Tuesday 1 February 2011

MacAskill's answers to Christine Grahame's questions

[On 14 January 2011 Christine Grahame MSP submitted three written questions relating to the Statutory Instrument permitting (subject to a consent requirement) the release of the full SCCRC report on the Megrahi conviction. Answers have now been received from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.]

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities would have to be taken into account whether the order were amended by primary legislation or by statutory instrument. (S3W-38797)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Yes, the same convention rights of individuals and international obligations would apply.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive , further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it can confirm that considerations in relation to data protection legislation are not relevant in this case given that section 194K(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 ensures that, where Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission disclosure is permitted by means of a statutory order, “the disclosure of the information is not prevented by any obligation of secrecy or other limitation on disclosure (including any such obligation or limitation imposed by, under or by virtue of any enactment) arising otherwise than under that section.” (S3W-38798)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: No, considerations in relation to data protection legislation are relevant in this case. [RB: In the light of the statutory provision quoted by Christine Grahame in her question, it would be interesting to find out on what legal basis Mr MacAskill contends that data protection considerations are relevant in this case.]

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S3W-38294 by Kenny MacAskill on 11 January 2011, whether it intends to bring forward primary legislation and, if so, whether it will specify the reasons for so doing rather than amending the order by means of a new statutory instrument. (S3W-38799)
Mr Kenny MacAskill: Primary legislation is needed for full flexibility to ensure that an appropriate legislative framework is put in place. The proposed legislation will facilitate, as far as possible, the release of a statement of reasons by the Commission in circumstances where an appeal has been abandoned. In doing so, it will also maintain appropriate provision for such matters as data protection, the convention rights of individuals and international obligations attaching to information provided by foreign authorities. [RB: It would be interesting to discover Mr MacAskill's reasons for believing that the objectives specified by him could not equally well be achieved in an appropriately drafted statutory instrument.]

2 comments:

  1. Shame on MacAskill and on the SNP for dancing to the Unionist tune over Lockerbie and Megrahi. Megrahi will be to Salmond and Macaskill what Iraq was to Blair. All so unnecessary.

    The SNP came into power in May 2007, Blair made his deal in the desert in the same month. IN June 2007 we got the SCCRC report. This was the perfect time for the SNP, the only Party with clean hands on the issue of Lockerbie, to take it on and clean up the doubts, the lies and yes, the obstruction of justice. It should have been out with Angiolini and in with a clean pair of Lord Advocate hands too. And yet, they bottled it, and they will not explain why. They could have pulled this off and chose not to. Their hands, over Lockerbie, are now as contaminated as the Tory and Labour hands before them. Every single day I ask how they could have done this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Impressive post, Jo G!

    Indeed so impressive that I've taken the liberty of quoting it extensively on Facebook.

    ReplyDelete