24/08/2011 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, what should happen next to the Lockerbie

bomber? Two years ago world leaders were at pains to point out that his

release on compassionate grounds was down to the Scottish legal

system so what basis do US senators have for his extradition and on

what grounds does Nick Clegg think al-Megrahi should be put back

behind bars, as he suggested today? You will hear from two top players

with wildly different views. Lord Foulkes claims it is

discrimination to charge students from the rest of the UK to a 10

Scottish universities, especially when you are macro students do not

have to pay. Is he right? -- especially when EU students do not

have to pay. The Lockerbie bomber was released

on compassionate grounds on the condition that to be maintained

contact with authorities in Scotland. The turmoil in Libya has

made that difficult, so there are increasing calls for al-Megrahi to

be brought back to the UK or to face trial in the USA. Are either

of those options legal and is it This is Tripoli. This city where

al-Megrahi has been living for the last two years, a city that is now

way war-zone. So far there has been no contact with al-Megrahi.

Internet and phone connections are not reliable. This has led Nick

Clegg to repeat his calls to have the Lockerbie bomber brought back

to Britain. I personally would like to see al-Megrahi behind bars.

Whatever we think, he was convicted in a court of law for one of the

most atrocious terrorist acts that this country has ever seen. But at

the end of the day, this is an issue for the Scottish Government

and this got his Government alone. With the Scottish Government

standing by its decision, Nick Clegg is not going to get his wish.

Legally, has got his Government has not have much option anyway.

Lawyers say it is not likely that al-Megrahi will be brought back to

Scotland and Lesley reoffenders. Calls from the USA to extradite him,

that would not be that simple. would be extremely unusual and very

much frowned upon if any legal system claimed the right to try

somebody twice for a crime for which they have already been

convicted, and indeed punishment has been set. That is the case with

al-Megrahi, even though he has been released on compassionate grounds.

Attempts by authorities to contact al-Megrahi in the past couple of

days have not been successful but that does not necessarily mean he

is breaching the conditions of his release. The last conversation

happened on August 8th. On average there is contact on a monthly basis.

Enormous situation they would not expect to speak to him for another

couple of weeks. -- in a normal situation. The medical reports are

up to date. We are satisfied that he is in Tripoli but clearly it is

a war-zone and we will continue to reach him, if we can. He has been

seen at a pro-Gaddafi rally, evidence that he has breached his

bail conditions. How important is the fate of al-Megrahi in the UK?

For all that Nick Clegg wants to see him behind bars, there is

little evidence that the UK Government is actively pursuing

this. At the Security Council meeting in Downing Street today,

al-Megrahi was not even mentioned once. Nobody knows how this story

will end for al-Megrahi, but attention is already turning to

something else. Gaddafi's links to the Lockerbie bombing are already

being investigated by the USA and those looking for reasons behind

the terrorist attack may be more interested in Gaddafi than the man

behind the crime. I am joined by Geoffrey Robinson QC and Gordon

Jackson, former MSP. What do you think should happen to al-Megrahi?

Well, what should happen to Colonel Gaddafi is more important. There is

now increased evidence that he is guilty of giving the orders to al-

Megrahi to blow up the jet. Should we have an agreement between Libya,

the USA and Scotland? And when Gaddafi is delivered, as I hope he

will be, to the international criminal court, there should be a

claim to try him first. As for al- Megrahi, the Americans are making

is ludicrous claim that he should be extradited to stand trial again.

That is contrary to international law. Al-Megrahi has been given a

fair trial, before no less than eight Scottish judges of great

eminence, who found him guilty. So there is no question of extraditing

him. He has been convicted. The problem is that contrary to the

promise that Robin Cook, as the UK foreign secretary, gave to

Madeleine Albright that he had served 27 years, this extraordinary

behaviour of the Scottish minister who seems to have been conned by

doctors paid by the Libyans into thinking that al-Megrahi would die

in three months gave him a statutory compassionate release.

There are two reasons why I think Nick Clegg is right and he should

be brought back. One is that those doctors were so wrong that there

must be a question over their diagnosis. He has been alive for

two years. He should be brought back and probably examined by

independent doctor that are not paid by the Libyans. The second

reason is that he has been out there demonstrating in favour of

Gaddafi. In any system if he is under probation that counts as a

matter that should raise questions about him. I think the Scottish

Court of Appeal said on November 14th, 2009, that if he was ill,

they were prepared to release him to a bail hostel. That is the

proper place he should be. right, let's come on to Gaddafi in

a moment. What do you think should have the do al-Megrahi? The claim

that that the medical evidence all came from Libyan paid doctors would

be disputed. It would be disputed. He is on licence and that licence

could theoretically be revoked. It would have to be on the

recommendation of the Parole Board and I see no chance of that

happening. I don't think the Scottish Government would give into

that kind of pressure. We have no evidence that he has breached a

thing. He may have been at a rally, but how he could have said he would

not come to the rally to Gaddafi is not realistic. I do not think it is

remotely likely that we will revoke its licence and try to bring him

back. Theoretically possible but not practical. What about Gaddafi?

If there is evidence that Gaddafi was also responsible for that

bombing, Denshaw, put him on trial, why not? -- then sure. Who should?

We should, the Scottish courts. If the Scottish courts were properly

able to try the other two men, then we should try Gaddafi as well if

there is evidence that he is responsible and I think the Crown

Office would be up for doing that and there is no legal obstacle to

doing so. You seem to agree that the Scottish judicial system should

try to prosecute Gaddafi. Indeed. Given that he has already been

indicted by the ICC, how does that work? Who has priority? Would the

ICC Goathurst and then the Scottish judicial system? -- go first?

likely heard is that Gaddafi will be strung up from the nearest lamp-

post. He has already got a reward on his head. If he is captured

alive, he will be transferred to the Hague, the international

criminal court. At court has the power to release him to another

country to try him first for another atrocity. There are going

to be two countries that want him. We will want him and Scotland

should try him under the agreement, as my learned colleague says. There

is increased evidence now, the former justice minister says he has

evidence of his guilt. But the French will want him because six

months after he did the Lockerbie bombing, he ordered the destruction

of a passenger aeroplane over Chad with 170 casualties. The French

tried to prosecute him in absentia a few years ago. They said they

could not. They ruled that he was immune because he was head of state

so he had head of state immunity. He no longer his head of state so

he can be prosecuted in France for that. Scotland and France will be

contesting who should go first. He should be prosecuted for those

crimes and then prosecuted by the ICC with his son for the ICC

indictment. I must say that I find it bewildering that the spotted

probation officer could not recall him. I think there might have to be

legal proceedings to require them to do their duty because the man

has been a propaganda agent for the Gaddafi regime. In the background,

the politics of it. Another Barney has broken out today. Gordon Brown

releasing letters claiming that he did not know the British Government

had any policy, if it did, to facilitate the release of al-

The decision was the decision of the Scottish government and whether

his licence will be we float will be up to the Scottish government.

UK politics cannot play a part in it. Scotland was made a laughing-

stock. How busier -- How dare up a single minister, without talking to

the relatives whose loved ones were blown up, make such a decision. The

whole thing poor of fast enough to shame over Scotland. If the

minister has any will but, he will use the opportunity to revisit the

situation. Very briefly. A I do not accept that. I understand why

people think it was the wrong decision. It was made sincerely. It

is not relevant. We cannot simply for political reasons revoked his

licence. Thank you. We will have to leave it there. Lord Foulkes of

Cumnock has described the Scottish government's plans on tuition fees

as unfair and discriminatory and is proposing an amendment to the

Scotland Bill to stop them. From next year, students from the rest

of the UK who want to study in Scotland could be charged tuition

fees of up to �9,000 a year. Earlier this week a human rights

law firm said they are planning to challenge the decision on the basis

it breaches equality laws, especially since those from other

parts of the EU won't have to pay anything.

This is a classic example of devolution producing consequences

that is the stuff of a huge political row. It is unfair that

22,500 students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland his study in

Scotland should pay �9,000 a year in fees. They are British students.

Students from any other part of the EU can study for nothing. Lord

Foulkes of Cumnock describes it as an injustice that discriminate

against the English. The Scottish government says it has no choice

under European lot but to allow students from other EU countries to

study for free. That is because it cannot discriminate against

citizens from other EU students. But because students from England,

Wales and Northern Ireland are not from another European country, they

can charge them. The Government can also point out that although the

SNP's support the policy of tuition free higher education, the policy

was introduced by Labour and the Liberal Democrats when they were

running Scotland and the policy was supported by Labour in the last

Scottish election. And as you can see, in the studio

with me now is the former MSP Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and for the SNP

the Education Committee Convener Stewart Maxwell. What exactly is

your argument? I think it is discriminatory and unfair that

students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should have to pay

huge fees, �9,000 a year, while students coming from European

countries like Lithuania and Poland will pay the same as Scottish

students. This is having to be done because the SNP government had cut

the grants to universities and this is the way of making extra money.

Hang on. This division was brought in by your lot, not the SNP.

wasn't. Of course there was. Liberal Democrats insisted and you

went along with it. I am in favour of no tuition fees in Scotland. The

Liberals are and so are their SNP. So, we let everyone in for nothing?

If we are letting Polish and Lithuanian students, then so should

be English, Welsh and Irish students. There is a legal argument

about European law, but for a lot of people, on the face of it, they

would probably agree with George. It doesn't seem right that a

student from Ukraine can pay nothing to go to a Scottish

university, but a student from down the road will have to pay. It seems

wrong. I support the idea there should not be any tuition fees for

any student in the UK. Labour introduced it and the Conservatives

and Lib Dems have increased it. We have had no choice but to introduce

fees here. I want to put you something George's not saying. You

are suggesting that a Scottish government should waive the fees

for English students it it is going to do the same for other European

students. We cannot afford it. It cost in the region of �75 million.

The fact is that the fault lies with the UK government for

introducing these fees in the first place. The Scottish government is

responsible for Scottish, so students. We want to make education

free at the point of use. Strangely enough, you voted in favour of

tuition fees at every opportunity when you're in the Scottish

parliament. Labour in Scotland and Liberal Democrat in Scotland

support you on this, but you are in favour of an independent Scotland.

By irony is, if you achieve that, then Wales, Northern Ireland and

England, all the students would come in three. They would be the

same as students from Lithuania, Poland and France. I look forward

to that. Why are you saying, if there is an independent Scotland,

they can come in free. But if they are part of the Union, you would

charge them. We are not saying that. The Scottish government has been in

negotiation with the European Union to close this loophole so we can

charge a fee to European students. It is unfair that they can come in

and we are trying to resolve that. Scottish students can go to Poland,

France, Germany on the same basis... Sorry to interrupt. No matter which

way you cut it, whether you blame the British government for

introducing tuition fees or whether you blame the Scottish government

for not going along with that and keeping the same system across the

UK, Labour was responsible for both of those decisions. It was Labour

who introduced the tuition fees in England and decided not to have won

in Scotland. But I'm giving the UK parliament the opportunity to say

we can change the law so that students from England, Wales and

Northern Ireland will be treated the same way as students from other

countries in the European Union. But Welsh government is defending

were students. The Scottish government is defending Scottish

students. You need to have your argument with the UK government.

am trying to defend students from every part of the United Kingdom.

know you too can sit there all night, but the programme is