 is still in session. The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 1427 in the name of Liam Kerr, on the Michelle's law campaign. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put and can ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak button now. I call on Liam Kerr to open the debate. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. What are the purposes of our justice system? and the punishment of criminals, deterrence of criminal activity, and the rehabilitation of those who have chosen to commit a crime are often suggested. However, there are other aspects, including to protect the safety and welfare of the public, to protect the integrity of the community in society and to provide some kind of retribution, some closure for victims and their families. Too much focus has been on the first three aspects, those which relate to criminals and we have lost focus on the victims. Presiding Officer, Parliament heard earlier and is no doubt aware of an absolutely tragic set of circumstances which illustrate this point. Michelle Stewart lived in Drongan in Ayrshire. When she was only 17, John Wilson ended her life and took her away from her friends and family forever. Presiding Officer, at this point I would like to welcome that family to this Parliament today and acknowledge their bravery and courage in being prepared to step forward and I'm also pleased to welcome the Carson family who we also heard about earlier and likewise I commend their bravery and courage. It is not appropriate to go into detail of this depraved attack, the facts have been rehearsed many times in the media. Suffice it to say that the sentence that Wilson received makes a mockery of the system. My party has long been in favour of ensuring that life means life for the worst criminals and I will be bringing forward a member's bill to do exactly that later this session but that's for another time. Today we are here to ask why killers like John Wilson get out of prison only nine years into their 12-year sentence with no explanation or input given to the victim's family with no consideration for their welfare and no restriction on the locations he can visit whilst he's out. Those families think that this is unacceptable. They are right. They demand three key reforms relating to the release of offenders from prison, both on a temporary basis and on parole. Firstly, that victims and their families must be given reasons for an offender's release and be able to make representations in person to those taking the decision. In practice this means toughening up the victim notification scheme. Parliament will know that presently when the prison service or parole board decides to release a dangerous criminal back on to our streets they are under no requirement to justify that to the public. Victims and families who are registered with the scheme simply receive a standard form letter which tells them the date the offender will be released and there is no automatic right to make representations. The only recourse is a letter to the prison service or parole board. The one exception to that is when a so-called life sentence prisoner is being considered The victim or family member may make representations in person but be under no illusions. Those representations are not part of the parole hearing. The person they speak to will not be a member of the tribunal deciding on the case and the right does not extend to temporary release decisions only parole and they do not carry a great deal of weight at all. Victims and families must no longer be shut out of decisions taken behind closed doors. They must be involved in a process that gives them a voice. The second demand is that the rights and welfare of the victims, the families, those impacted are explicitly taken into account by those taking the decisions to release offenders back into Scotland's communities. At present, Scottish Prison Service rules state that a governor must assess the risks that the prisoner may pose to the public at large before granting temporary release. Similarly, the parole board for Scotland looks at the protection of the public in general terms. Neither body is required to assess the impact that their decisions to release will have on the mental and physical wellbeing of individual victims and their families. That cannot be right. Those who are most harmed, most wronged and most aggrieved by the criminal are not individually considered. Our justice system must surely be able to look victims in the eye and explain their decisions and take their thoughts, considerations, health and wellbeing into account. Finally, exclusion zones. Both the parole board and the prison service already have the power to impose location restrictions when they release criminals from jail, but they are not using them. Why is this power not being used to stop offenders coming into contact with their victims? The answer from the authorities appears to be that allowing criminals back into their home communities helps the rehabilitation process. That may be true, but are we really happy to prioritise criminals over victims in this way? Is there no point at which the rights of families to live safe and peaceful lives becomes more important? Michelle's family has spoken out powerfully about how seeing their daughters murder on their streets has affected them. Can any of us imagine how that must feel? How it must be to see the criminal swanning about the streets getting on with his life? I well recall being consulted several times by a young constituent in my region on learning that the man who randomly dragged her off the street to rape her was to be released to the very community, to the very streets where it happened. It destroyed any sense of safety, any sense of justice being done and ultimately traumatised her beyond my understanding. Again, this is not right. There simply must be greater use of exclusion zones on those offenders who are released. Here is the thing. This measure requires no change in the law. Exclusion zones are a vital tool and victims demand their use, so the message to those with the power, let's start using them. Those are the three things that Michelle's law calls for. Each has the very clear aim of putting victims at the heart of the justice system, not left outside looking in. I am very grateful to others in this Parliament for their cross-party support today and that they are here to contribute to this debate. On which note, I sought the views of other experts in this field. Dr Marcia Scott, CEO of Scottish Women's Aid, told me how often domestic abuse survivors voice concerns about their safety when their abusers are released from prison. They tell of decisions to house the perpetrator taken without consideration of the impact that this may have on the women and children. Victim support Scotland told me that they are encouraged by discussions on how to include victims and witnesses during the parole process. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has since taken over this brief exhibit today commendable willingness to listen and take good ideas on board. I hope that that continues because the simple fact is that Michelle's family and others like them up and down the country need more than words. They need action, so let's be clear. This campaign is not about preventing criminals from ever being released from prison. It is not about preventing rehabilitation, nor is it about excluding criminals from society. No. It is a simple desire to tip the balance in favour of the victim, their families and those who have been wronged, and to treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. It is time to put victims first. It is time to refocus the debate away from criminals, and it is time for Michelle's law. Thank you very much. Can I say before we move into the open debate—I say this very gently—that we do not permit applause from the public area. I perfectly understand why it is done, but we do not commit it. I now move to the open debate, and I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by apologising both to you, Deputy Presiding Officer and to fellow members for having to leave this debate early, due to a long-standing event that I have in my diary that I am hosting. Can I also begin by thanking Liam Kerr for bringing forward what is a very important debate to this chamber? I think that it raises some very important issues about how we deal with important issues in our criminal justice system of transparency, punishment and parole. I would also like to give my thanks to Michelle Stewart's family, who deserves so much credit for their activism and raising the issues in the way that they have, because it stems from deep personal tragedy. I know that I and everyone else in this chamber will have our thoughts and deepest condolences as we speak on those issues through this debate. I believe that the system can only be strengthened through open discussion of those issues. The justice system often seems to treat victims as an afterthought, its logic and decisions opaque, its behaviour seemingly cold and unsympathetic. I think that we can do better. I think that we must do better. As we think on those issues, we must also uphold the values of justice. Justice must be swift, fair and consistent. The blindfold worn by Lady Justice is just as important as the sword and the skills that she holds. However, what we cannot allow to happen is that Lady Justice is also deaf to the concerns, the views and the interests of the victim. I think that that is what we are seeking to discuss. Much of Michelle Stewart's campaign centres around two key themes—victims, rights to be heard and transparency. I would like to discuss some issues around that latter point, because this is a key issue. I have been actively talking to those in the criminal justice system about transparency and how we can have greater understanding of the workings of justice. I have long believed that the way that we sentence those convicted and the way that that is reported does not lead to strong understanding of the sentence itself. That is a fundamental problem with our system. Sentences should reflect three things that society hopes to achieve when we sentence convicted criminals. First of all, we must deal with the root causes of the crime, for example, addiction, involvement with organised crime. Secondly, we must punish because those who have committed crime must pay and atone for what they have done. We must also rehabilitate, ensuring that a measured and safe re-entry in society. Those are the three aims. If sentences were handed out explicitly with those three aims and explicitly reported in those terms, we would be making some progress. In short—if I can put it flippantly—we need a run-seal approach to sentencing. Sentences have to do what they say in the tin. At the moment, because we have automatic release after two thirds of a sentence served, we have a degree of confusion. I am not arguing for necessarily an increase in sentences, but it has to be clear how much time will be served in those three core elements, so that we can avoid the misleading understanding of what will happen and avoid the mistrust that that imbues in our criminal justice system. I would also like to talk about victim notification, because I think that there are important points to be raised here. It is right that we improve the victim's understanding of when people will be released and how they will be released, but we also need to look at the constraints within that, partly through data protection and other principles. It is right that the prison service tells us when prisoners will be released, but we must also ask how we can say when they might be at, where and what activity they might be doing. The data protection is one issue, but we also have an important principle that, once you have done your time, you should have the opportunity to rejoin society. I think carefully about how to balance the rights of victims of their family, because this is hugely important, but we must also preserve the hope of rehabilitation, which is an important component of our criminal justice system. I will conclude there, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by John Scott. Mr Scott will be the last speaker in the open debate. Ms Maguire, please. At the outset, I wish to express my heartfelt sympathy to Michelle Stewart's family and the Cersans. I am very sorry for your loss and the pain that you are enduring. Presiding Officer, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to Liam Kerr's debate on Michelle's law and thank him for bringing the important topic of strengthening victims' rights to the chamber. I support the Scottish Government's focus on prevention, early intervention and services that support rehabilitation and, ultimately, reduce re-offending. Those things make our communities safer. However, for a justice system to be truly just, the needs of the victims must be at the heart, and I share the feeling of campaigners that the voice of victims needs to be better heard. I agree that the distinct safety and welfare of victims and their families has to not only be considered but acted on. I would add that that needs to happen at all stages of the criminal justice process. Providing more help and support for victims of crime and witnesses is key to building a better criminal justice system. Navigating the justice system would be daunting at any time. At times of trauma and loss, it must be even more so. It is imperative that, in making law and policy, we recognise the real-life impact on people and never lose sight of that. I want to acknowledge the work that has been done and the progress that has been made in our justice system in Scotland. However, in the context of the debate, which follows a very specific tragedy, I am not going to stand here and list them on this occasion. I will say that, moving forward, what we will all have to do on a cross-party basis in this Parliament is work together and be cognisant of what evidence tells us, effectively reduces crime and re-offending, and makes our communities in Scotland safer. I reiterate my belief that victims and their families must be considered at all stages of the criminal justice process, and that consideration must not end with sentencing. I note in the Scottish Government's programme for government as part of on-going reforms that the Scottish Government says that it will strengthen victims' rights and support, and that there is a commitment to increase the openness and transparency of the parole system. That is a welcome development and, in closing, I would ask the cabinet secretary to take the opportunity to expand on that commitment a bit and to share with us and members of the gallery and his summing up at the end of the debate exactly what that will mean for victims and their families. I begin by congratulating Liam Kerr on securing this debate on Michelle's law today and so early in the parliamentary year. I also welcome the Stewart family to our public gallery today, knowing as I do how difficult it is for them to again relive and recall the circumstances of Michelle's death. I salute their courage in doing so today and also welcome the Carson family as well. When my constituent, Lisa Stewart, first contacted me on 25 June 2018 about the murder of her sister, Michelle, by John Wilson in 2008, I was horrified to hear of the circumstances surrounding her death and the premeditated attack on her, which cost Michelle her life. Her murderer, John Wilson, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for his heinous crime and that sentence was reduced to 12 years as he played guilty immediately to killing schoolgirl Michelle. This initial reduction of 25 per cent in the sentence was a source of dismay to the victim's family but one that they had to accept. However, you can only imagine Michelle's parents, brother and sisters anger when they discovered on 23 June that John Wilson would be walking the streets of Ayrshire, possibly of Ayr, an unsupervised home leave, just nine years after murdering his victim, Michelle. As we know, Ruth Davidson raised this matter with the First Minister on 28 June, which resulted in the First Minister giving instruction to her new cabinet secretary, Hamza Yousaf, to meet with the Stewards to discuss their concerns and this meeting took place on 3 August at Russell House in Ayr with commitments given by the cabinet secretary that the family's concerns would be listened to and addressed and having attended that meeting with the Stewards, I heard those commitments being given to them. So imagine again, Presiding Officer, the Stewards family's unhappiness on Tuesday when the First Minister and her programme of government made only a passing reference really to what her Government is prepared to do to recognise the rights of victims in circumstances similar to the Stewards family. Since the matter was first raised in Parliament by Ruth Davidson, two other families have contacted me in similar dreadful circumstances. That highlights for me the widespread nature of concerns of hard-working decent families such as the Stewards, such as any of us who find themselves victims of crime through no fault of their own. So today the Scottish Government must really take heed of these family's concerns and change their attitude towards the families of murder victims and victims more generally in the Scottish justice system. As Liam Kerr had said, the rights of victims are almost an afterthought in Scots law as it stands and I want to hear on behalf of victims in Scotland less about the rights of criminals, less about the rights of offenders and hear more said about the rights of victims and victims having more say in the justice system. So we need to see more and better use of exclusion zones for released offenders to stop them coming into contact with victims and victims families. We need to see families having more input into prison service and parole board decisions and a more sympathetic and understanding approach taken by authorities towards the fears and needs of families. No longer is it sufficient in the modern interconnected world—everyone's on Facebook or WhatsApp—for victims and families of victims to be told effectively to man up and just get on with life because it's I being this way. Presiding Officer, families such as the Stewards and others and victims of many other dreadful crimes will always be and will remain the victims. While offenders and criminals and, yes, murderers walk free after serving their sentence, the families of those who have lost ones never recover. No matter how strong and supportive the Stewards are of each other and no matter how much support they receive from their families and friends and their local communities, not a day will pass that they don't think of Michelle. So, Presiding Officer, today this Parliament again asked the Scottish Government to bring about the changes to the legislation that the Stewards and Scottish Conservatives are seeking. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will now act to bring those changes about. I thank Liam Kerr for bringing this important debate to the chamber and those who have signed his motion. I welcome the Carson family and also Michelle Stewart's family, who I had the great pleasure of meeting in August. All of us will have wished that it would not have been in those particular circumstances. For me, Presiding Officer, a really moving meeting—in one sense inspirational, I will come to that in a second—was also very powerful and affected me. It certainly still does, but it affected me for a number of days and weeks after that meeting. First of all, before I go into the substance of this debate, it has been a very good debate with very good contributions. My job will be to give as many reassurances and tell you about some of the action that we will be taking. Before I do that, one of the reasons why I found the meeting very powerful was that I actually got to learn a little bit more about Michelle. Often, unfortunately, when these terrible tragic murders, homicides happen, for those who did not know the family, we will pick up a newspaper or see a news broadcast and we will see a picture, and all we will be associated with that individual is that terrible murder. I wanted to know about the person behind that story. Michelle Stewart's family, I got to meet Father Kenny, Josephine Stewart, Lisa was there, Kenneth and Stephen, as well as John Scott MSP. Each of the family members took it in turn to tell me about Michelle and what was so inspirational about her was that she came overcame so much adversity personally in terms of some of the physical health issues that she had and she never let any of that hold her back. A life lost far too young. Just hearing about her for me was incredibly important because behind every single one, unfortunately, of the homicides and the murders that we see in Scotland, there is a human story in none of us, whether it is myself as a cabinet secretary or any of us across the chamber. None of us should forget the importance of the human behind that tragedy. From day one, of me taking up the role of cabinet secretary for justice, I have made it clear that victims' rights must be strengthened at the heart of our criminal justice system. A programme for government commitments that, this week, the First Minister has been speaking about reflect this and I will come to those later. However, I want to get straight into the substance of the Michelle's law campaign. The reason why I said that the meeting with the Stewart family was inspirational was because I do not think that any single one of us, none of us, would have taken any offence or would have been entirely, none of us would have been surprised at all if the Stewart family, after suffering such a tragedy as it did, chose to simply reflect on and overcome their individual grief that all of them were facing. None of us would have faulted them for doing that, but they did not choose to do that. The reason why they are inspirational as a family is because they chose and are choosing to ensure that out of this tragedy comes a positive legacy, which is the Michelle's law campaign. That is why I say that it is inspirational, so let me praise it for that campaign. Let me also give it some reassurances about the campaign and how we are not only listening to it, not only giving it warm words, but how there will be some concrete action of that that I can guarantee you and I will come to that in just a second. I met with it in the family in early August and a month later, into early September. I can promise it that what it had to say to me at that meeting profoundly influenced what was in this year's programme for government. That direct conversation with the family, the follow-up with the family, with the MSPs, involved that directly influenced what was in the programme for government. I will touch on some of that in a minute. One of Liam Kerr's opening remarks spoke about the three main asks. One of them, for example, is the victims and families of victims in this case. The reason for a perpetrator being released on release is that those reasons are given and that is toughening up the victim notification scheme. Can I say to Liam Kerr, more importantly, if he does not mind me saying to the Stuart family, that I am absolutely happy to commit to doing that. That very much is part of the conversation that we are going to be having post-PFG. The First Minister announced, as he knows, the consultation that will be held before the end of the year. I will try to speed that up as appropriately as I can into the handling of parole. That will very much include consideration of the issues raised by the Michelle's law campaign. I can give you an absolute 100 per cent guarantee that the consultation will address some of the issues raised specifically on parole in the Michelle's law campaign, including, for example, the reasoning for decisions, the opportunity for victims and the families of victims to contribute to decision making. I want to give Liam Kerr, more importantly, a feel that Michelle Stewart's family will be part of the consultation. I know that that can be frustrating, as legislators and lawmakers. We understand the process that we have to go through in terms of consultation and drafting up the legislation in stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 of those debates, and it can be infuriating for those who are outside of the chamber. However, I promise them that there will be no time wasted in taking those measures forward. The second point that was raised by Liam Kerr in this part of the campaign is the rights of victims taken, the rights of victims and families of victims when it comes to temporary release. Once again, I am very happy to commit to ensuring that the victims and families of victims, in this case, that their contributions, their issues, their circumstances, where they live, where they work and so on and so forth, are taken into consideration, as they should already be. I should say that, in my letter to Michelle Stewart's family, which I referenced in the First Minister's questions, that the Scottish Prison Service is carefully considering how to improve the information and support that is available to victims and families. That will include how to better engage with families at various critical points in sensing. That came out very strongly in the meeting that John Scott was at, and we will take that back and reflect on that. However, it will also look and reflect on how the victims and families of victims' circumstances and individual circumstances are taken into account in relation to temporary release. That was the second point, which, again, I am happy to commit to exploring. When I say exploring, there is not a lack of concrete action. Liam Kerr will certainly understand that there are complexities in all those issues that we discussed. They are not easy, but they are the most difficult issues that we have to deal with. There are complexities, and I have to ensure from my perspective that, when it comes to the complexities, I am not doing something that can make the situation worse, as opposed to better, because all of us have, I believe, the same outcome. However, please do not, and I say this to the family, directly please do not confuse that or conflate that with an unwillingness to listen to what you have to say and to act as best we possibly can to ensure that Michelle's law campaign and the issues that you raise are taken forward as quickly as possible. Last point—I am aware that I am sitting over time, Presiding Officer—I wish to raise this around the exclusion zones, the third point in Michelle's law campaign. Liam Kerr's language from the beginning of the Michelle's law campaign to now has slightly developed, and I think that that is a welcome development, because he understands that there is the possibility to have conditions put on an offender's release in relation to who he or she can see, where he or she can go. His ask is how can these be used more? Again, I go back to my point that I made just a second ago around complexities, but the powers are possibly there. What I will do is I will give an absolute commitment, and I can tell him right here, right now, that that is something that can be looked at. It will be something that will be looked at, but of course we will have to work with local authority partners, and I give way to John Scott. John Scott, thank you for taking the intervention, cabinet secretary. I hear what you say, and I am assured that your intentions are absolutely under the first order. However, can you give us some indication of timescale for those changes to be made or different guidance to be issued, please? Can I say, in terms of the earlier points, that the consultation that we are aiming for is the end of the year, but I will try to inject some pace into that as quickly as I can. In terms of the exclusion zones and so on and so forth, I am not able to give them a timescale, because we have, of course, currently the powers exist. What we are looking to do is to see how they can be potentially used wider, how can they be extended, how can they be strengthened, and I will give them the absolute assurance that there will not be any hesitation in doing that. In fact, it was that very day that I met with the family of Michelle Stewart that we started to look into the issue with even more pace once the Michelle's law campaign became public on that very day. We are wasting no time on that, but what I can give John Scott a promise on is that I will keep him and, of course, the family and other members who are interested in this, absolutely up to speed. The very last point—I apologise, Presiding Officer, because I am over time—was a point that I thought was made by Daniel Johnson who I know had to go in a very thoughtful contribution. I just want to end on this point. There is often in our political narrative seeming to be a tension between the rights of victims and the families of victims and the rehabilitation of offenders. Some of that came out in some of the contributions earlier on today. Although I completely understand how that perception might exist, I think that it is important for us in the positions that we are in to say very clearly that the two are not mutually exclusive, that there is not necessarily a tension between the two, because if you do rehabilitate offenders—and the reason why we rehabilitate offenders, of course—is to ensure that we have less victims of crime in the first place, that we have fewer victims of crime in the first place, is that we are no longer having to deal with more and more victims. In fact, of course, we want to see crime go down. I would say that we should never lose focus of both of those, but I hear exactly what the family says certainly, and even what opposition members say, that victims' rights must be strengthened at the heart of our justice system. I can give everybody an absolute and unequivocal assurance that that will be the case so long as I, as the cabinet secretary of justice, am under the current Scottish Government, and I look forward, I think, shortly after this member's debate meeting with the Stewart family and giving them those reassurances as best as possible. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Before I close the debate, I am sure that members sitting in the chamber have heard the debate and have not been contributing wish to extend their condolences to the family. That is a very tough road that you have taken, but it seems to be taking you to some results that will never compensate by any means whatsoever. That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament and suspend it until 2.30.