- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23157 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, whether it will list those individuals who have reviewed the material which is the subject of the dispute between the Aberdeen Fingerprint Bureau and the Scottish Criminal Record Office in the last nine years and what the results of these reviews were.
Answer
As I indicated in reply toS2W-23157 answered on 8 March 2006, over the last 9 years the disputed fingerprint markhas been examined by a number of experts who have reached different conclusionson the ownership of the mark. The Scottish Executive does not hold a record ofall those experts or of their conclusions.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23669 by Cathy Jamieson on 13 March 2006, whether, as part of the settlement, Ms McKie accepted that the misidentification had been made in good faith and was not malicious.
Answer
I refer the member to thequestion S2W-23664 answered on 20 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentaryquestions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be foundat:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23157 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, whether any of these reviews have been undertaken by peers inside the (a) Aberdeen, (b) Dundee, (c) Edinburgh or (d) Glasgow Fingerprint Bureau.
Answer
It is a matter of publicrecord that some experts in the Aberdeen and Edinburgh fingerprint bureaux have taken a different view onthe identification of this print to their colleagues in the Glasgowbureau.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 06 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it will introduce to reduce the number of violent offences at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont which was reported in the Sunday Herald on 29 January 2006 as having the highest incidence of violence of all prisons.
Answer
I have asked Tony Cameron,Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is asfollows:
The Governor initiated anexercise in 2005 to examine trends and behaviours among young offenders and tofind ways to prevent or minimise the levels of violence within the prison.Various steps have been taken since then including:
·a zero Tolerance to violence statement;
·the reinvigoration of the current SPS bullyingstrategy;
·a new intervention programme targeting those involvedin violence; and
the generation of a“continuous improvement” ethos into incident overviews whereby episodes ofviolence are reviewed with feedback to those involved.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will list all the investigations and inquiries that it has initiated since January 1997 in relation to, or arising from, the Shirley McKie case and, for each investigation or inquiry, (a) what the remit was, (b) who carried it out, (c) how long it took, (d) to whom it reported, (e) how much it cost, (f) what conclusions and recommendations it reached and (g) which recommendations have been (i) implemented and (ii) not implemented.
Answer
There have been a number ofinvestigations into the Shirley McKie case.
The SCRO Executive Committeedecided in February 2000 to invite HMIC to bring forward a planned inspectionof SCRO. This resulted in the HMIC Primary Inspection of the SCRO FingerprintBureau which began on 20 March 2000. The Inspection Report was published on 14 September 2000.It contained 25 recommendations and 20 suggestions. The recommendations andsuggestions were discharged in the HMIC SCRO Primary Inspection Report 2004that was published on 17 March 2005.
In response to the emergingfindings of the HMIC Inspection of 2000, on 21 June 2000ACPOS set up an ACPOS Presidential Review Group (APRG) to coordinate the ScottishPolice Service’s response. A Change Management Review Team (CMRT) was appointedto undertake a 90-day scrutiny of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau. Its report waspublished in October 2000 and contained 87 findings. By 10 March 2006,82 findings had been discharged and progress was being made on completingthe work necessary to discharge the others.
In June 2000, ACPOS askedsenior officers of Tayside police - Deputy Chief Constable Mackay and ChiefSuperintendent Robertson - to investigate the discrepancy between the findingsof the SCRO experts and those of experts who were instructed by ACPOS duringtheir earlier review. The Lord Advocate then instructed the Regional Procurator Fiscal forNorth Strathclyde to inquire into allegations of criminality, specificallyperjury. The inquiry by Tayside officers was then widened to investigate thatallegation and was asked to report its findings to the regional procuratorfiscal. That inquiry was extended again in September 2000 to cover similarallegations in the Asbury case.
In October 2000, the Taysideofficers submitted their report to ACPOS for its interest and to the RegionalProcurator Fiscal for his. They then made further inquiries to assist the RegionalProcurator Fiscal's investigation. The Regional Procurator Fiscalsubmitted his report to the Crown Office in July 2001. The Lord Advocateconsidered that report, and all of the available evidence and decided thatthere should be no prosecution.
In September 2001Strathclyde Joint Police Board (the employer of the 4 fingerprint officers)established an ad hoc investigation and disciplinary procedure. This work wastaken forward under the auspices of an Independent Scrutiny Committee and an investigatingo fficer was appointed. The chair of the Committee advised the Clerk to theJoint Police Board on 20 March 2002 that the Investigating Officer had concluded thatthe officers should be returned to their normal duties, and that the ScrutinyCommittee endorsed his report.
My letter of 10 March 2006 tothe Convenor of the Justice 1 Committee provides more information about HMICPrimary Inspection 2000 and the CMRT report. This is at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/papers-06/Correspondence_Minister_for_Justice_10_March_2006.pdf.It is not be possible toestablish the costs of these inquiries.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is legal for officers of the Scottish Criminal Record Office to sign documents on behalf of colleagues and, if so, under what circumstances, what procedures govern when and where this can be done, what checks (a) existed in January 1997 and (b) currently exist for ensuring that such proxy signatures are authorised by the person on whose behalf the signature is being used, whether it is illegal to sign such a document without authorisation and, if so, who has to provide authorisation, whether, if the document relates to a fingerprint, the person signing on behalf of another officer has to check independently the fingerprint identification, how many times such signatures have been used in the SCRO in each month since January 1997 and what audit arrangements (i) existed in January and February 1997 and (ii) currently exist for ensuring that signatures are not provided fraudulently.
Answer
This would depend on thedocument concerned. It is accepted practice for some documents to be signed onthe author’s behalf if that person is not available to sign the documentpersonally. It is made clear when this is the case by indicating that thedocument is being signed on the author’s behalf. There is no such practice inrelation to the identification of fingerprints.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 14 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23750 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, why it does not state what the purpose has been of any discussions regarding the matter of US agencies using Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights allegedly involved in the process of “extraordinary rendition” other than “routine discussions primarily in relation to the answering of parliamentary questions and other enquiries”.
Answer
I refer the member to the questionS2W-23750 answered on 8 March 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions areavailable on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be foundat:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 14 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Executive's cabinet has discussed the issue of US agencies using Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights allegedly involved in the process of “extraordinary rendition” and, if so, what the substance was of these discussions.
Answer
Information relating to theproceedings of the Scottish Cabinet is considered exempt from disclosure underSections 29 (a) and (b) and 30(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information(Scotland) Act 2002. This is in line with the principle that it is not in thepublic interest to disclose the private deliberations by which governmentreaches a collective view and inhibit the free and frank discussion of policywithin government.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 13 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it was aware of the current Lord Advocate’s party political affiliation when he was appointed Solicitor General in 1999 and, if so, what account was taken of it.
Answer
The Scotland Act 1998 provides at Section 48(1) for the appointment of theLord Advocate and the Solicitor General, with the approval ofParliament. Party political affiliation is not identified in the Act as afactor relevant to appointment.
- Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 06 March 2006
-
Current Status:
Answered by Nicol Stephen on 31 March 2006
To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the contents of file SEP 10/556, held by the National Archives of Scotland and opened on 8 September 2005 to public view.
Answer
The file contains papersdetailing discussions between Government officials on Scottish devolution and North Seaoil. The file is 30 years old and is of historical interest.
