HC Deb 20 January 1992 vol 202 cc153-62

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

1.3 am

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I have obtained a copy of part of an investigation report submitted by the Lockerbie police to the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. The report is significant because it appears to contradict statements made to the House on 14 November by the Foreign Secretary about the Lockerbie bombing. In reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—whose role, in my opinion, in relation to Libya has been serious and honourable throughout—the Foreign Secretary said: I deliberately put in that sentence that there was no evidence about the involvement of other Governments."—[Official Report, 14 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1230.] However, the report, publicly quoted I believe for the first time by me tonight, unambiguously details evidence from the Scottish police which implicates a Syrian-based terrorist organisation. The report is entitled: Bombing of Pan Am 103: Interview of Marwan Abdel Razzaq Mufti Khreesat as a suspect. I should say to the House that I asked Sir William Sutherland, QPM, chief constable of Lothian and Borders, with whose force I have worked in harmony and respect for 30 years as a Member of Parliament, to approach chief constable Esson, and deputy chief constable Orr about the possibility of my talking to them. Understandably, these two police officers and their colleagues in the Scottish police, for whom I have sincere admiration, declined to do so. I would not like colleagues to think that I have been discourteous to the police or critical of them in the face of what is the greatest crime committed against civilians of the western world this decade.

I shall quote from the conclusions of the report, a copy of which I have given to the Foreign Office, together with tonight's speech. It states: Evidence could have been led to the fact that after being in Germany for 13 days he [Marwan Khreesat] had not approached Dynacord, which was supposed to be the reason for his visit. That company was not approached by police until 22 February 1989. I am exceedingly unhappy about the actions of the German police and the CIA and I am sending copies of this debate to the American and German ambassadors.

The long report ends: It is possible that the brown suitcase was delivered to another person while Dalkamoni was 'parking his car' and that that suitcase contained another IED (Improvised Explosive Device), and that the suitcase referred to is the brown Samsonite suitcase which contained the IED on PA 103. The IED which was recovered in the Ford Taunus appears to be similar to the IED which destroyed PA103. A similar device, hidden in a record player, was used on the El Al plane in August 1972, and one Marwan Omar Krisat is still wanted in this connection. There can be little doubt that Marwan Abdel Razzaq Mufti Khreesat is the bomb-maker for the PfLP-GC, that he was brought to West Germany for that express purpose and there is a possibility that he prepared the IED which destroyed PA 103. As such he should not be at liberty but should be closely questioned regarding his activities with a view to tracing his associates in the attack. Has the Foreign Secretary been shown that document by the Scottish police? Although it was written in 1989, I understand it has never been contradicted or withdrawn. In my discussion of 50 minutes with the courteous Lord Advocate, I gained the impression that for the first 18 months of the inquiry there was substantial information, still relevant, pointing to the involvement of an Iranian and Syrian-based organisation.

Why has the Foreign Secretary been so categorical in ruling out the involvement of other parties when Lord Fraser, the Lord Advocate, has gone out of his way not to rule out the involvement of other states? How does the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) account for the discrepancy between the privately held view of the investigators and the public statement of his Government? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, contrary to his statement in November, the Government have not ruled out Syrian and Iranian involvement?

I shall quote pages 212 and 213 of David Leppard's excellent book "On the Trail of Terror". It states: The commissioning and the inspiration for the bombing came from the Iranians. They commissioned an operation against an American civilian airliner in revenge for the shootdown of the Iranian airbus in the Gulf in July of 1988. The original commission was given to Jibril. Jibril's commission was frustrated because the [West German] unit that was to go against aircraft including American civilian aircraft was arrested.

The CIA has evidence which indicates that Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the president of Iran, knew of the decision and supported it. Just what this evidence is, however, remains a closely guarded intelligence secret. 'It was not a rogue decision', Cannistraro stated. Rafsanjani, he pointed out, was commander-in-chief of the Iranian military in the summer of 1988 when the operation was reportedly commissioned through the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. How can the Foreign Secretary state that there is no evidence that any Government but Libya was involved when the inquiry is, I understand, actively pursuing all possible evidence? Is he not prejudicing the inquiry by ruling out the possibility of finding new evidence which could lead to the indictment of officials or terrorists from Iran and Syria?

It seems to me that Libya is being used as a sole whipping boy when there was an alliance of elements from Iran, Syria and Libya. Father Patrick Keegans, of 1 Sherwood crescent, Lockerbie—than whom no one had more direct involvement in the tragedy—authorises me to repeat the concerns expressed in his letter to me of 13 January, of which the Foreign Office has a copy. He expresses concern in particular about the telephone conversation between Mrs. Thatcher and President Bush in March 1989, agreeing to "play down" the Lockerbie disaster, and the removal of Syria and Iran from any Lockerbie connection after that telephone call.

I cannot do better than quote the last paragraph of the powerful leader in The Sunday Times of 24 November 1991: Maybe it has been necessary to be nice to Iran and Syria to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Beirut. It must be more than coincidence that both countries were officially cleared of any Lockerbie involvement just a few days before Terry Waite and Thomas Sutherland were at last released. Our joy at their freedom should be tempered by the shame of the cost: the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bomb must now come to terms with the fact that most of those behind the murder of their loved ones are going to get away with it. The cause of justice is being sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic convenience. We will live to regret it. I find it extraordinary that the prime suspect, as identified by the Scottish police, has not—after three years and some £20 million of taxpayers' money spent on the inquiry—been interviewed. I also find it extraordinary that we appear not to have actively sought information about the suspected involvement of officials, or foreign officials, of the Iranian and Syrian Governments in the conspiracy to blow up a western civilian airliner in the latter half of 1988.

Against that background, I plead with the Government not to embark on sanctions against Libya—let alone another military strike wreaking havoc in Tripoli and Benghazi of the kind that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), I saw with my own eyes in November. I hope that my hon. Friend will be given time in which to speak tonight.

I was deeply concerned to read a front-page report in this week's Tribune by Ian Williams, the paper's United Nations correspondent. He wrote: Speculation is growing in the United Nations that John Major and George Bush are looking to fight their 1992 election campaigns on the back of military action against Libya. That, apparently, is the view of the United Nations in some quarters.

Be it the adopted daughter of President Gaddafi or the daughter of Jim and Jane Swire, it is the innocent who suffer. Dr. Swire is concerned—and who is in a better position to be?—about the cycle of violence that could be unleashed. What we need is a round-table conference with middle eastern countries about the prevention of terrorism. Military action will lead to the tit-for-tat of another Lockerbie. Our time and energies—never mind our money—should be spent on fighting famine and disease throughout the world.

1.12 am
Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for allowing me some time in which to speak.

As a person of African descent, I am particularly concerned about the plight of African countries and their peoples. That is why I am so keen to see justice done in the case of Libya. I am also opposed to terrorism, and keen to see the perpetrators of this horrendous crime brought to justice—but not tried by a kangaroo court.

After the Gulf war, President Bush talked about a new world order and about big nations not taking advantage of small ones. He talked about the need for legality, international law and respect for a nation's sovereignty. It is on precisely those points that I wish to dwell. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow spoke about the evidence in the case, but I wish to deal with other matters.

Let me make three points. The first concerns the legal position. The Minister must state the legal basis on which he is acting when he asks the Libyans to hand over two of their nationals. Under which international convention or agreement is he acting?

Under the 1971 Montreal convention, the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, unless there is an extradition treaty in force between countries—in this case, between Libya and Britain—Libya is entitled, indeed obliged, to try the offenders under her own domestic law. Article 7 applies, as there is no extradition treaty between Britain and Libya. The article states: The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. Furthermore, article 14 of the Montreal convention states: Any dispute between two or more Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot he settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them. be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties arc unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court. Libya was a signatory to the Montreal convention on 19 February 1974. Britain is also a signatory to the convention.

The Minister will no doubt say that Libya is a terrorist state and therefore put itself outside the Montreal convention. I shall make two points. First, no United Nations body has declared that Libya is a terrorist state. That is something which the United States of America and the United Kingdom Governments alone have said. Secondly, I understand that there are proper and well defined procedures under the Vienna convention by which states that may have transgressed may be dealt with. These have not been utilised in the case of Libya. It is not therefore correct for the Minister to describe Libya as a terrorist state, as he has done, unless of course the British Government have now taken it upon themselves so to designate states unilaterally and arbitrarily, as does the United States.

Since Libya received the warrant from the Lord Advocate, it has acted in accordance with its own domestic law and with international law by appointing a High Court judge who is carrying out an investigation into the charges levelled against the two Libyan citizens. The Minister should state why the Government are not prepared to allow police officers, or other relevant officials, to co-operate with the Libyans in their attempts to deal with the matter, as international law both permits and demands that they do, especially as the articles in the Libyan criminal procedure code, which prohibits the handing over of the men without proper evidence, were set up by the British in 1953. The legal system in Libya has not been altered since that time, I understand. Just as Britain would not hand over its citizens to another country for trial without proper prima facie evidence, neither should Libya be expected to do so.

My second point concerns the position of Malta. The charges laid by the Lord Advocate make much of the Maltese link in the trail that led to the Lockerbie tragedy. Like so much else in the version of events that we have been given, there are grounds for believing that this, too, is open to question. I recently visited Malta and spoke to senior members of the Maltese Government about the Maltese connection in all this. I was told in no uncertain terms that the Maltese Government, who had their own investigating team working alongside the Scottish police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, co-operating with them at every stage and seeing the same evidence, came to a completely different conclusion from them.

In the opinion of the Maltese authorities, the evidence to support a Maltese connection is, at best, very feeble. They had found no evidence to support the United States-United Kingdom assertions that the bomb originated in Malta. The Maltese Government's views could not be reconciled with the views of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments, despite visits to Malta by the Minister of State, the deputy Attorney-General of the United States and the Lord Advocate.

The Maltese Government believe that the Libyan authorities are acting properly under international law and their own domestic law by investigating the charges laid against the two Libyans and by refusing to extradite them. They are totally opposed to military action or sanctions against Libya. In fact, the Maltese Government felt that, although they did not want it, they would be prepared to consider a request that the Libyans be tried in Malta as a way out of the present impasse, especially as the British and United States Governments claim that the crime originated in Malta. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why the British Government are not prepared to consider that.

My third point concerns the consequences that sanctions or military action would have in the region and the Arab world generally. Since the Gulf war there has been considerable political turmoil in north Africa, especially in Algeria, where the rise in support for fundamentalism has been dramatic. Western economic or military action against Libya will cause further instability in the Maghreb region, which could result in refugees and asylum seekers pouring into Europe as their first port of call to escape political turmoil in their countries. Some people believe that such action by the United States and Britain could play into the hands of fundamentalists in the region.

It should be noted that, to date, the Arab League has unanimously supported the Libyan Government's actions and called for the formation of a joint United Nations and Arab League committee to investigate the matter and for it to be resolved peacefully. That scenario is different from the one that prevailed before and during the Gull war, when the position of the United States was supported by several Arab countries.

The 1986 bombing of Libya, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has referred, was an unforgivable episode in international relations that later turned out to have been unjustified. Innocent civilians died. That mistake must not be repeated.

The proper way forward is a full and proper international inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster to establish the truth of what happened. The Libyans have suggested that an inquiry should be held and they would be willing to hand over the two named individuals to any international court set up to try them. In view of the recent miscarriages of justice in British courts and biased reporting in the media, it is questionable whether the two individuals could get a fair trial in Britain. But in Britain we can begin the search for truth and justice by setting up the public inquiry that has been demanded by the United Kingdom Families of Flight 103 campaign. Their courage and steadfastness deserve nothing less.

1.21 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

Hon. Members will recall that on 14 November last year my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement in the House in which he reported that a warrant had been obtained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The warrant, backed by a full statement of the facts, was delivered to the Libyan Government by the Italian Government, and a text of it has been placed in the Library.

The House will recall that, on 27 November last year, the Government, with the Governments of France and the United States, made certain requests of the Libyan Government. On the same day, the British and American Governments, in a separate statement, requested the Government of Libya to surrender for trial all those charged with the crime and to accept complete responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials. We further requested the Libyan Government to disclose all that they knew of the offence, including the names of all those responsible, and to allow full access to all witnesses, documents and other material evidence, including the remaining timers. The Libyan Government were also asked to agree to pay appropriate compensation.

Since that time, the Government and the Governments of France and the United States have been assiduous in their respective efforts to persuade the Government of Libya to deliver the two named individuals for trial in Scotland or the United States. I do not suppose that the people of Scotland will have been pleased to have heard the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) describe their judicial procedures as a "kangaroo court".

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in a way, the speeches of the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) were a criticism of Dumfries and Galloway police, who have produced conclusive evidence about the culprits in Libya and have been supported entirely by the Lord Advocate, who believes that he can make a firm case against them? To try to shift the guilt to another country is surely a criticism of a police force that has done outstanding work.

Mr. Hogg

I have high regard for the work of the constabulary. It has produced a prima facie case sufficient to justify the issue of a warrant. It is now for the relevant courts, either of Scotland or of the United States, to determine whether the people named in the warrant are guilty or innocent—it being for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. I share my hon. Friend's respect for the constabulary.

The House will further note that the United Nations Security Council is presently discussing a resolution supporting the decision of the Governments of France, United States and Britain. That resolution condemns the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 and the UTA flight and the resulting loss of lives. It also strongly deplores the fact that the Libyan Government have not yet responded effectively to the requests made of them to co-operate fully in establishing responsibility for those terrorist acts. It urges the Libyan Government immediately to provide a full and positive response to those requests. It urges all states—individually and collectively—to encourage the Libyan Government to respond fully and positively to what has been asked of them.

I turn now to the speeches made by the hon. Members for Linlithgow and Tottenham. Both went into the events in considerable detail. I have no intention of doing so. As they know, two individuals have been named in a warrant. It is our intention that those two individuals should be brought to trial. In such circumstances, it would be wrong for me to comment on the evidence, not least because to do so may prejudice or be thought to prejudice a fair trial.

However, it is no secret that during the first 18 months of the criminal investigation attention was focused largely on the organisation known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command, based in Damascus. When as a result of forensic scientific evidence the facts of the investigation shifted, the investigators did not abandon the material which they had gathered together over the previous 18 months, but careful examination of that material has failed to disclose any evidence which would justify the issue of warrants against nationals of any country other than Libya.

As both hon. Gentlemen may know, I have practised for 20 years at the common law Bar. I know well from personal experience that the police investigate many leads and go down many paths which ultimately take them nowhere. Those responsible for framing criminal proceedings must look at the totality of the evidence assembled at the conclusion of the investigation. It was on the basis of that evidence—the totality of the evidence—reviewed at the conclusion of the proceedings that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate decided that there was a case for the two named Libyans to answer and he therefore issued the warrants against them. He also decided that there was no sufficient evidence to issue warrants against any other named individuals and, in particular, against individuals serving in Governments other than that of Libya.

Mr. Dalyell

Will the Minister explain his use of the word "sufficient"?

Mr. Hogg

There is no evidence to justify the issue of warrants against anyone other than the two named individuals.

Clearly we cannot exclude the possibility that other persons or Governments were involved because one cannot prove a negative. What I can say to the House is that there is no sufficient evidence to justify making such an allegation in court.

I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not said that Her Majesty's Government have ruled out the involvement of other countries. What he said is what I have just said and what the Lord Advocate had previously said—that the investigation had revealed no evidence of involvement by other countries. As has been said on a number of occasions, if there is such evidence involving officials from other countries we will look at it, and if anybody has such evidence they should pass it on to the investigating authorities.

As to the future, I hope that the Libyan Government will agree to deliver the two named individuals to the courts either of Scotland or of the United States. If the Libyan Government do not agree to do this, we will have to decide what further steps may be necessary. At the moment it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the nature of those further steps.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow has called for a round-table conference with middle eastern countries to discuss the prevention of terrorism. Indeed, to be fair to him, that is the only thing for which he called. I have to say that that is a wholly inappropriate, not to say inadequate, response to one of the gravest crimes committed in post-war Europe. Two named people are charged with the gravest offences. They should stand trail. They will get a fair trial. It will be for the prosecution to prove the case against them. If there is any reasonable doubt as to their guilt, they will be acquitted. That is the way forward, and I hope that this House will endorse it.

Mr. Dalyell

Will the Minister answer the question put by Dr. Jim Swire about how one avoids a cycle of violence being unleashed? If military action is not ruled out—and I get the impression from what the Minister said that it is not ruled out—what does the Minister expect but tit for tat? Should we not recognise that the whole tragedy started with the bombing of Tripoli, with the bombing of the civilian areas of Benghazi, and with the shooting down by the Vincennes, now discovered to have been in Iranian territorial waters, of the Iranian airline?

Mr. Hogg

I have never made any reference to the use of force. I have said here and elsewhere that we seek to persuade the Government of Libya to comply with our request that the two people should be brought to trial before the courts either of Scotland or of the United States. We hope that we shall secure a United Nations resolution underpinning that request. We hope that the Government of Libya will comply. Clearly, if they do not, we shall have to consider our next step. I have not suggested force. I have ruled nothing in and I rule nothing out.

Mr. Bernie Grant

As an ex-lawyer, will the Minister turn his attention to my points about the Montreal convention? Why are the British Government not prepared to follow the procedures laid down in that convention?

Mr. Hogg

Those who framed the Montreal convention never contemplated that the Government of a country in which the individuals—two in this case—would be present would themselves be party to the crime. It is clear nonsense to suggest that——

Mr. Grant

It has not been proved.

Mr. Hogg

I have not suggested that it has been proved. I have said that there is a prima facie case against two individuals who are officials of a Government. That is to say not that they are guilty, but merely that there is a prima facie case in respect of which they should stand trial. It is complete nonsense to say that the Government who employ them should also be the authority that tries them. We all know perfectly well that there is a close identity of interest between the judiciary and the intelligence services in Libya. We all know that the country is a tyranny.

Mr. Dalyell

The Minister has been very good about giving way. If the country is a tyranny, why is it that 5,500 expatriates, British people working there, earning the Minister's bread and butter, my bread and butter and the bread and butter of the rest of us, take a very different view of what they think is an incorrupt and very efficient regime? The fact is that 5,500 of our fellow countrymen, many of them Scottish engineers, are working in Libya. It is simply not good enough to shrug our shoulders and say, "These people knew perfectly well what dangers they were going to." Perhaps they did know, but that is no reason to wash our hands of them. What does the Foreign Office think will happen to them if there is any further military action? Who would sanction it first? If there were sanctions, it would mean that those people could not come back as they do now. The general pattern is eight weeks in Libya working and two weeks over here seeing the headquarters of their homes and their families.

It is high time that the Foreign Office, if it does not want to talk to the Libyans, at least talked to people such as Dick Morris of Brown and Root and employees of the 36 other British firms that are working in Libya. The Foreign Office should ask them whether they think that what the Minister has described is a sensible way to go about matters. For my part, I am extremely alarmed by the tone of the Minister's reply—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Two o'clock.