Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 April 2012
19 Apr 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Yes—I accept that that is the position, but that is a cover-up for not implementing anything, as Mr Finnie will realise, the longer he serves in this Parliament.
As members have said, part 2 has largely been superseded by events. Shortly before the publication of the committee’s stage 1 report, the statement of reasons was published in a leading Scottish newspaper. The newspaper said that it had published the statement because it had received al-Megrahi’s permission to do so and because it was in the public interest. That followed a letter from the Lord Advocate to the chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on 23 March confirming that no employee of the commission would be prosecuted if the statement were to be formally published. The Lord Advocate has since confirmed in a letter to me that there is no specific criminal offence applying to unauthorised publication of the statement of reasons by anyone.
It is now clear that al-Megrahi and his legal team could have published the statement of reasons at any time after the abandonment of his appeal in 2009—after he was safely tucked up in Libya courtesy of Mr MacAskill. The question is, why did he not do so? Why has it taken him and his advisers nearly three years to do something that was entirely within his power and for which he needed permission from no one?
Those developments raise an important point about the Scottish Government’s approach to the al-Megrahi case. The Government’s initial position was that publication of the statement of reasons would be impeded by data protection restrictions, which are a reserved matter. The cabinet secretary told us as recently as 29 February that he had written four times to Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary of State for Justice, demanding the removal of “data protection obstacles”. However, we now know that data protection did not represent an obstacle at all.
Written and oral evidence that the committee received from the Information Commissioner’s Office maintained that the bill would allow disclosure of the statement of reasons and that no data protection restrictions would prevent that. Once Scottish Government officials belatedly joined discussions on the matter with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the UK Ministry of Justice, the Scottish Government was forced to acknowledge that what had been said was the case. For confirmation of that, I refer members to Mr MacAskill’s letter of 16 March to the committee, in which he meekly advised us that no Westminster legislation was needed.
It is fortunate for Mr MacAskill that part 2 is largely a dead letter because, as with his impetuous behaviour over the Supreme Court last year, he was far too quick to use the bill as an excuse to grandstand and demand from the UK Government something that ultimately turned out to be totally unnecessary. I am afraid that that tells us everything that we need to know about him and the SNP.
15:36
As members have said, part 2 has largely been superseded by events. Shortly before the publication of the committee’s stage 1 report, the statement of reasons was published in a leading Scottish newspaper. The newspaper said that it had published the statement because it had received al-Megrahi’s permission to do so and because it was in the public interest. That followed a letter from the Lord Advocate to the chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on 23 March confirming that no employee of the commission would be prosecuted if the statement were to be formally published. The Lord Advocate has since confirmed in a letter to me that there is no specific criminal offence applying to unauthorised publication of the statement of reasons by anyone.
It is now clear that al-Megrahi and his legal team could have published the statement of reasons at any time after the abandonment of his appeal in 2009—after he was safely tucked up in Libya courtesy of Mr MacAskill. The question is, why did he not do so? Why has it taken him and his advisers nearly three years to do something that was entirely within his power and for which he needed permission from no one?
Those developments raise an important point about the Scottish Government’s approach to the al-Megrahi case. The Government’s initial position was that publication of the statement of reasons would be impeded by data protection restrictions, which are a reserved matter. The cabinet secretary told us as recently as 29 February that he had written four times to Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary of State for Justice, demanding the removal of “data protection obstacles”. However, we now know that data protection did not represent an obstacle at all.
Written and oral evidence that the committee received from the Information Commissioner’s Office maintained that the bill would allow disclosure of the statement of reasons and that no data protection restrictions would prevent that. Once Scottish Government officials belatedly joined discussions on the matter with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the UK Ministry of Justice, the Scottish Government was forced to acknowledge that what had been said was the case. For confirmation of that, I refer members to Mr MacAskill’s letter of 16 March to the committee, in which he meekly advised us that no Westminster legislation was needed.
It is fortunate for Mr MacAskill that part 2 is largely a dead letter because, as with his impetuous behaviour over the Supreme Court last year, he was far too quick to use the bill as an excuse to grandstand and demand from the UK Government something that ultimately turned out to be totally unnecessary. I am afraid that that tells us everything that we need to know about him and the SNP.
15:36
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02617, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill.I wi...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
It would appear that we have a problem with Mr MacAskill’s card. Can we do something about the sound? Interruption. Thank you.I call Mr MacAskill to speak to...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
Thank you for your forbearance, Presiding Officer.I thank the Justice Committee for its careful stage 1 scrutiny of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review...
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s view on whether a less complex approach could have been taken had the bill been a bit more ambitious in scope. In ...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
That is not the case. There are two separate matters. The Petch and Foye judgment caused considerable concern and was commented on not only by me but by just...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Does the cabinet secretary accept that it would have been helpful to have consulted the information commissioner at a much earlier stage in order to resolve ...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
It was not up to us to consult the information commissioner, because these matters have to be dealt with by the SCCRC. We have always sought to facilitate ev...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
I call Christine Grahame to speak to the motion on behalf of the Justice Committee.15:11
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Justice Committee—at least, that is what it says here. I thank all those who gave evidence to t...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Alongside other committee members who are present, I had the opportunity to scrutinise the bill closely as it passed through the Justice Committee. I want to...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
Does the member accept that part 2 of the bill has a wider application than just Mr al-Megrahi’s case?
Jenny Marra
Lab
John Finnie may, like me, hope that part 2 will have a wider implication in future, although it is difficult to predict when that might be. However, we will ...
David McLetchie (Lothian) (Con)
Con
As other members have done, I speak as a member of the Justice Committee, which has had responsibility for scrutinising the bill, the first part of which was...
John Finnie
SNP
Does the member accept that the Government’s position remains that the manifesto commitment will be implemented once the terms of the McLeish commission are ...
David McLetchie
Con
Yes—I accept that that is the position, but that is a cover-up for not implementing anything, as Mr Finnie will realise, the longer he serves in this Parliam...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
I will concentrate on part 1 of the bill—the easy bit. We know that part 1 resulted from the much-talked-about Petch and Foye case. As we have heard, part 1 ...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I note John Finnie’s light touch in describing part 1 as “the easy bit”. On that basis, I look forward to his forthcoming book, “A Treatise on Scots Law”, be...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I refer members to my entry in the register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. One of the advantages of the recess is that it enables one ...
Humza Yousaf (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
As a member of the Justice Committee, I, too, thank everybody who came forward and gave evidence on the bill.There is a constant underlying theme in the deba...
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
Hear, hear.
Humza Yousaf
SNP
Thank you. However, luckily, my wife studied law, which was very helpful to me. I have sympathy for Alison McInnes and for Colin Keir—who has disappeared fro...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Presiding Officer, I think that I deserve full marks for bravery as the first non-member of the Justice Committee to venture into these choppy waters without...
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Where Malcolm Chisholm leads, I will boldly follow, as another non-member of the Justice Committee entering bravely into the fray. Never has the old quotatio...
Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
The Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill is needed to remedy the judgment handed down in Petch and Foye v Her Majesty’s Advocate. The bill ...
Colin Keir (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
SNP
Over the past year, members of the Justice Committee have been faced with some complex material to digest in the course of their deliberations.As we have hea...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
Like other committee members, I am grateful to everyone who submitted evidence on the bill, because they certainly helped us to get to grips with an extremel...
Dennis Robertson (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
SNP
When I was given the task of being a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I never thought that I would be grateful for that...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I have to say that I confused myself. John Green is an intruder.
Dennis Robertson
SNP
I thought that it was males who had the problem with reds and greens.The matter that we are debating is very serious, and it needs to be resolved. I congratu...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
That brings us to closing speeches. I remind members who were in the chamber for the debate that they should be here for closing speeches.I have a little bit...