Scottish Government

I am writing on behalf of the Executive to respond to the report of the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry into the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) and Scottish Fingerprint Service (SFS), which was published on 15 February. Though the Executive usually has two months to respond to such reports, we are responding now in light of the imminent dissolution of Parliament, the importance of the issues and our wish to proceed in the spirit of openness and transparency that has characterised the conduct of the inquiry. The response covers all aspects of the report, except those that are within the remit for which the Lord Advocate has specific responsibility.

In order to assist the Committee and others with an interest in the issues covered by the report, the Executive is providing this response, having consulted Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and those responsible for the leadership and management of the Scottish Fingerprint Service. A common thread has been to welcome both the clarity with which the report presents, reviews and analyses the voluminous evidence and the unanimity of view reached by the Committee.

Many of the issues were familiar to us and, indeed, the Committee's assessment of them appears to have a lot in common with the assessments made by the organisations covered by this response. I am pleased that the Committee has recognised that much has been achieved in recent years, and also that it supports and suggests ways of strengthening the thrust of our proposals for the future.

The ambition that we clearly share is that in future the quality and integrity of the fingerprint service will be so transparent and confidence in it so assured that it is generally recognised as a centre of excellence and there will be in no doubt that Scotland has a world-class fingerprint service. The report's analysis, observations and suggestions are generally helpful in that regard. Though I am not persuaded by the suggestion that the settlement of Shirley McKie's civil action should have been conditional on securing an undertaking that there would be no further comment on mark Y7, I believe that overall the report will assist in informing future strategic policy and operational management as we work towards securing the position of our fingerprint service. Specifically, all the formal recommendations made by the Committee can be accepted. A more detailed commentary on those recommendations is enclosed.

CATHY JAMIESON