led the prosecution at the trial of Moira Schiller, is an indication of its importance. Once again, I thank Grand Pearson for bringing this debate, and I hope that the minister will respond to some of the points that have been made. Many thanks. Before I invite the minister to respond to the points that have been made in the debate, I advise members that this is Graham Pearson's last debate and possibly his last speech in Parliament as he is stepping down. On that note, I invite Paul Wheelhouse to respond to the debate minister. I thank Graham Pearson for raising this important issue in the chamber. I was going to for a guest correctly as it turns out that this would be Mr Pearson's final speech. I say genuinely with sincerity that I very much enjoy debates in the past with Mr Pearson. I think that he's been a very honourable member of this chamber and indeed has done great credit to his party and to the people he served in the south of Scotland in the passage of time. Indeed, I believe that it may well be my last opportunity to engage with Ms Goldie as well. Similarly, I think that Ms Goldie, whatever her political differences, I believe that Ms Goldie has been a tremendous asset to the Parliament and is very well respected across the chamber, so I look forward to hearing all sorts of good things about both members as they leave the chamber. We recognise the needs for victims of crime to have access to the right information and support and the need to improve the experience of those passing through the criminal justice system. I think that we have heard very eloquently from members across the chamber and most especially, I think, Ms Ferguson for emotional cases that she has had to deal with in her constituency, but the need for information support and the need to improve the experience and indeed to have that through care throughout the process of the justice system is not just at the point of the original prosecution, as I think has been made eloquently by a number of members. As Christian Allard stated, we have recently passed legislation in particular victims and witnesses Scotland act 2014 and the recent victims rights regulations 2015 in our attempt to improve the support provided by the various organisations within our justice system. We do recognise that it can be very traumatic for victims to be passed between criminal justice agencies and indeed, of course, their families without receiving any information on how the justice system works. This is why we have introduced standards of service to ensure victims know what to expect from each agency, particularly Police Scotland and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, but also the courts and tribunal service. We have encouraged criminal justice agencies to work closely with victims' support organisations in the creation of these standards and to establish closer working relationships to ensure that the service that we provide is as joined up as possible. I hear very clearly from members, Mr Pearson and others, that we need to have a joined up system and to make sure that organisations work together and collaborate, as Lord Campbell just said. We have introduced new rights to information so that victims can find exactly what is happening with their case. Those new measures provide additional support for victims, putting their interests at the heart of improvements to our justice system. Those legislative changes help us to comply with the EU victims' rights directive, which helps to ensure that victims of crime can have the right kind of help, information and support wherever they are in the EU. However, we recognise that victims may not be even aware of their rights or what support is available to them. This is why we have launched, as Christiane Lard and Rodd Campbell and other members have referred to, on EU victims' day, the first victims' codes for Scotland. We appreciate that it is the first one that will evolve over time. We are looking specifically at a version for children to try to make a child-friendly version, because it is obviously in the way that it is worded, mainly aimed at adults. However, there is a clear need to work with children first in other organisations to make sure that there is a child-friendly version of that document. In simple, straightforward language, the code provides victims with information about their rights, who can help them, where to go for more information. The code can be easily accessed online, as it is available from criminal justice agencies. Since 22 February, it has been available online in a variety of languages, including Polish, Mandarin and Urdu, just to name a few. I am also pleased to say that we are currently developing easy read and child-friendly versions of the code. The code will be made available to victims of crime when they come into contact with the police or other criminal justice agencies, and it is intended to help to signpost victims to the help and support that they need. We developed the code in discussion with agencies such as the police, courts, the Crown Office and victims groups such as Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland. We will continue to consult with those organisations as the code is made available more widely to ensure that it is providing the information that victims require. We recognise the considerable support that is currently available from the police through family liaison officers. Graham Pearson referred to them first. Obviously, we will have direct experience of working with family liaison officers from victim information and advice, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and from victim support organisations. I recognise the points that have been made by Graham Pearson and other members that there appears to be a lot of organisations. There is obviously a risk of people being passed from pillar to post or feel that way, and that is clearly something that we have to manage carefully. At present, Police Scotland points family liaison officers in cases where a serious crime has been committed and the police determined that it would be beneficial to the family, and that is an important point. FLOs make contact with victims or bereaved relatives during the early stages of the police investigation or very soon after a death. FLOs are there to provide a link between the family and the senior investigating officer and inquiry team, and we will identify additional support for the family as well, providing practical assistance such as managing any media interest in the case, which can sometimes be very intense, as I am sure that members are aware. They are also responsible for offering guidance on the investigation process to the family, providing advice and guidance to the police investigation. FLOs lay as closely with the victim information and advice service at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service from very early in the investigation before handing the liaison rollover to VIA if the investigation moves to prosecution. VIA, in turn, provides victims of crime with information about the criminal justice system itself. They provide assistance in a case where a victim appears to be vulnerable and help victims to get in touch with organisations that can offer the practical help and support that people were referring to earlier on. We recognise the importance of supporting victims of crime, which is why the Scottish Government provides funding of just over £4 million per year to victim support organisations. In relation to those bereaved by murder specifically, which is why we are here today, we agree that providing support is vital, and that is why we provide grant funding to PETL, who offer a specialist support counselling services practical advice relating to the criminal justice system and other matters. The 2014 act is part of a larger piece of work to further improve the experience and increase support to victims of crime in the justice system. I encourage individuals and agencies to continually seek new means of supporting victims of crime and continually be aware of identifying areas where improvements can be made to existing provisions. That is certainly my view, and I assure you that that will continue to be the case beyond implementation of the legislation. As members have referred to, Victim Support Scotland in their 2015-2019 manifesto has called for the development of a national support service to provide an enhanced personal response to families and loved ones bereaved by murder. I certainly hear the sentiment across the chamber that this is something that members, regardless of party, are seeking to see happen. I very much welcome Victim Support Scotland's commitment to improving support in this area, but we feel that it is vital that we avoid potential duplication of services and ensure that resources are focused on helping those in need. PETL, for example, already provides specialist support for bereaved families and more general support is extensively available across Scotland, particularly through Victim Support Scotland and other organisations that should be mentioned this afternoon. As for this reason, we have encouraged Victim Support Scotland and PETL to consider how they might work more closely together to support families in those cases. I hear that the very good work that is going on in England and I want to acknowledge that, and it certainly has some attraction to it, but what we need to do is design a system that will work within the landscape that we have and try to avoid duplication, so not necessarily a straight copy across. We are open to further discussion on this topic and recognise that we need to be fully aware of the needs of those who have suffered bereavement by murder or suicide and support them appropriately. The concerns raised by Graham Pearson today over potential issues such as the example given of victims feeling that they have to explain things again and again as they pass on one justice agency to the next are ones that I recognise that are ones that point to need to better understand the requirements of victims and we need justice and victim support organisations to work together and to deliver a joined-up service. Of course legislation is not the end of the process, it is just the beginning. It is obviously a constant process of improvement and it is just something that we will need to do in terms of implementation to continue and we will work in collaboration with our partners in the criminal justice system and the third sector to ensure that provisions are implemented effectively. We will also continue to work to identify improvements that can be made on a non-letters of basis and for too long victims have been treated and made to feel like bystanders in the criminal justice system. Our recent changes will see more consideration given to rights and needs of victims and witnesses of crime and it is my hope and I am sure that it is shared across the chamber that the recent initiatives will improve the experience of the system, a system that obviously victims turn to in order to see justice serve. I want to again thank Graeme Pearson. I mean with all sincerity the points that I made earlier on, he has been an excellent member of the chamber and indeed Annabelle Goldie. I wish them great success in their future endeavours but I hope that Mr Pearson can take some comfort with the fact that we are looking at issues that he has raised importantly today and hopefully he will take some satisfaction from any progress that is made hereafter. I also add my best wishes to Graeme Pearson and Annabelle Goldie standing down from parliament and that concludes Graeme Pearson's debate support for families affected by murder and culpable homicide. I suspend this meeting until 2.30pm.