Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)
Fatalities (Investigations) (PE1567)
Solicitors (Complaints) (PE1479)
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
Agenda item 4 is public petitions. Do members agree to continue PE1501, PE1567, PE1479, PE1510 and PE1511 and to consider them at next week’s meeting, to allow petitioners to attend, if they wish to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)
The committee will recall that we agreed to consider PE1280, on fatal accident inquiries, as part of our stage 1 scrutiny of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Bill. We took evidence from the petitioner as part of that scrutiny and, as the clerk’s paper notes, she appeared to be broadly content with the relevant provision in the bill. However, the petitioner wishes the petition to be kept open while the bill passes through Parliament, to see how it develops. Do members agree to keep the petition open?
Members indicated agreement.
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
We move on to petition PE1370, regarding the conviction of Megrahi. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Justice for Megrahi group.
Members will note the recent High Court ruling that relatives of some of the victims of the bombing are not able to pursue an appeal on Megrahi’s behalf. Members of the Justice for Megrahi campaign are in the public gallery. We have received a late paper, but it will not be referred to, as it came in too late for the committee to consider. We will be able to consider it at another date.
What are members’ views on the petition?
We should continue the petition for the time being. Obviously, operation Sandwood has some way to go. In relation to whether the family of Megrahi would ever want to appeal against the conviction, given the state of the world and of Libya at the moment, we should allow a substantial period before we close the petition.
I am a wee bit concerned by some of the comments that have been made about the Lord Advocate. On the issue of the independence of the Crown counsel who is appointed, perhaps we should seek clarity from the Lord Advocate on just how that will play out.
I concur with Rod Campbell. There are a number of positives, not least of which is operation Sandwood and the grip that Police Scotland has taken of the issue. Credit is due to Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone and his team for gaining trust through the diligent way in which they have gone about their business.
A number of aspects of the case make it unique, so we should maintain an on-going interest in it. I quote from a letter of 26 May from the Justice for Megrahi committee, just to put it on the record. It states:
“We strongly believe that in order to acquire a fair, unprejudiced and truly independent reading of the final police report a special prosecutor must be appointed by a process independent of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office, and must be seen to exercise his/her decision-making and prosecutorial functions without reference to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.”
The dilemma that we have is that, when we use the term “Lord Advocate”, we associate that with an individual. We need to depersonalise the issue and treat it as a process, rather than being about personalities. There is a way to go yet with that process.
The letter goes on to say:
“Since the Lord Advocate’s position and independence as head of the prosecution system in Scotland is enshrined in the Scotland Act, such a mechanism must be put in place by the Lord Advocate himself, failing which, the Scottish Government should seek from the UK Government a section 30 Order in Council to enable the Scottish Government to do so.”
There are challenges but, given that the inquiry is on-going and that it might be some time before it reports, we have time on our side. I certainly concur with Justice for Megrahi that the response that we have had from the Rt Hon Frank Mulholland QC does not meet the terms of what people would understand to be independence. We need more thought to be put into that.
A separate leg of the issue is the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s position. As Roderick Campbell rightly says, it appears that the only method by which an appeal against Megrahi’s conviction can be instigated is through the deceased’s relatives or the executors of the estate. The idea that, in the current situation, someone could quite happily get in touch with the executors of the estate, get them to sign documents and then get those out of Libya is just miles from fact. There are several on-going issues.
It is important that we refer to the Lord Advocate as a position rather than an individual. The quandary that we are in is whether the Lord Advocate’s office can make an inquiry into the Lord Advocate’s office. There does not appear to be a mechanism for that, but perhaps there has to be.
Convener, you referred to the Lord Advocate having submitted additional information—
There is a late paper, which I am not tabling because we just got it today. As with other late papers, we cannot use it because nobody has had the opportunity to consider it. I am happy to bring it to your attention.
Does it relate to the petition, though?
Yes, but I cannot go any further than that, because we are not in a position to discuss it. That is another reason to keep the petition open.
Convener, can you confirm that the letter will be put in the public domain?
We have to confirm whether we can do that. Justice for Megrahi wrote to the Lord Advocate privately and confidentially to start with, and we have a sort of response to that. We have to confirm with the Lord Advocate that we can now release that information. That is only appropriate. I do not think that there will be difficulties, but he has not been physically available to allow us to do that.
If it alludes to a letter that was sent in confidence by Justice for Megrahi, would it be appropriate to contact that group to ask whether it is content with the information being made public?
It is content; the issue is the Lord Advocate. It would not be appropriate for the committee to publish something without asking the Lord Advocate. I do not think that there will be a problem, but I would like to have that consent.
Is that approach agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you—we will continue that petition. [Interruption.] I am being told something, so I suspend the meeting for a moment.
12:07 Meeting suspended.
I think that the Lord Advocate is well aware of the proposal for an independent counsel to be appointed. Do members wish us to write about that? What was your point, Mr Campbell?
In the Lord Advocate’s letter to you, convener, of 8 May 2015, he simply said:
“Arrangements were therefore put in place for independent Crown Counsel who has not been involved in the Lockerbie case to deal with this matter if and when the need arises.”
It would be good to have greater clarity on that appointment process and who that would be.
The need will arise, because a report will come from Police Scotland to the Lord Advocate’s office. It is a question of seniority that we need to bear in mind.
When we raise with the Lord Advocate the issue about publishing the information that we have, shall we also point him to the Official Report of what we have said today and ask whether he wishes to comment? Would that be appropriate?
Yes.
That would be helpful.
That concludes our consideration of the petitions.
At our meeting on 29 September we will consider amendments to parts 1 and 7 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill at stage 2.
Meeting closed at 12:09.