International Criminal Court (Darfur) Order 2009 (SI 2009/699)
As members will undoubtedly have noted, the legal brief suggests that there appears to have been an unjustifiable delay in laying the order before the Parliament. In this instance, the delay is considerable. The order was made on 18 March 2009 but not laid in the Parliament until 29 September 2011, which is some two and a half years later, due to an oversight by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. On that basis, does the committee agree to draw the order to the Parliament’s attention on reporting ground (d)?
Does the committee also agree to draw the Parliament’s attention to the letter to the Presiding Officer in which the Scottish Government has explained that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accepts that the order ought to have been laid earlier, apologises for the delay and confirms that it will ensure that this situation does not recur?
I understand that that is helpful. I know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said that it will not allow it to happen again, but it has already happened—I am not sure whether we had a similar letter following the events regarding a similar order for Libya. What security can the Foreign and Commonwealth Office give us? What strictures can we apply in communications with it in the sense of one, shame on them and two, shame on us?
I am looking for a bit of advice to sort out the facts. I think that the second event, if this does not sound improbable, happened before the first event. So, yes, it has happened twice, but both events preceded the statement that it would not happen again. I entirely take Chic Brodie’s point.
I understand that, convener, but if the circumstances had been such that the three Sudanese nationals had entered this country, goodness knows what the gentlemen concerned—I assume that they are all gentlemen—might have done while they were here. We would have been in a somewhat invidious position because of the delay, in that we could not have taken any particular action in regard to the three Sudanese nationals for whom warrants had been issued. They could have claimed diplomatic immunity, state security or what have you.
If my reading of the papers is correct, I think that that is well understood and that those who were responsible are very grateful that that did not happen.
Fine. Thank you, convener, but I do not think that a slap on the wrist is sufficient in these circumstances, given all the events that have occurred recently.
Your points are on the record and I am sure that they will be well understood by those who choose to read them.
Thank you very much. Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, 1 November.