Monthly Archives: August 2009

The Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) clearly had a rough ride at this morning’s No 10 press briefing.

One particularly pertinent exchange was the following:

Put that Ministers had felt free to criticise all sorts of decisions made by the National administration in Scotland and what made this issue any different, the PMS replied that this was a unique set of circumstances and a uniquely difficult and sensitive subject. This rested with the Scottish Justice Secretary and we needed to make our position clear throughout which we had done…

Put that there was nothing stopping the Prime Minister from commenting, the PMS said that Justice was a devolved matter and that was the nature of the political arrangement between Scotland and Westminster. Put that it seemed odd that the Prime Minister was not commenting on a position taken by a country within the United Kingdom, the PMS said that he had set out the Government’s position on commenting on the decision taken by Kenny MacAskill.

Notwithstanding the PMS’s response, is, of course, true that ministers routinely criticise the SNP Scottish Executive; indeed, they do so regularly every month at Scottish Questions.  Take, for instance, the following random example from July, 2008:

Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South) (Lab): What recent representations he has received from the First Minister on cross-border policing.

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (David Cairns): There are regular and ongoing discussions at both ministerial and official level on a range of cross-border policing issues.

Nigel Griffiths: Are my hon. Friend’s efforts not hampered by the empty promise of 1,000 extra police? After 14 months, not one single extra police officer has been provided. Is that not the most cynical betrayal of our communities by the SNP Administration?

David Cairns: We all remember the clear promise that was made: 1,000 extra policemen. In the Strathclyde police area alone, there are 200 fewer policemen today than there were 12 months ago. Taken with the latest plan to let half of Scotland’s prisoners out on to the streets, that goes to show that the SNP is weak on crime.

Policing, like justice, is a devolved matter in Scotland, yet that constitutional nicety did not inhibit David Cairns from criticising the SNP executive.  Not for him the Trappist demeanour adopted by Gordon Brown.  No, Cairns gleefully seized the opportunity presented to him by Nigel Griffiths to give the SNP a good old kicking, and to hell with the constitutional settlement.

The more one examines it, the more ridiculous Brown’s position appears.  Everyone else can see that; why can’t he?

John Redwood has written to the Prime Minister urging that Parliament be recalled this week to debate, among other things, the al-Megrahi affair.

John is entirely right; it is simply unacceptable that the Prime Minister should continue to evade making any statement on a hugely important issue that threatens to cause potentially irreparable damage to our relations with our most closest ally.

The Scottish Parliament was today recalled to debate the affair, but Kenny MacAskill’s statement added nothing of significance to what we already knew.  Nor, indeed, could it.  We need to learn the truth about the discussions that took place between Britain and Libya prior to al-Megrahi’s release.  That can only be achieved by statements from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Business Secretary.

Crucially, also, we need to know what the Government proposes to do to restore good relations with the United States.  Again, Brown and Miliband must present themselves to the House, make their statements and answer what are likely to be extremely searching questions.

The Prime Minister, in short, must abandon the cowardly fiction that the al-Megrahi affair is a legal issue that is wholly a matter for the devolved body in Edinburgh and no concern of his.  It is not; it is an issue of the most critical national importance.

And for that reason, the national Parliament must be recalled.

The role of the Foreign Office minister, Ivan Lewis, in the al-Megrahi affair merits some scrutiny.

The Sunday Times reports that, less than three weeks before al-Megrahi’s release, Lewis wrote to Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Executive justice minister, to tell him that there was no reason not to accede to a request by Libya for the transfer of the terrorist to its custody under the terms of the 2007 agreement negotiated between Tony Blair and Gaddafi.

Lewis’s letter concluded:

“I hope on this basis you will now feel able to consider the Libyan application in accordance with the provisions of the prisoner transfer agreement.”

“Sources close to MacAskill” are now spinning that Lewis was effectively giving the nod to the Scottish authorities to release al-Megrahi, concerned by Libyan threats of adverse trade consequences if the bomber died in jail.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman, the Times reports, has denied that that is the case:

“Ivan’s letter was in response to a letter from Kenny MacAskill on July 16, which requested more information about the agreements in 1998-9 between the UK and Libyan governments. Having previously provided this, Ivan Lewis reiterated our understanding of the legal situation.

“He explicitly said in the letter that when his officials had given this advice to Scottish ministers, ‘They were not making representations on whether Megrahi ought to be transferred to Libya’.”

What is odd, however, is the very fact that the exchange of correspondence between MacAskill and Lewis took place at all.  MacAskill, given his role as Scottish justice minister, would have had ready access to specialist legal advice.  He would have had no need to seek Lewis’s “understanding of the legal situation”.  Had his advisers needed further factual information from Whitehall, they would have been able to obtain it on an official-to-official basis.  It is hard to see why the Scottish Executive should find any need whatever to correspond with the FCO at political level.

As time passes, the al-Megrahi affair looks increasingly murky.  It frankly beggars belief that, given its obviously huge international ramifications, Whitehall would look on quiescently as the process leading to the Libyan’s release evolved in Edinburgh; the Lewis-MacAskill correspondence is the first inkling we have had that such was not the case.

The issue will not go away; the longer the silence continues, the more the facts will slowly leak out.  Gordon Brown should make a statement on the affair as soon as possible; his continued silence will result in only greater damage to the national interest.