Petitions
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
It has been a long morning. Item 5 is on two on-going petitions. The first is PE1370, by Justice for Megrahi, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to open an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
You will see from paper 3 that the petitioners are asking the committee to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it agrees with the petitioners’ claims that it has powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to appoint an independent investigator and, if so, whether it would be willing to do that to investigate the petitioners’ allegations.
I make a declaration that I have signed up to the Justice for Megrahi campaign.
I will comment on the very useful paper that has been provided by the Justice for Megrahi committee. I know that the paper is on public record but, with the committee’s indulgence, I will quote from some of the passages that are important to me. They relate to the comment that the Justice for Megrahi people
“never have asked the Scottish Government to investigate these matters for themselves.”
Where is that in paper 3?
It is on page 4, in the paragraph under the heading “The Justice Directorate”. Moving to the next paragraph, we should be concerned if the Justice for Megrahi people are concerned that
“the Justice Directorate is consciously misconstruing our request”.
It is helpful that there is an acknowledgement in the following paragraph that the Government
“admitted that ... such powers”
of investigation exist
“under the ... 2005 Inquiries Act”.
An important point is made in the section that is headed “Reflection”, on page 8. Referring to the case, it says:
“It poses profound and basic questions we ignore at our peril, namely: what do we perceive justice to be, what role ought it to play in our society and whom should it exist to serve?”
The next paragraph refers to
“one misguided decision in a showcase trial.”
There is no issue that I am asked about more when people ask me in conversation what committees I am on and I mention that I am on the Justice Committee. People always have a view on the issue and, almost without exception, that view is summed up by the phrase
“one misguided decision in a showcase trial.”
I could go on at length. The secretary to the Justice for Megrahi committee, Robert Forrester, poses an interesting question when he talks about the
“Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors”
on page 10 of paper 3. What avenue of redress is there? It is clearly a matter of public concern if eminent people such as the Justice for Megrahi people feel compelled to put such phrases in a public document.
With regard to the covering paper from the clerk, I certainly support the idea of writing to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ask for comment on the matters that are outlined in paragraph 10 on page 2 of paper 3. I hope that the committee supports that action.
12:45
I hear all that John Finnie has said. Obviously, I am quite familiar with the petition, as I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee at that time. I note that page 2 of paper 3 states:
“JFM’s allegations are being taken forward by the police and investigations are ongoing.”
Do we have an update on that? Is that what John Finnie was talking about?
Sorry, do you want to say a bit more about that, so that we have it on record?
Can we have an update on where the investigation is? I think that the committee wishes to keep the petition open, but in what terms could we write to the COPFS about that? I am not sure about the proper procedure, but I do not think that our committee can ask for an investigation into allegations. However, we could certainly write to the Crown Office about some of the issues.
Sorry, I am having words with the clerk. I wish that I had one of those earpieces that the BBC people have, as I am having to lean over to find out what action is open to us.
I hear what John Finnie and Sandra White say, but I am not happy about writing in terms that ask the Crown Office to account for public criticism by JFM. I am not sure that I want the Justice Committee involved in that spat.
I agree, but what do you think we ought to do?
To be honest, I am fairly happy with suggestions b, c and d in paragraph 10 of the paper.
I hear what Rod Campbell says, but the issue is a matter of public protocol and how people respond. We need to be reassured that, if a citizen—never mind an organisation—tenders a confidential matter to the Government, the Government will not, as is asserted here, go public with it in a newspaper article.
Suggestion c in paragraph 10 suggests that we ask the Government
“whether it will keep JFM informed of developments in the investigation of their allegations”.
That is entirely in line with the good practice that we have heard about in relation to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, so that should not be in any way challenging.
Rod Campbell said that he is not unhappy with writing to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ask
“what resources have been allocated to the investigation of JFM’s allegations; ... whether it will keep JFM informed of developments in the investigation of their allegations; and ... whether it has instructed the police on how to proceed with the investigation into JFM’s allegations.”
Yes, I am happy enough with that.
It seems fair enough that we write about that to the Crown Office.
The paper suggests that we consider
“whether to write to the Scottish Government on behalf of the petitioners asking for comments on its powers to appoint an independent investigator”.
If we ask simply for the Government’s views, that will get the issue shot of once and for all. Either the Government has the power or it does not have the power. What do members think?
Personally, I am in favour of writing to the Crown Office—
We have agreed that we will write to the COPFS.
We have agreed to write on suggestions b, c and d in paragraph 10, and I certainly support doing that. I am not sure where writing to the Scottish Government about its powers to appoint an investigator would get us to, but I will go with the wishes of the committee.
The petitioners have asked us to write to the Scottish Government
“to ascertain whether or not the government accepts that it has the power under”
the Inquiries Act 2005 or any other act
“to appoint an independent investigator”.
We could just ask the Scottish Government for its view on whether it has any power to appoint an independent investigator into the claims. As a fact of life, the answer that we get back will be either one or the other. Either the Government has the power or it does not have the power. I think that we might be in a position to ask that.
The suggestion in the second last paragraph of paper 3 is that the Government has acknowledged that in response to a parliamentary question. The issue is not about whether it has the power; it is about whether it chooses to exercise it.
I think that that was about instituting an inquiry, not an independent investigation. I am sorry that we do not have the parliamentary question and answer before us.
We should just seek clarification about whether ministers have powers under statute to instigate an investigation—and it is an investigation, not an inquiry—into the entire al-Megrahi affair. We know that there are powers, but they are limited to matters that are not reserved.
Are members happy for us to write to the COPFS for comment or further information on points b, c and d in paragraph 10 of paper 3, and to ask the Scottish Government to comment on whether it has powers under any statute to appoint an independent investigator to investigate the allegations made by the campaign?
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, I hardly need to ask members if we are keeping the petition open.
Administrative Justice (PE1449)
In PE1449, Accountability Scotland calls for an independent Scottish administrative justice council when the UK Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council system is abolished. The committee will remember that we recently considered a Public Bodies Act 2011 consent memorandum on a UK order abolishing the AJTC. The Scottish Parliament gave its consent to the order on 21 May. The order is still to be passed by Westminster.
We have also been in correspondence with the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs to establish what arrangements will be put in place after the abolition of the AJTC. The Scottish Government intends to create an interim expert advisory committee until the new structure for devolved tribunals has been created. It then intends to create a replacement Scottish committee for administrative justice and tribunals.
The petitioners have asked for the opportunity to comment once details of the interim expert advisory committee become known. Paper 4 therefore suggests that we could write again to the minister asking her to keep us informed of any developments with the interim committee. If we do that, any response will be in the public domain. Are members content?
Members indicated agreement.
12:52
Meeting continued in private until 13:02.