International Judicial Co-operation
The next item of business is a statement by the First Minister on international judicial co-operation. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions during it.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement to Parliament on this matter and to answer any questions thereafter.
On 29 May 2007, the United Kingdom Government signed a memorandum of understanding with Libya to begin negotiations on a variety of legal matters. It is not my intention today to release the details of that memorandum—that is properly a matter for the Prime Minister.
What I can say is that, in broad terms, the memorandum of understanding deals with judicial co-operation on matters of law and extradition and on the issue of prisoner transfer. At no stage was the Scottish Government made aware of the content of the memorandum prior to its signing and therefore no opportunity was given to contribute or to raise concerns about the potential implications for Scotland.
Accordingly, I have today written to the Prime Minister, expressing my concern that it was felt appropriate for the United Kingdom Government to sign such a memorandum on matters that are clearly devolved to Scotland, without any opportunity for the Scottish Government or Parliament to contribute. The Lord Advocate is aware of, and supports, my decision to write to the Prime Minister on the matter. In the spirit of openness, and so that members can see what representations have been made on their behalf, I will make a copy of that letter available via the Scottish Parliament information centre, the parliamentary library.
The question of prisoner transfer is particularly important, not least in relation to the case of Mr Al Megrahi, the Libyan who was convicted in a Scottish court of the Lockerbie bombing, which remains the most serious terrorist atrocity committed in the United Kingdom. At the time, the Scottish law officers and others, including the secretary-general of the United Nations, gave assurances that any sentence that was imposed would be served in Scotland. Moreover, Mr Al Megrahi is currently having his case reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which may result in his case being sent back to the High Court in Edinburgh on appeal. There is also an appeal by the Lord Advocate against leniency of sentence. One obvious concern is that the memorandum could be interpreted as having implications for that due process of law.
I understand that the existence of the memorandum and its subject matter, but not its detailed contents, have already been publicised in Libya. In the normal course of parliamentary inquiry, it is, in my view, inevitable that the memorandum will very shortly enter the public domain here, too. Given that the subject matter of the memorandum and any agreements that may flow from it are emphatically within the remit and authority of the Parliament, I wanted members to be made aware, in this chamber, of the developments.
In conclusion, the Parliament should be clear about three things in relation to the matter. First, the lack of prior consultation on the issue is clearly unacceptable, and that position has now been made clear to the Prime Minister. Secondly, the Scottish Government supports the United Kingdom Government's desire for better relations with Libya. Whatever consequences flow from the memorandum, no requests have been received and no decisions have been taken. However, the Scottish Government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law. The integrity of that process is paramount. Lastly, in this Parliament at least, matters of such importance will rightly be brought to the chamber—members of the Parliament are entitled to nothing less.
The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow one question from each of the main parties, after which we will see what time allows.
By way of preamble, I say that I do not regard the 20 or so minutes that we were given to study the content of the statement in advance as acceptable—the normal practice is 60 minutes, or as close to that as possible. I therefore hope, Presiding Officer, that you will understand that each of the party leaders may wish to pursue matters during the question session, should the First Minister not provide the details that we need to hear.
The First Minister needs to be clear with the Parliament about the nature of the issues that he is raising and must provide further details. As a former First Minister, I would have expected and demanded no less than prior consultation on such a memorandum. If the Scottish Executive—the new Scottish Government—was not consulted or informed in advance, that is certainly regrettable. I have not seen the letter that the First Minister has sent to the Prime Minister, but I am happy to support the First Minister's representations in general. I hope that the United Kingdom Government listens carefully to what he has said. However, on the substance of the emergency statement, there would normally be more detail in such a statement than is provided to the chamber today.
I have some specific questions for the First Minister. When was he informed of the existence of the memorandum and its implications? If he was informed—at the latest—earlier this week, why has there been a delay in bringing the matter to the chamber? If the matter was reported to the Cabinet on Tuesday, why was it not brought to the chamber yesterday? Why is it being brought this afternoon through—as I understand it—a request that was submitted at lunch time for an emergency statement?
I have two specific questions about the memorandum. Does it say anything that contradicts the absolute power of ministers in this Parliament and this Scottish Government over prisoner transfers and prison operations in Scotland? As far as I understand the letter of the law, the Scottish ministers have an absolute veto over prisoner transfers.
Finally, and perhaps most important, does the memorandum of understanding, which I understand Mr Salmond does not wish to publish in full, say that there is any role for the devolved Administrations, that there is a separate jurisdiction in Scotland, and that Scots law needs to be recognised, with the agreement of this devolved Government and this Parliament?
I thank Jack McConnell for his support on the issues of consultation and information. As I said, the letter to the Prime Minister is available via SPICe to all members.
On the timetable, I became aware of the matter on Friday; I took it to Cabinet on Tuesday; I consulted the Lord Advocate for advice on the significant legal matters involved yesterday; and I brought it to Parliament today. [Interruption.]
Order.
On negotiating a way round the situation, by not publishing a memorandum of understanding—which is, in my view, the role and responsibility of the Prime Minister—and by informing the Parliament of its responsibilities, I have brought the matter to Parliament's attention at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that most members in the chamber will regard that open and transparent process as somewhat different from what has happened in another chamber some hundreds of miles to the south.
I make it clear that I would be delighted if it were in my province to publish the memorandum of understanding. That would contribute to the process, and I hope that the Parliament, in so far as we can be persuasive in these matters, suggests to the United Kingdom Government that it does so; I think that it will come into the public domain very quickly indeed.
The memorandum specifically says that the United Kingdom Government will seek to obtain the agreement of other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. It would be normal to seek that agreement before, rather than after, such a memorandum was signed.
I thank the First Minister for prior sight of the statement and for very properly bringing the matter to the chamber.
The circumstances surrounding the statement are deeply troubling. Tony Blair has, quite simply, ridden roughshod over devolution, and he has treated with contempt Scotland's distinct and independent legal system. As a unionist—and there is none more trenchant and determined than I am—I have to say that that is unacceptable arrogance towards the Scottish Government and the Scottish law officers.
First of all, the agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the Libyans must be made public, and I will certainly press my colleagues in the House of Commons to pursue the matter immediately. However, the following questions must be clarified either by the First Minister or—as matters might be outwith his knowledge—through him by the Prime Minister.
Why was the First Minister not consulted before the agreement was signed? Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Prime Minister-in-waiting, consulted before it was signed? Why were Scotland's law officers not consulted before it was signed? Does the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have the legal and constitutional authority to release a person serving a life sentence in a Scottish jail? Who is ultimately responsible for and has jurisdiction over the release of such a prisoner?
I am deeply alarmed by the Prime Minister's actions, which, on a practical, political and legal basis, amount to frankly shoddy and shabby conduct by the incumbent of that office.
Let there be no doubt: as far as this matter is concerned, our law officers, our Government and our Parliament will make the decisions. As yet, there have been no requests, so no decisions have been made. However, this Parliament will be kept fully informed of any decision-making process.
As for consultation, I do not think that that is a matter for me. I used to say that my relationships with the Chancellor of the Exchequer were rather better than his relationships with the Prime Minister. Perhaps—who knows?—the chancellor has not had sight of the document either.
In one sense, it does not really matter. What actually matters is the future and that we have an understanding that perhaps looks back to the agreements made when the Parliament was established that such matters would be discussed, that there would be a formal process and that information would be exchanged. Whatever has happened in this case or in the past, let that happen in the future.
I, too, thank the First Minister for prior sight of his statement.
At First Minister's question time, I mentioned how unfortunate it was that the Prime Minister had not telephoned the First Minister to mark his election and appointment. To fail to phone as a matter of courtesy is one thing; to fail to communicate or engage on a matter in which both Governments have a direct interest and for which they have direct responsibility is far more serious, especially on this issue. In Scotland and across the world, so many people still remember so clearly the horror of the atrocity that happened over Lockerbie.
Does the First Minister agree that we in the chamber are totally committed to the development of a safer world, reduced international tension and peaceful diplomacy? Whatever the political differences, surely there is an overwhelming responsibility on the UK Government to engage with the Scottish Executive on such an important issue. It would be a great pity if partisanship were to stand in the way of necessary co-operation. Does he recognise, as the UK Government should clearly have recognised, that the prospect of better international relations is improved if the UK and devolved Administrations work together? The UK Government should have engaged beforehand and should have published the details as soon as it could. Will the First Minister assure the chamber that his Administration will take a global, not partisan, view?
Finally, what does the First Minister know of the role of the Advocate General for Scotland in the memorandum? After all, the Advocate General in the UK Government is meant to report and advise on these matters. Will the Lord Advocate urgently discuss these matters with the Advocate General?
I have no direct knowledge of what information, if any, was given to the Advocate General. I would be surprised if he had been given information that was not given to the Government or the Scottish law officers. We can make inquiries and find out. However, members should remember that the memorandum of understanding has not been released to MPs at Westminster, never mind to anyone else. Although we rightly feel aggrieved about the lack of openness and transparency and the absence of disclosure, our position is no different from that of many other people who, it might be thought, had a proper democratic interest in knowing these things.
On Nicol Stephen's first question, I made it clear in my statement that I support the United Kingdom's desire to have better relationships with the state of Libya. I am sure that that view is held and supported across the chamber. No requests and no decisions have been made. However, we have a paramount responsibility to be able to discharge our duties properly, which requires consultation and information. We also have a responsibility to the due process of law—we must ensure that anything that is done now or in the future pays proper regard to the integrity of Scots law and due process.
I said that I would take one question from each of the main parties, so there will be a final question from Alex Neil.
Is this a clear breach of the concordat on justice and home affairs, which was signed by Donald Dewar in 1999? Does the Scottish Executive have any legal redress when such breaches occur? If there is such a process, will the Executive follow it? If there is not, should there be one? If the issue cannot be resolved properly and a guarantee obtained about relationships in future, should the matter be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
I am informed by the Lord Advocate that there is no legal redress in relation to concordats and understandings. However, there has been a clear breach of what those documents contain. I hope that, through the process of political discussion and debate, we will arrive at a settlement. Although the Lord Advocate has advised me that there is no legal process that we can pursue against the Prime Minister—it may be thought that I have tried a number of such processes in the past—let us hope that, in the future and with future Prime Ministers, matters of such substance will be properly discussed, debated and settled, and that agreements that are in the national and international interest will be properly processed by this Parliament.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If Parliament believes the matter to be of paramount importance to the integrity of Scots law—apart from anything else—would it be in order for you to accept a motion without notice that the whole Parliament deprecates the action of the Prime Minister in signing the memorandum with the Libyan leader without having regard to co-operation on legal proceedings, which is outlined at point D3.13 of the memorandum of understanding with this Parliament?
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer.
I will deal with Margo MacDonald's point of order first, if I may.
The matter is one that is entirely for me, and I am not minded to accept such a motion. You could lodge such a motion in your own time, Ms MacDonald.
George Foulkes has a point of order.
You have answered it, Presiding Officer. Thank you.
I am glad to be a step ahead of you, sir.