Senator Robert Menendez
Senator Kirsten E Gillibrand
Senator Frank R Lautenberg
Senator Charles Schumer
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20310
USA
15 August 2010
Dear Senators Menendez, Gillibrand, Lautenberg and Schumer
Thank you for your letter of 10 August 2010.
In my letter to Senator Kerry of 21 July 2010, which was copied to you, I set out clearly the
Scottish Government's position on this matter.
Senator Kerry referred to this letter as "thoughtful and thorough".
From your recent letter, as in the previous letter from Senators Menendez and Lautenberg, it
would appear that you are no longer pursuing with the Scottish Government the unfounded
allegation of BP influence over Scottish Ministerial decisions - which we have clearly and
comprehensively rejected. I welcome this, and trust that you will confirm that this is an
allegation that you now accept is entirely without foundation.
Second, I understand that you have written to William Hague, the UK Foreign Secretary,
concerning possible commercial influence in the UK Government's decision to sign a
Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) with Libya, and indeed have raised a new question
concerning arms deals.
Clearly, the Scottish Government has no knowledge of any of these matters.
However, with this in mind, I would be grateful to know whether you raised objections to the
proposed PTA between the UK and Libya, which I revealed in an emergency statement to
the Scottish Parliament on 7 June 2007. In the interests of a full understanding of the whole
matter, it would be helpful to receive copies of any public comments on this important issue
which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively.
I note that your recent letter is sent in your capacities as individual Senators and, whilst the
Scottish Government has been willing to provide information to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, you will understand that Scottish Ministers are accountable to the Scottish
Parliament and people and not to the US Senate, or indeed to individual Senators. The
Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee has already scrutinised the Justice Secretary's
decision to grant Al-Megrahi's compassionate release.
That inquiry focussed on the procedures that were followed by the Scottish Government. The
remit was a matter for the Committee, not the Government, but presumably Committee
members understood the distinction between agreeing or disagreeing with a decision and
examining whether the decision was correctly arrived at according to the rule of law.
The Scottish Government has long-standing procedures for dealing with applications for
compassionate release, and these procedures were followed in every regard in the case of
AI-Megrahi, according to the rules and regulations of Scots Law - the jurisdiction under
which this matter has been conducted for over twenty years.
Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional
in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Andrew Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical
report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release.
With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the
report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases
considered under the relevant legislation which was passed in 1993.
Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity. It was his assessment that a three month
prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and
other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in AI-Megrahi's care, exactly as set out
in the medical report which was published last year.
There is only one medical report relevant to the decision, and that is the one provided to the
Justice Minister by Dr Fraser, and published last year. A failure to appreciate this point fails
to understand the process. As you will be aware, medical information on a patient's current
condition could only be published legally with the individual's permission. Mr Megrahi has
already declined such a request. However, the reports are consistent with someone with
terminal prostate cancer.
Dr Fraser's report was published because it formed part of Minister MacAskill's decision
making, and was the only medical report seen and considered by the Justice Secretary. We
also published the other reports - the Parole Board for Scotland and Prison Governor, which
also formed part of the decision making process. All recommended in favour of
compassionate release.
It was on that foundation of due process and on no other matters that the Justice Secretary
made his decision.
Yours sincerely
ALEX SALMOND