Committee
Justice 1 Committee, 29 Mar 2006
29 Mar 2006 · S2 · Justice 1 Committee
Item of business
Scottish Criminal Record Office Inquiry
As Mary Mulligan said, it is important to keep in our heads the aim of the inquiry—to re-establish confidence in the Scottish fingerprint service.I am a little concerned about the long list of witnesses that Margaret Mitchell suggested. Last week, we spoke about trying to complete the inquiry by the summer recess. It is important that we get the balance right between trying to complete the inquiry in a short enough time to ensure that we react properly and being thorough. It is a difficult balance. The proposed four weeks in which we will receive written evidence seems fine.After the suggested four-week period, once we have considered the written evidence, we should consider further what witnesses we need to call to give oral evidence. If we saw everyone who is on the current witness list, that would take up much of the time that we need to set aside. We must be thorough, without taking too long to do the whole inquiry. We have a bit of a balancing act to perform. The four-week period for taking written evidence is short, but it must be accepted.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Lab
We move on to item 4. I will say a few words about paper J1/S2/06/10/7, which sets out a possible approach for the committee's inquiry into the Scottish Crim...
Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I have a number of points about different sections of the paper. Do you intend to take it section by section?
The Convener:
Lab
I am fairly relaxed about what form the discussion should take. Perhaps members might begin by giving an overview, after which we can focus on the various se...
Mr McFee:
SNP
On the call for written evidence, I note the comment in paragraph 5 that"it is normally considered good practice to allow 6 or 8 weeks for responses".However...
The Convener:
Lab
The clerks can correct me if I am wrong, but because of the difficulties in managing information we always have a deadline for evidence that we try to stick ...
Mr McFee:
SNP
I am just wary of the sensitivity of certain aspects of this matter. I am sure that you are able to handle yourself, but you might well put yourself in a dif...
The Convener:
Lab
Late evidence has been submitted to the committee before, and I would never exclude or filter out anything from the committee's consideration. I know that th...
Mr McFee:
SNP
It would be unreasonable to ask for that. I simply want to establish that the committee could, if it so wished, consider late evidence. I know that other com...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
I support what Bruce McFee said, given that our remit comments on the implications of the McKie case. It would be appropriate to solicit specific views on th...
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab):
Lab
The paper by the convener is helpful. I am surprised by Bruce McFee's concern that we will not get all the evidence in four weeks, given that last week he th...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
I am happy with the timetable—four weeks is fine. It would be good to see Mr Mulhern's action plan as soon as possible. A visit to the SCRO would be worth wh...
Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab):
Lab
As Mary Mulligan said, it is important to keep in our heads the aim of the inquiry—to re-establish confidence in the Scottish fingerprint service.I am a litt...
Mike Pringle:
LD
If anybody who would give evidence to the committee was not aware of the call for evidence within the first of the four weeks, they would need to have been o...
Mr McFee:
SNP
What Rumbles letter?
Mike Pringle:
LD
Mike Rumbles's letter is dated 27 March. I do not know whether the convener got a copy of it—did you?
The Convener:
Lab
Yes. It was delivered by hand.
Mike Pringle:
LD
So if there is more, you do not have it yet.
The Convener:
Lab
I have got the letter, but given that we live in an electronic age, it would have been more helpful for it to have been e-mailed.
Mike Pringle:
LD
Okay. For the benefit of other committee members, I will explain Mike Rumbles's request to the convener. Mike Rumbles met a constituent called Gary Dempster,...
The Convener:
Lab
Perhaps it would be helpful if we were to break this down into chunks. I suggest that we tackle things in the following order: first, we agree the call for e...
Mr McFee:
SNP
Can I help you in that regard, convener? I am not suggesting that we extend the proposed four-week period; I simply want our approach to be on the record, be...
The Convener:
Lab
Okay. Let us hear from Stewart Stevenson.
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
I am encouraged by the spirit in which all of us have contributed to the debate so far.On the call for evidence, we need to ensure that we have the right peo...
The Convener:
Lab
I think that the committee is agreed on the suggested timescale for the call for evidence. I am always very particular about timescales. I do not want to los...
The Convener:
Lab
I turn to the information that we are to request. Obviously, the Minister for Justice has given us quite a bit of information so far; it summarises the recom...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Some of the documents to which I have referred have been circulated informally among certain members. It would not be proper for some members to have seen ce...
The Convener:
Lab
We will write to the Minister for Justice to request all documents that are relevant to our inquiry.
Mike Pringle:
LD
Will we mention in the letter the specific documents to which Stewart Stevenson referred?
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
I am content that the list should appear in the Official Report. However, let us include it in the letter, by all means, if that will be helpful. We should i...
The Convener:
Lab
We will send a letter this week and see what reply we get. If there is a further specific document that we believe we should receive, we can request that.I m...