Questions and answers

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-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-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-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-23668

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 01 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 11 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the First Minister's statement to Parliament on 9 February 2006 that, with reference to the Shirley McKie case, “it is right to ensure that the family are compensated for what they have gone through”, when it decided that this was the case and why the family had to wait the time that they did for compensation.

Question reference: S2W-23666

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 01 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 11 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, with regard to the statement made by the First Minister in Parliament on 9 February 2006 that “the substantial financial settlement that was reached was appropriate” (Official Report c. 23255), when it reached the conclusion that it was the appropriate amount to settle for, who took this decision and on what criteria, what settlement amounts it offered during each stage of the negotiations with Shirley McKie, why it took six years between recognising that the original allegations against Shirley McKie were false and reaching this settlement and why the amounts were changed and what criteria was applied at each stage to change the amount offered.

When proceedings were first raisedit was not clear what the legal basis of claim was and whether the action shouldbe directed against the Strathclyde Joint Police Board or against Scottishministers. Some of these issues were resolved by discussions between the partiesand some were resolved after a legal debate before the court. Ms McKie’s representativesmade a number of changes to her case.

Following resolution of theseissues, I took the decision in June 2005 to seek a settlement. The Executive madea number of attempts to secure a settlement and there were discussions between solicitorsfrom the moment we indicated our willingness to settle. Expert evidence was obtainedand exchanged by both sides, including medical and actuarial advice to enable theclaim to be quantified. During these exchanges Ms McKie’s legal representativesincreased her claim from £750,000 to £1.2 million. There was a significant differencebetween the parties as to the value of the claim and, as often happens in litigation,the case was settled at a figure which involved a degree of compromise on both sides.The Court of Session ruled on 30 March that the Scottish Executive’s conduct of the case and of the settlement negotiations was neither unreasonable nor in anyway reprehensible.

Question reference: S2W-24498

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Allan Wilson on 11 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23887 by Allan Wilson on 16 March 2006, if there have been no discussions between it and Her Majesty’s Government on the subject of new nuclear stations in Scotland how it can be sure that there are no proposals to build new nuclear power stations anywhere in Scotland.

As noted in my answer to questionS2W-23887 on 16 March 2006, Executive officials are engaged in the UK Energy Review.This includes consideration of the role of all generating technologies – includingnuclear.

TheExecutive’s position on nuclear power remains, however, that it will not supportthe further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issuesremain unresolved.

The Executive is aware of noproposals to site new nuclear power stations in Scotland. Scottish ministers, towhom any such application would have to be made, have received no application toconsent a new nuclear power station. Nor, so far as they are they aware, are thereany proposals to bring forward such an application.

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-24608

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 23 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Malcolm Chisholm on 11 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23961 by Malcolm Chisholm on 16 March 2006, how many of the new homes built for social rent since 1992 have been built as council houses, broken down by local authority.

The following table shows localauthority new build completions for 1992 to 2004, broken down by local authorityarea. In compiling the data for this table, an error has been found in the previoustable supplied in the answer to question S2W-23961 on 16 March 2006. Corrected datarelating to this answer has been supplied in a second table.

Local Authority New Build Completions;1992 to 2004 by Local Authority Area

Local Authority Area	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Scotland	640	438	528	483	205	127	139	81	95	54	24	0	0
Aberdeen City	57	64	20	0	87	50	0	0	0	18	27	53	0
Aberdeenshire	118	123	41	63	59	0	11	46	0	0	0	0	0
Angus	47	0	0	37	0	27	48	0	0	0	0	0	0
Argyll and Bute	54	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Clackmannanshire	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dumfries and Galloway	93	66	117	21	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dundee	0	0	21	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
East Ayrshire	0	0	7	32	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
East Dunbartonshire	16	0	0	41	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
East Lothian	0	17	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
East Renfrewshire	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Edinburgh	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Eilean Siar	2	12	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Falkirk	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Fife	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0
Glasgow	0	0	0	0	27	0	0	5	89	0	18	0	0
Highland	82	134	170	88	32	42	5	12	0	0	1	0	0
Inverclyde	0	0	0	0	0	0	19	0	0	0	0	0	0
Midlothian	22	12	26	0	22	26	36	17	4	24	0	0	0
Moray	38	23	39	15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
North Ayrshire	20	0	0	8	15	3	0	0	0	0	5	0	0
North Lanarkshire	70	0	4	67	0	0	0	0	0	30	0	0	0
Orkney	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Perth and Kinross	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Renfrewshire	0	0	18	74	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Scottish Borders	6	23	0	16	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Shetland	32	16	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
South Ayrshire	35	8	20	0	20	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
South Lanarkshire	0	0	30	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Stirling	0	0	0	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
West Dunbartonshire	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
West Lothian	0	0	21	13	20	28	20	0	0	0	0	0	0

New Dwellings Completed in theSocial Sector by Local Authority Area; 1992 to 2004 (Corrected)

Local Authority Area	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
Scotland	3,194	3,510	3,450	6,011	2,858	4,684	2,050	4,992	4,989	5,574	5,171	3,992	3,483
Aberdeen City	269	178	42	452	157	327	21	115	98	203	79	169	98
Aberdeenshire	185	181	156	209	152	291	43	226	116	176	199	211	169
Angus	86	35	110	169	110	179	159	119	110	67	167	43	100
Argyll and Bute	75	73	51	31	3	91	199	112	121	105	4	59	72
Clackmannanshire	50	0	124	0	32	0	18	39	59	0	72	28	50
Dumfries and Galloway	194	173	128	188	34	202	14	179	69	197	77	96	109
Dundee	236	303	332	147	185	305	70	242	231	106	302	72	353
East Ayrshire	10	46	105	107	22	29	60	32	20	147	4	98	6
East Dunbartonshire	16	0	0	88	10	0	22	15	24	55	10	4	7
East Lothian	26	69	23	93	16	22	19	61	79	9	18	14	16
East Renfrewshire	0	0	0	0	27	17	0	84	126	41	0	30	15
Edinburgh	225	156	247	828	104	351	132	576	521	545	511	156	228
Eilean Siar	19	16	16	24	7	4	8	1	11	14	22	13	19
Falkirk	43	64	45	65	7	62	28	73	14	97	68	34	1
Fife	238	447	225	520	171	365	119	410	176	186	335	194	124
Glasgow	189	112	191	482	461	785	358	839	1,248	1,841	1,262	1,496	886
Highland	186	381	458	200	206	219	70	138	221	125	158	147	159
Inverclyde	0	0	30	72	112	0	136	93	248	119	141	101	103
Midlothian	22	80	45	19	49	97	48	64	4	52	12	31	14
Moray	52	84	39	35	84	101	17	30	30	26	33	2	8
North Ayrshire	123	116	77	413	68	28	26	149	67	76	69	83	25
North Lanarkshire	163	187	186	355	160	261	80	334	277	296	360	131	114
Orkney	64	40	38	21	53	12	0	14	29	52	44	24	34
Perth and Kinross	127	53	176	139	98	267	119	182	193	100	215	176	122
Renfrewshire	95	80	112	157	253	94	0	92	167	152	155	48	182
Scottish Borders	29	77	18	307	8	20	123	83	101	88	85	44	76
Shetland	37	16	12	10	0	0	0	56	14	22	14	1	6
South Ayrshire	68	8	134	125	95	0	73	68	61	64	131	74	70
South Lanarkshire	132	258	179	377	65	206	24	61	274	126	316	103	196
Stirling	58	96	26	82	28	56	0	85	83	62	106	84	27
West Dunbartonshire	120	94	81	84	45	0	0	213	92	263	182	136	19
West Lothian	57	87	44	212	36	293	64	207	105	162	20	90	75

Question reference: S2W-24681

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Friday, 24 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Patricia Ferguson on 10 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-22475 by Patricia Ferguson on 26 January 2006, whether it sought clarification as to who might have been responsible for this reported comment and, if so, what information it has on who was responsible for it.

The Scottish Executive did notseek clarification as to who was responsible for the comment “Does this make usmore inclined to forget about Hampden Park and consider other options? Sure it does, of course itdoes”, as reported in The Scotsman on 12 November 2005.

As my answer to S2W-22475 indicated,the Scottish Executive has sought and received assurance that Hampden will be anOlympic venue as originally laid out in the bid document.

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-24497

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Allan Wilson on 10 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23957 by Allan Wilson on 14 March 2006, whether this answer indicates that, if construction of an electricity-generating station with capacity of less than 50 megawatts is proposed, consent from Scottish ministers is not required for construction to commence.

The Electricity Act sets outthe capacity thresholds above which power stations can only be constructed, operatedor extended with the consent of the Scottish ministers. In most instances the thresholdis 50 megawatts (MW), but in the case of power stations wholly or mainly drivenby water and for all developments beyond the Low Water Mark it is 1 MW.

Any on-shore proposal not inexcess of these thresholds would be subject to the land use planning system, andas such would require approval of the relevant local planning authority. Both ofScotland’s existing nuclear power stations Hunterston “B” and Torness, with installedcapacity of 1190 MW and 1259 MW respectively, exceed these thresholds.

Chamber and committees