Plenary, 24 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001

Official Report 359KB pdf

---

Chhokar Inquiries (Publication of Reports)

We come to the debate on motion S1M-2343, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the publication of reports into the investigation, legal proceedings and family liaison arrangements in the case of the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar. Members who wish to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak buttons.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament notes that the Scottish Ministers intend to lay in English and other languages the Report of the Inquiry into the Liaison Arrangements Between the Police, the Procurator Fiscal Service and the Crown Office and the Family of the Deceased Surjit Singh Chhokar in Connection with the Murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar and the Related Prosecutions by Dr Raj Jandoo and the Report of the Inquiry into Crown Decision-Making in the Case of the Murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar by the Rt. Hon. Sir Anthony Campbell before the Parliament and orders the Clerk to publish the Reports and their translations.—[Mr Jim Wallace.]

Two members have requested to speak. Because of the business motion that has been passed, any time will take time out of the questions on the statement so it is in all members' interests to move quickly.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is the first member to request to speak.

I thought that Roseanna Cunningham—

I am sorry—I took the first name on the screen. Do you want to ask the first question, Roseanna Cunningham? Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is very courteous.

I thank Lord James Douglas-Hamilton for his extreme courtesy.

Would the minister confirm that the purport of the motion is in effect to extend the protection of privilege to the reports when they are published? That procedure is rare and is not applied to hundreds of Executive reports. I think that on only three occasions in the history of the Parliament has that procedure been used. As a result of that, can we be clear that neither Darshan Chhokar nor Aamer Anwar will have any recourse to legal action, given the allegations of a defamatory nature that are in the reports about them? Will he clarify whether that privilege applies only when the reports are published—at least from today onwards—and not to what has happened in the press since Saturday's The Daily Telegraph was published?

The motion confers privilege, for which there are precedents. The Ruddle case report and the Health and Community Care Committee reports were dealt with similarly and the procedure is adopted in the House of Commons regularly, as in the report on Orkney child abuse. Would it not be more appropriate for the motion to be moved at the outset, when the reports are instructed? Perhaps the matter can be remitted to the Procedures Committee in due course.

We support the motion.

On the final point, I do not want to make an instant judgment. Perhaps the matter could appropriately be referred to the Procedures Committee. On Roseanna Cunningham's point, I can confirm that a similar motion—as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has indicated—was also used for the mental welfare commission report on the Noel Ruddle case. The motion grants protection to the authors of the report against legal proceedings—I therefore confirm Roseanna Cunningham's point. It allows the full facts to be laid before Parliament without any fear of legal action. Parliament wished that the reports should be thorough and it would be regrettable if a signal were given to people who are instructed to undertake important reports that Parliament was not able to grant them this privilege. That would lead to less than thorough reports and would not be in the public interest. That does not in any way indicate that the material is defamatory, but the approach ensures that the authors can be as open and complete as possible.

I also hear what Ms Cunningham says about press reports at the weekend. I share her concerns and deprecate the leaks in the press. It is unfortunate that the Chhokar family has had further cause for grievance by the appearance of those stories. I assure the family and the Parliament that any communication with any journalist on the matter was not authorised or approved by any member of the Scottish Executive. The First Minister has asked for a full report into the background and the first steps in the inquiry process are already under way.

The question is, that motion S1M-2343, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, on the publication of the reports, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.