Documents reveal events that led to Libyan’s release

The documents released at Holyrood covered a number of key areas:

The Greenock visit

One question mark that remains relates to Mr MacAskill’s decision to visit Megrahi in Greenock Prison. An eight-page document by a senior civil servant in the justice department advises the minister: “Mr Megrahi, as a subject of the transfer request, should be given opportunity to make his own representation on the proposal.”

That advice concludes with the recommendation: “The groups and individuals identified should be offered short meetings with you to present their representations.”

That Mr MacAskill inferred from this that he should go to meet the prisoner at Greenock is still being challenged by opponents, but the advice appears sufficiently robust to entitle him to say he was acting on advice.

There are then two ­documents relating to the meeting at HMP Greenock on August 6 -- the official minute from the government side and Mr Megrahi’s own handwritten note of his presentation to the meeting.

There were five present: the minister and two senior civil servants, and Megrahi and his solicitor. The minute records, in dry official language, the prisoner’s insistence that he had been unjustly convicted and his sympathy for the “terrible loss” of the victims’ families. The minute adds, as Megrahi told The Herald in Tripoli last week: “He feels there is little prospect that his appeal will be concluded before his death, and that his dreams of returning home cleared no longer exist.”

While the minute records Mr MacAskill advising Megrahi that prison transfer could only take place if there were no court proceedings ongoing, there is no specific mention that compassionate release would not require this. However, aides pointed out last night that the meeting was specifically about prisoner transfer, not compassionate release.

The handwritten note from Megrahi states: “I’m a very ill person. The disease that I have is incurable. All the personnel are agreed that I have little chance of living into next year. The last report which I received some weeks ago from consultant reaches the view that I have a short time left. I have a burning desire to clear my name. I think now that I will not witness that ultimate conclusion.”

And in words that echoed Mr MacAskill’s later reference to a “higher authority”, he stated: “As I turn now to face my God, to stand before him, I have nothing to fear.”

The prison reports

The release of Megrahi almost a fortnight ago was accompanied by part of a section of official prison paperwork, involving the report by Dr Andrew Fraser, the Scottish Prison Service director of health and care.

But most of the rest of that document was released and it fully backs Mr MacAskill’s version of events.

Most emphatically, the document requires Prison Governor Malcolm McLennan to answer a straight question: “Do you consider that the prisoner should be released early? YES.

“Please state your reasons: The prognosis for Mr Megrahi is extremely bleak. Clinical advice would confirm that his death is likely to occur within a very short period. At present he is visibly displaying signs of ageing and pain during normal daily routine.

“He regularly refers to himself as a dying man and his mood can be described at times as extremely low. Release of Mr Megrahi will offer him and his family the opportunity to spend his remaining time in his country. This will mean he will have access to his close family at a time when his health is deteriorating.”

The other key document is the report of the Parole Board, which met to consider the medical, governor’s and social work reports and concluded: “In view of the serious nature of his medical condition it would be

appropriate to advise the Scottish ministers that he can be considered suitable for compassionate release.”

The police advice

There was much controversy over the course of last week over what advice had been received from Strathclyde Police about the possibility of releasing Megrahi to live in the family house in Newton Mearns, as had been pushed for by Conservatives.

Among yesterday’s documents was a minute of a discussion between justice department civil servants and Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson on Friday, August 14, six days before the decision was announced and the day on which the final pieces of expert advice were received.

Assuming Megrahi would be deemed to be a “protected person,” that note states: “Bluntly: the implication would be of extreme significance to the police force,” and adding: “Simply to remain in house, with no movement or family staying (basic level) would require a total of 48 officers to ­sustain close protection. Cost of maintaining this level of protection would be around £100,000 per week.

“The police numbers and cost would be ramped up for trips to hospital ­requiring convoys, and would be ­higher still if his extended family stayed at the house where, the minute adds: “Children in particular could pose a kidnap threat.”

The police report also speaks of increased security requirements if his presence brought protests or demonstrations, including purchase of firearms and other materials.

Holyrood-Westminster relations

The relations between ministers in Edinburgh and Westminster were strained on the Megrahi issue from the day that Tony Blair struck his deal in the desert with Colonel Gaddafi on a Prisoner Transfer Agreement in May 2007. It became clear over the weekend that the UK Justice Secretary accepted representations from his Scottish counterparts to exclude Megrahi from this deal but was overruled.

However, the tone of much of the correspondence released on both sides of the border is cordial and mutually respectful. For example, there would have been ample opportunity for Alex Salmond to make mischief in October last year when he pointed out to the Prime Minister that an energy summit to which Colonel Gaddafi had been invited fell just two days away from the 20th anniversary of Lockerbie. The letter is in the correspondence, but the row was never made public.

The big question for UK ministers arising from documents released is simply this: Did UK ministers tell the Libyans that Gordon Brown did not want Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail?

According to the minute of a meeting in Glasgow with Libyans on March 12 this year, Abdulati Alobidi, minister for Europe, spoke of a visit to Tripoli the previous month by Foreign Minister Bill Rammell at which it was pointed out that if Megrahi died in custody it would have “catastrophic effects” on Libyan-UK relations.

Mr Alobidi was minuted as saying: “Mr Rammell had stated that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary would want Mr Megrahi to pass away in prison but the decision on transfer lies in the hands of the Scottish Ministers.”

That remains a clearer statement of the Prime Minister’s opinion than Mr Brown has since been prepared to offer in public.

Medical evidence

One area where no further detailed information has been released is in terms of medical evidence.

The main report remains that of Dr Andrew Fraser, director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service, who summarised the views of four Scottish consultants directly involved in the case, plus the prison doctor.

His report, released on the day Mr MacAskill announced the Megrahi decision, attracted ferocious criticism from Labour’s Dr Richard Simpson, who insisted that a second

opinion should have been sought from another cancer consultant on whether Megrahi definitely had less than three months to live.

Dr Fraser’s original report had attached to it, in a sealed envelope, the relevant medical reports on which he had based his opinion and there was pressure from critics for these to be released.

But the government refused to bow to that pressure, insisting that these detailed medical reports remain private.

There are, however, scattered across other documents released yesterday, other references to Megrahi’s condition, including one, dated March 12, which made clear that by then the prisoner was already “receiving treatment and visits from a palliative care specialist”, adding: “A consultant oncologist monitors Mr Megrahi’s condition and he is also receiving support from a nurse who is trained in counselling.”

Palliative care and a nurse trained in counselling are strong indications that by then he was being treated as terminally ill.