Scottish Criminal Record Office
Agenda item 5 is the Scottish Criminal Record Office. In response to our letter of 24 February, in which we raised questions on the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the Scottish fingerprint service, we have received two items of correspondence from the Minister for Justice, which are papers J1/S2/06/8/7 and J1/S2/06/8/8. Members saw the correspondence on Friday at the earliest; if they have read it, they know that it contains a lot of information.
Given the interest in the issue, I put this item on the agenda so that we would have a chance to consider the contents of the correspondence and to record members' views. I ask members to give their initial response to the correspondence, along with any specific proposals on the matter, to help us to draw up a paper for next week's meeting, on which we can base any decisions or proposals.
We certainly have a lot of material. It is worth going back to the terms of the letter that the convener wrote to the minister on our behalf. It is important that the committee exercises its power of oversight over any part of the criminal justice system—and the SCRO is an appropriate part. However, as we agreed previously, the exercise of that power would not be a substitute for a judicially led public inquiry, although I hasten to add that the committee has not expressed a view on that subject.
One of the things that I noted in particular was the response to our question 7. The minister refers to Deputy Chief Constable Mulhern's action plan for the Scottish fingerprint service, which will
"be validated by experts of international standing"
and makes it clear that there will be an opportunity for
"forensic practitioners, stakeholders and users of the service … to contribute".
That is all in the context of the comments that are being made by foreign fingerprint experts and probably by some within the Scottish Criminal Record Office as well. Cathy Jamieson says:
"I welcome the Committee's continuing interest in the SFS and will be happy to provide further information".
I am keen that we should continue to engage with the subject, but we should consider our ability to do so in a substantial and meaningful way. I will listen to what colleagues say about that once DCC Mulhern's action plan has been prepared and reviewed.
Despite all the changes that have been made in response to the difficulties of the case, I and others remain concerned about the conflict between practitioners in the SCRO and the fingerprint service over the claim that no mistake was made in the two cases—one of which resulted in compensation being paid, while the other resulted in the release of someone who was previously convicted—and about the process by which the evidence was discredited in legal terms. Expert as we are in probing situations and working our way through to what has gone on, and even with the best efforts of all on the committee, we—politicians who are seen to have vested interests—are unlikely to be able to lay the issue to rest.
However, I think that we have an important role to play. I do not think that it is appropriate for the committee to take a view, but it is likely that I and others will continue to assert outwith the committee that a public inquiry should be held once the information is available and can be brought into the light. That is necessary to rebuild the confidence that we all believe there has to be in the Scottish fingerprint service. If that confidence is not widely shared and the service is continually attacked, the criminal justice system will be the poorer.
In summary, the committee has a role. Subject to hearing what other members say, I am presently minded to suggest that the timing will be right when DCC Mulhern's action plan has been reviewed. The minister said that she is prepared to work with us and I think that we should do that.
I agree with most of what Stewart Stevenson said. Over the past few weeks we have heard reports from people in Australia, Denmark and other places that fingerprint evidence is being brought into some doubt in their countries. An eminent person somewhere—I forget who it was, but I think that it was in Australia—said that Scotland has to sort out this issue sooner rather than later.
I have no doubt that everyone on both sides has been willing to work with whomever. However, we cannot deny that there is conflict and I think that the sooner we move towards having a parliamentary inquiry the better. I do not think that we need to hold a full public inquiry at this stage, but the issue must be investigated very soon. With regard to waiting until DCC Mulhern's action plan has been prepared, my fear is that we do not know how long that will take. The Parliament must serve the general public well, so we should move towards holding a parliamentary inquiry as soon as possible.
The fourth paragraph of the convener's letter to the minister says:
"As such, the Justice Committees of the Parliament have a duty to scrutinise the work of the Justice Department."
It is perhaps unusual for a parliamentary democracy to have two committees that deal with one subject. I believe strongly that both committees have the expertise and both committees should consider the issue jointly. I suggest, therefore, that we should hold a joint meeting of the justice committees and decide that we should move to a parliamentary inquiry. I do not suggest that all members of both committees should be involved in that inquiry—as Stewart Stevenson said, none of us is an expert in the field—but the committees should take a joint approach and decide on the remit of the inquiry together.
We should not wait, because that will only delay the inquiry for no good reason. The public look to us to do something as soon as possible.
Will you clarify that? You propose that we should move to a parliamentary inquiry as soon as possible, but do you have anything to say about its remit?
I am more than happy to talk about the remit. I have drafted something that we could consider, but I am not sure whether today is the right day to start talking about the remit for an inquiry. I suggest that we meet the Justice 2 Committee sooner rather than later and discuss the remit then, because that would give everyone an opportunity to think about what the remit should be. It is clear that the remit will include the implications of the McKie case, the operations of the SCRO and any evidence that has been brought forward by the police. There is a list of 87 proposals in appendix 1 to annex A to the Minister for Justice's letter, but I challenge members to say today that they understand the implications of every proposal. The Executive says that all the recommendations have been discharged, but the issue is huge and I think that we should proceed in the way that I have described.
I was not at the meeting at which the committee discussed the matter, so excuse me if I take a little latitude and am completely blunt. On the one hand, the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice say that there was an honest mistake. On the other hand, the SCRO officers say that there was no mistake. Those two positions are fundamentally irreconcilable. That is what is causing the crisis in confidence in our fingerprint service. We should not kid ourselves that the crisis in confidence is due to the public paying great attention to the 87 points in the minister's letter. It has been caused by the fundamental difference in opinion between two sets of people.
The public know that £750,000 has been paid out in compensation, that a man has been released from prison and that nobody has been convicted of the murder of Marion Ross. That is why there is a crisis of confidence in the fingerprint service. A limited parliamentary inquiry will do nothing to alleviate public concerns because, since the Parliament voted not to have a public inquiry, many people out there do not trust the Parliament to put the matter right. That is perhaps the worst element. There has been a loss of confidence in the system and in the Parliament because we are seen—rightly or wrongly—to want to cover something up. Until that problem is alleviated and there is a proper investigation, we will not move on one inch.
It is right for the committee to examine the fingerprint service and try to ensure that its work is done properly and efficiently, but we should not kid ourselves that that is a substitute for a full public inquiry that has the right to call witnesses and to compel them to give answers. We should not confuse the two approaches.
Can I come in there, Bruce? You missed the committee's discussion on the matter. We have already had that discussion and I do not want to go over old ground.
Committee members have different views, but we have all been clear about the fact that our decision on whether to conduct a parliamentary inquiry is independent of any other decision. Even if a public inquiry were to take place, our undertaking such work would still be a matter for us. If no public inquiry were to take place, no member is suggesting that a parliamentary inquiry would be a substitute for that. We have already discussed that.
That is absolutely clear. There is no question that a parliamentary inquiry would substitute for a public inquiry.
No other committee member has suggested that it would. You must be clear about that.
I take that as read. However, we should also be clear that today's meeting has been trailed on television as the next step in trying to get to the truth of the Shirley McKie affair. That is the problem—how our actions are portrayed outside the Parliament. All committee members seem to agree that a parliamentary inquiry would be no substitute for a public inquiry—
We agree on that.
However, that is how such an inquiry is being presented outwith this building.
The committee has a role in examining the fingerprint service, but with the proviso that, in my view—other people may disagree—the McKie case will not be put to bed until a full public inquiry has been held. Public confidence about whether a mistake was made—whether it was deliberate or otherwise, and the situation feeds the fear about that—will not be restored until the fundamental questions have been asked.
I share some of Bruce McFee's concerns. I heard on "Good Morning Scotland" this morning that Opposition parties, with the Liberal Democrats' help, would set up an inquiry into the SCRO. The Liberal Democrat former Minister for Justice has said that a mistake was made, but the Liberal Democrats are preventing something that I see as fundamental—a full judicial inquiry—and I take exception to that. I disagree totally with Mike Pringle—there is no way that a parliamentary inquiry would put to bed the speculation that surrounds the Shirley McKie case.
However, I recognise that the remit that was proposed when we asked the questions was to consider what has been done in the SCRO and the Scottish fingerprint service. We could consider that and reach a conclusion, but I fear that the conclusion would be meaningless if we did not establish what went wrong in the first place. I have concerns about what we would achieve by following up the three reports of which the SCRO has been the subject; the Mulhern report, which is expected at the end of the month; and the 87 points that have been made. All that work would be worthy, but the real question is whether it would get to the heart of what happened in the Shirley McKie case. We should be clear that the answer to that is no.
We need to be clear about what a parliamentary committee can do. We can hold the Executive to account for how it operates the Scottish Criminal Record Office and hence the fingerprint service. A parliamentary inquiry would not replace a public inquiry and anybody who thinks that it would is mistaken. To have that discussion again in committee is not particularly helpful. The debate is going on elsewhere and I am sure that committee members have different views. However, in our previous discussion, we were united about the fact that we have strong concerns about how we re-establish public confidence in the SCRO and the fingerprint service and reassure the public that there is no chink in the Scottish justice system that would allow discrepancies, mistakes or whatever to occur in the future.
The information that is in front of us goes some way towards addressing that and is quite helpful. However, we have not reached the end of the line, which is why I agree that we should hold off and consider the action plan that DCC Mulhern will produce. Cathy Jamieson suggests in her letter that DCC Mulhern
"will draw on the best available international scientific advice, expertise in organisational development and human resource management".
Can the committee go further without knowing the detail of that? I think that it probably cannot.
Mike Pringle said that a justice committee of the Parliament should do the work. I agree, but it should be one or other of the justice committees, because we are separate entities. On a practical note, when we have tried in the past to introduce arrangements for any kind of joint relationship, even on the budget, a limited number of members have turned up to such meetings. If we are serious about holding an inquiry, one or other committee has to do it; it cannot be both. We have to be sensible about what we are suggesting.
It is important that the committee plays its part in re-establishing people's confidence in the service. We can do that to a certain extent, but others, too, will have to play a part. I suggest that we draw a breath, read in more detail all the information that has been provided, await the action plan from DCC Mulhern and then decide how we want to take the matter forward.
I echo some of what Mary Mulligan said. It would not be helpful to do something as soon as possible. We should take our time, examine what we have in front of us and be as effective as possible. I agree that we should wait for the action plan that is due at the end of March. At that point, we could take up the minister's offer to answer questions on the action plan, although I do not know whether we would do that in a letter or whether we would invite the minister to the committee. In any case, that would be a more effective way of going about things.
I shall recap where I think we are and allow members to comment before we conclude. Notwithstanding the political debate and people's views, my view from the beginning has been that the committee has a responsibility to record everything that has been said about the position of the Scottish fingerprint service. I still have questions about the reforms. The subject is new to us all—I do not know the first thing about fingerprinting; well, perhaps I now know something that I did not know previously, but the idea of moving from a numerical to a non-numerical standard, as has been suggested, means nothing to me. Would that be a better system? Is that what other countries are doing? It is our job to ask such questions, regardless of our views about whether there is public confidence in the service. Are other countries moving to a non-numerical standard? I have heard that some are not and that some are dissatisfied with non-numerical standards and are moving back.
It concerns me that we will lose the current SCRO director, because there are important issues about management. What measures will be put in place? Will the director be replaced? Will there be a new structure? How distant is the SCRO from the police service? How distant should it be? Such structural issues are a matter for the Parliament and should be a matter for the committee, regardless of whether anyone else is examining the McKie case. I am keen to continue our line of inquiry at least until we think that we have done what we need to do or we think that we need to do more.
Mike Pringle proposed our meeting jointly with the Justice 2 Committee, but at the moment this is our work and we should be allowed to do it. However, I have always said that it is important to share with the Justice 2 Committee and I would always do that with that committee's convener.
The most appropriate point at which to discuss with the Justice 2 Committee whether it should join us or take on other work is when we have concluded our lines of inquiry. I support Stewart Stevenson's proposal that the short line of inquiry that we are pursuing should at the very least include an evidence-taking session on the action plan, so that we can hear what is being done. We could perhaps also hear from the minister, as Marlyn Glen suggested.
If the committee wants to do that as a minimum, that does not preclude us from deciding that there is further work to do or from discussing with the Justice 2 Committee whether it wants to take it from there. Those are preliminary remarks. I will allow members a full opportunity next week to firm up their proposals; I will also have a paper prepared on what they have said so far. We are not making final decisions today.
I was suggesting not that both justice committees should do the work—I am sorry if I misled anyone—but that we should have a joint meeting with the Justice 2 Committee to decide the way forward. It is fine for either the Justice 1 Committee or the Justice 2 Committee—or somebody else—to conduct the inquiry, but, given that there are two justice committees and that this is a big issue, I suggest that we get input from the Justice 2 Committee before we proceed.
I do not know where Marlyn Glen read that DCC Mulhern would complete his report by the end of March; I would be grateful if she would point that out to me. I do not know whether that is the case.
The second paragraph of the minister's letter states that she asked DCC Mulhern to
"bring forward by the end of March an action plan".
It does not say that he will complete the report by then.
My worry is that this will drag on. The report will not be completed for some time and if we wait for it we will find ourselves in exactly the same position.
The convener made an extremely good point about the different types of numerical and non-numerical fingerprinting and who is and is not using them. We could examine such things. I do not think that we need to wait for the report from the deputy chief constable; I would have thought that we would want to start work as soon as possible and to get on with it. That is what people expect of the Parliament. That is how I feel; we should proceed as soon as possible.
I have a practical proposal to make. Given that we are in doubt about when the validation of the DCC's action plan is likely to be completed, perhaps we could simply write and ask this week. That might help to inform our decision making.
It is probably important that we do not blur the lines of responsibility by getting unduly involved in discussing what other committees might or might not do. We have decided to involve ourselves in this matter and I do not think that we should seek to revisit that decision unduly.
The option is available for members of the Justice 2 Committee to attend and participate in our meetings. We are not in a position whereby we will put up our hands to specific proposals any time soon; I do not think that that is the issue. In my time in the Parliament, I have turned up to other committees and made contributions when I wished to do so. Perhaps we should write formally to the Justice 2 Committee to suggest that we would value its members' input if they were to attend our meetings, but I do not think that we should blur the lines of responsibility by taking any other approach. We have engaged with the issue and we should carry it forward.
I am keen that another line should not be blurred either. Given that the purpose of our inquiry is to consider some of the issues that the convener set out in her letter to the Minister for Justice, I do not see the difference between our moving today to conduct that inquiry and our doing so at the end of March, which is what we are being asked to do if we wait for David Mulhern's report, which I assume will be with us by then.
The only reason that I can see for waiting—I accept Mike Pringle's reassurance that this is not his reason—is that if we were to say this week or next week that there was going to be an inquiry, we would give the impression that we were going to conduct a McKie inquiry, which our proposed inquiry would not be. That is my concern about the proposal. At some stage down the line, I think that an attempt will be made to blur the process to make it look as if we are conducting a parliamentary inquiry that will get to the bottom of the McKie case—and it will not. I want it to be clear that I do not want the line to be blurred in that way when we make a decision.
I realise why you said that, but I assure you that if some of us had argued that the proposed inquiry would in some way be a solution and would get to the bottom of people's questions about the McKie case, I would have proposed having a parliamentary inquiry several weeks ago. My view is that this is a big issue and a big responsibility to take on and I think that the committee has supported me on that so far, irrespective of where members are coming from on the issue. I think that we are doing the right thing at the moment by asking questions and using our position of influence to demand answers so that we can think about how we want to take it from there, if we want to do that at all.
The minute that we say we will undertake a parliamentary inquiry, we will have to agree its terms. As Bruce McFee knows from experience, that would take time; we would need to agree our remit and timetable and decide who to call as witnesses. If a parliamentary inquiry is a possibility, we have to let members see what our workload and commitments look like for the next few months.
As I said, this session is for preliminary remarks. After today, we will put the options on paper and the committee can make a decision. I support Stewart Stevenson's practical suggestion. We can clarify the timetable for the action plan by finding out when David Mulhern will start and when he proposes to finish. That clarification would help our discussion at next week's meeting.
I want to respond to Bruce McFee's point. The proposed inquiry is not a substitute for a McKie inquiry.
Absolutely.
None of us is responsible for what the media might or might not say. We know what we said about this issue at a previous meeting. We recognise that the committee has a legitimate role in holding the Executive to account and in trying to re-establish confidence. We have done that previously. Members will remember the difficulties a number of years ago with the Scottish Qualifications Authority. The then Education, Culture and Sport Committee considered the problems that had arisen, how the SQA could go forward and how people could have confidence in its future operation. Similarly, this committee could be instrumental in re-establishing confidence in the justice system and considering the specifics that the convener helpfully raised in her earlier contribution. That is a legitimate role for the committee and we should not be regarded as anybody's substitute in any shape or form.
I agree with 99.9 per cent of what Mary Mulligan said. I think that I said in my opening remarks that what we are proposing to do would be no substitute. Clearly, the committee discussed that issue two or three weeks ago. However, I disagree with Mary Mulligan's comment that none of us is responsible for how the media interpret a story, because that often depends on how the media are fed a story. I think that the media have been fed a story about this meeting; I learned about what was likely to be moved at the meeting by listening to the television this morning. Clearly, the media had been fed a story along the lines of what was reported.
I am happy with the rest of Mary Mulligan's comments. I think that there is a role for us in considering particular aspects of the justice system. I am happy that that is a justifiable role for us and that committee members agree that that is no replacement for a public inquiry. On those grounds, I think that we can agree.
I welcome the convener's comments. Had we not been considering this issue against the background of the McKie case, we could agree matters now and look forward to the proposed investigation. However, we are sensitive about what we agree because we are working against the backdrop of the McKie case. I would like us to put options down on paper so that we can agree terms, remit, timetable and witnesses and ensure that we get as much as we can out of any parliamentary inquiry.
I do not know how many times we have to say it, but I think that it is worth repeating what Bruce McFee said. The proposed inquiry is being reported as an investigation that will try to restore confidence in aspects of the criminal justice system on the back of the McKie case. The inquiry will not do that; I want us to be 100 per cent clear about that.
We have had a good discussion. We will return to the issue at next week's meeting and make some decisions. As I have said from the outset, I will keep the Justice 2 Committee informed of what we are doing because that committee, which is considering the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, has an interest in the matter.
That brings us to the end of the meeting. I thank members. We will have an informal briefing after the meeting on the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill.
Meeting closed at 10:55.