Justice 1 Committee, 29 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Official Report 256KB pdf

---

Scottish Criminal Record Office Inquiry

We move on to item 4. I will say a few words about paper J1/S2/06/10/7, which sets out a possible approach for the committee's inquiry into the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the Scottish fingerprint service. Members are familiar with the remit for the inquiry, which we agreed at last week's meeting. We need to agree certain matters today. The paper suggests a possible approach but, obviously, it is for members to discuss the arrangements for the inquiry and propose any changes.

We need to agree the call for written evidence and the date of publication. The paper suggests that we allow four weeks for the submission of written evidence, but I will take members' comments on that. We need to decide whether we want to ask the Minister for Justice to provide the action plan at an earlier date. We also need to decide whether the committee wants to undertake a fact-finding trip to the SCRO, as we have had an invitation from the director.

We need to agree the witnesses for the first oral evidence session, which will be on 26 April. The paper includes some suggestions for the panel on that day. Again, it is up to the committee to agree to that or otherwise. We should give at least preliminary consideration to the question of which additional witnesses we want to call, although members might want to see the written evidence that is submitted before they agree the full list.

We need to agree how many evidence-taking sessions we will hold and the overall timetable. I remind members that, in discussing the number of sessions, we need to remember to build in sessions for consideration of our report. Sometimes we forget about that. As members know, we have pencilled in a further date in June and we will use at least part of our meeting on that day for evidence on the matter.

I have a number of points about different sections of the paper. Do you intend to take it section by section?

I am fairly relaxed about what form the discussion should take. Perhaps members might begin by giving an overview, after which we can focus on the various sections of the paper.

On the call for written evidence, I note the comment in paragraph 5 that

"it is normally considered good practice to allow 6 or 8 weeks for responses".

However, there was a feeling that we had to get on with the matter, particularly if we wanted to avail ourselves of an evidence session next month.

I am happy to agree the suggested four-week period for responses to our call for evidence, but I point out that in other committee inquiries—perhaps of a different type—the committee has had the discretion to consider any late evidence that might be submitted. I wonder whether that is everyone else's understanding of the procedure. After all, there is the danger that evidence might come in a couple of days late.

The clerks can correct me if I am wrong, but because of the difficulties in managing information we always have a deadline for evidence that we try to stick to. I have always been particular that members have a full set of papers before they come to a meeting. I usually decide on the criteria for allowing late evidence and agree to the submission of late papers and additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances. That said, I make that judgment on the basis of what I think the committee should see.

I am just wary of the sensitivity of certain aspects of this matter. I am sure that you are able to handle yourself, but you might well put yourself in a difficult position if you are the sole arbiter of whether any late evidence is submitted to the committee. After all, we are restricting the time for submitting responses to four weeks. I have a wee nagging doubt at the back of my mind, and I might want to revisit the point after other members have given their views.

Late evidence has been submitted to the committee before, and I would never exclude or filter out anything from the committee's consideration. I know that the issue is sensitive, but the committee is duty bound to consider only the evidence that is received during the official period. I cannot guarantee that any late evidence will be referred to the committee.

It would be unreasonable to ask for that. I simply want to establish that the committee could, if it so wished, consider late evidence. I know that other committees have considered late evidence; indeed, not so long ago, a source that should have known better submitted evidence extremely late to this committee and we decided whether to consider it. I am not suggesting that we leave the matter open and guarantee to take every piece of evidence that we receive—that would be silly—but I simply want to establish that the committee will be able to decide whether to consider any late evidence that might be received.

Moving on, I have no difficulty with agreeing to the three bullet points that are set out in the draft call for evidence in annex A on page 6 of the paper. However, there is one glaring omission—and I should make it clear that, in proposing an addition to those bullet points, I am mindful of and agree with the views that are expressed in Ken Macintosh's letter dated 29 March and his e-mail dated 22 March about some of the issues that should be examined. As a result, I propose that the fourth bullet point in the draft call for evidence should be, "Do you have information relevant to the misidentification or otherwise of fingerprints in what has become known as the Shirley McKie case?" That point—which might even come first on the list—is not highlighted in the draft call for evidence, but, in all fairness, it should be.

I will stop there for the moment, convener.

I support what Bruce McFee said, given that our remit comments on the implications of the McKie case. It would be appropriate to solicit specific views on that subject.

The paper by the convener is helpful. I am surprised by Bruce McFee's concern that we will not get all the evidence in four weeks, given that last week he thought that we could get it in a matter of days. However, he is right to say that the committee has tried to be flexible in the past when receiving evidence and I have every confidence that we will continue to do that.

In deciding on which witnesses to invite to committee, it is important to consider what the inquiry seeks to achieve. I suggest that we organise our work to look at the different aspects that the committee would like to consider, such as the problems at the SCRO and the Scottish fingerprint service in particular, and the recommendations that have been made, most of which have been acted on.

We should consider the work that David Mulhern will carry out and the further support around the international community in relation to how the Scottish fingerprint service has changed, will change and will continue to change into the future.

That is my suggested direction for choosing witnesses. I recognise, as other members have done, that we are constrained by time, but if we respond to where we want to go with the inquiry, we will be able to draw up a list of witnesses who can answer our questions and allow us to produce a report that will start to reinvigorate confidence in the delivery of the service. That is our ultimate aim.

I am happy with the timetable—four weeks is fine. It would be good to see Mr Mulhern's action plan as soon as possible. A visit to the SCRO would be worth while.

When we take oral evidence on 26 April and 7 June, it is important that we invite a balance of witnesses. If the convener is looking for suggestions for witnesses, I certainly want to hear from: the four SCRO fingerprint experts who were involved in the McKie case; Shirley McKie; Peter Swann, the independent fingerprint expert; David Russell, Peter Swann's solicitor; Jim Wallace; Colin Boyd; the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, who has already been suggested; William Taylor, who commissioned the 2000 report to inspect the SFS; James Mackay, who commissioned the 2000 report to investigate the conduct of the SCRO; and William Gilchrist, who was the regional procurator fiscal who investigated the fingerprint evidence.

As Mary Mulligan said, it is important to keep in our heads the aim of the inquiry—to re-establish confidence in the Scottish fingerprint service.

I am a little concerned about the long list of witnesses that Margaret Mitchell suggested. Last week, we spoke about trying to complete the inquiry by the summer recess. It is important that we get the balance right between trying to complete the inquiry in a short enough time to ensure that we react properly and being thorough. It is a difficult balance. The proposed four weeks in which we will receive written evidence seems fine.

After the suggested four-week period, once we have considered the written evidence, we should consider further what witnesses we need to call to give oral evidence. If we saw everyone who is on the current witness list, that would take up much of the time that we need to set aside. We must be thorough, without taking too long to do the whole inquiry. We have a bit of a balancing act to perform. The four-week period for taking written evidence is short, but it must be accepted.

If anybody who would give evidence to the committee was not aware of the call for evidence within the first of the four weeks, they would need to have been on holiday somewhere where they did not read newspapers. I would think that there would be no problem whatsoever with the four-week period. I accept what Bruce McFee said, but there is no doubt that we will get everything we want during the four weeks.

Margaret Mitchell suggested a long list of witnesses; I am not against calling any individuals to give evidence, but I am not sure that we can call the Lord Advocate. Perhaps I can have advice on that. We will need legal advice, because we must be careful about who we call to give evidence. I am well aware of Ken Macintosh's and Mike Rumbles's letters to the convener. I am not against calling any of the people whom Ken Macintosh, Mike Rumbles or anybody else suggests.

What Rumbles letter?

Mike Rumbles's letter is dated 27 March. I do not know whether the convener got a copy of it—did you?

Yes. It was delivered by hand.

So if there is more, you do not have it yet.

I have got the letter, but given that we live in an electronic age, it would have been more helpful for it to have been e-mailed.

Okay. For the benefit of other committee members, I will explain Mike Rumbles's request to the convener. Mike Rumbles met a constituent called Gary Dempster, who is employed by Grampian police. Mike Rumbles says in his letter:

"I was very impressed with the information that he had to impart and feel that it is essential that he is invited by the Justice 1 Committee to give evidence in the forthcoming Parliamentary enquiry."

I am not against that request, nor am I against what Ken Macintosh has requested. That brings me back to my point about legal advice, because we could move into the territory of re-examining court cases in the inquiry, but I do not think that we can really do that.

I want the inquiry to be as robust as possible. Initially, I thought that we would have to complete it by the summer recess; there is an expectation that we will do that. However, in terms of work pressure, we will also be considering two bills. I am not against Margaret Mitchell's list of suggested witnesses, although I have asked for clarification about whether we can call Colin Boyd. I am not against calling all the other people who have been suggested, but if we end up calling all those people, we can rest assured that four evidence-taking meetings will not be enough. Can we fit in four such meetings plus the meetings that we have already earmarked before the summer recess? I would like the inquiry to be finished before the recess, but it will be difficult to do that, given what members have said.

We must remember that once we have seen everybody, we will have to compile a report. As we discovered previously, it often takes longer to compile a report than it does to listen to all the witnesses. In addition, once we have received all the written evidence at the end of four weeks, we might find that we want to call more people.

I am not excluding or including anybody, but I would like advice on witnesses. Perhaps the committee should talk to the head of the parliamentary legal services, Ann Nelson, or somebody like that. I do not think that any committee members are qualified lawyers, so it would be useful and sensible to appoint a legal adviser for the inquiry in case we or any witnesses who come in front of us need legal advice. We need to ensure that all those who give evidence to the committee appreciate the fact that, although members may have some sort of parliamentary immunity, witnesses do not. As I said, and with that in mind, it would be extremely useful for us to have a legal adviser; they could advise both the committee and witnesses.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we were to break this down into chunks. I suggest that we tackle things in the following order: first, we agree the call for evidence and then the construction of the letter—Bruce McFee has made a suggestion on that. Following that, we should discuss the draft list of witnesses.

I will then respond to the issues that Mike Pringle raised on whether we should take legal advice and our position on the rules under the Scotland Act 1998. When we have reached some sort of agreement on those matters, it would seem appropriate for us to look at the timetable. I hope that the committee thinks that that is an acceptable way in which to proceed. Members should not worry that they will not get their say at any point. Let us deal first with the call for evidence.

Can I help you in that regard, convener? I am not suggesting that we extend the proposed four-week period; I simply want our approach to be on the record, because I think that that will be useful. Members are right to suggest a four-week period. I agree with Mike Pringle that anyone who has a particular interest in the subject will know about the call for evidence. I just wanted to cover the back door—that is always important.

Okay. Let us hear from Stewart Stevenson.

I am encouraged by the spirit in which all of us have contributed to the debate so far.

On the call for evidence, we need to ensure that we have the right people before us. It would be helpful if the Minister for Justice were to provide us with all the reports. She has indicated a willingness to co-operate with this inquiry; I am sure that she did that in good faith. For example, it would be extremely helpful if we were to receive the Mackay report from 2000 and the McLeod reports from 2004, along with the other reports that we believe the Executive has commissioned. Having those reports would enable us to focus on the key issues. Providing us with those reports would be evidence of the minister's good faith.

On the back of our call for written evidence, I propose that we write to the minister asking her for those reports. We should include in the letter a catch-all request for any papers that are relevant to our inquiry. After all, we do not know of everything that touches on the matter. It would be helpful to the committee and the Executive if the matter were to be brought to the speediest possible conclusion. We all want to get to the point at which we can say in all seriousness that confidence has been restored in the SCRO and its operations.

I will listen to what colleagues have to say.

I think that the committee is agreed on the suggested timescale for the call for evidence. I am always very particular about timescales. I do not want to lose the valuable extra time; we always argue for such time, although it makes a difference to our timetables. In this instance, the shorter timescale is justified.

Usually, I circulate to the committee any evidence that we receive outwith the deadline. We want people to subscribe to deadlines, so we do not guarantee that we will refer in our report to any evidence that we receive after the deadline. I leave the decision on that to members. I urge anyone who wants to say something to us to submit their response on time. That will allow us to manage the flow of, and compare, the evidence. In the event that we receive late responses, I will ensure that members take a view on how we deal with them. Are we agreed on the timetable?

Members indicated agreement.

I turn to the information that we are to request. Obviously, the Minister for Justice has given us quite a bit of information so far; it summarises the recommendations in the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Some members may have a copy of that report. Do you want to elaborate on that, Stewart?

Some of the documents to which I have referred have been circulated informally among certain members. It would not be proper for some members to have seen certain things and others not to have seen them. The committee should have access in a formal sense to documents that the minister says are substantive and complete. If it does not, there is the severe danger that we will disappear down rabbit holes that have not been occupied for donkey's years and have something unpleasant at the bottom of them. I believe in openness and transparency. I am sure that the minister is not in the business of trying to make our life difficult and that she will want to make it easier. This is one way in which she can make life easier for us, her and the rest of her team.

We will write to the Minister for Justice to request all documents that are relevant to our inquiry.

Will we mention in the letter the specific documents to which Stewart Stevenson referred?

I am content that the list should appear in the Official Report. However, let us include it in the letter, by all means, if that will be helpful. We should include a catch-all provision, because there may be documents of which we have no knowledge. I am relaxed about the matter, but if Mike Pringle thinks that it would be helpful to specify the documents, I will support his suggestion.

We will send a letter this week and see what reply we get. If there is a further specific document that we believe we should receive, we can request that.

I move to the question of witnesses. Before we enter into a discussion, I note that a few issues have been raised.

I do not mean to interrupt you, convener, but we have not yet agreed the draft call for evidence.

You are right. It would be easier to deal with that first.

It would stop us jumping about.

Annex A outlines a possible formulation for the letter inviting written evidence. The agreed remit of the inquiry speaks for itself. If anyone thinks that they have something to say on the remit, that is a matter for them. The rest of the letter emphasises the points in which the committee has a particular interest. Three points are mentioned. Bruce McFee has suggested another specific point. It would be helpful if he would elaborate on what he wishes to invite by that addition.

I would be happy to do so. I will begin by reading out the wording that I suggest, which may help.

Do so slowly, so that I can take it down.

The terms of the inquiry are clear and cover what I am going to say. They also cover the three specific bullet points that appear in the request for evidence, so it is fair that the issue that I want to raise should appear as a bullet point. I suggest that we ask, "Do you have information relevant to the misidentification or otherwise of fingerprints in what has become known as the Shirley McKie case?" The reason for including that question is straightforward. We are carrying out this inquiry because of the McKie case. The lack of confidence in the SCRO has crystallised around that case. If at some point I am asked and, hopefully, want to express confidence in our system, I must know what went wrong. It is as simple as that.

You want to seek evidence from anyone who has information about the misidentification of the fingerprints.

Yes—information relevant to the misidentification or otherwise of the fingerprints.

Where do you think that that will lead? I am worried that the whole inquiry would end up focusing on whether we could sort why some fingerprints were misidentified. I need to know what you are trying to invite by adding the new bullet point.

I will tell you exactly what I am trying to invite. We are being asked to call witnesses, whose evidence will probably be that everything is now running 100 per cent within the SCRO and the fingerprint service. I hope that that is the case. However, in order for me—and others I suspect—to satisfy themselves that that is the case I will have to see evidence that the SCRO has identified the mistakes of the past and has taken action to remedy those mistakes. I do not know what went on. Nobody in the committee knows exactly what happened. Is it a systemic problem, for instance?

Are you suggesting that the information that you are calling for would allow us to try to resolve what happened?

The resolution of what happened is a much bigger issue, but that information would help us to understand what happened. I am not trying to be simplistic, but say that one of my car tyres has a puncture. The first thing that I do is try to find out which tyre has the puncture. I do not simply change all the tyres. Basically, that is what we have to do. We have to get an indication of—a feel for—what went wrong. We are being invited to believe that this is two cases and we are told that there were two misidentifications in one case and that everything else is fine. I need an indication of whether the case was a one-off occasioned by particular circumstances. I just do not know.

I am happy to support the inclusion of Bruce McFee' suggested wording. We will not know what went wrong until we try to establish the facts surrounding the misidentification of the fingerprints; until then we cannot really move forward. On that basis, I am happy to add a fourth bullet point. It is crucial and will have an impact on the witnesses that we intend to call—certainly on those that I have suggested.

In my initial comments I suggested that, in agreeing what we are looking for from the inquiry, our starting point should be the problems at the SCRO that brought about and are highlighted by what has come to be the McKie situation. My feeling—and there have been hints of this in what other members have said—is that the McKie situation is not the only problem. We need to be careful and to ensure that we do not concentrate on one aspect of the problems at the SCRO to the detriment of others. That is why I have concerns about highlighting any suggestion that that was the only problem. If we ask for the information that Bruce McFee suggests we do, we will probably not hear anything that we have not heard already. However, we should add that question to the call for evidence and see what it produces.

I am concerned that Bruce McFee might be suggesting that question as a way of moving onto the ground that we disagreed about last week, which was that of trying to replicate a public inquiry in the committee. I put that on the record because I would have concerns about that. [Interruption.] I am pleased that Bruce McFee and Stewart Stevenson indicate that that is not what they are seeking. I am happy for the suggested fourth bullet point to be included in the call for evidence.

I am happy to put it on the record again that replicating a public inquiry is not my intention.

It is clear that Ken Macintosh and Mike Rumbles would have something to say about the issue. What Bruce McFee has suggested relates directly to them and to their letters. Having agreed a remit it is incumbent on us to make the inquiry as broad as possible. It is vital that we focus on the people who have been directly involved in what has happened and who have something specific to say about it. A huge number of people might want to have their say in our inquiry, but there is no way that we will be able to hear from them all. We must focus on those who have been directly involved and who have specific information to give us, such as the fingerprint experts. I repeat that I would like us to get some legal advice before we finalise the list.

The issue is how we move forward. I hear what members are saying. The remit refers specifically to

"the implications of the McKie case",

which people can interpret however they like. I would be concerned about our using the language that Bruce McFee has suggested, because to me it sounds like something from the programme "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation".

That is not a programme that I watch.

I could not support the use of language asking if anyone has any information, but I could support a replication of the phrase,

"the implications of the McKie case",

which is already in the remit.

The nub of the issue is that we must be clear about what we seek to do. I am entirely content that the purpose of our inquiry should be to establish what lessons, if any, can be learned from the McKie case; for me, that is what the inquiry should be all about. I am not interested in our trying to resolve a dispute that has continued for the past year by calling as witnesses the parties concerned. One group of witnesses would say, "We stand by the identification that we made," while the other would contradict that. Even if we had our own investigative team, we could not get to the bottom of matters. The committee knows that that is my view.

In the interests of making progress, I concede that our call for evidence should make some reference to the inquiry remit's mention of

"the implications of the McKie case",

but I would be strongly opposed to the idea of making the call so broad that it invited anyone who had any information on the misidentification of fingerprints to give evidence, because if we did that, we would be starting a miniature inquiry that would centre on our resolving who was right and who was wrong. I do not know whether that is a helpful suggestion, but I am attempting to meet Bruce McFee halfway.

To be honest, your suggestion is broader than mine. My suggested bullet point was an attempt to narrow that aspect of the remit, but your proposal would re-open the door. It is important that I used the word "relevant". I am not asking for all and sundry, from Sunday Mail journalists to writers from The People's Friend, to submit their views because that would be a nonsense, but if we are to understand the McKie case, it would be useful to hear from those people who know about the basic problems. We are being asked to approve a report that suggests that the way in which fingerprints are analysed is changed, so we need to know why such change is necessary. I suspect that there is a direct link with some of the issues that will arise in our inquiry.

If I read my suggested wording again, perhaps the convener will realise that it is quite a narrow proposal, rather than an open one. I propose that we include, as a fourth bullet point, the question, "Do you have information relevant to the misidentification or otherwise of fingerprints in what has become known as the Shirley McKie case?" The important word is "relevant"—I am not talking about information from third parties or from bystanders somewhere. My proposed wording is narrower than the convener's.

If you are saying that you want to narrow our call for evidence, you are speaking my language. I am just trying to get us to stick to the remit that we have agreed. As that remit already contains the phrase,

"the implications of the McKie case",

to reuse it would not broaden our inquiry.

Does any other member want to help us to make progress?

I have a brief point. As we have a list of bullet points, it would be useful to include in it something along the lines that Bruce McFee has suggested, although I am sure that whether we do so will not affect from whom we hear. By putting in such wording, we would be directing interested parties to the committee's particular concerns. If, for example, Gary Dempster were to respond to the committee, we would be signalling clearly to him the sort of areas that we wished him to focus on, rather than asking him to give us a 25-page closely packed document about everything in the western world that related to fingerprints, which we would be incapable of digesting meaningfully.

The new bullet point could serve a useful purpose. If there is a disagreement about the wording that we want to use, we should hear alternative proposals and take a view on them. However, I suspect that we are in broad agreement and are, perhaps, arguing only about the odd dot and comma and a couple of words. I think that the form of words that Bruce McFee has suggested would be perfectly adequate.

I am really unhappy with that wording. The question begins by asking anyone with any information—

That is relevant.

I know that you have included the word "relevant", but the person has to decide that. I agree with Stewart Stevenson that, regardless of what we say, anyone who thinks that they have anything to say will come forward.

I think that, because of the remit, our meaning is implicit. I do not think that the form of words will make any difference at all in terms of who is going to reply. I think that anyone who is going to reply will have decided to do so already, and we have not even put out the call yet. The matter is not particularly significant.

I think that it would be useful to make it explicit rather than implicit. We are in an area in which there are too many Chinese whispers. That is my point. It is quite a simple one.

I am not against including Bruce McFee's suggested bullet point, but I think that it replicates the remit. The words in the remit, "the implications of the McKie case", are broader than "relevant information". I am easy.

If that is the feeling, so be it. Bruce, do you want to pass your words to the clerks?

I have done so.

That brings us to the subject of witnesses. Before we discuss who we want to call, we should address the specific legal issues that Mike Pringle has raised.

Can I mention the fact-finding visit to the SCRO?

We will deal with the visit when we come to the timetable.

Members will be aware that, under the Scotland Act 1998, the committee has the power to call any witness, with some exceptions—namely, the Lord Advocate and judges. Legal advice for the committee can be dealt with in-house as we are entitled to ask for legal advice on any matter that we think is relevant to our inquiry. That does not apply to witnesses that we call. Any legal advice that they wish to take would be a matter for them. Do members have any comments on that?

I take it that there is no division between the Lord Advocate's role as the chief prosecutor and his role as the adviser to the Executive.

The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are specifically excluded. Callum Thomson will explain.

Could Callum focus on the distinction between our ability to call them to appear and our ability to request that they appear? In other words, is there an absolute bar to their appearing?

We will get a legal note on this, but my understanding is that the committee can call the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General to appear before the committee but that, in any proceedings of the Parliament, they may decline to answer any questions or produce documents relating to the operation of the system of criminal prosecution in any particular case if they consider that so doing might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. We will get that confirmed in writing.

Is everyone happy to have a legal adviser during this process?

Are you asking us to appoint a legal adviser?

I am suggesting that that is something that we might think about.

As I said, we already have access to legal advice as and when we want it. Would that suffice?

I would be interested to hear what other members say before I decide.

It might be premature to appoint an adviser until we see what materialises from the written evidence. We might revisit the question when we have the written evidence before us.

I broadly agree with Margaret Mitchell. It would be useful if we were to seek permission to have an adviser, but indicate that we have not yet decided whether to exercise that right. That is just a timing issue. Is that a fair point?

Yes.

I agree with Stewart Stevenson. The practicalities of appointing an adviser are such that it could take some weeks. We should perhaps set that in motion, but we should also bear it in mind that the committee can seek legal advice from the legal staff in the Parliament at any time during any committee meeting. We should make use of that at this stage, which should address some of the issues that Mike Pringle raised. We might want to reconsider that at a future date.

I have some sympathy with what Mike Pringle said. It might be useful to seek permission to appoint a legal adviser, in case we need one at a later date. One of things that might concern Mike Pringle is the possibility that defamatory statements will be made.

By members of the committee?

That point is covered in the draft call for evidence, which states:

"The Parliament will not publish defamatory statements or material. If we think your submission contains defamatory material, we will typically return it to you with an invitation to resubmit it without the defamatory material. If the evidence is returned to us and it still contains defamatory material, it cannot be considered by the committee and we will have to destroy it."

A protection is therefore provided. I do not know whether that was the only concern that Mike Pringle had.

Would it help if we arranged a private legal briefing so that members could have some of the more obvious questions answered? It is open to the committee to take legal advice as we proceed. As Margaret Mitchell said, if we felt that we needed the stronger presence of a legal adviser we could set things in motion now to appoint one. As Mary Mulligan pointed out, that is a longer process. We will have to take a twin-track approach so that members feel that they have the necessary support. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We move on to suggested witnesses.

The paper from the convener is helpful. Given that we have identified the date in April and are considering two further dates in May, I suggest that for the April meeting we go with the witnesses suggested in paragraph 17 of the convener's paper. In the subsequent meeting, whenever that might be, we should hear from the list of suggested witnesses in paragraph 19, which is drawn from Mike Pringle's original inquiry remit proposal. At the April meeting we should also consider who else we wish to call on the basis of the written evidence that we have received and the legal advice that I hope that we will have taken.

We should discuss the first panel because that is the pressing matter. We have a bit more time to decide on the other panels. I agree with Mary Mulligan that we will not agree all the witnesses today. We do not know whether some people we wish to call will provide written evidence and we have to bear that in mind before we draw up a final list.

I am not sure of the value of some of the witnesses that are suggested in paragraph 19. I am not sure what the Scottish Legal Aid Board would add, although I am prepared to be persuaded. I would not be happy with formalising a list of witnesses for the second meeting yet, and certainly not based on the suggestions in paragraph 19.

I have a list of names to throw into the pot, as it were. Some of them were mentioned by Margaret Mitchell. The suggested witnesses in paragraph 17 include

"Other SCRO staff with specialist fingerprint knowledge".

It would be useful to know who that refers to before I read out my list, but I will suggest some possible witnesses in other areas. Margaret Mitchell mentioned Shirley McKie and Iain McKie, but I think that we should consider some of their legal team as well. I can give the clerk a list of their names or I can read them out if members wish.

I suggest that we call former deputy chief constable James Mackay and former detective chief superintendent Scott Robertson. They carried out the 2000 investigation, so clearly we will want to speak to them. I also think that it is relevant to look back and take evidence from the former head of the SCRO, Harry Bell. Margaret Mitchell mentioned William Taylor, who was responsible for some of the inspections of the SCRO. We should hear from John McLeod and from Geoff Shepherd, the former head of the forensic training centre in Durham, who acted as a consultant during the police inquiry in 2000. We should hear from Joanne Tierney, the Scottish fingerprint training officer, who offered a critique of some of the items relevant to the SCRO. We should also hear from the SCRO officers at the time—I think that Ken Macintosh suggested that.

The paper suggests that we call "international fingerprint experts" to give evidence on 26 April. Does that include—excuse my pronunciation—Arie Zeelenberg, Pat Wertheim, David Grieve and Allan Bayle? There is also potential to call Jim Wallace. Did you suggest that, Margaret?

Yes.

I beg your pardon. I did not mean to duplicate the suggestion.

Those are some names that I can immediately think of—some of them are fairly heavy names. It would be useful to hear evidence from them. Obviously, I hope that they will submit written evidence as well.

Thank you, Bruce. So that I am clear, are the witnesses on your list people you are interested in calling or are you suggesting that we should call them all?

I tried to narrow it down. I have a list of about 60 possible witnesses, but I cut it down because I know that there are constraints. I think that those people have something relevant to say and they have detailed knowledge of the fingerprint service in Scotland. That is what we are looking for. I am not looking for bystanders who have commented in newspaper articles. I am interested in people who have detailed knowledge.

I broadly support what Bruce McFee says. Paragraph 19 suggests that we call Andrew Brown. Fine fellow though he is, I am not sure what he would add to what the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland would say. As chief constable of Grampian, Andrew Brown is a member of ACPOS. I suspect that it would be sufficient to call either the Law Society of Scotland or the criminal bar association. I am not sure about the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which is relatively peripheral to the matter.

The list that I originally submitted included a number of people who are also on Bruce McFee's list, such as the four fingerprint experts, Shirley McKie, Jim Wallace, who was Minister for Justice, and James Mackay. I am not sure what the Scottish Legal Aid Board could add to our inquiry. The current Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, was also on my list. If, as Bruce McFee suggests, we call the lawyers who advised the McKie family because of their ability to shed light on the matter, fairness dictates that should we also call Unison and expert lawyers for the SCRO.

The list that I brought to last week's meeting represented only a first stab at the matter and it would probably be a good idea for members to cross people off the list if they want to do so. The list of people that other members have provided is huge. I was keen that we try to conclude our inquiry before the summer recess, but if we call all those people to give evidence we will certainly not conclude our inquiry by then.

Bruce McFee suggests that we call five fingerprint experts. All those people have opinions and I hope that we can hear from one of them, but it would take a day, if not longer, to hear from all five experts, who might say broadly the same thing. I am trying to narrow down the list slightly so that we can complete the inquiry by the summer recess.

I want to reserve judgment on whether to call some of the people Bruce McFee suggests until after we have taken legal advice. I am not against the inclusion of anyone, but I am keen to narrow down the list, if possible. It is a good idea to call Jim Wallace. I am sure that he would have no objection to being called, but it would take a full meeting to hear evidence from the Minister for Justice and from Jim Wallace and a second meeting to hear from the fingerprint experts and others.

We should take legal advice about certain people before we draw up a definitive list, so we should meet our legal adviser as soon as possible. Perhaps after taking advice we will be able to decide on a list immediately after the Easter recess. I hope that by then we will have enough information, which I am sure the clerks will pass on to us if we are not here during the recess, so that we have a little more time to read it than we would do in a normal hectic week when Parliament meets. The clerks might already have received information.

I say in my defence that at last week's meeting I questioned the list that is reproduced in paragraph 19, but nobody supported me, so this week I tried—as ever—to be accommodating by accepting the list. However, if members have decided that questions remain about that list, I am happy to go along with that. It is helpful that members identified the entire list of people who could be called to give evidence to our inquiry, but I wonder by which year's summer recess they think we can draw up our report.

I am persuaded that we should decide on panels of witnesses for our first inquiry meeting in April. We should return to consideration of whom to call after we have received written evidence and discussed who might be available. We should discuss whether we need to hear from all five experts and we should ascertain what information the minister can give us about David Mulhern's support team. I hope that the minister will give us that information soon and that she will tell us which international experts David Mulhern will consult. That may direct us as to which named experts we may want to propose. We should return to the discussion at our April meeting and make a decision then. Like Mike Pringle, I have not ruled out anyone. We must make a start and build on that as and when we can.

I agree—there is no dissent on that. Last week we took out the list, for the reason that has been given. We all accepted that Mike Pringle had provided it as an indicative list of people who could be called. I agree that we should not determine witnesses even for the second panel until we have received written evidence. That is only sensible, because we may change our minds. The witnesses whom I listed fall into some fairly natural groups; practice suggests that they will be grouped into panels and will not appear by themselves.

I raised the issue of experts because paragraph 17 invites us to agree to include "Other SCRO staff" on panel 1—the first evidence-taking session. It is important that we know who those staff are. I will be candid. I am concerned about our asking people to give evidence only as employees of organisations because, ultimately, their evidence will be restricted. As someone who likes a wager now and again, I am prepared to bet that there would be gey few instances in which such people would give evidence that their employer did not want to hear. That is my only concern. Balance needs to be built in, because at the moment panel 1 is SCRO day. I am not saying that a balance can be struck on the same panel—I am fairly sure that that is not possible. However, it must be struck elsewhere.

I agree with your choice of words. It is important to get a balance when we select witnesses. I would use the words "balance" and "focus". I have already seen some of the paperwork that is circulating, and it contains some quite heavy-duty information. The committee needs to be quite focused on structuring the witnesses in a way that will allow us to follow very detailed and expert information. We must agree what we plan to do on 26 April. The next stage might be to draw up a long list of everyone who has been mentioned so far. All the written evidence will be available on 27 April. Members may see some of it for 26 April, but the deadline is the following day. They will have an idea of who has submitted written evidence.

We may be stuck with this, because time is limited, but the paper states that panel 2 will consist of

"International fingerprint experts (those validating the Action Plan prepared by DCC Mulhern)".

Who are those experts, and who employs them? If we take evidence only from people who are validating a document, we should not be surprised if they tell us that everything is hunky-dory. I accept that the list was drawn up in haste, but my fundamental concern is that we might hear only from people who will support the document but not from those who are prepared to disagree with it or to say that issues have not been covered.

I accept that point, which applies to many witnesses. It is fair to surmise that witnesses will feel restricted. Mike Pringle mentioned issues relating to legal advice. We need to ensure that we strike a balance and seek expert evidence from people who hold different views.

I draw members' attention to paragraph 8 of our approach paper. It states that the names of the experts who will validate the action plan have yet to be announced. I accept Bruce McFee's point that the committee must be clear about who the experts are, who their employers are and where they come from. That will be made crystal clear to us as soon as the information is available. It is up to members to decide the lines of questioning that they want to adopt if they have concerns that the experts who validate the action plan are not sufficiently independent. We would all share that concern. We will not have that information until the action plan is released.

We expect the action plan to be sent to the minister by the end of March. When it will be released to the committee and published more widely is a matter for the minister. The approach paper asks whether the committee wants to request that the minister release the action plan as soon as possible.

I am aware that a number of international experts have been asked to validate the plan. Will we be informed if any international fingerprint experts refuse to validate the plan and will we call them to give evidence?

I suggest that when David Mulhern is in front of the committee we must establish how the experts were selected. The action plan is quite wide ranging. Issues about the implications of recent cases will have to be addressed by that panel. I have no doubt that that is the starting point. To that extent, I agree with other members that we must establish how the Executive arrived at the action plan. Such questions need to be put to that panel, which makes our leaving some blank spaces in the timetable all the more pertinent. We can fill them depending on what we hear at that evidence session and on what is in the written evidence. We can decide who the most appropriate witnesses are once we have heard from that panel.

Members will know who the experts are before 26 April. Bruce McFee might have some of his questions answered, but he will not get them all answered. He can address the issues on the record, which is part of the purpose of bringing the witnesses to the committee.

I understand that and I know that I am asking you to resolve an issue that may not arise, which is always difficult.

Given that the minister will confirm the names of the experts who validated the action plan, it would be worth our while to get on the record confirmation of the names—if there are any—of those who refused to validate it. We must know whether there is dissent among the experts. There may not be, but the experts may have been chosen because they will validate the action plan. I want to know the other side of the story. I am not saying that the committee could immediately call them to give evidence, but we may wish at some stage to bring someone to the committee who challenges the action plan.

The only point that I am not clear about today is whether the appointments were made independently by David Mulhern. I do not know whether the minister can shed any light on that. I have already put a call in to David Mulhern and have asked that as soon as possible we receive preliminary information about the action plan and the experts that he intends to bring with him. If Bruce McFee has concerns that a selection process may have taken place, he should ask about that on the record.

Okay. I accept that point.

I agree.

I proposed five different organisations and individuals. I presume that we will call the Minister for Justice. Are we suggesting that we do not call any of the other four? I would be happy with that.

We should hear from the Law Society of Scotland.

Or from the Criminal Bar Association.

That would be helpful, because we need to get a broader view on re-establishment of confidence in the service.

We should hear from one or the other.

One of those would probably do.

Perhaps someone who was a member of both the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society of Scotland would do well.

If we are to spend the whole day on panel 1, we will need to start earlier than 10 o'clock. However, we can discuss that when we come to consider the timetable. We should also establish which

"SCRO staff with specialist fingerprint knowledge"

we should invite.

Another point is that someone whom we might want to call might not submit any written evidence. Perhaps we should leave the matter open. For example, I am very keen to hear from James Mackay and his deputy, but I am not sure that we will get any written evidence from them.

Our previous practice certainly does not suggest that anyone who submits written evidence has to give oral evidence; on the contrary, the written evidence that we receive simply gives us an opportunity to find out who is saying what, and has never guided our decisions on who we call to give evidence. I am very particular about that matter, because we have previously argued over who should be called before us. It is always a difficult call; however, it is always a matter for the committee and it has never depended on the written evidence.

That is fine. In that case, I broadly agree with everything that has been said. We need to focus on who should give evidence on 26 April. Clearly, the evidence session with David Mulhern—especially if he brings other people with him—John McLean and Ewan Innes will take a long time. Will that group take up the entire morning? Do we broaden it out to include

"SCRO staff with specialist fingerprint knowledge"?

Kenneth Macintosh has suggested that we invite Peter Swann, and Mike Rumbles—I am sorry that members do not have his letter—has suggested Gary Dempster. I simply do not know how broad the category of

"staff with specialist fingerprint knowledge"

will turn out to be.

The first day of evidence taking will concentrate on the action plan. For example, who has validated it? Where has it come from? How wide is it? What lessons has the SCRO learned? What changes has it made and what changes does it plan to make? Basically, we will concentrate on the fingerprint service, past and present. Any fingerprint experts who give evidence on the action plan will let us know where the service has come from and where it intends to go. Other witnesses from the fingerprint service will allow us to understand how we have reached this position by giving a variety of views on the identification of fingerprints, on differences in procedure and on what happens in particular cases. We should try to contain such evidence taking and maintain focus in the inquiry.

If members agree that the meeting on 26 April should concentrate on such matters, we should ensure that our witnesses fit in with that decision. That meeting is simply the starting point; however, I agree with Mike Pringle that it will be weighty.

Do members agree with how the panels have been constructed? Do they feel that anyone is missing? Obviously, the key witness in panel 1 is David Mulhern, but members might also want to hear from the head of the SCRO. We have separated out the international fingerprint experts into panel 2, because they will discuss how they validated the action plan. At the moment, panel 3 comprises representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Do members have other suggestions?

I am relatively content with the proposal for 26 April. On 19 April, we will have some idea of what written evidence we have received; in fact, I suspect that the great majority of it will have arrived. Therefore, we will be in a position on 19 April to make informed judgments—albeit that they will not be informed by what we will hear from the panel on 26 April—as to what we want to achieve in subsequent evidence sessions.

Today has been useful in laying out the groundwork about organisations and named individuals from whom we wish to hear on 19 April. I suspect that we cannot today bottom out what happens on the second and subsequent evidence-taking days. We have had a useful discussion, but perhaps that is all. Given our usual forensic skills, the layout for the meeting on 26 April will be sufficient for us to understand the background against which the inquiry will develop over subsequent days.

Okay. Do we agree on the panels for 26 April?

Members indicated agreement.

We have a meeting on 7 June, but we need to discuss whether there should be a meeting between those dates.

We have taken a note of all the suggested witnesses. There are quite a few, so I will not read them all out. We have a long list of possible witnesses that will be circulated so that members can check whether their suggestions are on it.

Once we agree the timetable for oral evidence sessions and see the written evidence—we are not likely to see the bulk of it until 27 April—we can discuss further where members want agreed witnesses from that list to fit into the slots. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Let us move on to our timetable: how long will the inquiry take and when will we meet? As members know, there are some givens in our timetable—for example, consideration of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill starts after the recess.

I have contacted the office of the Minister for Parliamentary Business, as agreed, and said that we would like some flexibility in our extremely tight timetable which, when we consider the size of that bill, we would have needed anyway.

I am still awaiting word on how we are expected to handle stage 2 of the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill, but that might become clear in the next few days.

We probably need to talk about which slots we can agree on outside our normal Wednesday morning slot and all the difficulties that that will bring. I ask for suggestions from members.

At this stage, we are not able to size the inquiry and we will not be able to do so until we see the written evidence and understand in greater detail the background to it, which will probably happen in the first oral evidence session on 26 April.

I agree with Mike Pringle's and Marlyn Glen's observations that the prospect of our completing the inquiry before the summer recess is unlikely because it will be a substantial piece of work. Therefore, we are forced to confront the possibility of scheduling extra meetings. As one of the more remotely located members, for my personal convenience, Tuesday is the day on which I am here anyway and do not have other substantial, regular commitments. I encourage other members to consider additional meetings on Tuesdays, although at this stage we cannot say how many or specifically when. I am minded to support what Mike Pringle said about starting meetings earlier. I am normally in the Parliament at seven in the morning and would be perfectly happy to start at 7.30. I realise that that is likely to be a minority view, but I make the offer.

I would not want Stewart Stevenson to get away with suggesting that he is the only member who starts work at 7.30. I point out that some of us do constituency work before we come to committee meetings, but I am sure that he does that, too.

If we started at 7.30 and finished at 1 pm, I do not think that any of us would have any concentration left for the final two hours of the meeting. However, I agree that, because of diary and other commitments, we need to schedule more meetings. We should try to find days for at least two meetings, although we might need more than that. Like Stewart Stevenson, I would prefer the inquiry to be finished by the summer recess because there is no doubt that the Executive will put us under increasing pressure to get legislation through before next May, which means that our timetables will not get any easier between September and next May.

Just looking at my diary, which I have before me, I can see that it will be a complete nightmare to try to fit in a meeting on a Monday between now and 5 June. I would be much happier with a Tuesday. I appreciate that some members attend other committees on a Tuesday, but I do not. I have organised some things for Tuesdays. For example, I am involved in a planning inquiry and am likely to be called to it on Tuesday 23 May, so I would probably not want us to have a meeting then—although it has not yet been confirmed that I will be called to the inquiry on that date, which is a bit of a difficulty. However, we should try to schedule some meetings for Tuesdays. Perhaps we could have two meetings in May prior to the meeting on 7 June.

I return to the question of getting legal advice. I do not know whether it would be possible to schedule half an hour with a parliamentary legal adviser, whoever that might be, during the meeting on 19 April. I would suggest that we have the legal advice in private.

I think that Tuesday is the best day to have the suggested meetings. Clearly, we cannot meet on a Wednesday afternoon or on a Thursday, which is regrettable, unless we change standing orders in some way. I do not know whether the inquiry merits our asking whether we can do that. However, it looks like Tuesday is the best day. Clearly, members would not want to meet on a Friday. Looking at my diary, I am fairly well committed on Fridays, so Tuesday is the day that I am looking at—apart from the odd one—and anytime on a Tuesday would be fine.

The timetable should be flexible because the inquiry is important and it should not be rushed. For me, it is currently about the highest priority for the Justice 1 Committee. Two dates have been identified on existing committee dates on 26 and 27 June. I am happy to consider two other dates in May and it seems sensible to have the meetings on a Tuesday—that would certainly suit me best.

To respond to the members who suggested that we are being pushed to get legislation through, I make no bones about the fact that I think that the credibility of the criminal justice system hangs to a large extent on the outcome of our inquiry. It has been well documented that it is not a judicial inquiry, but it has real significance. The Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill is an important bill about summary justice that I would not want to be rushed. I want it to have its proper place and not to be pushed through. However, in my view, there is not the same necessity for the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill. I think that that is the committee's view, too, otherwise we would not have rejected the bill's general principles. I would like that comment to be taken back to the Parliamentary Bureau and to be factored in to a possible timetable, should we require any extra days.

Can I just narrow down the Tuesday a little bit? Mondays are definitely out because I have the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee on Mondays right through May. On each Tuesday morning throughout May, I also have an Equal Opportunities Committee meeting. I am left only with Tuesday afternoon. That is fine, although it means that I will have an extremely heavy meeting schedule. For the May meetings, Tuesday afternoon is acceptable.

I echo the point that Margaret Mitchell made. It is important that I put on record something that all of us know: the committee is not the slave or the creature of the Executive. We are here to do a job. The independence of committees is much talked about; indeed, if they are to work properly, committees must make time for this type of investigation.

I also agree with Margaret Mitchell about the importance of the issue. For me, this is probably the most important item that has come before us. Saying that does not diminish the importance of any of the other work that we do. This investigation is crucial to the fingerprint service and to our criminal justice system, which is in danger of being brought into disrepute.

I concur with much of what other members have said about the suitability of Tuesday afternoons, which are also a convenient time for me. I have another committee involvement on a Tuesday, as a member of the Procedures Committee. If we decide to meet on Tuesday mornings, I will be here; I will alert my Procedures Committee substitute to that. I have no doubt that she will be delighted to be drafted in to such an interesting event as the fortnightly meeting of the Procedures Committee. I will make my diary flexible to suit our timetable.

I agree with other members that Tuesday afternoons seem to be the best time, although—obviously—they are not ideal. I share members' concerns about what this inquiry is setting out to achieve. As many members have said, it is important that we deal with issues such as the lack of confidence in the system—hopefully, our work will re-establish that confidence.

However, we should not downgrade the work that we are doing at the moment. The Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill deals with issues including bail, which members have raised a huge number of times. Members should not think that we are doing this lightly. I was interested to hear Margaret Mitchell say that she is still not happy about the committee promoting human rights. No doubt we will return to that issue.

That is unfair and unworthy of Mary Mulligan.

Most members are signing up to Tuesday afternoons; it is good that we have identified a time. As other members have said, the work may go on beyond the summer recess. I hope that that is not the case for a number of reasons, not only because the people out there who are waiting for our inquiry report will be concerned if our deliberations go on for too long.

As ever, we will need to be flexible; we do not know how long it will take to seek witnesses and draft the report, for example. As the convener said at the outset, although it is not the most visible aspect of an inquiry, drafting a report often takes up a considerable amount of an inquiry timetable. People tend to forget that. I agree with other members: Tuesday afternoon is the most accessible time for everyone.

You did not mention that we have committed you to being our reporter on some family law issues, Mary.

I have not forgotten.

I though that I should just mention that.

Although our views on the remit may differ, I think that all members believe to some degree in the importance of the inquiry. As a result, members will devote time to it. However, there is no point in pretending that some of our work programme will not suffer.

Ideally, Tuesday mornings would be better for me. However, I appreciate that that would lead to clashes for members who sit on other committees that meet on Tuesday mornings. I have some restrictions on my involvement on Tuesday afternoons. In the interests of pushing forward on the inquiry, I agree to meet on Tuesday afternoons, but I propose that we opt for two or three additions at the most to our diaries, outwith our normal time slot.

Members should not forget that when we embark on our consideration of a bill, we are very committed to that work. Often, we arrange to meet in private outwith our normal time slot. We have done a reasonable job in the past, particularly if we have not been happy with a piece of legislation. We have met officials behind closed doors to get to grips with the finer detail of a bill—I am thinking of bills that deal with procedures, for example.

I say that on the record because much of the work that we do is not done in the committee room, so we are taking on an onerous work programme. Many of us also have an interest in Mary Mulligan's work because, despite the huge piece of work that we did on the Family Law (Scotland) Bill and the effort that we put into it, there are still issues that need to be scrutinised and it is only right that we continue to do that.

I think that we are agreed that, if we have to find slots outwith our normal Wednesday time, they will be on Tuesday afternoons. I am restricted in how long we will be able to meet for on a Tuesday, but it would give us an extra slot. I hope that members are not suggesting that we meet every Tuesday afternoon, because I cannot do that, but I can certainly offer some dates.

I support members who take the view that we should aim to complete the inquiry as early as possible. We should aim to do that by the summer recess but give ourselves a bit of flexibility—particularly because we do not yet know the timetable for the remaining consideration of the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill—although I would not want us to go further than into September. It has always been my view that whatever work we do on the matter should only be interim, as there is a case for a committee—whether ours or another committee—to have a watching brief on the subject. I will say that from the beginning when we draft the report, because although our inquiry will be thorough, I do not believe for a minute that it will resolve everything.

Are we agreed to find extra slots on a Tuesday?

Members indicated agreement.

We might be best to circulate suggested dates. I propose that we circulate two suggested dates for Tuesday afternoon meetings in late May and, perhaps, the middle of June.

When members think about when they want to try to complete the inquiry by, they must remember that we will have to build in at least two committee sessions for drafting the report in addition to the evidence taking. Do members want to aim to complete it by the summer recess with some flexibility to take completion into September?

Notwithstanding the fact that we do not yet have the written evidence, I am more and more persuaded by the suggestion that Mike Pringle and others made that it is probably not practical to complete the inquiry by the summer.

It is unfortunate.

Yes. I think that it is probably impractical.

It might be helpful if we aim for something. If we leave it open ended, that will give us a handling problem because, as I have mentioned before—although members probably do not remember—the committee is due to do the proposed judicial appointments bill that is timetabled for February or March. Members might not consider that to be a priority, but I have an issue with the fact that the position has not been on a statutory footing for three years and I am concerned that there has never been a statement to the Parliament. I would not want to see the issue drop off the end of the session—you know what I am talking about when I say March 2007.

I assume that we will complete the inquiry before then.

The more the timetable shifts, the later we get into March 2007—April 2007, probably.

March, because none of us will be here in April.

To leave the inquiry open ended will give us a handling problem. Once we finish with the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, the extracts of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill and the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill—whatever happens to that—we will still have to squeeze in the proposed judicial appointments bill in the beginning of 2007. Therefore, it might be helpful to have a deadline that we are at least aiming at, albeit that it would be open to the committee to move it. What do members want that deadline to be?

It would be useful for the committee to agree that our aspiration is to complete the inquiry before the summer recess but our deadline, in the event that we cannot fulfil that aspiration, is to complete it by the end of September.

That is sensible. We will circulate some suggested dates for Tuesday afternoon meetings. I ask members to indicate to the clerks whether they are suitable.

We have covered most of the big topics for our inquiry. Do members wish to cover anything else today?

Have we covered paragraphs 11 and 12 on page 2 of the approach paper, on the fact-finding visit to the SCRO?

Yes. Marlyn Glen asked earlier about a visit to the SCRO. It seems sensible to respond to the invitation to go and have a look.

Again, I am just thinking on the hoof. A Wednesday afternoon or a Thursday might not necessarily be excluded for going on a visit.

Correct.

Given the pressure on Mondays, the extra pressure that will now be placed on Tuesdays, the pressure on Wednesday mornings and the fact that no one will be keen to go on a Friday, although I suppose that we could do so, our visit could be scheduled for a Wednesday afternoon or a Thursday. That would just mean that we would not be able to speak in a debate at those times. A Wednesday would probably be more problematic in that we would have to be back in the chamber by 5 o'clock.

We should not rule that out, but I would have concerns about agreeing to that now.

I was just making a suggestion.

I am not willing to give up my input to chamber business when it comes to matters that I feel are important. I would want to have flexibility on that. I think that others will feel the same.

I accept that.

There might be justice debates coming up. Remember that we still have to debate stage 1 of the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill. Could we agree not to rule out Mike Pringle's suggestion? If we are struggling for time, it might come to that.

We would all be keen to go on the visit.

Are we agreed in principle that we would like to take up the SCRO's offer of a visit?

Members indicated agreement.

We just have to agree a date. We will circulate some suggestions and members can respond.

Preferably, we will all go on the same day.

We have already agreed to write to the Minister for Justice, saying that we want all relevant documents for the inquiry. With the committee's agreement, I will mention the importance of our getting to see the forthcoming action plan as soon as possible in advance of our meeting on 26 April. It would seem sensible to include that point in our letter to the minister.

That brings us to the end of the meeting. The next meeting will be on Wednesday 19 April.

There is one item left, so we are going into private.

We will also be receiving an informal briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre and our adviser on the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill. That brings us to the end of the public session.

Meeting continued in private until 12:40.