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-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.

Question reference: S2W-23883

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Monday, 06 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Tavish Scott on 7 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive how the construction of the new A8000 to M9 link road will be funded.

Question reference: S2W-24647

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 23 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 4 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23996 by Cathy Jamieson on 20 March 2006, whether, in addition to advising anyone with “credible and reliable information regarding alleged criminal activity” that such information should be passed to the police, it has itself passed on to police any allegations brought to its attention regarding the possibility that US agencies have used Scottish airports as refuelling stops for flights engaged in the process of “extraordinary rendition”.

Question reference: S2W-24271

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 4 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S2W-20247, S2W-23158 and S2W-23156 by Cathy Jamieson on 9 November 2005, 17 February and 10 March 2006 respectively, how these answers indicate (a) whether the dispute on the identification of certain fingerprints between the Aberdeen Fingerprint Bureau and the Scottish Criminal Record Office has been resolved, (b) who has responsibility for deciding how and when this dispute will be resolved in the event that it has not been resolved thus far and (c) what criteria will be used for the dispute resolution in the event that it has not been resolved thus far.

The disagreement concerns anidentification in a case that has been concluded. There is no evidence thatthere is any disagreement within the Scottish Fingerprint Service (SFS) aboutany other case. The previous answers to which the question refers set out themeasures put in place since the disputed identification demonstrate thesignificant progress that has been made to transform the SFS in the last nineyears.

Question reference: S2W-24472

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 4 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 where it states that it “is not aware of any credible and reliable information to support the allegations that Scottish airports are being used” for the purpose of transferring “individuals through Scottish territory or airspace where there are substantial grounds to believe they would face a real risk of torture” by US agencies, whether this means that it discounts the evidence presented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that there have been instances of such transfers as being either credible or reliable.

Question reference: S2W-24471

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 4 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 where it states that it “is not aware of any credible and reliable information to support the allegations that Scottish airports are being used” for the purpose of transferring “individuals through Scottish territory or airspace where there are substantial grounds to believe they would face a real risk of torture” by US agencies, whether this indicates that it does not believe that this is happening presently, or has happened in the past.

Question reference: S2W-24769

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 4 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23744 by Cathy Jamieson on 24 March 2006, what was meant by her, “I understand why people are concerned”.

Question reference: S2W-24177

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 14 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23750 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 March 2006, why it does not state what the purpose has been of any 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 “routine discussions primarily in relation to the answering of parliamentary questions and other enquiries”.

Question reference: S2W-23970

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 07 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will list all the investigations and inquiries that it has initiated since January 1997 in relation to, or arising from, the Shirley McKie case and, for each investigation or inquiry, (a) what the remit was, (b) who carried it out, (c) how long it took, (d) to whom it reported, (e) how much it cost, (f) what conclusions and recommendations it reached and (g) which recommendations have been (i) implemented and (ii) not implemented.

There have been a number ofinvestigations into the Shirley McKie case.

The SCRO Executive Committeedecided in February 2000 to invite HMIC to bring forward a planned inspectionof SCRO. This resulted in the HMIC Primary Inspection of the SCRO FingerprintBureau which began on 20 March 2000. The Inspection Report was published on 14 September 2000.It contained 25 recommendations and 20 suggestions. The recommendations andsuggestions were discharged in the HMIC SCRO Primary Inspection Report 2004that was published on 17 March 2005.

In response to the emergingfindings of the HMIC Inspection of 2000, on 21 June 2000ACPOS set up an ACPOS Presidential Review Group (APRG) to coordinate the ScottishPolice Service’s response. A Change Management Review Team (CMRT) was appointedto undertake a 90-day scrutiny of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau. Its report waspublished in October 2000 and contained 87 findings. By 10 March 2006,82 findings had been discharged and progress was being made on completingthe work necessary to discharge the others.

In June 2000, ACPOS askedsenior officers of Tayside police - Deputy Chief Constable Mackay and ChiefSuperintendent Robertson - to investigate the discrepancy between the findingsof the SCRO experts and those of experts who were instructed by ACPOS duringtheir earlier review. The Lord Advocate then instructed the Regional Procurator Fiscal forNorth Strathclyde to inquire into allegations of criminality, specificallyperjury. The inquiry by Tayside officers was then widened to investigate thatallegation and was asked to report its findings to the regional procuratorfiscal. That inquiry was extended again in September 2000 to cover similarallegations in the Asbury case.

In October 2000, the Taysideofficers submitted their report to ACPOS for its interest and to the RegionalProcurator Fiscal for his. They then made further inquiries to assist the RegionalProcurator Fiscal's investigation. The Regional Procurator Fiscalsubmitted his report to the Crown Office in July 2001. The Lord Advocateconsidered that report, and all of the available evidence and decided thatthere should be no prosecution.

In September 2001Strathclyde Joint Police Board (the employer of the 4 fingerprint officers)established an ad hoc investigation and disciplinary procedure. This work wastaken forward under the auspices of an Independent Scrutiny Committee and an investigatingo fficer was appointed. The chair of the Committee advised the Clerk to theJoint Police Board on 20 March 2002 that the Investigating Officer had concluded thatthe officers should be returned to their normal duties, and that the ScrutinyCommittee endorsed his report.

My letter of 10 March 2006 tothe Convenor of the Justice 1 Committee provides more information about HMICPrimary Inspection 2000 and the CMRT report. This is at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/papers-06/Correspondence_Minister_for_Justice_10_March_2006.pdf.

It is not be possible toestablish the costs of these inquiries.

Question reference: S2W-24263

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 March 2006
Current Status: Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 3 April 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-23669 by Cathy Jamieson on 13 March 2006, whether, as part of the settlement, Ms McKie accepted that the misidentification had been made in good faith and was not malicious.