From Today's Scotsman

MSPS yesterday voted to investigate the Shirley McKie controversy as part of a wide-ranging inquiry into Scotland's fingerprint service. One of Holyrood's most powerful committees - justice 1 - agreed to stage the parliamentary inquiry which will cover the running of the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) and Scottish Fingerprint Service (SFS). The decision was welcomed by Ms McKie's supporters, but they reiterated their long-running demands for a full-blown judicial or public inquiry. MSPs were unanimous in their support for a parliamentary investigation, although there was disagreement over how far-reaching that inquiry should be. The committee's three Labour MSPs, including convener Pauline McNeill, called for its remit to be restricted to the operation of the SCRO and the SFS. They argued that an examination of the McKie case would be seen as an attempt to run a full public inquiry under the "guise" of a parliamentary inquiry. But after more than 90 minutes of tense exchanges, the wide-ranging remit was agreed by four votes to three. Liberal Democrat member Mike Pringle, who voted with opposition MSPs, said the terms of reference would allow the committee to look at the reasons for the misidentification of fingerprints in the case. The justice minister Cathy Jamieson - backed by a parliamentary vote - previously ruled out an independent judicial public inquiry despite growing demands for one since the Executive agreed to pay Ms McKie, a former officer from Troon, Ayrshire, out-of-court damages of £750,000 last month. She was wrongly accused of leaving her fingerprint at the Kilmarnock home of murder victim Marion Ross in 1997 and was cleared of lying on oath in 1999 after challenging fingerprint evidence provided by the SCRO. David Asbury, who had been jailed for the murder, was freed after his conviction was quashed on appeal in 2002. The committee has yet to decide who to call before it, but some members want to call the fingerprint officers at the centre of the row as well as either Ms McKie or her father Iain. They will invite written evidence next week and begin considering potential witnesses at their next meeting. The first oral evidence session is expected on 26 April. Yesterday's vote over the remit is likely to cause further strain on the Labour/Lib Dem coalition, following divisions over nuclear policy as well as licensing and family law reform. These tensions surfaced during the meeting, Mr Pringle and Labour's Mary Mulligan clashing frequently. Mr Pringle, who proposed the remit, insisted: "We do have to go back to perhaps where this all started in SCRO so that we are aware as a committee of where we started and how the process worked through and where we're at now." SNP member Bruce McFee said a parliamentary inquiry was no substitute for a judicially-led public investigation and could not hope to "unravel the sequence of events in 1997". But he added: "It will not be possible for this committee to have confidence that problems in the fingerprint service have been resolved if we are denied access to the true nature of the circumstances which led to the misidentification of two fingerprints by several officers in one case." The SNP's Brian Adam said: "This is actually addressing the reason why there is a crisis of confidence in our legal procedures and unless we have that answered the value of any parliamentary inquiry would be fairly limited." But Ms McNeill insisted: "If we were to embark on a remit that included the reasons for the misidentification of the Shirley McKie fingerprint and the David Asbury fingerprint, et cetera, then we will be in a position of being seen as trying to run a public inquiry in the guise of a parliamentary inquiry." Meanwhile, Ms Mulligan told Mr Pringle: "I do think you're clinging to the idea that the committee should be picking up on a pseudo-McKie inquiry, if you like. I actually think that we have to move on from that. We cannot reproduce the public inquiry and if that was what you wanted then maybe you should have voted for it at the time." Mr McKie admitted surprise at the extent of the remit. "It's much more positive than I anticipated. I thought it would be some mealy-mouthed thing that the Executive wanted, which would only look at the present and the future. It's a much better result than I expected, but the only real way forward is to have a judicial inquiry," he said.

Ah - I think the genie is now out of the bottle - how many people's careers are about to be swept away? All those who have conspired to conceal the truth for certain, though it's still not too late for them to change horses. It will be too late in approximately one month's time when this committee starts its questioning.

Oh and by the way, I have still not heard from Bristow Muldoon (anagram) - but then you knew that already, didn't you?

O, World On Its Bum !!!