§ Mr. David AtkinsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his Department's analysis of the bones brought from Ekaterinburg, Russia, in July 1991 for identification.
§ Mr. Charles WardleThis is a matter for which the Forensic Science Service is responsible, and the chief executive has provided a reply.
Letter for Dr. Janet Thompson to Mr. David Atkinson, undated:
You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about the project being undertaken by the Home Office Forensic Science Service (FSS) on the remains found near Ekaterinburg, Russia, in July 1991. As you know, the Chief Executive of an Executive Agency, with the agreement of the Minister, replies to Members of Parliament on operational matters. I am therefore replying on behalf of the FSS.The project has now been successfully completed and we announced the results on 9 July. As a result of the DNA analysis, scientists believe that five of the nine skeletons found are those of the Tsar, Tsarina and three of their daughters. This conclusion is the same as that reached by anthropologists in Russia.The statistical analysis was complex. The scientists estimated a 98.5 per cent. probability for the identification, based on a neutral interpretation of the previous anthropological evidence and on the least likely interpretation of the DNA evidence.The scientists involved in the project will submit their work for publication and peer review in the scientific literature to enable other scientists to examine their work and conclusions. Further work will be needed to refine the statistical analysis. Once validated, we hope soon to be able to put the techniques used into practice in criminal casework to the benefit of the criminal justice system as a whole.694W
Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian subcontinent initially refused and subsequently granted entry clearance on appeal by reason for refusal, 1991 and 1992 Initial refusals Granted on appeal Primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom: Couple could not accommodate and/for maintain themselves without recourse to public funds: Primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom: Couple could not accommodate and/for maintain themselves without recourse to public funds: Solely for this reason Partly for this reason1 Solely for this reason Partly for this reason1 Solely for this reason Partly for this reason1 Solely for this reason Partly for this reason1 1991 Bangladesh Husbands 90 40 20 30 20 — 2— — Fiances — — — — — — — — Wives 2— 2— 20 10 — — 10 2— Fiancees — — — — — — — — Pakistan Husbands 760 660 40 660 210 280 20 270 Fiances 100 70 2— 70 50 50 2— 10 Wives 40 30 140 40 2— 2— 50 2— Fiancees 2— 2— 20 10 — — — — India Husbands 270 20 2— 20 50 — — — Fiances 210 20 — 20 50 — — — Wives 130 20 2— 10 20 — — — Fiancees 70 20 — 10 10 — — — Total Indian sub-continent Husbands 1,120 710 70 700 280 280 30 270