The funding to promote volunteeringrecently announcement by the UK Government Cabinet Office was allocated from existingresources and does not therefore result in any consequentials for Scotland.

We work with partners, includingVolunteer Development Scotland (VDS) to implement our volunteering strategy andattract people from socially diverse backgrounds to volunteering. VDS, togetherwith a number of volunteer centres, takes forward a range of training and providestargeted resources to promote best practice across volunteer engaging agencies,including the promotion of volunteering opportunities to harder to reach groups.In addition, the Scottish Executive funds MV Awards (previously Millennium VolunteerAwards) which, through a national network of youth development workers located inlocal volunteer centres, aims to promote volunteering to all young people whileprioritising harder to reach groups.

Project Scotland, whichalso receives Scottish Executive funding, offers full time volunteering placementsto young people aged between16 to 25. Project Scotland’s range of support, whichincludes a subsistence allowance, allows many young people, who would perhaps nototherwise be able to do so, to take advantage of these opportunities.

The Executive’s advertising campaignfor volunteering specifically targeted harder to reach groups.

Executive Departments also supporta number of voluntary community projects for hard to reach groups in pursuit oftheir policy objectives, many of which may include a volunteering element.

The Executive does not providefunding specifically for the installation of such systems.

The Executive has had no suchdirect correspondence.

The Executive believes that parenta lconsent is an essential pre‑requisite.

Such decisions are matters forindividual education authorities and schools.

The Scottish Executive is inregular contact with the UK Government and the UK Information Commissioner on arange of issues, including the use of fingerprint systems in schools.

I refer the member to the answerto question S2W-28047 on 19 September 2006. All answers towritten parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the searchfacility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

I refer the member to the answer to question S2W-28047 on 19 September 2006. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’swebsite, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

The two figures referred toare not directly comparable as they are based on different analyses of twodifferent sets of information.

The conviction rate of 26%published in the Review of the Investigation and Prosecution of SexualOffences in Scotland report derives from an analysis of prosecution casepapers carried out by COPFS as part of its review of the way in which serioussexual offences are investigated and prosecuted. The conviction rate of 26% isa percentage of all cases indicted with a charge of rape in the financial year2002-03 which resulted in a conviction. This figure is confined to cases wherethe victim was an adult, in which there is the additional challenge of provingthat the victim did not consent to sexual intercourse.

The conviction rate of 63.8%derived from figures given in reply to S2W-26055 is based on data extractedfrom the Scottish Executive Justice Department court proceedings database. Itexpresses, as a percentage of the total number of proceedings concluded infinancial year 2002-03 with rape as the final main offence recorded, those wherethe charge was proved. Cases initially prosecuted on a charge of rape but whichresult in a conviction for some alternative charge are not included. Unlike thefigures produced as part of the Review of the Investigation and Prosecutionof Sexual Offences in Scotland, the total number of cases used incalculating this percentage does not include cases where it was ruled there wasno case to answer or where the prosecutor withdrew the charges. The courtproceedings statistics for a particular year will exclude the outcome ofproceedings which had not been recorded on the Scottish Criminal Record Office(SCRO) criminal history system at the point at which the analysis file for thatyear was created. Recording delays at SCRO in previous years can mean that somedisposals, particularly in relation to acquittals in the High Court, are missing fromthe court proceedings database.