understandably emotional, we all have a part to play. the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of the statement and there should not be any interruptions. this is a 20 minute statement and i will call on the secretary of justice. >> presiding officer, on the 20th of august, in relation to two applications in respect to the prisoner, i am absolutely committed to the integrity of this institution. i believe it is appropriate that i announce the basis in reasoning for my decision. . .

>> a prisoner transfer application was submitted from the governor of libya, against mr. megrahi, the man convicted in the scottish courts, and he is asked to be released on compassionate grounds. the decisions is a consequence

of the justice secretary, and i am proud and privileged to hold the application that's been lawful deemed, and i am obliged to address them from august, 2009, and reflect on the advice before announcing my decisions. it was my responsibility to decide upon these two applications, these were my decisions and my decisions alone. in considering these applications i strictly followed due process, including the procedures laid down in the prisoner transfer agreement and in the scottish guidance of compassionate release. and received spontaneous submissions. and have i published the material on applications for

the prisoner transfer and compassionate release. i will look to publish other relative material. some of this can only be done with the permission of others that we are now seeking. the scottish prosecution service of appeals of investigation with the assistance of the united states and other authorities. i pay tribute to them for the exceptional manner of the aftermath of the atrocity and complexity of a world-wide investigation, when mr. megrahi was brought to justice, it was before a scottish court in the netherlands, and i pay tribute to our justice that is acted justly.z9p mr. megrahi was sentenced to life in prison for the murder

of 270 people. when such a crime is appropriated, it's appropriate that such a sentence it upheld. and mr. megrahi has a sentence and it's a matter before him and the courts. that was his decision, my decisions were predicated on the fact that he was properly investigated, a lawful conviction passed and a life sentence imposed. issues of the lockerbie atrocity. this is a global issue, and international in its nature. the questions to be asked and answered, are beyond the scottish law and agreement of the scottish government. if a further inquiry was felt to be appropriate, then it should be initiated by those of

the power and authority. the scottish government would be happy to fully cooperate in such an inquiry. the libyan government applied on fifth may, 2009, on the transfer of mr. megrahi. the prisoner transfer agreement negotiated by the united kingdom government. throughout the negotiations and the signing of the p.t.a. with libya, the scottish opposition was made clear. it was pointed out that the scottish prisoner service had only one libyan prisoner in custody. not understanding that. united kingdom for exclusion of the government, that p.a. of

anyone involved in the lockerbie disaster. and mr. megrahi was available for the transfer and agreed to by the governments of the united kingdom and libya. i received numerous letters and representations and recognized that a decision on transfer would be a personal significance to those whose lives have been affected. accordingly, i decided to meet with groups of relative importance. i met with those relatives from the flight and those who were murdered in their homes in lockerbie. and a lady whose sister was held in a cabin crew, and held discussions with those in the

united states. i am grateful for the fortitude of the massacre that's still a source of great pain. and i spoke to the united states hillary clinton and the attorney general, eric holder, and i met with delegates from the libyan government. i have all the points presented and relative agreements i have received. from the agreement, it was scrutinized by the government, and this was the first p.e. that did not require the consent of the senator. jack straw had those applied by the government, and those not

outlaid by the prisoner and must meet the opportunity to meet representations. and mr. megrahi had that chance and chose to do so, and that was his decision. it would be of the tenants of natural justice to refuse this request. therefore i was duty bound to meet him. it was clear that both the united states government and the american families objected to a prisoner transfer. they did so on the basis of the agreements they said had been made prior to trial regarding the place of imprisonment of anyone convicted. the united states attorney general, eric holder, was deputy attorney general at the time of the pre-trial negotiations. he was adamant that assurances

had been given to the united states government, that any person convicted would serve his sentence in scotland. many of the american families spoke of the comfort they placed on these assurances over the past 10 years. that clear understanding was reiterated to me by the u.s. secretary of state, hillary clinton. i sought those of the united kingdom government, i offered them the right to make representations or provide information. they declined to do so, they simply informed me that they saw no legal boundary of transfer and gave no assurances to the u.s. government at the time. they declined to offer a full explanation. as i said last thursday, i found that highly regrettable. i do not know the exact

discussions of those were, or what was agreed between governments. however, i am certain of the clear understanding of the american families and the american government. therefore, it appeared to me that the american families and government either had an expectation or would like to believe that there would be no prisoner transfer and the sentence would be served in scotland. it was for that reason that i have accordingly rejected the libyan government's application for prisoner transfer for abdelbaset ali al megrahi. i turned as i did for sections 3 of the scotland act of 1993, gives the scottish ministers

the ?vpower to release prison on compassionate grounds. the act requires that ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds to satisfy a release of a person serving imprisonment. although the act does not specify the concerns of release. guidance from the service, suggest that it may be considered when a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death may occur soon. there is no agreement of an expected life expectancy, the guidance knead clear that all prisoners are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. that guidance states from 2005.

on 24th july, 2009, i received an application from mr. megrahi for compassionate release. he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer since 2008. i have been updated from his illness and received numerous medical reports, including the opinions of consultants who have been treating him. that's clear to the medical experts that he's got a terminal illness and there has been a significant deterioration in his health. i was provided with reports and recommendations by the governor, the doctors and prison social work staff. and also as laid out in statute, i consulted the parole

board. they all recommended compassionate release. the opinion of the scottish service doctors who have dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of prostate cancer, and having seen him through each stage that his physical condition has declined significantly. the assessment reached that these wards after several trial treatments, hormone resistant, that is resistant to any treatment options of known effectiveness. mr. megrahi was examined by scottish prison doctors on third august, 2009. at a port dated 10th august from the director of health and care, indicates that a

three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate. the advice is based not only on their only physical examination but draws on opinions of other consultants that's been involved in his care and treatment. he may die sooner or live longer, i can only base my my decision on the medical evidence i have before me. it had been suggested that mr. megrahi could be released from prison to reside elsewhere in scotland. clear advice was that security implications of such a move would be severe. a minimum of 40 officers would be required simply to allow mr. megrahi to live in scotland. i ruled that out as an option. having therefore met the

criteria, that it is for me to decide whether mr. megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds. i was conscious there was deeply held feelings and many would disagree whatever my decision. however, a decision had to be made. it was a decision based on the law of scotland and the values i believe that we seek to uphold. it was not based on political, dip lo :-diplomatic or economic considerations. it was with great regret that mr. megrahi was received in such an inappropriate manner. it showed no compassion or sensitivity to the families of the 270 victims of lockerbie. assurances had been given by

the libyan government that any return would be dealt with in a low-key fashion. my decision was given to the u.k. and u.s. governments so they could seek similar assurances. however my decision was made according to due process and that of scotland. i, stand by the laws of scotland. scotland will forever remember the crime that was perpetrated against our people. some scars can never fade, and those who are grieved cannot be expected to forget or let alone forgive. but mr. megrahi holds that to a

higher power, and it's one that no other land can revoke, it's terminal, he's going to die. in scotland we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. it's viewed as a defining characteristic of scotland and the scottish people. the perpetration of atrocity cannot and shouldn't be a basis of losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live. mr. megrahi as i said, did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. they were allowed to return to the bosoms of their families.

no compassion was showned to them, but that is no reason for us not to allow compassion in his final day. our system demands that justice be provided,compassion and mercy are part of the beliefs that we uphold and remaining true to the vaults :-values of the people. for these reasons, and these reasons alone, it was my decision that mr. abdelbaset ali al megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the lockerbie bombing, now dying of prostate cancer,

be released on compassionate terms and be allowed to return to libya to die. that was my decision, and i will answer questions. >> thank you, and i will now take questions of issues raised on this statement. it would be helpful if members who ask question push their buttons now. >> thank you, and can i thank the justice for making a statement and being available in advance. last week the scottish decision made a wrong decision, the scottish system has compassion running through it, and that's why we have no death penalty and appeal and parole and that's why prisoners can apply

for compassionate release. and that compassion by justice and the rights of victims and the right of society. and that's why the final judgment in this case was rightly the ministers. he had a requirement to consider an application, but not a duty to grant it. i acknowledge it was a difficult decision. but does he understand how much that decision has angered the majority of scotland. does he understand how ashamed we were to see our flag flying to a convicted bomber. and does he understand how astonished we were when he visited a convicted murderer. and he visited jack straw, and he said that a prisoner would be invited to make written representations.'çñ

i have the letter here, and would he admit this was his decision and his alone to visit megrahi. and after that, megrahi dropped his appeal. and will we be told if there is any discussion of that in the meeting, and would he publish his note of that meeting. and how does the justice secretary explain how and when megrahi would be released. a full-week before the formal decision. and the prisoner transfer application, surely that would be ruled out because of two ongoing appeals were supplied to the case. but mr. macaskill instead dragged that out over the 90-day appeal period and then rejected the transfer.

because the american families believed that the sentence would be served in scotland. but how does he feel those families failed? when he acknowledged that their views that the sentence would be completed in scotland, ment that megrahi could not be released to a libyan prison. and yet in the next breath he sent megrahi home to freedom, unlicensed, his sentence not committed. the cabinet secretary has mishandled this whole affair from start to finish. from the scenes and pain and angerat -- anger at home and abroad. is there nothing that mr. macaskill regrets about this decision and how it's reached? >> cabinet secretary. >> i wrote that it was my decision and mine alone.

and that's what i said full out, and i said that mr. megrahi should not of compassion or the sensitivity when he was shown compassion by us. but i retalate that i stand by the values we have. i did meet with mr. megrahi, and i did not put pressure on him to drop the appeal. it was his decision alone, that was clear to him and his agents and throughout. the decision i made was on two criteria, first of all the prisoner transfer application, and you are wrong, to say it would be ruled out on appeals. and it was by the agents of matters that would be prudeified, and i went through the matters of the advice, and that was a matter made clear by

the u.k. government. i followed the matters of due process laid by the laws of scotland as we laid down as a government, and i applied those that i am required to do, it included the work of the government, the social work staff and the parole board. and each of them recommended compassionate release. and you are right, there was judgment to be made, but i believe that due process has been followed by the laws of scotland. and i believe that we are to show compassion, even when it's not shown to us. it's the people of scotland, and we wish people would treat us as we treat them.

i believe that i followed due process and i upheld the values, and i stand by my decision. >> i also thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. and for me the image of the lockerbie terrorist atrocity is etched in my memory, i will never forget that disbelief and horror. which i want to make sure that the decision to release mr. megrahi was not done in the name of scotland, nor in the name of scotland, but it was made by the decision of the minister. if mr. megrahi's illness is so severe and keeping him in prison is so inhumane, why

could he not be released to a hospital in scotland? is it that the release that leaders could not protect mr. megrahi. 48 police officers for a few weeks, seems a small price to pay to protect scotland's reputation. and is the government arguing that our excellent [inaudible] is incapable of providing compassionate care, and even his own doctor believes he will receive better treatment in libya. it would be better served by that approach than a convicted

terrorist than a back-drop. and equally disturbing is the extraordinary and silence of the prime minister, gordon brown. this has implications for foreign policy and trade. and what joint efforts are taken by alexander and gordon brown that will affect our reputation and economy? >> i think that the suggestion that he could go to hospice is ludicrous and to suggest that we could spend mr. megrahi to a hospice in scotland, would be like a circus. there was a suggestion that he could go to the house, and we

took advice by the deputy of scotland, and 40 officers to cope with him in the house, and to the hospice it would be a problem for those entitled to die in the last moments with dignity. and i follow the advice of the officers. on compassion can i quote archbishop cortney. the showing of mercy in situation is not a sign of weakness. in this case it seems to be a sign of strength, and i believe it will be a decision that's a source of pride for many scotts and one that's accepted in the

community. i expect that many in american do not believe in this decision, and they can be assured that we followed due process according to the laws and values of the government and people of scotland, and equally there is some support in the international community for what we have done as a government. >> cabinet scott. >> thank you, since mr. megrahi was found guilty, the world has changed. and now scotland finds itself on the wrong side of change, with an international policy failing. this is called too late, i support to allow next week as a demonstration to the world that there is a wider