Shirley McKie Case (Inquiry)
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4039, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Shirley McKie case.
Before the debate, I remind members that they have the right to debate and examine any matter. Members enjoy wide freedom of speech to represent their constituents and to consider the public interest. In so doing, they should act with discretion and responsibly. It is important to note that nothing should be said in Parliament that has the potential to prejudice the outcome of matters that are before the courts. That is why we have rule 7.5 on sub judice. I remind members that, after extensive legal debate, I have been advised that the case of David Asbury is technically sub judice. However, in this case and at this point, I am not in the position to rule absolutely on the sub judice ground. I simply ask members to take great care in the remarks that they make.
I thank the Presiding Officer for those opening comments.
In some ways, this debate is unique. The leaders of three parties have united to raise a matter not for reasons of confrontation but for public concern and basic justice. Perhaps that is the type of politics that Scotland said in 1999 it wanted, but which has been too little in evidence since then.
The motion in my name, which is supported by Annabel Goldie and Robin Harper, does not seek to divide opinion. Instead, it seeks to persuade the Executive that with so many questions unanswered, matters simply cannot rest. The motion quotes Lord McCluskey, the former Labour Solicitor General and senator of the College of Justice. His clear call for a public inquiry is immensely significant and he is just one of many who are demanding that an inquiry be held. Organisations as diverse as the Strathclyde police board and the Faculty of Advocates, and individuals who are as polarised on the issue as the McKie family and the Scottish Criminal Record Office experts who made the original identification, all want and demand further inquiry. The consensus is clear and it is growing.
Today, that consensus was joined by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Advocate and Lord Chancellor, and by the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales. Those clear calls must be heeded in the interests of justice. There must be a public inquiry, so I will outline what I believe should be the focus of such an inquiry.
First, because the Executive has used what are in my view some disingenuous arguments to oppose an inquiry, I will be quite clear about what such an inquiry should not focus on. As was demonstrated in the Chhokar inquiry, the Lord Advocate's decision-making process is not above scrutiny. Even though an inquiry would not, as has been suggested, compromise the Lord Advocate's independence in any way, it should not focus on his decision not to prosecute fingerprint experts for perjury, despite a recommendation to do so from the senior investigating police officer.
An inquiry should focus on two very different and important matters. First, it should focus on the original misidentification and attempt to discover how that came about and why it was not recognised in time to prevent Shirley McKie's prosecution for perjury. Secondly, it should look at the associated sequence of events that also led to the false identification of a fingerprint of Marion Ross that was used in a conviction that has since been overturned.
There are basic, but fundamental, questions to be answered. Was a mistake made? The First Minister said that there was, but the experts involved still insist that no mistake was made. How, therefore, can the minister say with confidence that lessons have been learned when the people at the very heart of the system do not accept that there are any lessons to be learned?
If a mistake was made, why and how did it happen? Why did an organisation that, we are told, has not made any other mistakes before or since this case, get it so wrong with two fingerprint identifications in the same case? Until we know the answer to that, we cannot be sure that the reforms that are referred to in the Executive's amendment have put things right. Those fundamental questions must be answered.
An inquiry would also focus on the political issues in this case. Chief among those is the extraordinary fact that although the then Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, said to Parliament in June 2000 that the fingerprint was not Shirley McKie's, it took another five years and eight months for the Executive to settle with her. During that time, no priority was given to securing a fair deal for her; indeed, many attempts were made to ensure that she got no deal at all. Those attempts include the five-day hearing in the High Court in October 2003 at which the Scottish Executive sought to have removed from Ms McKie's case most of the key evidence that is now seeing the light of day. That evidence includes the Mackay report and the presentation of allegedly distorted material to independent overseas experts working on behalf of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary.
An inquiry should also seek to understand how it was that a final settlement was offered to Ms McKie only on the steps of the court when, as Lord McCluskey pointed out on Saturday, much would have been saved in costs and in Ms McKie's agony if such a settlement had been proposed much earlier. An inquiry would be able to examine the facts of those matters and it would be able to see documents that are essential to an understanding of the case; the McKie family has not been allowed to do that. Despite many freedom of information requests, the Executive is still withholding more than 1,000 documents from the McKie family, including the independent Macleod report that it commissioned. An inquiry could also question witnesses, including ministers and those who advised them.
At the end of the day, we hope that an inquiry would be able to explain—in a way that the Executive has not—why Scottish taxpayers' money has been used as it has. I also hope that it would be able to reassure Scottish citizens that their justice system is operating efficiently and effectively.
Section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005 says:
"A Minister may cause an inquiry to be held under this Act in relation to a case where it appears to him that-
(a) particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern".
I put it to the minister that almost everything about this case has caused, is capable of causing and continues to cause public concern. There is the agony of Shirley McKie and the delay in paying her the compensation that she deserved, the nagging and persistent doubts about what happened at the heart of our fingerprint service during and after January 1997, the lingering suspicion that all this has been badly mishandled by our Executive, our civil service and our justice system and—above all else—there is the fact that nine years after her brutal murder, we still do not know who killed Marion Ross.
This is a classic case that is crying out for a public inquiry. No one who has nothing to hide has anything to fear from the truth being told. If the truth is not allowed to be told, we all have much to fear, however, because confidence in our justice system will be diminished. I urge the minister to reconsider her refusal to hold a public inquiry.
In closing, I urge all members in the chamber to put aside party politics on this occasion and to join me and the other Opposition party leaders in articulating Scotland's clear and overwhelming desire for justice to be done and to be seen to be done.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees with Lord McCluskey, retired High Court judge and former Solicitor General for Scotland, that one of the fundamental principles underlying the rule of law in a mature democracy is the principle that justice must be seen to be done; considers that in the case of Shirley McKie issues have arisen implying that justice has not been seen to be done, and, in further agreeing with Lord McCluskey that the issues involved are not party political but go to the heart of public trust in the criminal justice system, calls on the Scottish Executive to consider how the concerns expressed by Lord McCluskey should be addressed.
This morning, I will repeat much of what I said last week in my statement to Parliament on the Shirley McKie case. It is important to remind Parliament of the case's history, what we have done to deal with concerns about it and to account publicly for those actions.
Following Shirley McKie's acquittal seven years ago, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary carried out an inspection of the Scottish Criminal Record Office's fingerprint bureau in Glasgow. My predecessor and the Lord Advocate made statements to Parliament as soon as they became aware of HMIC's concerns.
Will the minister take an intervention?
The Lord Advocate announced that all current and future cases in which fingerprint evidence was led would be subject to independent external checks. Last week, I informed Parliament that HMIC's report was published on 14 September 2000. It made 25 recommendations covering the range of issues that arose. On the same day, my predecessor Jim Wallace made a clear commitment to put right the deficiencies that had been identified.
Will the minister take an intervention?
On 6 July 2001, the Lord Advocate announced to Parliament that during the previous 13 months, more than 1,700 cases that had been examined by the SCRO's fingerprint staff had been independently reviewed and confirmed to be accurate with no misidentifications.
Will the minister give way?
External verification was no longer necessary. Presiding Officer, these are important points that I believe must be on the record.
In the five years since then, approximately 20,000 cases have been presented to the Scottish courts and HMIC carried out three follow-up inspections of the SCRO. In its 2004 inspection report, the inspectorate discharged all the outstanding recommendations from the 2000 inspection and concluded that the SCRO was efficient and effective. All of HMIC's reports were published.
May I just put several matters on the record? I listened with interest and courtesy to Ms Sturgeon's speech, so I hope that Parliament will accord me the same courtesy so that I can put several matters on the record.
Hear, hear.
Last week, I described in detail the progress that has been made in improving our fingerprint service, and the further measures we plan to implement. The Lord Advocate also provided a full explanation of the decisions that have been taken in the past on criminal prosecutions.
We now have a national fingerprint service that has common standards, external competence testing and continuous professional development. Many members want to have confidence in the fingerprint service; they should listen to what I have to say if we are to restore public confidence in the service.
We must accept that the Scottish fingerprint service is very different from what it was in 1997 and we must look to the future and not to the past. We have ambitious plans for the service's future. The Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will create a new authority that will provide independent oversight of the fingerprint service within the new forensic science service for Scotland.
I announced last week that I had asked Deputy Chief Constable David Mulhern, the interim chief of the proposed Scottish police services authority, to submit by the end of March an action plan for the migration of the Scottish fingerprint service into the new Scottish forensic science service from April 2007. I have already discussed its progress with him. Many people have said that their fundamental concern in the McKie case is to ensure that the SCRO and the fingerprint service has moved ahead and is fit for purpose in the 21st century. I have made it clear that Deputy Chief Constable David Mulhern's plan should be open and inclusive, that everyone who wishes to make a contribution should be able to do so and that it should draw on the best available expertise.
The Justice 1 Committee has already written to me with a series of questions. I welcome its interest. Implementation of the action plan must bring us a world-class fingerprint service with independent oversight, scientific excellence and transparent adherence to standards. It must be a service that remains fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Presiding Officer, I am well aware of the need to continue to report to Parliament on progress. Parliament must have an opportunity to scrutinise our plans for the future and their implementation.
I believe that that is the appropriate way forward. We must look to the future to ensure that Parliament is able to satisfy itself that our fingerprint service and criminal justice system meet the high expectations that the people of Scotland are entitled to have.
I move amendment S2M-4039.2, to leave out from first "with" to end and insert:
"that action needs to be taken to restore public and professional confidence in the Scottish Fingerprint Service; acknowledges that in 2000 the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau was the subject of an independent inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC); notes that following three further inspections HMIC reported that its 25 recommendations had been fully discharged; notes that further reforms are being taken forward; that the Minister for Justice has instructed the interim Chief Executive of the Scottish Police Services Authority to bring forward, by the end of March, a comprehensive action plan drawing on the best available international scientific advice and management expertise; notes that this action plan will be reported to the Parliament; believes that a public inquiry is not appropriate; notes that it is the responsibility of the Parliament to hold the Scottish Executive to account; welcomes the work already commenced by the Justice 1 Committee, and confirms the Executive's commitment to co-operate with any inquiries that the Parliament may decide to take forward in scrutinising these reforms."
The large out-of-court payment of £750,000 by the Scottish Executive to Shirley McKie leaves us with more questions than answers. Issues that refuse to go away do so for one simple reason: the public want reassurance about the reliability of fingerprint evidence that is found at a crime scene. The McKie case undermines that because it will go down in legend that the Scottish Executive admitted that someone who was not at a crime scene could have his or her fingerprints detected there. There is widespread anxiety that the Scottish Executive is hiding something from the public.
The Executive argues against a public inquiry, but refuses to provide an alternative forum to examine the evidence, cross-examine the witnesses and ensure that justice has been seen to be done. The public is not satisfied that the truth is available to it.
The statements from the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice last week did little to help the public understand why two diametrically opposed positions cannot be reconciled. Shirley McKie insists that she was not at Marion Ross's house and the four SCRO officers are adamant that they made no mistake in identifying the fingerprint. Is it possible that they are both right? There is understandable anger in both campaigns.
Will the member take an intervention?
Give me a minute, Alex.
What if Shirley McKie's fingerprint was identified but not found at Marion Ross's house? What if it was put there by somebody else? Will the minister explain what inquiries her department has made about that serious possibility? It would explain why both parties are so adamant that there should be a public inquiry.
I thank Colin Fox who, unlike the minister, has graciously given way.
I draw Colin Fox's attention to the fact that there was not just one misidentification of a fingerprint at the murder scene in question. There were in fact two—only one of which was of a fingerprint as being Shirley McKie's. This case is not just a dispute between Shirley McKie and the SCRO. The SCRO has never explained the second misidentification, which did not relate to Shirley McKie's fingerprint.
I am grateful to Alex Neil for that intervention—it was exactly on cue.
The second issue concerns the reliability of fingerprint evidence, which has been called into question by many people in recent weeks. The Lord Advocate and the chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary seem to be telling the public that fingerprinting is not an exact science. How reliable is it, when David Asbury's print was also wrongly identified? In the past several weeks, hired fingerprint experts have left a trail of doubt behind them about the reliability of the science and its Scottish practitioners.
The Scottish Executive's position is that a genuine and honest misidentification was made by four fingerprint service workers and it claims that changes that have been introduced as a consequence of the case are all designed, as is the action plan, to restore public confidence in the fingerprint service. Similar reassurances about the service were widespread in 1997.
The fingerprint service workers are furious that their reputations have been sullied and they feel let down by their line managers and the Justice Department for not mounting a robust defence of them, their work and their competence. The reputation of the four officers has been hammered. It is not good enough for the minister to throw up her hands and say that she doubts that the two parties will ever be reconciled, especially since both feel that the Executive has denied them the chance to get at the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Last week, the Scottish Socialist Party, along with others, called for a public inquiry into the McKie case. We have been consistent in our approach and a public inquiry has been supported by the McKie family and by Unison—the trade union that represents the four workers. We feel that it is in the public interest that a public inquiry be ordered. We want the handling of the McKie matter to be reconsidered. The case for a public inquiry remains.
I move amendment S2M-4039.1, to leave out from first "issues" to end and insert:
"the public is still not satisfied that the truth of the matter is all available; recognises that the McKie family campaign is not satisfied that there was no conspiracy against her; also recognises that the four Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) fingerprint workers are furious that their competence and reputation has been sullied; believes that the Scottish Executive has a duty to address all these concerns, and calls for a public inquiry to get to the truth of this matter and to restore public confidence in the SCRO and the fingerprint service as soon as possible."
I thank the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party and her party for using their time this morning to allow Parliament to consider the escalating concern outside it about issues arising from the Shirley McKie case. The matter is—or should be—above party-political divisions. I thank Nicola Sturgeon for her willingness to discuss the terms of the motion, which is not intended to be judgmental but is instead an attempt to bring to Parliament for responsible discussion the genuine alarm that is being sounded outside Parliament.
The Shirley McKie case has assumed huge significance for our criminal justice system. It has raised issues of practice, procedure and protocol that go to the heart of that system. It has implied incompetence, corruption and collusion and has raised suspicions of criminal conduct and cover-up, all allegedly within our criminal justice system. It has left question marks over police officers, fingerprint experts, the Scottish Criminal Record Office and, of course, the role of Scottish Executive justice ministers. The report of Deputy Chief Constable James Mackay raised significant questions. However, as Colin Fox said, there are clearly conflicting opinions from fingerprint experts outwith Scotland, especially Peter Swann.
The Scottish Executive and the Lord Advocate have resisted calls for a public judicial inquiry, believing such an inquiry to be unnecessary and inappropriate. The minister reiterated that position this morning. I infer from the Executive's attitude that it believes that the crisis will subside, but it has not subsided and it will not go away. The storm clouds are still gathering around our criminal justice system and the Executive.
The minister's comments this morning were interesting. Her amendment concedes
"that action needs to be taken to restore public and professional confidence in the Scottish Fingerprint Service".
She therefore accepts that such confidence does not currently exist. She also concedes the principle of an inquiry. However, she truly believes that a parliamentary inquiry is the correct approach. If she accepts that there is a loss of confidence in our criminal justice system, how can confidence be restored by a parliamentary inquiry that would be undertaken by a committee with a Scottish Executive majority and which would be prosecuted by people who—however well intentioned they might be—lack the necessary skills and technical expertise to do the job?
Today, the minister has failed to address the concerns that are properly expressed in the motion. Specific reference is made to the view of Lord McCluskey. However, as Nicola Sturgeon said, he is not isolated in his concerns. We have heard a host of opinions: from Derek Ogg, a senior criminal practice Queen's counsel; from John Scott, a human rights lawyer; from Maggie Scott, the chair of the Criminal Bar Association; and from Joe Beltrami, a highly experienced criminal solicitor advocate.
This morning, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Advocate and Lord Chancellor, said that he thinks that
"there should be an inquiry to look into the reliability of fingerprint evidence in Scottish court cases, and the implications for other cases on which such evidence depends."
He also said that what troubles him is
"the question of whether the fingerprinting system is reliable for ordinary people. It's used in many cases every week. Why are these particular fingerprints open to doubt, if other fingerprints are to be relied upon?"
The fact that a person as significant as a former Lord Advocate and Lord Chancellor is expressing concerns and pointing out the necessarily technical nature of the issues goes to the heart of the matter. I think that the minister's response is ill-considered, inappropriate and inadequate.
I am aware that many members want to speak in the debate. Today the minister has made things worse. She acknowledges that there is a fire, but she reaches for a can of paraffin to extinguish it. That is utterly unacceptable. I support the motion in Nicola Sturgeon's name.
I am sure that Lord Mackay will be pleased, as I am, that the Justice 1 Committee has begun an inquiry into the concerns that have been expressed about the operation of the fingerprint service. The aim of the inquiry is to determine whether, as a result of the reforms that have been introduced in the service—to its standards, to the operation and management of its staff and to the organisation of its bureaux—it is moving towards an internationally standardised approach to fingerprint identification. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done, but so should the work of Parliament in its inquiries. We must also take account of the previous independent reports that have been published.
I hope that the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry will lead to a thorough examination by Parliament of the Executive, to determine whether Parliament should have confidence in our justice system and the fingerprint evidence that is provided in court. However, let us not forget that in each case fingerprint evidence must be considered on its merits, by experts presenting for the Crown or the defence. It is for justices of the peace and juries to decide what weight should be attached to such evidence.
We all accept that there have been welcome reforms to the SCRO. Does Jeremy Purvis accept that we will not be in a position to judge whether those reforms are adequate to fix what went wrong in the Shirley McKie case until we know what went wrong in that case? Does he accept that that is the missing bit of the jigsaw and that a public inquiry is necessary to find it?
I have heard Ms Sturgeon say that before. I have also heard her say that the integrity of our justice system is "on the line". I do not agree: confidence in one aspect of the system is being questioned and the people of Scotland expect Parliament to determine whether further reforms have been implemented since 2000.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not.
Ms Sturgeon asked whether we can assess the adequacy of the reforms before we know what went wrong. She suggests that we cannot know whether we have fixed the service if we do not know what was broken. That shows ignorance of the independent primary inspection report of HM inspectorate of constabulary, which was published in 2000 and which, I am sure, Ms Sturgeon and all other SNP members have read. The inspectorate found that the SCRO was neither efficient nor effective, but its follow-up report of March 2005 found that radical reforms had been implemented. That is on the public record. The report found the service to be effective and efficient. Efficiency is about swift application of justice and effectiveness means that evidence can be trusted in court.
Will the member give way?
I will not. I would have done so if I had had more than four minutes for my speech.
Are the SNP and the Conservatives saying that Scottish fingerprint evidence that is presented by the Crown should be inadmissible? On "Newsnight", Ms Sturgeon said that three questions need to be answered: Was there a mistake? How did it come about? Why has it taken so long to put it right? We do not know whether she has read HMIC's report from 2000, which asked for the opinion of two independent and established senior experts who have international fingerprint experience and who found that the prints in question were not those of Shirley McKie. I accept that there is a dispute about that.
Ms Sturgeon asked why it took so long to do something about the experts' findings. However, from the moment that Jim Wallace, the then Minister for Justice, made a statement to Parliament about the matter, reforms began. Work was done to establish the criteria that are used for examinations on a United Kingdom and international footing. There was also internal reorganisation of the service in Scotland, and training and management procedures were changed. For example, all trainees are now trained at the UK base for fingerprints in Durham, and have been for some time. Last week, Miss Goldie claimed that there is
"a huge black cloud hanging over the Scottish Criminal Record Office"—[Official Report, 22 February 2006; c 23350.]
If so, that cloud is currently hanging over the UK service as a whole, because there is a consistent approach to identification across the UK.
Miss Goldie must recall our being informed of the new procedures by the SCRO when, as members of the Justice 2 Committee, we visited it on 21 June 2005. We asked questions about the international—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I do not have time.
I recall the briefing that we received about the international standards that are being put in place and the reforms that are being introduced—the move to introduce IDENT1 and the introduction of palm scanning. I do not recall Miss Goldie saying to the chief executive or staff of the SCRO that she believed that "a huge black cloud" was hanging over the service.
Such reforms should be scrutinised, and Parliament should have a role in that. We should examine the implications of the McKie case. Of course public confidence in the service has been shaken, but grossly irresponsible suggestions such as the one that Ms Sturgeon made on 22 February do not help. She said that when it failed to order an inquiry six years ago,
"the Scottish Executive became party to a massive cover-up of the truth".—[Official Report, 22 February 2006; c 23349.]
HMIC's report was commissioned six years ago and identified considerable failings. The report was published, and I have heard no one question it. How on earth can there be a cover-up? A cover-up of what? Did the Scottish Executive and the Lord Advocate try to cover up major failings in a department when they had already told the country that such failings existed? The allegation is ridiculous.
We move to open debate. Clearly, time is very tight. If members stick to their allotted time, we will just about get everyone in.
The legal team acting for Shirley McKie in the civil litigation had three matters to prove: first, that print Y7 was not that of Shirley McKie; secondly, that print Q12 was not that of Marion Ross; and thirdly, that there had been a malicious prosecution. If the team failed to prove that, the minister must explain why taxpayers must pay £750,000 to Shirley McKie.
During statements on the matter in Parliament last week, it was stated that 1,700 cases were checked to ascertain whether other errors had been made around the time of the Marion Ross murder investigation. No errors were found in those 1,700 cases. Nevertheless, two errors were made in the Marion Ross investigation. Stewart Stevenson, our resident mathematician, assures me that the chances of that occurring naturally are one in 1,444,150. Alex Neil and Nicola Sturgeon raised that issue, but neither the minister nor Mr Purvis provided an answer. If the minister and Mr Purvis regard the Taylor HMIC report as an inquiry, they should note that paragraph 9.9 of that report says:
"The experts were not asked to explain why in their view SCRO experts were mistaken … They were asked to assist HMIC in the inspection process and not to undertake an enquiry."
My question for the minister is simple. Has any inquiry that has taken place considered why the misidentifications occurred?
Will the member give way?
I would be happy to give way to the minister, if she wants to answer my question.
Will the member give way to me?
I ask members to put themselves in the position of Iain McKie, whose daughter faced charges of perjury and a trial in the High Court. After she had been acquitted it was discovered that the state had withheld evidence. Last week I asked the Lord Advocate whether evidence had been withheld. I knew that it had been withheld and so did he, but he failed to mention that to the Parliament. The defence team never received evidence of a blind testing that was carried out eight days after the original misidentification occurred. The fact of that blind testing was concealed from Shirley McKie's defence team and was not mentioned by any of the three SCRO witnesses, who swore on oath that they were telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The fact of that blind testing was revealed by the Mackay report, which was provided to civil servants. Of course, the Minister for Justice and her predecessor say that they never saw the report. However, they were told what was in the report five years ago. That was a cover-up.
Will the member give way?
No. I do not give way to bit players. If the minister wants to try to answer some of the questions—
You have one minute left, Mr Ewing.
On 22 June 2000, the then Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice said that the print was not that of Shirley McKie. Five years later, lawyers acting on Cathy Jamieson's instructions had still not admitted that fact. They did not even admit in the pleadings a matter that had been stated in this nation's Parliament five years earlier. That is outrageous. If every civil court action in Scotland was conducted in such a way there would be no justice system, because the system would grind to a halt. What else is the minister covering up?
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak after the outrageous, irresponsible and reprehensible comments that Fergus Ewing made.
The Scottish National Party would have us debate one of the principles of justice. I too want to consider the principles of justice, in particular the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is almost impossible to read coverage of the Shirley McKie case without coming across the accusations and allegations of criminality, conspiracy and cover-up that are thrown at the fingerprint officers who made the original identifications in the Marion Ross murder investigation. We have just heard such allegations. The allegations are entirely unproven, untested and unsubstantiated.
I remind members that the four fingerprint officers reached their conclusions independently from each other and in the context of there being individuals such as police officers who might have been at the crime scene but who clearly were not involved in the murder. In other words, the officers made their identifications with a view not to prosecuting Ms McKie or other such individuals but to ruling such people out of their inquiries. The officers, who are my constituents, did not take the subsequent decision to charge Shirley McKie with perjury—it was taken much later. Some members would have us believe that the people who were responsible for prosecuting Ms McKie were in cahoots with the four fingerprint officers a year earlier. My constituents gave their evidence in good faith and face outrageous allegations because they had the temerity to refuse to concede that they did not do so. Subsequently, the McKie family accused my constituents of maliciously conspiring against Shirley McKie.
Such allegations continue to be repeated in the press and in the Parliament, despite conclusive proof that there was no conspiracy. As a result of the allegations, my constituents were suspended from their duties for more than a year and subjected to an intensive criminal investigation. The findings of that investigation were presented to the Lord Advocate, who found that there was no evidence to support a prosecution. Perhaps some members think that the Lord Advocate decided to join a conspiracy against Shirley McKie.
Will the member give way?
I would like to give way, but I do not have enough time to do so. I have only four minutes in which to speak.
As if the criminal investigation were not enough, the fingerprint officers were subject to a disciplinary inquiry, which—again—exonerated them from any wrongdoing and concluded:
"This report finds no evidence of misconduct as defined above. In the case of the four suspended experts the procedures followed and the relationships maintained throughout the initial work, the preparation for the court cases and in the years following remained professional and correct."
Perhaps some members think that the Strathclyde joint police board also decided to join the fingerprint officers in a conspiracy and cover-up.
Beyond the inquiries and investigations that I described, the fingerprint officers were named as defenders in the action that Ms McKie raised against Scottish ministers and others. The McKie family decided to settle before the case went to court. Perhaps the most conclusive proof that there was no conspiracy would have been presented if that case had gone ahead. The independent fingerprint expert Peter Swann, formerly of West Yorkshire police, stated in his sworn testimony in preparation for the Court of Session:
"My first involvement in this matter was in May 1998, when I held a lengthy meeting in my office … with Shirley McKie and her father Iain McKie … At that stage, neither Ms McKie nor Mr McKie made any allegations against the Scottish Criminal Record Office and appeared to have a high regard for the expertise of its fingerprint officers."
Peter Swann goes on to say that on 2 March 1999 he attended the High Court to view the Crown's evidence—the door standard. He describes his inspection in detail and concludes:
"As a result of that inspection I confirmed that the mark was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie".
He maintains that position.
There is no doubt that different fingerprint experts have offered different opinions on the authenticity of the mark but, in the light of Peter Swann's evidence and that of the McKie family's expert, it is beyond my understanding how anyone can maintain that the SCRO officers were involved in a conspiracy or offered any more than their professional judgment.
My constituents have been subjected to investigations and interrogations but not one of the allegations that the McKie family and others have made against them has stood up to examination. It is time that we allowed those decent public servants to put the affair behind them and to get on with the task of rebuilding their lives. Justice should not just be seen to be done; it should be done.
I thank the Scottish National Party for devoting time to an important case. Many people in Scotland would be disappointed if the Parliament chose not to debate the matter.
Members must accept, and ask the Executive to accept, that many and diverse voices are calling for more action on the case. The voices are those not just of political parties, but of the people involved on both sides of the case—some of whom Ken Macintosh referred to—former Lord Advocates and police officers. I cannot be the only MSP who has had taxi drivers and people in the pub talk to me about the issue. Many people are not satisfied. Given the level of dissatisfaction, the SNP motion is moderate and we are happy to support it.
We all throw around and accept the phrase, "Justice must be seen to be done." The Executive accepts it in saying that we need to restore confidence in the fingerprint service. The actions that are being taken in that regard are welcome, but they are focused principally on the current service and its future. That is important, but we also need confidence in the past. In many justice debates, the Executive understandably places great emphasis on how the victims of crime feel. How will the victim of a past crime feel today if the person who was found guilty of that crime was convicted on the basis of fingerprint evidence? We need to restore victims' confidence in the system.
Colin Fox raised the question whether fingerprinting and other biometric methods of identification are an exact science. Of course they are not—they are an applied science and so are not exact. Fingerprinting is about identifying and eliminating doubts. Nicola Sturgeon made that point when she asked for an inquiry that examines specifically why the misidentification in the McKie case was not picked up and the doubt not identified earlier.
I will come back to the member.
Jeremy Purvis responded to Nicola Sturgeon's request by arguing that the ineffectiveness or inefficiency of the service has been recognised in a report. However, that report was a general statement about the effectiveness of the service; it was not about the specific case and the specific questions about two fingerprints. If a general doubt about the service's effectiveness still exists, that must be dealt with in the interests of many other people.
I am sure that the member has read the report, which in fact details the work that was done on the McKie case and deals with the misidentification. I ask the member to clarify what he wants a public inquiry to do. Does he want to reopen the Lord Advocate's decision not to prosecute? Members from the SNP say that that is exactly what they want it to do.
I sign up to Nicola Sturgeon's suggestions about the remit of a public inquiry.
I want to make a wider point about the use of biometric information—an inexact science—in our courts. I urge the Executive and members of all parties to resist the expected amendments to the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that will increase the use of the DNA of innocent people who are on the police database in police investigations and, ultimately, in court cases. If we want to avoid further muddles such as the one that we are discussing and further damage to people's confidence in the justice system, we should resist those amendments.
I congratulate Ken Macintosh on the way in which he defended his constituents: his was as good an argument as I have heard in support of Nicola Sturgeon's call for a public inquiry.
Six years ago, in the Parliament and in the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I warned of what was likely to happen if we did not achieve an open inquiry into the case. I spoke to Jim Wallace and Lord Hardie, but my pleas fell on deaf ears. Last week in the Parliament, I put it to the Lord Advocate that, in the spirit of the Executive's openness, we need to release the Mackay and McLeod reports. Sadly, that too fell on deaf ears and there was a blank refusal. This week's article in Scotland on Sunday, which claimed to leak the Mackay report, confirmed my long-held suspicions on the matter. However, I accept that the report has not been open to public scrutiny. In the interests of the SCRO officers, Marion Ross and the public at large, whose confidence has been dented by the episode, an inquiry is necessary.
I exclude from that the McKie family, simply because Shirley McKie has been exonerated by the court, as a result of which her family has no need to press further to demonstrate her innocence. However, the system's innocence must be demonstrated. Cathy Jamieson commented last week that only one out of 1,700 fingerprint identifications were found to be faulty. Why on earth did we need a further inquiry into that? There is no problem with people making mistakes, and one out of 1,700 is surely no big deal. However, the Executive and the Lord Advocate seem reluctant to concede that we need openness on the issue and an admission that that one mistake was made.
I have several questions based on the Scotland on Sunday article on the Mackay report. Does the report accuse the SCRO of "unbelievable … arrogance … and complacency"; of taking a "criminal course of action"; and of
"protecting reputations, regardless of the impact on others"?
Does it reveal early disagreement within the SCRO over the identification of the McKie fingerprint? Does it show that senior officers pressurised juniors to support their claim and that five SCRO officers refused to confirm that claim?
Jeremy Purvis mentioned the national fingerprint training centre. Is it true that the centre claimed that the McKie identification was incorrect? Does the report say that grave doubts over the conclusions by the SCRO were arrived at independently? Does it state that independent assessment is mandatory on all evidence that is submitted to the courts? On wrong identification, does the report say that an initial error was compounded by criminal action? Is the present Minister for Justice aware of the letter that Jim Wallace received from a senior SCRO officer, saying that he was concerned about institutionalised arrogance in the organisation and about the effect of that arrogance on the many excellent officers who served in the SCRO?
If the minister cannot stand up and refute the claims that have been made in the national press, we need a full and open public inquiry, so that the claims can either be found to be justified, or dealt with fully.
Four public servants have been subjected to a political and media witch hunt, of which the present debate is simply a continuation. Last week, the Lord Advocate informed Parliament that an investigation into the conduct of the SCRO staff members had been completed. That investigation, which was led by a regional procurator fiscal, Mr Gilchrist, reviewed all the evidence, including that provided by Assistant Chief Constable John Mackay. On the basis of Mr Gilchrist's report and on the advice of the deputy Crown Agent, who had full access to all the available evidence, the Lord Advocate decided not to proceed with a prosecution. Had there been evidence to support a prosecution, the Lord Advocate would have been duty bound to initiate one.
Last week, Nicola Sturgeon alleged that fingerprint evidence had been
"manipulated, misrepresented and dishonestly presented in court and in subsequent presentations".
The SCRO staff members who, in the course of their duties, have presented evidence in court and elsewhere, deny strongly any suggestion of dishonesty on their part or of the manipulation and misrepresentation of evidence.
Two highly reputable independent expert witnesses who were selected by lawyers representing Shirley McKie and David Asbury confirmed the SCRO staff's identification of the fingerprint as Shirley McKie's. That completely undermined the possibility of mounting any successful prosecution of the SCRO staff.
Fergus, you disgust me—sit down.
Ms Sturgeon went on to ask the Lord Advocate why he had not
"investigated or acted on the considerable subsequent evidence of criminality that has been presented to the Court of Session by Shirley McKie".—[Official Report, 22 February 2006; c 23348.]
The Lord Advocate's decisions on prosecutions are not a matter for which he is or should be accountable to Parliament. However, Ms Sturgeon's allegation that there was subsequent evidence of criminality raises more serious issues. As a consequence of the settlement of the action brought by Ms McKie, SCRO staff were denied the opportunity to defend themselves against allegations contained in that action. The best way to get at the truth would have been for that action to proceed, so that all the issues could have been examined in the most appropriate and competent setting: a court of law. Repeated investigations have concluded that my constituent and her colleagues have no case to answer. The principle is clear. Allegations of criminality should be dealt with by the courts, not made and repeated by politicians in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament. Those arguing for a public inquiry should consider this: why should my constituent and her colleagues be subjected to an investigation into outrageous and untrue allegations against them, without the normal protections that they would enjoy in a court of law?
In 2000, a statement in the chamber—an opportunity for members to ask questions—led to the naming of individuals and a serious accusation being made against them in Parliament, not in court. That was an abuse of the rights of my constituent and her colleagues. Regrettably, some of the statements made at that time may have had an influence on the case. That is firmly against natural justice. After nine years, my constituent and her colleagues must wonder when their nightmare will end. In seeking a proper resolution, everyone should think carefully about the unfairness of what those individuals have been put through and how their rights—and the rights of public servants who might be placed in a similar position in future through no fault of their own—can be safeguarded. To those people, this is a real issue of justice; apart from Ken Macintosh and I, everyone seems to be disregarding that.
Great play has been made on all sides of the chamber of the legal maxim that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. I agree, but there is another test of a judicial system, which is not only that should we try to get it right on all occasions, but that when we get it wrong we should be big enough to acknowledge it, to remedy that wrong and to try to learn from the mistakes that incurred it. What happened in this case was in all likelihood a minor matter and an honest mistake, but it snowballed into a massive injustice perpetrated against one individual. As Mr McNulty has commented, there have been side issues, but they pale into insignificance compared with the almost Kafkaesque situation that arose for Ms McKie. As has been put eloquently by Ms Sturgeon and those who have given their support to the motion, we must have an inquiry to remedy what went wrong.
Another legal maxim says that it is better that 99 guilty men go free than that one innocent should be convicted. What we have here is an attempt to focus on the SCRO. That is an important aspect. Clearly, the matter of whether a minor error occurred derives from the SCRO's position. Whatever Mr Fox may say, fingerprinting is not an exact science, as Patrick Harvie said; it is an art form and, as a result of that, mistakes—honest or otherwise—are made. The minister is on the right track when she refers to remedying what has gone wrong in the SCRO. The SNP fully appreciates that. There is no dispute that good work is being done by the SCRO and that we are well served. However, that does not take away the need for an inquiry, because what happened to Ms McKie is fundamentally wrong.
The £750,000 that was paid to Ms McKie may seem a gross amount to many of us, but it is a small sum to somebody whose life has been ruined in many respects and who has had a career to which she aspired taken away from her. As public servants, we have a duty to find out not just why we are paying out that much public money but why the matter went wrong in the first place. That cannot be dealt with by a committee inquiry; there needs to be a full judicial inquiry. Whatever Mr Macintosh or Mr McNulty may say, when two law officers from different political backgrounds agree—Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Conservative law officer and Lord McCluskey was a Labour law officer—there is clearly some unanimity.
We need to work out why, when some information was available, a prosecution still went ahead. When I practised law many years ago, it was always my understanding that there were three criteria for a law officer to consider. First, had an offence occurred? Secondly, could that offence be proved in law? Thirdly, was it in the public interest to prosecute? Clearly there was an allegation that an offence had been committed by Ms McKie, but was there the evidence to prove it in law? To use another legal maxim, if a person knew or ought to have known that information existed that cast doubt on Ms McKie's involvement in the offence, that should lead them in another direction.
Will the member give way?
No. Mr Purvis has tried valiantly to get in on the debate—frankly, it has been pathetic.
We must consider when that knowledge was available. Even if a senior law officer believed that an offence had occurred and that the offence could be proved, why was it in the public interest to prosecute, when a senior police officer, who had no axe to grind, was saying that something was significantly wrong? That is not justice.
For those reasons, we need to work out not what went wrong at the SCRO but why what started off as a minor mistake became a cataclysmic error with huge effects, not just on the public purse but on an individual, who has been badly treated by the law of Scotland.
The debate has been interesting. The case for a public inquiry is surely much stronger as a consequence of many of the contributions. The minister gives us all hope when she says that she hopes that people will have confidence in the Scottish fingerprint service from now on. The difficulty is that the public will not have any confidence in the service unless information about the failure is imparted to them fully. Her remarks still have a tone of blame in relation to the four fingerprint officers. That is inadequate. The record will show that the Scottish Executive has prevaricated and has been less than open with information on the matter throughout the entire period. Many members have mentioned the growing call for a public inquiry. Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Chief Superintendent Tom Buchan and Shirley McKie herself have been mentioned. Unfortunately, Ken Macintosh and Des McNulty did not make it clear enough that the four fingerprint workers are in favour of a full public inquiry and are in fact among the most forceful voices in the debate. It is disingenuous of Ken Macintosh and Des McNulty not to contribute the remarks of those SCRO staff.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Instead of a full public inquiry, the minister suggests that the Justice 1 Committee considers the matter. For a general public that feels that it has been denied information, an inquiry by a committee that simply does not have the powers to compel evidence and to ensure that witnesses are there would appear to be yet another denial of a public inquiry.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I do not have the time.
A public inquiry is needed more than it has ever been. There is a groundswell of opinion for it. The Scottish Socialist Party will support the Scottish National Party's motion, but I hope that since it is only the SSP amendment that calls for a public inquiry, the SNP, the Greens and the Tories will support that amendment.
And Ken Macintosh and Des McNulty.
And Ken Macintosh and Des McNulty.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I feel that the Justice 1 Committee's position has been misrepresented. At no time did any member of the committee suggest that a parliamentary inquiry would be a substitute for a public inquiry, nor has the committee decided to launch an inquiry. It is important, for the purposes of the debate, that Parliament should be aware of that.
That is a point of information. You have put it on the record.
I welcome the measured way in which Nicola Sturgeon opened the debate. For once, she gave us some indication of her reasons for wanting a public inquiry and some context in which a public inquiry would take place. In contrast, I have not yet heard from Annabel Goldie what the remit of a public inquiry would be.
It is unfortunate that Nicola Sturgeon's party did not follow her lead. Although Nicola Sturgeon indicated that an inquiry would not be a matter of examining the actions of the Lord Advocate, nothing more than that could be read into what Fergus Ewing said, or what Kenny MacAskill said. Mr MacAskill clearly questioned the decision of the Lord Advocate—the Solicitor General for Scotland, as he then was—to prosecute Shirley McKie.
Alex Neil, who is sitting beside Nicola Sturgeon, and who may well respond to the debate for the SNP, said in a press release dated 21 February, with reference to the fingerprint bureau:
"All its staff should be suspended on full pay pending the outcome of a judicial public enquiry into this whole fiasco. Such an enquiry would have the power to recommend disciplinary action and criminal proceedings against those who deserve it."
That is an outrage. It would imply that those who had already been told by the Lord Advocate that they would not be prosecuted could be prosecuted. That is contrary to the principles of Scottish justice.
The people who had a hearing before an independent disciplinary body would also be affected. The body that was set up, which was deliberately made independent, was chaired by Doris Littlejohn, a former employment tribunal president. The other two members were nominated by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. That body recommended that no disciplinary action should be taken against the four officers concerned. If the SNP's position is that people who have already had a hearing before a disciplinary panel should be subjected to another hearing before a disciplinary panel, that is totally contrary to the principles of justice in this country. If that is what we end up trying to do, that in itself would be cause for a public inquiry.
In response to Fergus Ewing's remarks, I can say categorically that I did not see the Mackay report. I was informed in August 2001 that, because of emerging findings from the Mackay report, four members of SCRO personnel had been put on a precautionary suspension by the chief constable.
That was a clear indication to me that a serious report was in train and that serious action was being taken.
Will Mr Wallace give way?
I do not think that anyone has suggested that that was an improper response.
I mentioned Fergus Ewing, so I will give way to him.
I thank Jim Wallace for giving way. Will he make public the advice that he received in connection with the report that he mentions? That advice was quoted in Scotland on Sunday, yet it remains covered up and secret, like so much else.
I was told, without explanation, that an issue was emerging from the Mackay inquiry. That is why four SCRO personnel had been suspended. The advice was also given that it was too soon to draw final conclusions, and that the outcome of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland presidential review report should be awaited.
There is no cover-up that I am aware of. If we were embarking on a cover-up, as I said in the chamber last week, I would not have come to the Parliament straight away when HM chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland told me that the fingerprint bureau was not operating efficiently and effectively. We published the report. The chief inspector was told that if, in the course of his work, he came across any allegations of malfeasance, they should be reported appropriately to the chief constable and the procurator fiscal. There was no effort to cover up.
Nicola Sturgeon said that one of the reasons for having a public inquiry was to examine the political reason why there had been a delay in paying Shirley McKie her compensation. I do not believe that a public judicial inquiry should be examining political decisions. That is totally contrary to the principles that we have established in this country. If there is a political issue, as Nicola Sturgeon said in her speech—[Interruption.] I heard her use the word "political" in her remarks. If there is a political issue, it is the job of the Parliament—nay, it is the duty of the Parliament—to call ministers to account. I am happy to stand to account before a committee of the Parliament for the actions that I took. I hope that, if there is such concern, the Parliament will have the will to bring such a committee into being.
I hope that, if the Minister for Justice takes nothing else from today's debate, she will acknowledge the message that is coming from the Parliament loud and clear that it is impossible to move on and seek to restore confidence in the SCRO fingerprint bureau and in Scotland's criminal justice system when so many questions remain about the past.
The work that it is proposed will be undertaken by the Justice 1 Committee, which is referred to in the minister's amendment, will be absolutely no substitute for resolving those questions, as the committee's convener has pointed out. The committee will not be a forum to provide the answers that are desperately required about the past. Until those questions are answered, as Annabel Goldie, Nicola Sturgeon, Colin Fox and just about everyone else has said, the issue will simply not go away. It is too fundamental, and the questions that have been raised are too monumental.
When Jim Wallace first apologised to Shirley McKie in the Parliament in 2000, following the Taylor report, I doubt very much that he realised the full implications of what that meant for both the SCRO and the criminal justice system. An admission of an honest mistake having been made was made by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Scottish ministers. In the light of that, the McKie family and the SCRO want a public inquiry. Why? With hundreds and hundreds of fingerprints being looked at every day, why was there that one mistake? Even the most casual observer must seek answers to that question. The SCRO fingerprint experts maintain that their original verification stands. They want to give evidence on the record in public. To date, there has been no opportunity for them to do so.
On 9 February, the First Minister said in the Parliament:
"All sides have accepted … a settlement that I believe is fair and right".—[Official Report, 9 February 2006; c 23255.]
That is not the case. The SCRO fingerprint experts had not even been notified of the settlement, nor of the final admission, until after the event. They categorically dispute the First Minister's statement about that.
The only trial that those fingerprint experts have had to date has been trial by media, as Des McNulty and Ken Macintosh have pointed out. The Minister for Justice has been clear that she does not want a public inquiry. She has been clear about what a public inquiry would not achieve. It could not rule on anyone's civil or criminal liability. It could not rule on whether Shirley McKie's claim against the Scottish ministers would have been successful had she not agreed to settle out of court without an admission of liability. The minister has mentioned other things that a public inquiry could not do, all of which are true.
What the minister omitted to say, however, was that a public inquiry would establish the facts in an open, transparent and public forum. Crucially, it would provide the SCRO fingerprint experts with the opportunity, for the first time in nine years—while a huge cloud hangs over their heads and, by extension, over the Scottish criminal justice system—to put their case, which has never deviated from their original position. A public inquiry would also ensure that evidence could be heard from Peter Swann, who was hired by the McKies, and who was subsequently sacked by them after positively identifying Shirley McKie's fingerprint in the Ross household.
All that stands in the way of a public inquiry is the Labour-Liberal coalition. A Liberal minister, Jim Wallace, decided that a mistake had been made. Subsequently, the Lord Advocate spoke on behalf of Government ministers in accepting that an honest mistake was made. A Labour Minister for Justice is now denying us a public inquiry. That is totally unsatisfactory. It is damaging to the reputation of both the SCRO fingerprint bureau and the Scottish criminal justice system that the full facts have not been aired in public. Seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds of taxpayers' money was spent on settling the McKie case. The public has the right to know why.
I have listened to the debate very closely. It has confirmed a number of points that I made in my statement last week. Sadly, I do not believe that it will be possible to reconcile the different views and for everyone to come to agreement on the matter. Once again, despite people saying that they were calling for a public inquiry in order to examine the SCRO, to consider the way forward and to try to establish the facts, I heard a number of members fundamentally calling into question decisions that have been made in relation to court processes, to disciplinary hearings and to the independent investigations and the inquiry that have been carried out by HMIC.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I really would like to move on for a moment—
Aye!
Members have asked me a number of questions and I want to comment on them.
From what I have heard this morning, I am not persuaded that holding a public inquiry would allow us to draw a line under the matter and to move on with respect to making improvements, where they are required, to the fingerprint service. I believe that what we need to do is to have Parliament scrutinise the Executive's plans to improve the fingerprint service, which is what we intend to do.
A number of issues have been raised this morning as if they were new revelations. However, as Jim Wallace made clear in his speech, a number of those issues go back some considerable time and were in the public domain at that time, when Jim Wallace, the then Minister for Justice, took the appropriate actions. He has answered some of the points that were raised this morning and, like him, I am more than happy to be involved in any parliamentary inquiry that is decided on to take this matter forward.
A number of members asked questions about the settlement. I said in my statement last week that I believed that to settle was the right thing to do and I still believe that that was the right thing to do. I wanted to draw these matters to a conclusion, because it is important that both Ms McKie and the constituents whom Des McNulty and Ken Macintosh represent are able to move on in their lives. It was always the Executive's position that the misidentification was not malicious. That was public knowledge and has been understood by the parties to the action since last June. It was the basis on which the final settlement was made.
We must not lose sight of the transformation of the Scottish fingerprint service since 2000. A lot of work has been done.
The minister knows that I have been corresponding with her on compensation for other cases. Who decided on the level of compensation in this case and how quickly was that decision taken?
I am sure that Mr Sheridan would not expect me to go into detail on the other cases that he mentioned. He will be aware that when a settlement is reached out of court, it is negotiated between the two parties. When we decided to move to settlement a number of negotiations took place. As I said in my statement last week, the settlement took account of the length of time that Ms McKie had been involved in the situation that she was in and the fact that she had been unable to pursue her employment during that time. Those matters were negotiated and settled between the two parties.
I make no apology for saying that I wanted to see the matter brought to a conclusion. I think that it is important that people can move on. We have to stop and think about some of the things that members are saying here today. Shirley McKie was cleared in court. The fingerprint officers were not prosecuted and a disciplinary hearing decided that they did not require to be subjected to disciplinary procedures. I hear all the calls. Are members really saying that we want to undo or unpick the actions and decisions of the Lord Advocate, the people who undertook that disciplinary process and HM chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland? Despite what members are saying, it seems that some people are suggesting that.
We must be careful about casting aspersions on the quality of the work that is being done in the SCRO today without evidence to back them up.
The Presiding Officer is indicating that I should wind up, so I will conclude on this point. We should work with the Justice 1 Committee—I am more than happy to do that—to provide the answers to the questions that have been raised and to take forward the action plan in relation to the SCRO and the fingerprint service in the future. That is the right and proper way to proceed. I hope that every member of this Parliament will take as much interest in that future process as they have taken in this debate.
This debate is about justice and injustice, the administration of justice and the maladministration of justice as it affected Shirley McKie and all those who are associated with this case.
I disagree fundamentally with two or three of the points that the Minister for Justice made. First, the idea that the Shirley McKie case could be investigated by a parliamentary committee is, quite frankly, laughable. No parliamentary committee, even with the best of intentions, would carry any public confidence in its inquiry or in its conclusions for the simple reason that we are all politicians and are not qualified to undertake such an inquiry. As Pauline McNeill said, a parliamentary inquiry would be no substitute for a proper, judicial public inquiry.
Jim Wallace said, in his reference to the settlement, that we should not set up a public inquiry to review political decisions. The Fraser inquiry was precisely that: an inquiry into a series of political bungles made by him and his colleagues and predecessors.
Secondly, the Minister for Justice has said repeatedly that we cannot reconcile both sides. This is not about some kind of marriage guidance counselling or reconciliation of two sides, but about finding out the facts of what went wrong in the Shirley McKie case. Any public inquiry would be undertaken not to reconcile two points of view, but to establish the facts and report on what we then judged to be the case.
Finally, the minister said in summing up that the SCRO staff can now move on. However, their own union is calling for a public inquiry because it acknowledges that, until a proper public inquiry is held that carries the confidence of the public, the SCRO will not be able to move on.
As a separate issue, it is worth considering the reforms that have taken place and how they have been effective. In doing that, I hope that we will consider the Sinclair case in Ayr 18 months ago, in which there was a misidentification of a fingerprint by the SCRO.
I can understand why Jim Wallace is against a public inquiry, given that he had a major role to play in all this. He, too, has questions to answer. He received at his constituency office a letter dated 7 August 2001, from a whistleblower within the SCRO. I could quote the letter extensively, but I will quote just the key sentence:
"After commencing duty at the SCRO bureau, I was shocked and appalled at the level of malpractice."
One of the issues that a public inquiry would consider is what happened when the then Minister for Justice received that letter, which was copied to the Lord Advocate. Did they act on the letter? Did they act on the allegations that were made in it? If so, what did they do and what was the result? What malpractice, if any, did they discover? If they did not act on the letter, why not?
I do not in any way demean or diminish the significance of what the whistleblower said, but does Mr Neil accept that when HM chief inspector of constabulary tells us that the fingerprint bureau is inefficient and ineffective, it does not get any more serious than that and that we acted on that?
I would have thought that anyone who called themselves the Minister for Justice, on receiving a letter that made accusations of criminality, would at the very least ensure that there was a proper inquiry into those allegations. It is quite clear that a public inquiry would have to look into the role of the minister and examine why it took five years and eight months from Jim Wallace, the then Minister for Justice, issuing an apology to Shirley McKie in the chamber for a settlement to be reached. Why did the Scottish Executive unnecessarily put Shirley McKie through six more years of hell? We need to know the answer to that question.
We need to know the answer to many other questions, too. For example, why was there a misidentification of Shirley McKie's fingerprint? Why was there a second misidentification of someone else's fingerprint at the same murder scene? Is it true that some of the evidence has since been lost? If evidence has been lost, when and why was it lost? Is it true that, at the time, more fingerprint experts in the SCRO said that the fingerprint was not Shirley McKie's than said that it was? If that is the case, why did the criminal prosecution against Shirley McKie go ahead? Was the then Lord Advocate, or the procurator fiscal who took Shirley McKie to court, aware of the division of opinion in the SCRO? If they were aware of it, why did they go to court? If they were not aware of it, why not? Was the Lord Advocate—either as Solicitor General or as Lord Advocate—aware of that division of opinion? Was there a deliberate attempt to stitch anyone up in relation to the Marion Ross murder scene? Why did the Lord Advocate give a guarantee to the SCRO officers that, even if new evidence came forward, there would be no chance of a further prosecution? What about the allegations that were made by the whistleblower? For the record, I point out that the inspector's report did not consider the McKie case; it was about processes and procedures.
Why, why, why? We do not know the answers to those questions. I could go on and on with a list of questions to which we need answers. The time has come for justice. Shirley McKie has had a financial settlement and now she must get a settlement in justice.
I will allow a slight pause before the next debate, which is on Scottish Water. The debate will be shorter than planned.