- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 16 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Margaret Curran on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-16051 by Ms Margaret Curran on 29 April 2005, what the maximum length of time was to give substantive answers after holding answers were given in each year since 1999.
Answer
The information sought could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Substantive answers are provided whenever the information requested is available. The length of time involved will depend on a number of factors.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-15607 by Colin Boyd QC on 18 April 2005, whether the operators of HM Prison Kilmarnock will incur performance points under Schedule F to the Minute of Agreement between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Kilmarnock Prison Services Limited for the Design, Construction, Management and Financing of a Prison at Kilmarnock in respect of the two admitted incidents of falsification of watch logs for failing to comply with agreed reporting procedures and, if so, in relation to which quarter of the prison's operation.
Answer
I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:
I refer the member to the answer to question S2W-16479, answered on 25 May 2005.
All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-8626 by Cathy Jamieson on 11 June 2004, how long it took for each prisoner released in error by Reliance Secure Task Management Ltd to be returned to police custody.
Answer
I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to respond. His response is as follows:
The SPS is not routinely notified when the prisoner is returned to police custody. Some cases may be dealt with by the issuing of an invitation warrant where the prisoner may not be taken into police custody, so the information sought is not available.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive how many days of Scottish Prison Service staff time have been taken each month in monitoring the effective delivery of services by Reliance Secure Task Management Ltd to Glasgow courts, broken down by rank.
Answer
I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to respond. His response is as follows:
The SPS does not operate a staff time recording system so the information sought is not available.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Margaret Curran on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will designate Reliance Secure Task Management Ltd as a public authority under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 in respect of the service it provides under the contract for the provision of prisoner escort and court custody services.
Answer
Ministers are considering a number of issues relating to the use of section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Margaret Curran on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S2W-283 and S2W-15775 by Cathy Jamieson on 4 June 2003 and 4 May 2005, why it did not carry out a consultation on the effect of an order designating the operator of HM Prison Kilmarnock as a public authority under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 in the time between the passing of the Act and its taking effect on 1 January 2005.
Answer
The Executive has not carried out such a consultation because it has not to date made a decision to propose any order under section 5. Ministers are still considering a number of issues relating to the use of section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-8434 by Cathy Jamieson on 8 June 2004, how public safety or public order might be endangered by the provision of the information requested.
Answer
I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:
It was believed at the time, given the stage of the rollout of the contract, release of this information would give opportunities for disruption.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on where the UK Supreme Court should be located.
Answer
The UK Government's preferred option is to locate the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom in Middlesex Guildhall, Parliament Square, London for the reasons set out by Lord Falconer in his statement to both Houses on 14 December 2004. The permanent siting of the Court in London would not preclude it from sitting elsewhere in the United Kingdom from time to time.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Margaret Curran on 26 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S2W-283 and S2W-15775 by Cathy Jamieson on 4 June 2003 and 4 May 2005, whether it intends to consult anyone to whom an order designating the operator of HM Prison Kilmarnock as a public authority under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 would relate regarding the effect of such an order.
Answer
Ministers are considering a number of issues relating to section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
- Asked by: Kenny MacAskill, MSP for Lothians, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 12 May 2005
-
Current Status:
Answered by Cathy Jamieson on 25 May 2005
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S2W-15607 by Colin Boyd QC on 18 April 2005 and S2W-16102 by Cathy Jamieson on 4 May 2005, whether the alleged falsification of watch logs constitutes a failure to comply with agreed reporting procedures at HM Prison Kilmarnock incurring performance points under Schedule F to the Minute of Agreement between the Secretary of State for Scotland and Kilmarnock Prison Services Limited for the Design, Construction, Management and Financing of a Prison at Kilmarnock.
Answer
I have asked Tony Cameron, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service to respond. His response is as follows:
No. HM Prison Kilmarnock adhered to the agreed reporting procedures and notified SPS as soon as they became aware of the alleged incident.
