Chamber
Plenary, 02 Mar 2006
02 Mar 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Shirley McKie Case (Inquiry)
I congratulate Ken Macintosh on the way in which he defended his constituents: his was as good an argument as I have heard in support of Nicola Sturgeon's call for a public inquiry.
Six years ago, in the Parliament and in the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I warned of what was likely to happen if we did not achieve an open inquiry into the case. I spoke to Jim Wallace and Lord Hardie, but my pleas fell on deaf ears. Last week in the Parliament, I put it to the Lord Advocate that, in the spirit of the Executive's openness, we need to release the Mackay and McLeod reports. Sadly, that too fell on deaf ears and there was a blank refusal. This week's article in Scotland on Sunday, which claimed to leak the Mackay report, confirmed my long-held suspicions on the matter. However, I accept that the report has not been open to public scrutiny. In the interests of the SCRO officers, Marion Ross and the public at large, whose confidence has been dented by the episode, an inquiry is necessary.
I exclude from that the McKie family, simply because Shirley McKie has been exonerated by the court, as a result of which her family has no need to press further to demonstrate her innocence. However, the system's innocence must be demonstrated. Cathy Jamieson commented last week that only one out of 1,700 fingerprint identifications were found to be faulty. Why on earth did we need a further inquiry into that? There is no problem with people making mistakes, and one out of 1,700 is surely no big deal. However, the Executive and the Lord Advocate seem reluctant to concede that we need openness on the issue and an admission that that one mistake was made.
I have several questions based on the Scotland on Sunday article on the Mackay report. Does the report accuse the SCRO of "unbelievable … arrogance … and complacency"; of taking a "criminal course of action"; and of
"protecting reputations, regardless of the impact on others"?
Does it reveal early disagreement within the SCRO over the identification of the McKie fingerprint? Does it show that senior officers pressurised juniors to support their claim and that five SCRO officers refused to confirm that claim?
Jeremy Purvis mentioned the national fingerprint training centre. Is it true that the centre claimed that the McKie identification was incorrect? Does the report say that grave doubts over the conclusions by the SCRO were arrived at independently? Does it state that independent assessment is mandatory on all evidence that is submitted to the courts? On wrong identification, does the report say that an initial error was compounded by criminal action? Is the present Minister for Justice aware of the letter that Jim Wallace received from a senior SCRO officer, saying that he was concerned about institutionalised arrogance in the organisation and about the effect of that arrogance on the many excellent officers who served in the SCRO?
If the minister cannot stand up and refute the claims that have been made in the national press, we need a full and open public inquiry, so that the claims can either be found to be justified, or dealt with fully.
Six years ago, in the Parliament and in the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I warned of what was likely to happen if we did not achieve an open inquiry into the case. I spoke to Jim Wallace and Lord Hardie, but my pleas fell on deaf ears. Last week in the Parliament, I put it to the Lord Advocate that, in the spirit of the Executive's openness, we need to release the Mackay and McLeod reports. Sadly, that too fell on deaf ears and there was a blank refusal. This week's article in Scotland on Sunday, which claimed to leak the Mackay report, confirmed my long-held suspicions on the matter. However, I accept that the report has not been open to public scrutiny. In the interests of the SCRO officers, Marion Ross and the public at large, whose confidence has been dented by the episode, an inquiry is necessary.
I exclude from that the McKie family, simply because Shirley McKie has been exonerated by the court, as a result of which her family has no need to press further to demonstrate her innocence. However, the system's innocence must be demonstrated. Cathy Jamieson commented last week that only one out of 1,700 fingerprint identifications were found to be faulty. Why on earth did we need a further inquiry into that? There is no problem with people making mistakes, and one out of 1,700 is surely no big deal. However, the Executive and the Lord Advocate seem reluctant to concede that we need openness on the issue and an admission that that one mistake was made.
I have several questions based on the Scotland on Sunday article on the Mackay report. Does the report accuse the SCRO of "unbelievable … arrogance … and complacency"; of taking a "criminal course of action"; and of
"protecting reputations, regardless of the impact on others"?
Does it reveal early disagreement within the SCRO over the identification of the McKie fingerprint? Does it show that senior officers pressurised juniors to support their claim and that five SCRO officers refused to confirm that claim?
Jeremy Purvis mentioned the national fingerprint training centre. Is it true that the centre claimed that the McKie identification was incorrect? Does the report say that grave doubts over the conclusions by the SCRO were arrived at independently? Does it state that independent assessment is mandatory on all evidence that is submitted to the courts? On wrong identification, does the report say that an initial error was compounded by criminal action? Is the present Minister for Justice aware of the letter that Jim Wallace received from a senior SCRO officer, saying that he was concerned about institutionalised arrogance in the organisation and about the effect of that arrogance on the many excellent officers who served in the SCRO?
If the minister cannot stand up and refute the claims that have been made in the national press, we need a full and open public inquiry, so that the claims can either be found to be justified, or dealt with fully.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4039, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Shirley McKie case.Before the debate, I remin...
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the Presiding Officer for those opening comments.In some ways, this debate is unique. The leaders of three parties have united to raise a matter not ...
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
This morning, I will repeat much of what I said last week in my statement to Parliament on the Shirley McKie case. It is important to remind Parliament of th...
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister take an intervention?
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
The Lord Advocate announced that all current and future cases in which fingerprint evidence was led would be subject to independent external checks. Last wee...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Will the minister take an intervention?
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
On 6 July 2001, the Lord Advocate announced to Parliament that during the previous 13 months, more than 1,700 cases that had been examined by the SCRO's fing...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
Will the minister give way?
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
External verification was no longer necessary. Presiding Officer, these are important points that I believe must be on the record.In the five years since the...
Alex Neil rose—
SNP
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
May I just put several matters on the record? I listened with interest and courtesy to Ms Sturgeon's speech, so I hope that Parliament will accord me the sam...
Members:
Hear, hear.
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Last week, I described in detail the progress that has been made in improving our fingerprint service, and the further measures we plan to implement. The Lor...
Alex Neil rose—
SNP
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Presiding Officer, I am well aware of the need to continue to report to Parliament on progress. Parliament must have an opportunity to scrutinise our plans f...
Nicola Sturgeon rose—
SNP
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I believe that that is the appropriate way forward. We must look to the future to ensure that Parliament is able to satisfy itself that our fingerprint servi...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
The large out-of-court payment of £750,000 by the Scottish Executive to Shirley McKie leaves us with more questions than answers. Issues that refuse to go aw...
Alex Neil:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Colin Fox:
SSP
Give me a minute, Alex.What if Shirley McKie's fingerprint was identified but not found at Marion Ross's house? What if it was put there by somebody else? Wi...
Alex Neil:
SNP
I thank Colin Fox who, unlike the minister, has graciously given way.I draw Colin Fox's attention to the fact that there was not just one misidentification o...
Colin Fox:
SSP
I am grateful to Alex Neil for that intervention—it was exactly on cue.The second issue concerns the reliability of fingerprint evidence, which has been call...
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I thank the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party and her party for using their time this morning to allow Parliament to consider the escalating conce...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
I am sure that Lord Mackay will be pleased, as I am, that the Justice 1 Committee has begun an inquiry into the concerns that have been expressed about the o...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
We all accept that there have been welcome reforms to the SCRO. Does Jeremy Purvis accept that we will not be in a position to judge whether those reforms ar...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
I have heard Ms Sturgeon say that before. I have also heard her say that the integrity of our justice system is "on the line". I do not agree: confidence in ...
Alex Neil:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
I will not.Ms Sturgeon asked whether we can assess the adequacy of the reforms before we know what went wrong. She suggests that we cannot know whether we ha...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
I will not. I would have done so if I had had more than four minutes for my speech.Are the SNP and the Conservatives saying that Scottish fingerprint evidenc...