Claire Inglis was tortured and murdered in the home that she shared with her young son. Her killer had been bailed from court five times, despite dozens of convictions. Social services tried but failed to warn Claire that she was in danger.

Claire’s parents, Fiona and Ian, are still fighting for answers. I have previously raised their plight directly with the First Minister, and with his predecessor. Claire’s parents say:

“We should not have to come to parliament again, and on the third anniversary of our beloved daughter’s murder, to beg the First Minister for answers.

We feel trapped and unable to move on because we continue to be deprived of basic but vital information.”

Will the First Minister tell Fiona and Ian how much longer they must wait for the answers that they deserve?

First, I express to Fiona and Ian my deepest sympathies over the loss of their beloved daughter. I cannot imagine the pain, suffering and agony that they have endured.

Mr Findlay is correct: he has raised the issue with me previously. He and I have exchanged correspondence on the issue. As a consequence of that, we in the Government have taken steps to ask Stirling Council to undertake a further examination and exploration of the issues that are involved, and to engage directly with Claire’s parents. Obviously, we will discuss those issues in this exchange. I remain committed to making sure that the family receives the answers that they, understandably, deserve.

When I wrote to Mr Swinney on behalf of Claire’s parents, he told me that he would reply “soon”. That was four months ago. Is that really good enough?

The Inglis family are far from alone in being failed by the justice system. Also in the chamber today is Denise Clair, who was raped by David Goodwillie and David Robertson. No credible explanation has ever been given for why the Crown Office did not prosecute. Frankly, the case stinks. Denise was forced to take civil action against the two men, and a judge agreed that she had been raped. She has since asked the Government to fund a private criminal prosecution, but she continues to be left in limbo.

Denise has suffered for 13 long years. Here is her question to the First Minister: will your Government do the right thing and support such a prosecution?

I have engaged with Mr Findlay on the case of Claire Inglis, and we have made the request of Stirling Council to provide the satisfactory investigation that is required. However, in light of the exchanges that we have had today, I will look again at that issue, to determine whether there is further pressure that we need to apply for Stirling Council to do exactly that.

Denise Clair has pursued her case through a civil action, and the court has come to its judgment on that question. I am aware that she has made an application for legal aid assistance to take forward—forgive me. She has approached ministers to take the steps that are necessary to ensure that her case can be pursued as a private prosecution, and the issue is being considered by the Government.

However, I say to Mr Findlay that the Government has taken too long to consider the request that Ms Clair has made of us. When I saw the news reports at the weekend, I asked for greater urgency to be given to engagement with her agents on that question, because I am dissatisfied with how long it has taken. Through Mr Findlay, I express my apology to Ms Clair today.

I am sure that Denise Clair will be pleased to hear that. As Thomas Ross KC said,

“There is nothing complicated or complex about this decision.”

We have the family of a murder victim with no answers, and we have a double rape victim who has no answers. That is typical of how victims are treated because of the Scottish National Party’s weak justice agenda.

The First Minister often cites judicial independence, but just this week, he subverted judicial independence. Two days ago, John Swinney and his colleagues sat there and applauded themselves for passing a bad law to free thousands of criminals early from Scotland’s prisons. That will result in more crime, more victims and more pressure on our police. Crucially, the SNP’s new law does not give prison governors the power to block the release of those who are considered to be too dangerous. Why not?

I understand the significance of the cases that Mr Findlay puts to me today, but there are some fundamental points that I need to put on the record about them. The granting of bail in the Claire Inglis case was an independent judgment that was arrived at by the courts. It is wrong for ministers to be involved in those cases. I accept that there will be vigorous debate about the appropriateness of judgments, but those decisions are taken by the independent judiciary, and none of us wants to have a judiciary that is anything other than independent.

In the case of Denise Clair, a judgment was arrived at by the Crown, which independently assessed the case for prosecution. Again—and I know that Mr Findlay would not be arguing for this—nobody accepts that those decisions should be taken by a process that is anything other than independent.

In relation to the legislation that the Parliament has passed, Mr Findlay knows that the Government has had to take that step because of the significant rise in the prison population, requiring ministers to ensure that our prisons are safe, especially for prison officers to work in. The reason why there is no governor’s veto is that the Government has amended the timescale under which individuals will be released from prison, but we have put in significant safeguards to ensure that those who are convicted of domestic violence and serious assaults are not included in the release scheme that we have put in place.

When the SNP previously ordered the mass early release of prisoners, the governor’s veto was a vital safeguard, but John Swinney now thinks that he knows better than Scotland’s prison governors. People in the real world are looking at this in utter disbelief. Soft-touch SNP justice prioritises the rights and interests of dangerous criminals.

Claire’s mum, Fiona, told me:

“There is something far wrong with Scotland’s justice system when victims are kept in the dark and not treated as a priority.”

When it is about releasing prisoners, the SNP rushes through a law in days. When it is about justice for victims, it leaves them waiting for years. Does John Swinney have any regrets about his Government’s treatment of crime victims?

I will always take seriously the concerns of victims and will take the necessary action to ensure that the interests of victims are fully and properly taken into account in all the steps that the Government takes.

I point out that, in relation to the early release schemes that have been put in place previously, there have been opportunities for victims to be fully advised about the circumstances of release through the victim notification scheme, should they wish to take up that opportunity, which is not always the case.

I will correct one of the points that I made in my earlier answer. I should have made reference to sexual assault as being an offence for which constraints are applied in the legislation.

I do not think that Mr Findlay’s characterisation of mass early release is at all appropriate. The Government took steps to ensure that our prison system is safe for those who work in it, just as Mr Findlay’s colleagues in the then United Kingdom Government did. The difference is that this Government came to Parliament, set out its case and asked for parliamentary consent to the steps that the Government was taking. That is what we do in a democracy.