29/02/2012 Politics Scotland

On Politics Scotland this afternoon:

Two-and-a-half years after the Lockerbie bomber was released from

prison, the justice secretary is still answering questions about

that decision. A new book alleges Abdelbasset al-Megrahi was

pressured into dropping his appeal. Kenny MacAskill is due to make a

statement to MSPs. And the latest attempt to keep

Scotland in the union but boost Holyrood's powers. We debate what

is meant by Devo Plus and Devo Max and does it devolution matter?

Here at Westminster, MPs are worried about high fuel price

threats to the Olympics. Good afternoon. The justice

secretary, Kenny MacAskill, is due to give a statement to MSPs in a

few minutes on the release of the Lockerbie bomber, up Abdelbasset

al-Megrahi. The Libyan was freed from Greenock prison on

compassionate grounds in 2009 following a diagnosis of terminal

cancer but before that he dropped his appeal against conviction. A

new book published earlier this week claims Al-Megrahi was

pressured into doing that. We will hear from Kenny MacAskill shortly

but first I am joined from our Brighton studio by John Ashton, the

offer of "Megrahi: You Are My Jury". The idea did his fair to say that

the reason this statement is being given is because your book has been

published. What answers you think he needs to get to MSPs?

It is very clear that he should not response in that statement to

allegations which have not been made. A deal, according to Mr

Megrahi, was not done. He said that on 10th August 2009 he had a

conversation with the Libyan minister, Abdulati al-Obedi, but

claims that a party of Libyans had met with can he MacAskill and that

he had been taken aside and told that it would be easier for him to

grounds compassionate release if the appeal was dropped. There was

no demand. Let us be clear about that. What Mr MacAskill should be

doing today it is confirming or denying whether that conversation

took place. The allegation is not that there was a deal. So your book

reports that can he MacAskill took a Libyan official site in a meeting

and told him it would be easier to release Abdelbasset al-Megrahi if

he dropped his appeal against conviction. That is the central

allegation? Yes.

I am joined in the studio by Our Home Affairs Correspondent, Reevel

Alderson. Can he MacAskill has been asked dozens of times about this

since 2009. How likely is it that we will get a different version of

events from him today? I think it is highly unlikely

because can he MacAskill has been very robust on this question and

the Government's, and turn himself, issued a categorical denial that

anything untoward had happened. John Ashton is quite right that no

allegation has been made of a deal Purcell a. It is obviously a bit er

of a 0 and a wink. -- a deal per se. The interesting thing about this is

that it is one of the end E- commerce about the Lockerbie story.

Abdelbasset al-Megrahi asked for compassionate release because he

had inoperable cancer. While that process was ongoing we had the

sideshow of the prisoner transfer release situation. Can he MacAskill,

whilst considering the compassionate release request, went

to see Al Megrahi in prison and that meeting was attended by a

senior Scottish Government official. We do not know what was said in

that meeting. At some point they also met Libyan officials. In the

meantime if the appeal was abandoned by Abdelbasset al-Megrahi

and he was allowed to go home to Tripoli within days of that

decision. If we could have some clarity on that it would be very

good. As I understand it there was due

process. There was a release on compassionate grounds because of

the inoperable cancer and then this is it -- this prisoner transfer

agreement. He was not the only person appealing in this case. The

Crown Office was also appealing. It could never have gone ahead, could

As I understand it, the Crown appeal remains on the table. The

Crown was appealing against certain rulings and what they regarded as

the leniency of the sentence. Those appeals were put on a back burner

while a substantial it appeal from the Criminal Cases Review

Commission was being dealt with. This is, I think, something that is

mired in confusion and obfuscation. I do not think there will be much

elucidation here today. How damaging to you think this will

be for can he MacAskill personally and the SNP government?

Yes, it will be damaging. It is damaging because it keeps on going.

I spoke to can he MacAskill in the summer of 2009 and he knew then he

would spend the whole summer dealing with this. I do not think

he thought that two and a half years later he would still have to

make statements to Parliament about the issue of Abdelbasset al-Megrahi

as Lockerbie. The more this goes on the more people will question what

happened. There is a murkiness about this. We do not know who said

what to home in various meetings. I do not know if you will ever get to

the bottom on it. In terms of can he MacAskill's

conduct in this, he has always been very consistent in saying he did

things by the rule book. If to give him credit that is the

case. He will be straight and bullish and he will deny this. He

will say it is third-hand hearsay and third hands knowledge and he

did everything by the book. To give him credit, that is what he has

done. Even with that, it is hard for him to shrug off the impression

that things were not quite as they seem behind the scenes. I do not

know if you will ever do that. Reevel Alderson, there is also this

outstanding issue of whether there should be an inquiry into the

conviction and trial. Will be touch on that today?

I cannot imagine we would do. This is being looked into by the Justice

Committee. It centres on the release of the Eid papers and

statement of reasons for and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review

Commission. The Scottish government says it is minded to publish these

documents if it can get round the variously galaxies. Whether they

will be published remains to be seen. I do not think it will be

dealt with today. Thank you. We are expecting to here

from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, can he MacAskill. Let us

go now to the chamber in Holyrood. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice,

Kenny MacAskill, is on his feet and has just started his statement in

the chamber. Let us cross live now to hear what he has to say.

I have been asked by the opposition to make a statement to Parliament

on this matter once again and am willing to do so. Both myself and

this government have always sought to be as open and transparent as we

can be in all matters relating to Lockerbie. The need for this

statement relates to claims and mate in a book written by a former

researcher with Abdelbasset al- Megrahi's lead a team -- legal team.

We have published as much as we can it, except in that refused by other

governments. My meeting with Libyan representatives is one of them.

These minutes are not here say but an accurate record made at the time.

This minute has been in the public domain as in September 2009. It is

quite Clear and refutes the assertions made. These records are

made by impartial civil servants to ensure that there is a proper

historic record of important discussions. In addition to the

minute kept, Presiding Officer, let me be quite clear. Scottish

government officials were at present throughout my meeting with

it for the Libyans. At no time did I will any other member of the

Scottish Government's suggest to Abdulati al-Obedi four or anyone

else connected with the lobbying governments that abandoning his

appeal against conviction would in any way it aid or has it -- Ede

affect his application for compassionate release. Let us

remember what the two different processes were. One process was an

application under the prisoner transfer agreements made by the

Gadaffi regime. This requested an end to any appeal proceedings

before a transfer could happen. The second process was an application

for compassionate release made by Abdelbasset al-Megrahi himself, to

which no such condition applied. We are vigorously opposed the prisoner

transfer agreements negotiated by the then the UK Government with the

Gadaffi regime, not least because it represented interference in the

Scottish legal process. We wrote to the UK Government no fewer than

eight times between June 2007 and September 2008, setting out our

position. I considered but rejected the application for prisoner

transfer made in respect of them. I also granted a request for a

compassionate release submitted by him as he -- as I believe that it

hit to the laws and values we hold in Scotland. I did so on the basis

of evidence from the Parole vote, prison governor and the director of

health and care in the Scottish Prison Service. The Scottish

government had no interest whatsoever in the appeal being

abandoned. I had no involvement in the decision to drop his appeal

against conviction. That was entirely a matter for him and his

legal team. However, Presiding Officer, one thing that is clear

from this new book, as detailed on page 352, is that Abdelbasset al-

Megrahi has signed a provisional undertaking to abandon his appeal

on March 21st, 2009. It is clear, therefore, he was considering

dropping his appeal several months before either of the two

applications were put before me. At the time Mr Al-Megrahi had no way

of knowing what my decision would be, either Ornette compassionate

release. On the PTA? However, he did know that if a prisoner

transfer agreements would be refused if there were ongoing legal

proceedings. John Ashton himself has accepted on BBC radio yesterday

that the book is here say. He says off -- this government has said

consistently that we want to be as open and transparent as we can be

on all aspects surrounding this case. That is why we brought

forward to the Criminal Cases punishments and review bail to

await publication of the statement of reasons. An assertion by the

author is that we, the Scottish government, do not want the

statement of reasons published. Presiding Officer, nothing could be

further from the truth. This legislation, introduced by this

Scottish Government, will enable the Scottish Criminal Cases Review

Commission to decide whether it is appropriate to disclose information

encases they have investigated, where a subsequent appeal has been

abandoned. The legislation helps to leave the commission as a decision-

maker as to whether they publish a report on this case. Under the

legislation, the Commission must decide whether in the whole

circumstances it is appropriate to disclose their statement of reasons.

There will be a range a factor as the commission will want to

consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to disclose

information. One key factor is likely to be how much of a

statement of reasons is already in the public domain. With the

publication of the book and television documentaries containing

what, apparently, may well be significant material from the

statement of reasons, this could be an important factor which the

Commission may want to consider when they decide whether it is

appropriate to disclose information they hold. As members know, we are

limited within the powers of this Parliament as to how far our

legislation can go in freeing up the commission to disclose

information. Data protection, which is a reserved to matter, is a key

obstacle to disclosure. I first spoke with Kenneth Clarke back in

September 2010 on this issue. Since our bill was introduced by have

already written to him on three occasions on this issue. We are now

faced with publication of material that is apparently, from the

statement of reasons. This means that the case, Europe correction As

many as are of the opinion say "Aye." for an exception to data

protection rules is now overwhelming.

That is now today I have written a Ghent to Kenneth Clarke urging that

the Government to make a decision for an exception to the inmates to

be normal statutory data protection rules for this unique case. This

will help ensure that Ryder Public Interest cant be serviced on the

roads are publishing the statement of reasons. Let no one be in any

doubt, we want to the statement of reasons published and are doing all

that we can cope with in the powers They recognise that some have

concerns regarding the wider issues relating to the atrocity. The wide

ranging and international nature of the issues involved means every

likelihood of issues arrive his team -- of the issues arising that

are not devolved. We remain ready to co-operate on an inquiry.

Members will want to know whether there is a mechanism for an appeal

still to be heard, even posthumously. I can't from -- I

come from a to the danger that there is. It would involve an

application be made, the commission deciding to make a reference and

for the High Court to accept such a reference. These are not matters

for me as justice secretary to decide upon. These are decisions

for others to make, but I think it is important that we as a

Parliament are aware of the position. As I've other sort of the

abandonment law continuation of Mr Al Megrahi's appeal, it is not for

me to seek or oppose a potential appeal, posture must or otherwise.

That is a matter for others. I have every confidence in the Scottish

criminal justice system were there to be another appeal. That is a

matter I would be entirely comfortable with. We what the

commission's report to be in the public domain to help ensure public

confidence is retained in our justice system. This Government is

doing all we can to bring disclosure of the statement of

reasons and I urge all members to support these efforts by supporting

our rebel and supporting our efforts to get the UK Government to

make an exception up to data protection rules. The author John

Ashton is in our Brighton studio. What is your reaction? Firstly, he

as a shared a flat denial, which is a relief. Let we have at some sort

of clarity. Now we have the word of Abdulati al-Obedi against his. We

can move on to the issue of the withholding of many items of

important evidence abide Mr MacAskill's offers. The issues of

the mash renaissance around the release are aside sure. -- Masha

nations. The second point is the minutes. A private and sensitive

conversation would not be merited. He claims that I made at the motion

on Tuesday about the book being here say. I made no such admission.

The book clearly states that that conversation was hearsay. You talk

about a private conversation been minuted., or not be minuted. But Mr

MacAskill says he never suggested that to any minister. Yes, he has

made a flat denial. Now we have to look at their up question of motive.

Who would have the motor of there? Would it Abdulati al-Obedi want to

mislead Al Megrahi? Possibly. Would it Mr MacAskill want to see that?

Possibly. This case is going to be a huge scandal for Mr miss Castle -

- am Kenny MacAskill's Crown Office. He is not in charge of their crime

justice system. Do you still have outstanding questions as a result

of this statement? The outstanding questions relate to their

withholding of evidence by the Crown Office. He has ever been

called to account on that and he should be. Unless he distances

himself from the Crown Office, the scandal will come back. You did not

expect to find out much you on that statement. Were there any of

revelations? There were. You asked me if he would be talking about the

statement from the criminal justice a review commission and he did.

Kenny MacAskill was quite forthright in his denial. What was

particularly interesting was on this issue of the statement from

the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is 800 pages long,

John Ashton has quite clearly stated that he has seemed that

statement of reasons and has it used that as some of the research

material for his book. The fact that the Scottish government

continues to pursue avenues to get that published is welcomed. The

fact that he has written to Kenneth Clarke to try to unblock the

business of data protection is welcome. But the most interesting

thing he said was at the end of the statement where he said that if

there is still an avenue open legally for the appeal which Al

Megrahi abandoned, if it were sent back to the High Court and the High

Court accept said, and I am interested in that statement, then

and we could have the appeal over again.

Let's cross back to the chamber were Kenny MacAskill is facing

questions on his statement. remarkable period of survival for

somebody who apparently all they have 90 days to live. A key

allegation made in this book is that there was some kind of deal

made between the Libyan government and the Scottish government. The

allegation made of this book is at the same allegation made by

Christine Grahame, MSP, who is said she had been told the same thing.

One allegation corroborates of the other. You may be contemptuous, but

she may have something to see later. Is that Mr MacAskill's position

that both of them are in error? Furthermore, the suspicion that Mr

MacAskill took an unduly favourable view of the medical evidence to

facilitate a deal would have been allayed if all the medical reports

on which it their assessment was made where released. The Scottish

government has constant -- consistently fielded to do so.

Questions surrounding the integrity of this decision-making process now

demand that this evidence is released and made available for

public scrutiny. There are two aspect here. Was there any other

factor involved in the release of Mr Al Megrahi other than my

decision on the criteria of compassionate release. No, there

was not. We did not consider diplomatic or economic matters.

Despite the criticism, when the Labour government was openly, I

think and criticising me. We refused suggestions from

Conservative members as well. A Conservative that -- a Conservative

member want to be suggesting that Al Megrahi should be used as a

bargaining chip in negotiations. I have refused that. A former Tory

minister wrote to me saying that speed is of their essence am

returning to Al Megrahi back to Libya for reasons of business

interests. I made it clear that we would not proper economic,

political or diplomatic matters. We made it subject to the laws of the

people of Scotland. Let me deal with the second question dealing

with medical reports. The only medical report which I saw and on

which I made my decision was that of Dr Fraser. That matter has been

made available and doubtless you will have read it. It is already in

the public domain and has been since September 2009. Matters of

medical records are subject to common law confidentiality and we

abide by that as we are bound by other legislation. I should first

declare that I am a member of the just as for Al Megrahi campaign. I

want to use his exact words. With a reference to prisoner transfer, he

says, I decided I must choose the latter. I signed a provisional

undertaking to abandon the appeal. That predates any memos and

anything said in hear say. Do you have a question? We should have a

full inquiry into all aspects of the Lockerbie atrocity. Not only

for the sake of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, but for the people of

Lockerbie and the victims' family. I would like to ask a supplementary.

No, you cannot. I stand by the decision of the Scottish court. It

is for others to decide if they wish to seek to pursue matters

through an appeal. Or indeed whether there is a request for a

further enquiry. We have made it quite clear as a government that

the restrictions on our jurisdiction mean that any appeal

would be limited, it would be subject to matters of reserved

competence. We have said that we will happily co-operate with any

enquiry, but it would be for others to pursue that. It comes back to

the point which I made quite clear in my statement, it is not for me,

it never was for be, to decide how proceedings are carried out or not.

I simply abide by the loss of Scotland. The justice secretary

repeating that language. The release of Abdel Basset Ali Al

Megrahi was done by the rule book as far as he was concerned.

Talk to me about the politics of this statement. What do you make of

the strategy Kenny MacAskill has deployed? I was very impressed.

Going into this statement, Mr MacAskill was on the defensive me.

Allegations have been made, there has been talk of here saying. He

came out fighting. His opening remarks were very strong indeed.

These claims are long, he said. At no time did I or anybody else in

the Scottish government make that suggestion to anybody in the Libyan

government. That was his opening gambit. Then what impressed me was

that he went on to Caesar the agenda on this. He has got his eyes

on tomorrow's newspapers. What he was trying to do was a knock down

all the rumours and gossip that have been going on for the last few

days and set the agenda. He did that with that last statement where

he said that if there is room and grounds for a further appeal,

whether posthumously or not, that may be able to go ahead. That is

where this story is now going. Is there going to be a new appeal?

Open the court case up again? That is where Kenny MacAskill wants to

take it. Away from any suggestions that he did anything wrong in the

He also was quite clear that he was happy to see this report by the

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission published. He said he

was being thwarted by eight the data protection laws. Is that a

direct criticism of the UK Government?

Yes, and it fits into his whole assault on this issue. He is saying

that he is doing this by Scottish law and look at what people in

Westminster are trying to do. He says they are trying to make deals

and influence things. He says again that the Westminster government are

putting barriers in the way of getting this report out. It is a

good nationalist tactic. He is saying that the Westminster

government are stopping him doing this.

How effective are the opposition being on this?

They are being quite so effective. David McLetchie there was using his

experience to try and pick holes and all of this. The opposition are

in a difficult place. Do they follow what is hearsay or do they

try to push it on to other areas? Thank you. We will have more from

you later on. Later on, are the health reforms south of the border

just what the doctor ordered? There was no agreement at pm queues.

Let me tell them, their support for the health bill is are digging in a

hall. All about process, all about

politics, never about the substance. Mr Speaker, we all know it is a

late Pierre so perhaps just this once I can answer the question. Hit

we know what he is against, maybe he could tell us what he is fought?

Now there is a new word to add to your political dictionary, Devo Max

-- Devo Plus. Advocates of the plan say it presents a credible

alternative to independence. I am totally signed up to this

personally and it is what I believe we lack as an accountable

parliament. Until we have this power, we are not accountable to

the people that collectors. The uncertainty has been caused by

the nationalists who want to separate Scotland from the rest of

the UK. I want to see our Parliament stronger in the UK and I

want to work with other parties and win nationalist if they join us. I

want to see if we can achieve a settled and really strong future

for Scotland and a stronger Parliament.

It has to be pop -- properly formulated and to demonstrate that

support. I totally welcome that. I have been saying for some time that

I know where I stand. I am for independence. I will put forward to

that view of the future. That is what the SNP will do. It is

legitimate for other people to do the same thing.

Devo Plus is not Devo Max, even if they do sound similar. Devo Max is

a Coalition of non-political groups took encourage the Scottish people

to take responsibility for everything except for foreign

affairs and defence. I am joined by Jeremy Purvis in our Selkirk studio

who is leading the Devo Plus campaign. I you backing Devo Max?

Certainly not. Of our campaign has been very clear. We are far opening

out a debate on all things that may be part of how Scotland is governed

in the future. We are not in favour of one option or another. Voluntary

organisations will have a lot of different views about the future of

our country. EU have a proposal, then?

We and not in the business of putting out a proposal. We are

looking from a different perspective, from how these

proposals impact on people's lives. I welcome at the announcement of a

campaign for Devo Plus. That brings another dimension into play. We

have questions and we are very glad that the Devo Plus campaign has

taken place. We think there will be much more before this debate is

mature. You do not have a repair -- a

proposal, Martin Sime. Jeremy Purvis, you do have a proposal.

What you mean by Devo Plus? You are correct. It can be complex.

Devo Plus is a simple compared -- it is eight simple issue. It means

that Scotland will be responsible for the money it raises an not

reliant on hands out -- on hand out from Westminster. It aims to make

Scotland's and its government more accountable to the people of

Scotland. I think it will be a change for the better. I think it

also proposes a long-term relationship between Scotland and

the rest of the UK, which will be the benefit of people in Scotland

as well. It is simple. The Scottish Parliament should raise the money

it spends. Does that include issues like

welfare payments and benefits? One of the proposals we are looking

at his how you can devolve further, effectively, the welfare spend. We

are quite clear that pensions and employment benefits, the elements

that are important to keeping a United Kingdom, will remain the

same. A worker in the north of Scotland and the South of England

to move between companies should note that employment benefits and

pension entitlements can be kept. That is one of the strains of the

United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament should move away from --

away from grants from Westminster and concentrate on more powers they

it have. We also want to move taxes such as corporation tax back to

Scotland. We want to strengthen the Scottish Parliament but keepers in

the UK. Do you believe everything is OK

with the status choir or do you think that changes to happen,

Martin Sime? I think changes Deeney to happen in

the devolution settlement. It is 13 years old now. We know where the

strengths and weaknesses are. Some of our members are unhappy about

some of the services run by the UK Parliament. The work programme has

been much in the news recently. We would like to see devolution of

these matters so that they could be integrated with services from the

Scottish government. This is just so you have easy

access to ministers? Absolutely not. The Scottish

Parliament is very open to engagement with voluntary

organisations. This is about how best we can serve the needs of

unemployed people. Getting the best service for people is what matters.

That is just a policy disagreement. What makes you think there would be

a different resort in the Scottish Parliament?

There is a dislocation between services between Holyrood and

Westminster. There are institutions that belong to both governments on

the high street. It is not good for the customer. If we talk about

benefits as well, we need to grapple with the issue of how they

interact with our health and care services in Scotland. Some aspects

of benefits have to be integrated with our health and care systems

because otherwise we create this location and that is only going to

get worse as the differences between the health service in

Scotland and England grow. They will diverge. We need some control

over benefits in that context. Jeremy Purvis, is this really all

about advancing devolution or scuppering the SNP's independence

again? The case for devolution plus goes

back a long time. I wrote a pamphlet on this eight years ago.

Many support Devo Plus who have argued the case for a stronger

Scotland within the UK. The Devo Plus group believe this is the

correct rate for what. Weather are not there was a referendum, we

would be arguing for this. -- correct way forward. I believe for

the current settlement is not appropriate. We do need the

Scottish Parliament to stand on his own two feet more. We are all proud

of the Scottish Parliament. The next stage is a habit more in one

tranche of its own power. I think the big challenge for

Jeremy and the politicians supporting Missen initiative is how

to be get to that point with his Scottish Parliament?

Should it be on the ballot paper? That is the question. His sole

alternative to put it and it on the ballot paper? I am in favour of a

popular mandate for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. That is

the way forward. I am sure we will be discussing

this much more in the months ahead. David Cameron used p end-use to

commend it -- to contend a suggestion that workers could

strike during the London Olympics. The main clash was over health

reforms in England. The Kamlesh and aims to give GPs control of much of

the NHS budget and open it up to more competition.

Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, they are fiercely well trained today. Let me

tell them. Their support for the Health Bill is digging in their

whole burial at the next general election. I did ask him at a

specific question. I know by now that he does not like to answer the

questions but it was a simple point. Who supports his bell? Answer came

there none from this Prime Minister. Let us refresh his memory of who

opposes this bill. It is no good the Deputy Prime Minister smirking.

I do not know if he supports a repose is set. Is a poor set. -- he

supports it. There is leadership for you. Let us refresh your memory,

Mr Speaker, of who wants this withdrawn. The Royal College of GPs,

the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of midwives, the

Royal College of radiologists, the Faculty of Public Health, the

Chartered Society of physiotherapists, Health Visitors

Association, as the patients' Association. Mr Speaker, doesn't it

ever occur to the Prime Minister, they have just maybe they are right

and he is wrong. He did not mention the National

Association of primary care, supporting rebel, the NHS Alliance,

supporting the bell. The Association of Chief executives at

the voluntary organisations, supporting rebel. Lot Garside,

Labour minister. Who was he? He was researching you hired to run the

health service. All weeks in a row on NHS questions but not a single

question of substance. Not one. All about process, all about politics,

never about the substance. Now, Mr Speaker, it is a leap year so maybe

just this once I get asked the question. We all know what he is

against but isn't it time he told us what he is for up?

Mr Speaker, at in my constituency of Gloucester people will be

looking forward to the start of the Olympic Games. A great opportunity

to celebrate how well the UK manages great global events. Not

everybody sees it as that sort of opportunity. The general secretary

of one of our unions see it as an opportunity for a general strike.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me then nothing could be further

from the spirit of the Olympics all do more damage to our country?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think he speaks for the whole country. The

general secretary said that he is calling on the general public to

engage in civil disobedience. That is what he said. Unite is the

biggest single donor to the party opposite, providing a third of

their money and had a more of a role than anyone else in putting

the right honourable gentleman in his place. They need to concern

this utterly and start handing back Our Westminster Correspondent,

David Porter, joins me from outside the Commons now. The phone hacking

scandal at News International has taken another twist with the

announcement that James Murdoch is standing down as chairman of News

International. It has been announced by the parent company

News Corporation that he will be concentrating on the company's

television interests in the United States. To many people, he has been

the face of News International. He has gone before the committees at

the House of Commons, answering questions about the phone hacking

scandal. It raises questions about who will take over from him under

the strategy that the company has. Referred to murder it is a

newspaper man. But his son James it did not have that affinity. People

will be wondering who will take over from him. And indeed what the

future will be for the News International titles in the United

Kingdom. There are some reports coming from New York that News

Corporation may decide to try and sell those British titles. Yet

another development in the phone hacking scandal. Something else in

the difficulty is that the coalition's reforms it to the

health service in England. How much trouble are those reforms end?

has been causing it huge trouble for the coalition government. The

UK Government is proposing that the health service in England has to be

more efficient by introducing competition. They are going to make

GPs that the gatekeepers to the health service, giving them more

power over where patients abroad for treatment and their budgets. --

where a patients go for treatment. There are severe concerns from the

medical professionals, from the Labour Party and many Liberal

Democrat MPs that plans have to introduce more competition into the

NHS in England will be a retrograde step. There have already been some

compromises by the coalition government. They are very worried,

Liberal Democrat activists are still worried about this. They may

try to scupper this bill. It is causing real trouble for the

collision. Briefly, the London Olympics could have some trouble?

Yes, Len McCluskey, the boss of the union unite has suggested that

because of what he sees as the war on the public sector, disrupting

the Olympics it could be a legitimate strategy. But Labour has

said that is an acceptable. The Prime Minister again at see him

this is not the thing to do. But it raises questions about what might

happen with industrial relations come the summer. Our main news

today is about the statement by Kenny MacAskill. Thank you for

joining us. Mr MacDonald, what is your reaction to what Kenny

MacAskill had to tell MSPs today? He was unequivocal that he had

followed the rule book. He was unequivocal in saying that he had

said to Mr Al Megrahi the he ought to withdraw his appeal. That backed

was not alleged by Mr Al Megrahi, he said that a third party had

suggested it to come. The Cabinet Secretary highlighted quite a

number... There are questions for the cabinet secretary. He said that

nothing said at those meetings, everything was recorded in the

minutes. It is at least understandable that Mr Al Megrahi

formed the impression that he was being encouraged to go down that

route. What I wonder is why Kenny MacAskill was not clear with him

and with the Libyan foreign minister about what the choices

were. David McLetchie, you have asked for documents to be published,

have you written to Kenneth Clarke asking him to waive the data

protection rules? First of all, the documents and that we want

published are the underlying medical reports about Al Megrahi's

edition that led to his release. It was a disastrous error of judgement.

These documents, the Scottish government refuses to publish them.

If I had been Kenny MacAskill, I would have insisted that all that

information was put in the public domain to justify his decision. He

did not. That is why people equate with dropping their appeal -- that

is why people equate dropping the appeal with release on

compassionate grounds. Why is get the passport still answering

questions about this? There is still continuing interest in the

Lockerbie atrocity. But my colleagues cannot have it both ways.

We cannot other Cabinet Secretary for Justice setting aside

legislation on medical records and data protection. There are matters

for the UK Government to address here. This was a man who was

convicted of the greatest act of mass murder in Scottish criminal

history. This is not a normal case by any standards. Kenny MacAskill

made it clear that he wants an exception made on data protection

rules. Why county publish the medical evidence? -- why cannot he?

To question the professional judgment of a medical

practitioner... A I was not suggesting that. I was asking

whether Kerry the cast go should adopt the perspective he wants to

the UK Government to adopt? We have had the ink legal experts tell us

different things other the Data Protection, but my understanding is

that there is a caveat in the legislation which would facilitate

the release of such information. I am not sure whether there is such

latitude as regards medical information. Camelot just except

that it was an appropriate the least? The compassionate grounds

seem to have been ill-founded. We believe that their advice should be

made public. I cannot believe that in the case of the worst atrocity

in Scottish history, we are hiding behind their Data Protection Act.

It may well be that the UK Government is hiding behind the

Data Protection Act. That is why you should be calling for the

release of the information. Kenny MacAskill says it was his decision,

it was nothing to do with the UK Government. This decision is

clearly one that has been flawed. David McLetchie, there has not be a

scrap of evidence that Kenny MacAskill has acted inappropriately

in this entire process? There is plenty of scraps of evidence. He

had a special the set with Al Megrahi in his prison cell, he

released him. To suggest otherwise is contrary to the facts of. Your

reaction to that? It is disappointing that we still have

this lingering on. Mr Al Megrahi was accompanied by his legal

representative at the meetings. Mr Michel Scott said that had he not

follow the rules, he would be subject to a judicial review.

sure the debate will continue for quite some time to come. Thank you

for joining us. The appraisal of Allender Institute

has slashed its growth forecast for that Scottish economy this year.

However, the Institute suggested there were some signs of recovery.

The economy is continuing to be come -- is continuing to grow

weaker. On that basis, we expect growth to be weak this year in

Scotland. We are predicting 0.4%. Unemployment is rising, we expect

it to rise to about 265,000 by the end of this year. That is not far

away from 10%. It is much higher than the level we were at at the

worse. Of the recession. However, we think there is some possible

light at the end of the tunnel in that inflation is falling. And

there have been some... For both these reasons, I would expect

growth to pick up next year and we are forecasting improved growth

next year, and particularly strong growth in 24 team -- 2040. But the

Scottish economy it will not get back to where it was before the

start of the recession until the end of 2040. Unemployment heading

towards 10%? That has bigger repercussions for politicians north

and south of the border. Yes, very much so. What we do not know is how

the public are going to react. Who will the blame? Behind all this is

the limit referendum end to President 14. There could be decent

growth in 2014, but if that is on the back of high unemployment, it

will have to go a long way before there is a feel-good factor in the

economy. Do the voters of them blame of the UK Government? Or do

they bought with the wall ats -- or do they vote with their wallets?

And I think a lot of people are like that. People want to know if

they will be better off under independence. That is where the

arguments will be won or lost. The Unionists are saying stick with us

By virtue of the attention the Scottish government gets, we often

hear their economic message. Will the Coalition governments have to

act in the same way and concentrate on the economy to show people they

are listening? I think the UK Government had to

concentrate on more than the economy. If you speak to people in

the SNP they have been surprised by how little David Cameron really

knew about the situation when he came up to start negotiations with

Alex Salmond. I think David Cameron and his people need to focus much

more on the arguments which, for you and I, we have on a daily basis.

They have to really engage or they will find themselves so far behind

in this debate that they are in danger of losing it.

On Devo Plus, this new campaign that has been launched, do you

think that the supporters of that will be able to easily communicate

what they mean by this? No, I do not but we are quite a

while out from when it this question needs to coalesce. I think

the parties in opposition have a way to go before they decide what

they want. Six Scotland has to feel its way. We will get to a suspect -

- and we will get to a stage where something will emerge on Devo Plus

or Devo Max. A second question, yes or no?

Yes. Let us give you the highlight again

from what we heard from can he MacAskill in his statement to MSPs.

He was absolutely clear that he had never suggested to the Lockerbie