Justice Secretary accountable to Scottish Parliament not U.S

Gordon Liberal Democrats <info@libdems.org.uk>

Justice Secretary accountable to Scottish Parliament not U.S – Brown

July 23, 2010 2:57 PM
Originally published by Scottish Liberal Democrats

Commenting on the US Government's demands for the Justice Secretary to give evidence to a Washington hearing on the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Liberal Democrat Justice spokesperson Robert Brown MSP said:

"The Liberal Democrats are very clear that the process leading up to the Scottish Government's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber was flawed.

"But, however it was made, it was a decision for the Scottish Government under the Scottish legal system. The Justice Minister is accountable to the Scottish Parliament for its actions - not to either the US Government or the US Senate.

"It's entirely understandable for US Senators, who represent many of the families involved in this terrible tragedy, to have concerns over the release. But I don't see what they hope to accomplish by summoning Scottish Ministers to Washington. If the issue is BP, the Scottish Government have already made it clear that they had no involvement with BP over the issue of Megrahi's release. It is difficult to see what else there is to say.

"The Scottish Government, at Liberal Democrat insistence, has published the documentation relating to the decision, even including the advice from the officials. This gives a clear flavour of how the decision proceeded and was the subject of the Justice committee's Report after also hearing Mr. MacAskill's evidence. It is in the public domain and is, no doubt, available to the US Senate if they want it.

"The Justice Secretary has not made this any easier for himself or the Scottish Government. When he first explained his decision he was adamant that it was a decision he took alone as Justice Secretary, based on the evidence. But just this week he said he 'didn't think I had a great deal of discretion at all'. It is all neither particularly heroic nor particularly convincing.

"Mr MacAskill would have far greater support for refusing the Senators' invitation if he had a consistent explanation of his thought process."