In criminal cases, prosecutors often strike plea deals with defence lawyers. That practice can result in very serious charges being watered down or dropped altogether, even when the evidence is overwhelming, and victims are routinely not told or consulted about that. That is not justice.

I have been working with a group of female domestic abuse survivors, including Liz Shanks, who have suffered from those secretive plea deals. This week, I lodged amendments to the Government’s Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill on their behalf. Those amendments would give victims a voice in the process, or, at the very least, let them know what is happening. Will John Swinney work with me to back those critical amendments?

I share Mr Findlay’s objective of ensuring that justice is done for individuals who suffer as a result of criminal behaviour in our society. The Government has introduced the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is being scrutinised in Parliament, and which is designed to strengthen the experience of victims in our criminal justice system. We will consider the amendments that Mr Findlay has lodged on behalf of those individuals—he mentioned the name of Liz Shanks—to advance those issues. We will consider the contents of those amendments as the committee and Parliament look at the contents of the bill.

I want to ask the First Minister about another horrific case involving a plea deal. Royal Air Force veteran Keith Rollinson went out to work as a bus driver but never came home. He was subjected to a frenzied attack by a 15-year-old passenger and died later in hospital. Because of the sentencing guidelines, the killer received a sentence of just over four years, and it is possible that he will not spend any time in prison. The killer was charged with murder but, in a plea deal, he admitted to a lesser charge of culpable homicide. Keith’s widow, Sue, is heartbroken, hurt and confused. She told me:

“The justice system keeps twisting a knife in my back. I don’t want any other family to go through this hell.”

Does John Swinney agree that those guidelines need to be scrapped?

First, I express my sympathy to Mrs Rollinson for the loss of her husband. The attack that Mr Findlay talks about was unspeakable, and the criminal justice process has taken its course. I extend my sympathies to Mrs Rollinson on her loss. I cannot comprehend how she will be feeling.

Mr Findlay raises an important issue, but it gets us into territory that he knows that I have to keep well out of, which is decisions that are made about independent prosecutions that are taken forward by the Crown. As a society, we pride ourselves on the fact that the constitution of our Parliament and our criminal justice system is founded on the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the Crown in determining approaches to prosecution. Those have been fundamental building blocks of our society.

It is important that Parliament expresses its view when it considers that issues need to be addressed to ensure that concerns about sentencing policy and prosecutorial policy are reflected by Parliament, when it is appropriate for Parliament to do so. Ultimately, however, those decisions are taken independently by the prosecution service and the judiciary.

The truth is that the guidelines were issued by the Scottish Sentencing Council, which was in turn created by the Scottish Government.

I also want to ask the First Minister about one of Scotland’s greatest miscarriages of justice. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that George Beattie did not and, indeed, could not have murdered Margaret McLaughlin. Campaigners including the late Labour MP Jimmy Hood have spent 50 years fighting for justice on behalf of George and Margaret. Four years ago, new evidence emerged about a more likely suspect, but the authorities appeared to do nothing. Now in his 70s and in poor health, George has told me that he fears going to his grave as a murderer. Will John Swinney consider what his Government can do to right that egregious wrong?

In relation to Mr Findlay’s earlier remarks, I make the point that, although the Scottish Sentencing Council is a creation of statute, it acts independently of the Government. That ensures that all the different elements in the criminal justice system that I talked about—the independent judiciary, the independent prosecutorial service and the independent sentencing council that advises on sentencing approaches—are undertaken in a way that assures all of us that the criminal justice system is operating in a fair, appropriate and dispassionate fashion across all cases and that nobody is prejudiced as a consequence.

In relation to Mr Beattie’s case, Mr Findlay will be aware of the route through the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for potential miscarriages of justice to be explored, which has led to judgments and decisions being overturned in the past. That is a well-established statutory route through which such approaches can be pursued.

I hear what the First Minister says about the Scottish Sentencing Council, but he could perhaps heed our calls to include a greater voice for victims on it.

In my final question of the year to the First Minister, I want to raise the tragic case of baby J, whose identity cannot be disclosed. Baby J was found dead in West Lothian 10 years ago. He was just 11 weeks old. The authorities knew that he was at risk, even before he was born, but that did not protect him. His tiny body had numerous injuries, including multiple broken bones, and a judge said that only his parents could have inflicted those injuries. No criminal charges have ever been brought. Six months ago, I was pleased when the Lord Advocate told me that she had instructed a new investigation by specialist prosecutors. She also said that a fatal accident inquiry might be held. Will the First Minister back my calls for that inquiry and ensure that every effort is made to secure justice for baby J?

On Mr Findlay’s first point, I hope that my first answer to him gives him reassurance that I attach the greatest significance to the voice of victims being heard in our criminal justice system. If there are ways in which that needs to be strengthened—indeed, we have legislation before Parliament to do exactly that, which, in our former lives, Mr Findlay and I scrutinised together on the Criminal Justice Committee; we were able to co-operate there, so we might be able to co-operate on some of those questions—I assure him that we will look at those points. There is scope for the bill to be amended on the basis of the point that Mr Findlay has raised.

In relation to the tragic case in West Lothian, the Lord Advocate has made it clear that a renewed investigation should take place. The Crown will determine, on the basis of a police investigation, what actions, if any, should be taken—to do so is the proper role of the Crown.

Any question of a fatal accident inquiry, again, rests independently on the Crown’s judgment, and the Lord Advocate has made clear her position on that. We will, of course, hear more from the Lord Advocate as the case is considered.