It is now almost two weeks since the Justice Secretary took his decision to release Mr Al Megrahi and return him to Libya.

I said then that I believed that was the wrong decision and nothing we have heard in the past fortnight or this morning has convinced me otherwise.  Others take a different view, and I respect that.  But I disagree.

I have acknowledged that this was a difficult decision.  But that meant that the process by which it was reached had to be unimpeachable.

With every day new flaws in that process have emerged. 

Of course, the justice secretary took two decisions that day.  He rejected the application from Libya to transfer Al Megrahi to a Libyan jail under the prisoner transfer agreement.

I agreed with that decision.  But the way in which it was reached was wrong.

Consideration was dragged out beyond the recommended ninety day period – indeed it was considered in parallel with consideration of compassionate release.  There was no reason for this because it could not have been granted while not one but two appeals, one by al Megrahi against his conviction, and one by the crown office against the leniency of the sentence.

This was compounded by Mr MacAskills decision to make an unprecedented visit to a convicted murderer in Greenock prison.  His justification for this, that Jack straw had said representations must be heard from the prisoner, has proven simply false, and the documents published yesterday make it clear that it was the Cabinet secretary who offered to visit the prison and hear representations.

The release of the note of this meeting reveals no argument which could not have been made in writing and the visit clearly compromised both the separate but parallel application for compassionate release and the then ongoing appeals.

But the note does reveal that Mr MacAskill raised with Mr al Megrahi that his application could not be granted while his appeal continued.

Surely this is the origin of Mr Megrahi’s stated belief that he had "been presented with an "and a factor in the abandonment of his appeal a few days later.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this ill advised visit compromised the whole process.

The PTA application was turned down because Mr MacAskill accepted that the American families of the Lockerbie victims believed they had been promised Al Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland. 

But he has never explained why, if this ruled out transfer to incarceration in Libya, it did not similarly disallow release on license to freedom in Tripoli.  Mr al Megrahi is still a lifer, still technically liable to recall.  His sentence is not quashed.  He has not been pardoned.

There is a glaring logical inconsistency between the two decisions taken by Mr MacAskill, and it is a cruel inconsistency for the American families in whose name he refused the prisoner transfer.

That inconsistency could have been resolved by compassionate release in Scotland, but Mr MacAskill dismissed that option, he said on the advice of Strathclyde police.

It is clear now that Strathclyde police simply indicated how they would provide security and at no time said they could or would not do so.   

Much has been made the virtue of compassion and the fact that the word is engraved on the mace before us.

And it is true that compassion is woven into the fabric of our justice system just as it is inscribed on the mace.  That is why we have no death penalty, why we have the right of appeal, and then further review, why we have parole, and of course why we have the right of appeal for compassionate release.

But compassion is tempered by justice just as compassion and justice are intertwined on the mace.

That is why due process requires consideration of the sentence served and any views of the court on that sentence as well as medical evidence.

Al Megrahi had served only eight years of a twenty seven year sentence.  And the Scottish Government’s own Lord Advocate was appealing against the leniency of that sentence.

We have never heard from the justice secretary at any time that he considered either of these factors or any indication of how he balanced them against the medical evidence.  We can only conclude that he failed to take due consideration of them.

As for the medical evidence itself, we now know that four specialists refused to make the required prognosis, and the whole decision turns on the view of a GP who took a different view.

At best the medical evidence is far less clear cut than we had been led to believe.

It is the integrity of this decision which we debate today.  And we find that at every turn it was compromised.

The decision was entirely Scottish minister’s to make.  But they should have balanced justice for the victims against compassion and they did not.  They should have fully considered alternatives to release top Libya and they did not.  They should not have countenanced a visit to Greenock prison.

On none of these matters has Mr MacAskill convinced the chamber.  The First Minister must address them now.

02/09/2009