Chamber and committees

Questions and answers

Parliamentary questions can be asked by any MSP to the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The questions provide a means for MSPs to get factual and statistical information.

Written questions must be answered within 10 working days (20 working days during recess)
Other questions such as Topical, Portfolio, General and First Minister's Question Times are taken in the Chamber

Urgent Questions aren't included in the Question and Answers search. There is a SPICe fact sheet listing Urgent and emergency questions.

Find out more about parliamentary questions

Filter your results Hide all filters

Displaying 3059 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S2W-23968

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive how many officers within the Scottish Criminal Record Office in 1997 mistakenly identified a fingerprint at the scene of the Marion Ross murder in Kilmarnock as that of Shirley McKie and how many disagreed with this identification.

In February 1997, 12 SCRO fingerprintofficers were invited to examine the mark Y7 that was found at the scene of MarionRoss’ murder. Ten officers were satisfied that mark Y7 could be eliminated fromthe inquiry into the murder because it was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie.Two officers did not reach a conclusion either way: one of those officers preferredto examine the print under a magnifying glass before giving a view and the otherpreferred to examine it in daylight. Neither completed the comparison. None of theofficers who examined Y7 and who reached a conclusion on it disagreed with the eliminationidentification.

Question reference: S2W-24474

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23831 by Cathy Jamieson on 16 March 2006 where it states that it “has not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through Scottish territory or airspace to places where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face a real risk of torture”, whether it will now discuss with Her Majesty’s Government the matter of CIA flights landing in Scotland, given that the original question did not pertain to whether it granted permission for such transfers to occur through Scotland but whether it would establish whether they happened at all.

Officials have discussed withUK Government Departments the allegations that Scottish airports have been usedfor the transportation of US prisoners to countries where they might be subjectedto torture (so-called “extraordinary rendition”). The position remains as set outin my response to question S2W-20910, answered on 7 December 2005. All answers towritten parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the searchfacility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Since then, the Foreign Secretaryset out the UK Government’s position in detail in a Written Ministerial Statement on 20 January 2006, including that:

The UK Government found no evidenceof detainees being rendered through the UK or Overseas Territories since 11 September 2001.

It found no evidence of detaineesbeing rendered through the UK or Overseas Territories since 1997 where there were substantial grounds to believethere was a real risk of torture.

There were four cases in 1998where the US requested permission to render one or more detaineesthrough the UK or Overseas Territories. Records show the Government granted the US request intwo of these cases, and refused the request in the other two.

The Government is clear thatthe US would not render a detainee through UK territory or airspace (includingOverseas Territories) without the UK Government’s permission.

In one of the two 1998 cases,in June 1998, a flight carrying Mohammed Rashid landed at Prestwick en route tothe United States, where he was due to stand trial. He was charged for bombing aPan Am aircraft in August 1982. He pleaded guilty to murder in December 2002 andis due to be sentenced shortly.

Question reference: S2W-24473

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S2W-23748, S2W-23831, S2W-23835 and S2W-23994 by Cathy Jamieson on 16 March 2006 and given that the Executive has stated that it “has not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating the transfer of individuals through Scottish territory or airspace to places where there are substantial grounds to believe that they would face a real risk of torture”, whether it will instigate an inquiry into the allegations that US agencies have facilitated such transfers using the process known as “extraordinary rendition” through Scottish airports, given that these allegations suggest that no approval was given to facilitate these transfers and thereby are in contravention of the Executive’s stated position.

Question reference: S2W-24264

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23669 by Cathy Jamieson on 13 March 2006, what evidence it has that the misidentification was made in good faith and was not malicious.

Question reference: S2W-24584

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 22 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23155 by Cathy Jamieson on 20 March 2006, whether John MacLeod, the author of the MacLeod reports referred to in the answer, has been asked whether he would agree to his reports being published; if so, what his response was, and, if not, whether the Executive will consider seeking his agreement to publish the reports as soon as possible.

Mr MacLeod has indicated thatit is for the Executive to decide whether or not to waive confidentiality and topublish any report given by him. For the reasons given in my answer to questionS2W-23155 on 20 March 2006, I do not propose to publish any reports commissionedfor the purpose of the civil action brought by Shirley McKie.All answers to writtenparliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facilityfor which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Question reference: S2W-23971

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it (a) has always been and (b) is currently the policy of the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) that any disagreements within it in relation to the identification of a fingerprint have to be reported to (i) the police and (ii) the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; what disciplinary procedures exist for failure by SCRO officers to adhere to this policy; how many instances there have been since January 1997 where the policy has not been followed; how many officers have been disciplined for failing to follow the procedure or implement the policy properly; whether the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service can bring charges against any SCRO officer who breaches this policy; whether this policy has always been implemented and, if not, what the reasons are for the position on the matter and in what cases it has not been implemented; in how many cases since January 1997 a prosecution has proceeded where there has been such a disagreement and whether it will list all such cases; how many cases have not been prosecuted because of such a disagreement, and in how many cases there was a conviction.

The policy, which has been inplace since before January 1997, is that if a disagreement arises between fingerprintofficers during the identification or verification process then the Scottish FingerprintService (SFS) would not declare that an identification had been made.

We are not aware of instancesin which the policy has not been followed and so disciplinary procedures have notbeen invoked. The staff in the SFS are employed by the Joint Police Board of thearea where they work, (Grampian, Lothian and Borders, Strathclyde and Tayside) andas such they are subject to the disciplinary policies of their employers.

If an employer believes thatan employee is involved in criminal behaviour the matter should be referred to thepolice for investigation.

There have not been any casessince January 1997 where a disagreement has occurred and a prosecution has proceeded,nor have there been any cases in which prosecution did not proceed because of adisagreement within SCRO.

Question reference: S2W-23605

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Monday, 27 February 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive whether those within the Scottish Criminal Record Office involved in the misidentification of Shirley McKie’s fingerprints in the Marion Ross murder case in Kilmarnock in 1997 are still providing, or are eligible to provide, fingerprint evidence in court.

Question reference: S2W-24476

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23835 by Cathy Jamieson on 16 March 2006, how does this answer indicate why it does not intend taking a position on the opinions expressed by Lord Steyn.

Question reference: S2W-24488

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has been required to contribute to any UK submission to the inquiry by Senator Marty into allegations that the CIA has illegally abducted and transported terror suspects across European borders.

The Scottish Executive has astrong record in contributing to the UK Government’s response to routine and adhoc inquiries by international bodies on a variety of subjects, including torture.We also seek actively to develop our relationship with international human rightsbodies independently of any inquiries.

The current European inquiriesabout extraordinary rendition are focused on matters that are reserved to the UKGovernment. For this reason, in the case of Senator Marty’s questions, the UK Governmentin formulating its answers did not require any contribution from the Executive.Should Senator Marty, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe or the EuropeanParliament’s temporary committee request information about devolved policies orpractice, the Executive will be very happy to provide it.

Question reference: S2W-24478

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 13 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23750 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, why has it refused to state what the purpose has been of its internal discussions regarding the matter of US agencies using Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights allegedly involved in the process of “extraordinary rendition” other than those “in relation to the answering of parliamentary questions and other enquiries”.