Lockerbie

HC Deb 23 July 1997 vol 298 cc998-1026

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

6.18 pm

Mr. Tarn Dalyell (Linlithgow)

It would be churlish of me not to offer a dollop of sympathy to my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, because he comes now to a debate on a subject on which there have already been 11 Adjournment debates. I know very well that he is responsible for an important White Paper tomorrow, but parliamentary good fortune seldom smiles on us. It is my good fortune, however, to have the time to deploy yet again an aspect of the case that is Lockerbie. I offer no apology for doing so, however, because the matter is not trivial. It is extremely important, not only for the relatives who want the truth about the death of their loved ones on 21 December 1988, but from the point of view of our country.

Before charges were laid, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who is present, several others and I went to Libya. Apart from anything else, we saw the importance of Libya to the British economy. It is an Arab country which is placing massive orders. Anyone who doubts the importance of this issue should know that it is reliably reported that, when President Mandela came to visit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, at the South African President's insistence this subject took up 40 minutes of the hour that he had with the British Prime Minister. It is, therefore, a matter of considerable importance, and the time of the House of Commons is not improperly used on the issue.

I shall take the opportunity that parliamentary time has given me to explain to the Crown Office the background of the questions that I repeatedly ask different Ministers.

It began back in December 1988—new year's eve, to be precise—when a police officer, a constituent and friend, came to me and said that he was very worried about so many Americans, on the awful site of Lockerbie, searching and rummaging through the wreckage, and possibly destroying important evidence.

The purpose of this Adjournment debate very much concerns the police. It is to request that the incoming Government ask a judge of the Court of Appeal in England, or a distinguished judge from the European Community, or Judge David Edward QC, who is the very distinguished Scottish jurist in the European Court, to review the material that the Crown Office claims to have, and to request that we have a fresh mind on the crucial evidence that the Crown Office says that it has against the two Libyan suspects.

The purpose of the debate is also to request that, eight and a half years after the event—with no ill reflection on the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, or policemen who I believe have worked hard and honourably—the responsibility should be transferred to the Metropolitan police, with its international contacts. Later I shall explain—against the background of my visit to the Metropolitan police, at the request of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, to meet an assistant commissioner—why I request that. It is because of the international contacts of the Metropolitan police.

I return to what we believe happened at the start of the tragedy. I do not minimise the appalling nature of the crime. Anyone who, as I did, went down to Lockerbie and saw the remnants of a huge airliner strewed over the Scottish countryside must acknowledge that pictures could not convey the horror of that scene. Police from Strathclyde and Lothian, and I believe from the Minister's county of Fife, had to be bussed down there day after day, to help out the smallest force in Britain.

It began, many of us believe, with the shooting down, without apology, by the USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying about 350 pilgrims from Iran to Mecca. The Iranian Minister of the Interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi. Mostashemi made repeated statements that blood would rain down in revenge for what had happened. Crucially, he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1985. He had close contacts with the terrorist drug gangs of Beirut and the Beka'a valley.

Those gangs had infiltrated an American drugs sting operation, by which heroin was taken from the Beka'a, via the Rhein-Main airport in Frankfurt and into the United States. They got hold of a very naive first-time courier; his name was Khaled Jafar. The young man was told that he would be met by "friends" when he reached Frankfurt. He took with him a Samsonite case of the very type that was to feature in the fatal accident inquiry and in the Lockerbie case. The so-called friends took him for, doubtless, a lovely day in Heidelberg and the Neckar valley, during which time other friends—the Neuss gang, for it was they, and Marwen Khreesat in particular— changed the contents from heroin to Semtex. Crucially, the Samsonite case was exempted luggage because of the arrangement at a very high level of the American and German Governments. That is how it got through the usual careful procedures at Frankfurt airport.

I need not go into the rest of the story and the explosion, except to say that some of us believe that, within hours, the Americans had guessed, at a very high level, what had gone wrong. It is a matter of fact that the American helicopters were on site within an hour and 25 minutes. It is a matter of fact that warnings went out to personnel of the embassy in Moscow that they were not to travel. It is also conjecture with a great deal of evidence behind it that the South African general staff, Generals van Tender and Malan, Rusty Evans and Pik Botha, were pulled off that aeroplane. It is also suggested that a number of service men in the American forces in the Rhine army were taken off the pre-Christmas flight.

Places became available and those were taken mostly by students—the young Flora Swire, the young Bill Cadman, Pamela Dix's brother, Helga Mosey and, crucially, 32 students of the university of Rochester, New York. Had it been suggested that during the changing presidency in America—it was the interregnum between President Reagan and President Bush—the American Government and authorities knew sufficient to pull off VIPs and let students and young people travel to their doom, American public opinion would have been outraged.

We believe that, at a very early stage, the American Government asked the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to play Lockerbie low key. It is an incredible fact which I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that, in the 800 self-serving pages that Margaret Thatcher wrote, she never mentioned Lockerbie once. What she did say was that the "much-vaunted" Libyan retaliation for her unwarranted attack on Ben Gazi and Tripoli in 1986 never came about. If the British Prime Minister, with her access to intelligence, really believed that, how on earth could she suppose that the Libyans were responsible for the Lockerbie crime?

That is part of the background. We also believe that there never was a Malta connection and that Mr. Tony Gauci of Mary's house in Valetta gave all sorts of different identifications of the people to whom he was supposed to have sold clothing. The hard fact is that, in a court case, Air Malta won damages against Grenada Television for suggesting that it was lax or involved. The Maltese Government, the Maltese police, the airport authorities and Air Malta do not accept that unidentified baggage left Valetta airport.

The Crown Office must consider many other aspects of the legal case. It must forgive our curiosity about how much can be built up from the so-called "forensic evidence" of a slither of micro-circuitry found we do not know when, by whom or in what circumstances, but subject, it appears, to a Scottish winter. And what a Scottish winter or a winter in the Fielder forest would do to a small, delicate mechanism, heaven only knows. Furthermore, the Crown Office has absolutely refused to show its so-called "evidence" either to Edwin Bollier, the head of the makers, or more seriously to his engineer, Ulrich Lumpart. There may be all sorts of legal reasons— one might think that they are legal excuses—for not doing so, but, after eight and a half years, are we not after the truth of what happened, rather than sticking rigidly to tight legal precedent when the price of that tight legal precedent to our country is simply enormous in terms of our relations with the Arab world?

This is more a Foreign Office matter, but I have put two oral questions, which will have been brought to the Prime Minister's attention, first in June and then on 16 July. Like many serious lawyers in Edinburgh, I have ceased to believe that the Crown Office has a case that would not be thrown out within days by any Scottish judge on the ground that there is no case to answer. Bluntly, there has been no serious effort to find the truth. This is a terrible thing to say, but had an effort been made to find the truth, the makers of the critical evidence would have been shown their own slither of micro-circuitry to establish, for instance, its colour. I gather that one cannot judge from a photograph and that the colour might be crucial, in that one batch went to Libya but another went to the Stasi in East Germany. That might have led to a different destination, which was not Libya. Some effort would have been made to ascertain whether the alleged evidence of the timing device went either to East Germany or to Libya, and how.

Many other aspects cast great doubt. One of them dates back to March 1989, when my curiosity was really aroused. That was when the then Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, made a statement at the Garrick club to some half dozen journalists to the effect that he thought that the Lockerbie crime would be solved within days or weeks. I had known Paul Channon since he was Rab Butler's parliamentary private secretary. He is neither a liar nor a fantasist, and he is careful about what he says. It is inconceivable that he would have said that unless he had meant it. I also find it inconceivable that the journalists—experienced Lobby correspondents— misunderstood or misheard what he said. The conclusion to be drawn is that requests—indeed, orders—in relation to Lockerbie came from a much higher source, namely 10 Downing street.

The Minister of State has notice of a number of serious letters from lawyers in Edinburgh on this matter, which my parliamentary good fortune allows me to go through properly. The first is from Peter Anderson of the well-respected firm, Simpson and Marwick. In his letter to the Prime Minister of 23 June, he says:

My attention has been drawn to the question put to you by the … M.P. for Linlithgow on 18 June 1997 (Hansard 309/310). Whilst mention of my name contributed nothing to their weight and substance, can I nevertheless respectfully suggest that the question and proposal which were advanced, merit very careful additional consideration by your new Government. Mr. Anderson states:

My interest and involvement in the appalling tragedy of the Lockerbie disaster is well known. I have acted for Pan Am and its insurers throughout and do still have some limited involvement in defending personal injury claims of alleged stress from Lockerbie area residents where liability is denied. This letter however is not written in any capacity as representative of my clients and is not on their instructions or with a view to promoting their interests. Pan Am effectively went out of business following the disaster and the insurers have paid out many millions of dollars which cannot be recovered just because the Libyan connection is doubted. As a result of my fairly extensive knowledge of the background, I do have scepticism as to whether the Crown Office have properly identified the correct accused, and that is shared by many, journalists, lawyers and others. That scepticism grew during my representation of Pan Am and its insurers in the course of the five month Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990/91, when, as I am sure you have been advised, the now Lord Advocate was senior Crown Counsel assisting the then Lord Advocate, Lord Eraser of Carmyllie QC. It was heightened during the civil damages trial in New York by what I understand was the evidence led there before Chief Judge Platt, and also, importantly by the evidence which he excluded. I believe that, after the Secretary of State, I was the first Member of Parliament whom Lord Hardie saw after his appointment. He received me in the Crown Office most courteously. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is an honourable man, but as he was a participant in the fatal accident inquiry, he should recognise that there is an additional reason for having a fresh mind look at the topic.

Peter Anderson goes on: It would be unfair to ask you to consider the series of detailed points that exist made to question whether the two Libyans are still properly to be regarded as the murderers. In my assessment however, the Crown case to the effect that the Libyans achieved the destruction of Flight 103 over Lockerbie by introducing in Malta an unaccompanied bag containing the bomb for transit to Frankfurt and subsequent transfer has always been highly questionable and circumstantial. There is a strong body of evidence from Air Malta to the effect that no unaccompanied bag did travel to Frankfurt carrying an interline tag showing the ultimate destination of New York. For reasons a British lawyer finds extraordinary, Chief Judge Platt chose to exclude that evidence from the consideration of the Jury in the New York civil damages trial. Even if that evidence is disregarded, it has always seemed to me inherently improbable that sophisticated terrorists would adopt a method which required an unaccompanied bag containing a bomb to travel undetected through Malta Airport, then through Frankfurt and then by transfer at London Heathrow onto the Boeing 747 which was ultimately destroyed. The prospects"— says this careful lawyer, Peter Anderson— of discovery, inadvertent detonation on some non-US flight or failure to make a connection, makes that scheme full of uncertainty. Such a plot becomes even less likely given that it is known that in late 1988 an Arab terrorist group had a bomb maker in Germany"— this is a reference to Marwen Khreesat—

who had been detected fitting explosives in a radio of the same type which is said to have contained the Lockerbie bomb and given also that it would have been relatively easy for an airline worker (perhaps Arab or sympathiser, or pressured) in Frankfurt to introduce the suitcase containing the bomb onto the Boeing 737 Pan Am feeder flight from there to London thus avoiding the x-ray and other security measures. That is inherently much more likely. The Crown Office must reflect on what a heavyweight Edinburgh lawyer says about that. Anderson goes on, however. Assuming that I would be limited to the usual half-hour Adjournment debate, this is a particular part of the letter to which I drew the attention of officials as soon as I knew last week that I was lucky in the ballot.

Anderson states: These are just a few of the main points which, in my respectful submission, do require careful attention and the time is now right for reconsideration. I am an admirer of the Lord Advocate for his many qualities and not least because of his tenacious cross-examination of my witnesses at the FAI. I do not for an instant question the integrity of Andrew"— the Lord Advocate— or for that matter any of the other Crown Office officials who have been involved in this case. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for all of the forensic witnesses whose evidence is vital. At least two have been discredited, one, as I understand because of evidence given in a high profile terrorist trial which was later found to be unsatisfactory and unsafe. That is a reference to James Thurman. I raised with the previous Prime Minister in oral questions the circumstances in which James Thurman was removed from his job and the possible consequences for the Lockerbie case.

Anderson goes on: It does appear to me that perhaps the Law Officers and the Crown Office have become too closely identified with a particular view and it is time for an objective reassessment of the evidence. None of that was possible during the FAI"— the fatal accident inquiry—

where security considerations were high, as was the fear of prejudice to a criminal trial. The forensic witness was led without warning or any opportunity to prepare cross-examination. The evidence about when, where and how bits the bomb and especially the detonator were found much later has never been tested and needs particular scrutiny. That is a matter to which particular scrutiny should be given by Judge Edward or a judge of the Court of Appeal or a European judge. I hope that the amour-propre of the Scottish legal system will not be a barrier to pursuing that line of inquiry.

Peter Anderson is sensitive to that point. He states: An ideal candidate to undertake such a review may well be Judge David Edward who, as you know, is Britain's Judge in the European Court and a most distinguished Scots Jurist. Certainly I urge you"— he is addressing the Prime Minister—

to give the most serious consideration to an independent and no doubt confidential review of the Crown case. Mr. Anderson continues: I am of course well aware that there are very large interests and considerations both in Britain and especially the United States which are suited by Libyan blame and it is generally more comfortable to maintain the stance that Libya and its agents were responsible, but it seems to me that principles of Justice ought, especially in a new age of political hope, to rank higher. I have been in this place for 35 years, and I am not unconscious of Washington's overwhelming influence on any British Government. The question is: what will happen in the United States as a result of the on-going lawsuits involving not only James Thurman, but Juval Aviv, who was acquitted by an American court?

For the sake of coherence and fairness, I turn now to the reply that Peter Anderson received in a letter from Philip Barton, writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, on 16 July. Mr. Barton says: The Prime Minister has asked me to thank you for your letter of 23 June about Lockerbie. Your letter raises a number of points about the evidence against the two Libyan accused. As I am sure you are aware, the prosecuting and investigating authorities have been scrupulous in avoiding the disclosure of details of the evidence in the criminal case for fear of prejudicing the prospects of a trial of the two accused. I can therefore understand why you are concerned about the sufficiency of the evidence. Inevitably, those with access to all the evidence are in the best position to assess the sufficiency of the evidence against the two accused. Four Lord Advocates have concluded that the evidence available against the two Libyan accused is sufficient to justify the proceedings that have been taken against them. Privilege applies in the House of Commons, and I am very careful about what I say under the rules of privilege. However, I said the same thing in the Inner Temple when I was asked to speak about the matter. Admittedly Lord Justice Hurst, who was in the chair, was extremely uneasy—that may be an understatement—about my comments. However, I bluntly repeat them now.

I think that the first Lord Advocate was in a very vulnerable position. He had lost a blue-chip Conservative seat, which his party believed he should not have lost. He was then appointed Lord Advocate, with great murmurings from heavyweight legal Edinburgh. Soon after, he was faced with a dilemma: pressure was applied from Downing street, as a result of pressure from Washington, that he should restrain himself—I shall put it that way—on the subject of Lockerbie.

I do not know the extent to which Law Officers react when faced with raison d'être and requests from Downing street. I can say only that, being human, it would be very easy for a Lord Advocate to acquiesce in the requests of his Prime Minister. It is rather unlikely that that Lord Advocate would say boo to that Prime Minister.

I assure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that I am not impressed—and nor are several Edinburgh lawyers, including the professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh—that four Lord Advocates have come to similar conclusions. I do not think that I shall be misunderstood when I point out that those four Lord Advocates were advised on the subject by the same one or two important officials. In the circumstances, I do not ask for any kind of investigation of the officials. However, for heaven's sake, it is now eight and a half years later and many of our interests in, and relations with, the Arab world are involved. A legal mind from outside should at least take a fresh look at the case. That is my response to that paragraph of the letter written on behalf of the Prime Minister. Mr. Barton continues: You may have evidence that has a bearing on the case against the two Libyans. The investigation remains open and the prosecuting and investigating authorities will consider any evidence brought to their attention. If you do have any evidence pertinent to the criminal investigation, I would urge you to bring it forward so that it can be properly considered. That is a very passive attitude to adopt in view of what we have read about the findings of the state prosecutor in Frankfurt regarding Abolhassem Mesbahi, a co-founder of Iranian intelligence. I consider everything that I read with great caution, but it is not realistic simply to imply that some Iranian who is in hiding in Germany should report to the police in Dumfries and Galloway. That is part of my argument as to why the case should be handed to the Metropolitan police, who deal with their international contacts every day. Mr. Barton continues: You suggest that the Law Officers and Crown Office have become so closely identified with a particular view that their assessment of the evidence is partial. The Lord Advocate in the discharge of his legal duties is entirely independent from Government influence. I am sorry, but a hoarse laugh from one in this place who has watched Lord Advocates and Crown Officers over 35 years. Lord Advocates, like Attorneys-General, are members of the Government and must balance various issues. Mr. Barton goes on: It is quite unthinkable that one Lord Advocate, let alone four, would allow themselves to be associated with anything other than a fair consideration of all the evidence. I am sorry, but it is not unthinkable to me—it is all too thinkable. The letter continues: You also suggest that a Judge of the European Court should review the evidence. I should point out that consideration of the evidence in a criminal case is a matter within the exclusive purview of the Lord Advocate. Does the Lord Advocate really determine the nature of our relations with the Arab world—a subject upon which President Mandela, on behalf of the Organisation of African Unity, spent two thirds of his time with the Prime Minister? Is that matter simply to be left to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office? That is preposterous. The letter continues:

If the Lord Advocate concludes that there is a sufficiency of evidence, after a full consideration of all the details of that evidence, then the appropriate forum to test the case is the criminal trial of those standing accused of the charges. Again, that is all very well, but we have no extradition treaty with Libya. The Libyans say, "We see the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. We hear all these rumours of unsafe decisions in British courts of law. What on earth will happen to the Libyan Two?" I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, if the boot were on the other foot and there were two Scots whom we believed to be innocent, I am not sure that we would ship them to Tripoli, so I am not impressed by that part of the reply.

Peter Anderson's response was:

I received the expected reply from the Prime Minister's Private Secretary and attach a copy of it. Whilst it says what I always thought it would, I seriously question whether any of the four Lord Advocates have reviewed, with detailed scrutiny, the evidence and whether they have asked the pertinent relevant questions of those who have been reporting to them. That is Peter Anderson's view; it is also mine. It will be within the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Minister that I asked for an interview with the Government's troubleshooter, the Minister without Portfolio, who gave me half an hour, listened attentively and undertook—I am sure that he will carry out his word—that the matter would be looked at in various places in the Government. Now is the urgent time to set about that task, as my hon. Friend promised.

On 17 July, I asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to … the answer of 11 July, Official Report, column 626, if he will transfer responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing to the Metropolitan police. The Prime Minister replied:

Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary have from the outset conducted the Lockerbie Criminal Investigation. There is no reason to depart from that. The investigation relates to the mass murder of 270 people committed in Scotland. My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, has responsibility for ensuring that crimes in Scotland are properly investigated and Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 authorises him to issue instructions to any Chief Constable with regard to reporting offences alleged to have been committed in his area. The transfer of this inquiry to the Metropolitan Police would remove that power from the Lord Advocate in this case and would impede the proper investigation of it."—[Official Report, 17 July 1997; Vol. 298. c. 258.] I should like to know what proper investigation has been done. Has there been any investigation of reports coming out of Qom in Iran? My hon. Friend the Minister will have received documents from Mr. Stephen Breen of The Scotsman on what has happened at Qom, the holy city in Iran. There were claims, on 23 December 1988, that great vengeance had been taken on the Americans, with all sorts of colourful language beloved of certain mullahs. When the Iranian Government found that the situation was really very awkward, they decided that they should all be withdrawn by the holiest of orders and commands.

All that material, which was given to The Scotsman and its reporter, Mr. Stephen Breen, who has taken such a long-term and sustained interest in these matters, was sent to the Crown Office. I give this as an example. How can one expect the Dumfries and Galloway police, for all their virtues, to have the resources to launch an investigation that may well mean making detailed inquiries through some Iranian expert, and certainly our embassy in Teheran? That is one reason why the matter should be given to the Metropolitan police.

There is another reason. Because of my interest in Lockerbie, I became extremely concerned—it should be the concern of the Crown Office, too—about the brutal and terrible murder in this city of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher. With the agreement of Queenie Fletcher, her mother, I raised with the Home Office the three remarkable programmes that were made by Fulcrum, and their producer, Richard Bellfield, called "Murder at St. James's". Television speculation is one thing, but this was rather more than that, because on film was George Stiles, the senior ballistics officer of the British Army, who said that, as a ballistics expert, he believed that the WPC could not have been killed from the second floor of the Libyan embassy, as was suggested.

Also on film was my friend, Hugh Thomas, who talked about the angles at which bullets could enter bodies, and the position of those bodies. Hugh Thomas was, for years, the consultant surgeon of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, and I suspect that he knows more about bullets entering bodies than anybody else in Britain. Above that was Professor Bernard Knight, who, on and off, has been the Home Office pathologist for 25 years. He was considered a distinguished enough pathologist to be put in charge of Cromwell street. When Bernard Knight gives evidence on film that the official explanation could not be, it is time for an investigation.

With the agreement of the Home Secretary, I contacted Sir Paul Condon, who was very helpful and said, "You must go and talk to my assistant commissioner, David Veness." I spent the Thursday before last—I had never done it before—in Scotland Yard, and talked at length, explaining exactly why I was seeming to meddle in the case of Yvonne Fletcher. I have to say that the senior police officers, David Veness and Chief Detective Superintendent McDowall, were extremely nice to me, and said, rather movingly, that in 20 years there were half a dozen crimes that they would particularly like to solve, and Yvonne Fletcher's was one of them, because she was, as they put it, "one of our own". I can understand that.

I then asked, "In this kind of investigation, frankly, can any small force conduct the international type of inquiry that the Met can, with its resources?" The answer was no. I am not saying to the House that the Met was asking to be involved in Lockerbie. I am just stating the fact that if we are serious about it, it must be the major police force, and not, for all its virtues, a small police force. I understand that fourth-generation police officers are now dealing with the case, as those who were there in 1988 are either retired or promoted—and probably very rightly promoted, as in the case of the present chief constable of Lothian, Roy Cameron. Let us be realistic about the matter.

On 17 July, I asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 July … what steps he proposes to bring to a conclusion the Lockerbie issue. The Prime Minister replied: As I told my hon. Friend on 18 June, Official Report, column 509, we will try every avenue to make progress in this matter, but the onus is on Libya to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions."—[Official Report, 17 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 25S-59.] Those resolutions, however, were formulated a long time ago. That is deeply unsatisfactory—and even more unsatisfactory, as the Crown Office should realise, because of what happened in relation to Juval Aviv.

On 18 June, I asked the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for policy in relation to approaching the UN to lift sanctions against Libya of the acquittal of Juval Aviv by an American court. The Prime Minister replied: As my hon. Friend knows, Juval Aviv has been acquitted by an American court. We are also aware of the allegations that have been made by him, but the advice that I have received is that it does not alter the case that the existing evidence in respect of those who perpetrated the Lockerbie bombing suggests that it was carried out by Libyans. I know the rules about internal matters in the Government, but a Prime Minister who was going to Hong Kong, Denver and Amsterdam—and, indeed, around the world—with all his other responsibilities, would naturally have to rely on advice.

Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is a distinguished lawyer, that asking one of his senior legal colleagues—a judge at the Court of Appeal— to cast a glance at the issue eight and a half years later is not an unreasonable request.

The Prime Minister went on: I believe that the United Nations Security Council sanctions should remain until the Security Council resolutions are properly and fully complied with; they are not being complied with at the moment."—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296 , c. 309.] With respect, the whole UN policy depends on what is in the Crown Office in Edinburgh. On another occasion, the Prime Minister rightly told me that it was not the Security Council's business to carry out such investigations, yet it was having to take the word of the Crown Office in Edinburgh.

I warned my hon. Friend the Minister's private secretary that I would quote from a letter, dated 18 July 1997, from Alistair Duff, another well-known Edinburgh lawyer, who represents the two Libyans. He wrote: I know that you have been lucky enough to secure an adjournment debate on the subject of Lockerbie and the Crown Office. I wish to raise with you a matter of concern to me and, I know, to others involved in the Scottish criminal justice system. After the recent revelations about the information supplied to the German authorities by the Iranian agent our Government and the Crown Office were pressed to indicate what steps they would take to investigate this 'evidence' pointing, yet again, to Iranian involvement in the bombing. The reply, as ever, was that 'anyone with information to report should forward it to Dumfries and Galloway police'! Notwithstanding the high regard which I have for our police forces and acknowledging the undoubtedly diligent attitude of the Dumfries police, this official mantra is nothing other than a formula for inaction. Furthermore, my view, shared I believe by professional colleagues, is that the refusal by Government and Crown Office to take such evidential developments seriously (and to be seen to be doing so) is bringing the Scottish system of criminal justice into disrepute. The notion that the former Iranian agent, from a hideout in Germany, should contact the desk sergeant at Dumfries police station, as if surrendering his driving licence for examination would be laughable if it was not the inevitable response which emanates from Crown Office every time another line of enquiry apparently opens. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Crown Office simply does not want to pursue avenues of investigation which might lead to inconvenient destinations. I hope that you may take account of these views in pressing the Government during the debate. That letter was written by a well-respected Edinburgh lawyer.

Yet another Edinburgh lawyer wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister—the QC who is Professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh, Robert Black. In his letter of 21 July, which my hon. Friend will have read, he wrote: I understand that a further Adjournment Debate on the Lockerbie bombing is soon to take place, and that you will be replying on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. May I, as a native of Lockerbie and as a Scots lawyer who has attempted to keep abreast of developments in this tragic affair, urge you to give serious consideration to permitting the evidence against the Libyan accused persons to be reviewed by a senior member of the judiciary not currently serving in Scotland, with a view to determining whether in quantity and quality, that evidence is prime facie sufficient to justify the charges which have been laid against the accused.

There is a growing body of opinion within the legal profession in Scotland that, whatever may have been the evidential position in November 1991 when the petition naming the Libyan accused was presented to the sheriff in Dumfries, subsequent developments (such as the disclosure of the apparent lack of any documentary evidence whatever showing that an unaccompanied suitcase was routed from Malta via Frankfurt onto Pan Am Flight 103 at London; the discrediting in criminal proceedings in the United States of evidence emanating from the American forensic scientists whose findings appear to be the thesis"— indeed, the linchpin of the thesis—

of Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing) have undermined the case advanced in that petition. The Crown Office in Scotland, however, gives the (perhaps unwarranted) impression of being reluctant to consider the impact of evidence which became available only after 1991 upon the material available to it when the petition was originally drawn up. We do not know that anything has really happened since 1991. If the Crown Office and the police have been active, all that we can say is that we have no evidence that they have been so. In fact, it looks as if the hatches had been battened down. To put it bluntly, nothing has been done.

Professor Black goes on: It is in order to counteract this impression, and with a view to maintaining the deservedly high reputation of the Crown Office in the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland, that I earnestly request Her Majesty's Government to invite a senior judge to conduct an independent review of the whole evidence now available in relation to the Lockerbie bombing. Any of the following would appear to me to be suitable persons to perform this function. Judge David Edward (the United Kingdom judge on the European Court of Justice), Lord Hope of Craighead or Lord Clyde (the present Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary). The Scottish legal system could not be affronted if either of those two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from Scotland, who are extremely clever and distinguished judges, was asked to look at the evidence. After eight and a half years, witnesses' memories dim. Potential witnesses die or become old and forgetful. If nothing is done, how long are we expected to go on supporting these sanctions against Libya?

After all, by 1953 the perpetrators of the atrocities at Auschwitz and Buchenwald were being helped and welcomed back into the European community of nations. Is there a difference between an Arab and a European country, because that question is beginning to be rather sharply asked?

Back to the lawyers. George More, another well-known Edinburgh lawyer, wrote to the Prime Minister on 14 July:

Dear Prime Minister, I have acted on behalf of the Libyan Peace Committee as their Legal Adviser in Scotland since 1992 in relation to the Lockerbie case. I visited Libya in 1992 and again in 1995 and I keep in touch with my contact in Tripoli. From what I have seen, and from the information I have received, there is no doubt that the U. N. Sanctions have caused a considerable amount of suffering in Libya and tragically it is the ordinary people who have suffered the most. In the light of the revelations in The Scotsman newspapers last week and the police investigation being carried out in Frankfurt, both of which indicate that the downing of Flight Pan-Am 103 in December 1988, was sponsored by the Iranian Government, I feel very strongly that your Government should ensure that all new information is thoroughly investigated. It would be most unjust for the Libyan people to continue to suffer as a result of the Sanctions even if it was only possible that the Libyan Government was not involved in the crime. As a supporter of your Government, and in the belief that you can bring a fresh mind to the whole problem, I urge you to ensure that all necessary investigations are now carried out as soon as possible to avoid any unfairness to the Libyan people. The Minister has received a letter from the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding signed by Cyril Townsend, the former Member of Parliament for Bexleyheath. He says: I understand that you will be replying to an Adjournment Debate on Lockerbie next Wednesday introduced by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

I very much welcome this as it is such an important subject, especially as it is over eight and a half years since Pan Am 103 was blown up. My Council is concerned that the current impasse in relations with Libya has had a detrimental effect on British-Libyan trade relations. This was a subject that I personally raised with Anthony Nelson, the previous Minister for Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry". Indeed, I have raised this subject with my hon. Friends responsible for trade in both Houses of Parliament. I was assured by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, who made inquiries after an oral question in the House, that the Department's lawyers have not had access to the evidence that the Crown Office says it has.

For lawyers from one Government Department who are so intimately affected not to have seen the evidence that is in the hands of another Government Department raises an eyebrow. Doubtless all sorts of legalistic reasons will be produced, but it is not good when the interests of our country are so badly threatened by what may be a terrible mistake.

Furthermore, I want to raise with the Crown Office the case of Dr. David Fieldhouse. The background to the case is that, on 21 December 1988, Dr. David Fieldhouse, who has become a friend of mine, heard on his car radio that there was a major incident at Lockerbie, and immediately drove north in the expectation that he could be helpful.

Who is Dr. Fieldhouse? He comes from Bradford, and was the police surgeon of the city of Bradford for 14 years. He was considered responsible enough to be put in charge of a previous major incident—the Bradford footfall fire. He has had many ups and downs, and in my opinion has been treated abominably. On 22 June 1997, he wrote to the Prime Minister: Dear Prime Minister, As you will doubtless know from proceedings in the House of Commons over the past few years the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie terrorist bombing has left a lot of questions unanswered and lines of enquiry ignored or suspended. I volunteered my services in Lockerbie shortly after hearing of the crash and, during the night and day following it, pronounced death in respect of 59 persons. In the immediate aftermath of the event and during the subsequent months 1 co-operated fully with the law enforcement agencies to provide details of the work which I had done. I was enabled to do this by notes taken at the time and my not inconsiderable experience as a Police Surgeon with West Yorkshire Police during the preceding fourteen years. One of the very many things which have puzzled me since the event, and more particularly since the Fatal Accident Inquiry, is the apparent lack of concern to correlate the bodies which I recorded having found with other records made after mine"— "after" is underlined. This has led to one body (which I labelled DCF 12) not appearing to tie up with any of the ones subsequently listed as having been retrieved and examined by the Pathologists. I am not sure that the transcript of the Fatal Accident Inquiry will give a very good indication how little attention was paid to this matter. I was at pains at the time of that Inquiry to reverse the discredit heaped upon me by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie by his dubious questioning of the Police". Remember that that accusation—for such it is—of dubious questioning of the police at the fatal accident inquiry was made not by someone off the street, but by a police surgeon of 14 years' experience with extremely distinguished service at a previous major incident. When that is said in a letter to a British Prime Minister, the Departments have an obligation to comment on it, because the questioning was under oath.

Dr. Fieldhouse goes on:

from whom he received answers to questions which it seemed at the time were designed to hide the truth and, in the process, discredit me. I made two determined attempts to see your predecessor to ask him a particular question, but I got no further than a Private Secretary. I can not ask that question of you. Would you be able to find out if John Major actually received my letters to him—or if they were diverted by his staff who could have been under orders from others? Other questions, inter-related, come to mind: Do you think I am right to be concerned that the body details did not tally? Do you think I am still right to be concerned at the way I was treated at the Fatal Accident Inquiry—notwithstanding that I received a full, written, formal apology from Sheriff Principal John S Mowatt in his Determination (page 36) for what had been said erroneously about me? Do you think I am right to wonder if the above two points could in some way be relevant to the whole issue as to who perpetrated the offence? Do you think that people of this Country, and in particular the relatives of the deceased, have a right to clarification of all these issues? The relatives of the deceased, to whom I have become very close, certainly think that Dr. Fieldhouse deserves an answer. He continued:

If, in addition to the above, you are interested in knowing how this affair has impugned my integrity and severely dented my career I shall be pleased to meet you and put you in the picture. All is not what it seems—even now. I wish you well in the forthcoming years. There is a great deal to the story. Some of it appeared in a book, which I have treated with great caution, called "Trail of the Octopus" by the American agent Les Coleman. But there is a great deal of explanation to be given by the American authorities on the whole relationship between the Drug Enforcement Agency and the CIA and its hostage relations operations in Beirut at the time.

There is also the whole question of Major Charles McKee, and the feeling that there were certain people in key positions who never wanted Major McKee to get back to the United States to start complaining about them. All those matters bring us back to my request that there should be an investigation by the Metropolitan police. It is unreal to expect the Dumfries police to cope.

British companies are worried that they are not being allowed to compete on equal terms with other European companies. Many jobs are at stake. Problems that affect trade include the lack of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover and the problem of acquiring visas for local partners to come to Britain. That matter must be settled.

There is also, of course, the human aspect. The Minister has received a letter from the secretary of UK Families Flight 103, saying:

I am writing on behalf of U. K. Families Flight 103, the relatives and friends of those killed at Lockerbie, about the recent statements made in Germany by Abolhassem Mesbahi. We believe that the Scottish Office has an obligation to convince the bereaved that the new information concerning Iran's connection with the bombing is being thoroughly and properly investigated. Can you give us evidence that urgent and appropriate action is being taken? The secretary, Pamela Dix, had also written to Lord Hardie saying: I am writing on behalf of UK Families Flight 103 concerning the recent activity in Germany. You will be aware of the allegations by the former Iranian intelligence officer, Abolhassem Mesbahi, that the bombing of the plane was ordered by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in revenge for the shooting down of the Iranian air bus in July 1988. Given that this man's credibility has already been tested in a German court of law, where his testimony brought about the successful convictions of Iranian terrorists, we assume that the Scottish Office and the Dumfries and Galloway police are taking immediate steps to interview Mesbahi in Germany. If this has not yet been arranged, then we urge you to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. We expect the Crown Office response to be a proactive one in this regard. The relatives would have been here had the Adjournment taken place at the usual time of 10 o'clock. I should be grateful for an undertaking that the Mesbahi information is being properly investigated.

A letter dated 18 July was sent to my hon. Friend the Minister from Martin Cadman of Norfolk, with whose Member of Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner)—I went to see the Minister. He writes:

My son Bill, 32 was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. I understand that you will reply for the Government in the adjournment debate on Lockerbie next Wednesday … My wife and I and other relatives have been trying since 1988 to learn the truth about Lockerbie. None of the inquiries which have been made public including those by the Air Accident Investigation Branch, the Fatal Accident Inquiry and the US President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism have revealed the whole truth. Nor were Ministers in the last Government forthcoming, including for example Douglas Hurd and Jeremy Hanley in their replies in adjournment debates. My hon. Friend the Minister might like to know that it was on this subject that, for the only time since the war, a Foreign Secretary has replied to an Adjournment debate. I am not suggesting that it should be the Foreign Secretary on this occasion; I am merely pointing out that the previous Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, decided that the subject was so important that he should not leave it to one of his junior Ministers, but should instead reply himself.

The letter continued: We were encouraged by the tone and much of the content of the reply by Foreign Office~Minister Tony Lloyd on 11 June this year. Indeed, the relatives who are going to see my hon. Friend the Foreign Office Minister tomorrow at 4.15 pm will have a copy of the reply by my hon. Friend the Scottish Minister in their hands. I can tell my hon. Friend that two television teams are interested in the whole background to the issue, and are making in-depth investigations into the subject. Doubtless they will be approaching the Crown Office. The British public, let alone the relatives, are not uninterested in this matter.

Cadman goes on:

But he repeated some of the well worn phrases we had become used to, such as that it is not acceptable to allow the accused [Libyans] to dictate the terms and circumstances of their trial—a moment's thought shows that they have indeed dictated the terms and circumstances ever since the warrants were issued over six years ago in November 1991. I don't know if you have been told the whole truth. People experienced in these matters have told me that very few people, mainly officials, are allowed to know. The rest are told only that there are some things that it is better that they do not know. I hope that you will not be put off by this sort of specious advice but will press for the whole truth so that you may reply properly and as fully as appropriate in the debate. If only for ministerial self-preservation—I do not say this unkindly at all—I should have thought that it would have been wise for any Minister answering such debates to say, "Look. I am protecting my back. I am asking a judge of the Court of Appeal, a European judge, Lord Hope or Lord Clyde, another Scottish Law Lord in Ordinary, to make the investigation." It is not asking a great deal.

Cadman goes on:

Ministers have the right to know. The public have the right to know. Above all, the relatives have the right to know. Early in 1989 my wife and I were interviewed by a man from the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist squad. He had a file of papers which included the post-mortem report on my son. I asked to see it. He said he was not supposed to show it to me. I asked him how could he as a stranger have a greater right to know how our son died than his parents. He had the courage and good sense to acknowledge this; and I hope that he felt the good effect on us of knowing how our son died. I hope that you will appreciate the force of this argument. We do not need to be protected from the truth. But we should be protected from being told lies. We were told lies by the police witness at the Fatal Accident Inquiry. We should also be protected from not being told the truth. We did not get an answer at the FAI to why our son's body was left out in a field at Tundergarth from when he was seen by the doctor who pronounced him dead on the 22nd December 1988 until his body was removed to a mortuary on the 24th. I acknowledge at this stage the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who, in the short time that he has been here, has shown an estimable interest in this difficult matter. I hope that Madam Speaker has given her permission, as I have, that he should contribute to the debate.

Cadman goes on: We did not get a straight answer to why our son's death certificate was dated 24th December. (It was subsequently changed to the 22nd after the FAI). Who gave the orders not to move the bodies? What was the role of the Americans on the ground in the immediate aftermath? Cadman should get an answer to those questions. He says: Our right to the truth should not be denied by any lingering unethical element in the British government's relations with the US government. We hope that the present Government is not deterred by whatever we believe persuaded the previous Government to conspire with the US Government not to reveal the truth. You will know that new evidence has recently come to light from Germany implicating Iran. You and your colleagues may agree with us that the lack of progress in resolving this case is alone enough to warrant a new, independent, and far-reaching inquiry into all the circumstances of the bombing, including possible motives for it. My main purpose in writing to you is to urge you to announce the setting up of such an inquiry in the debate next Wednesday. If this is not possible, please bring this letter to the attention of Lord Hardie to whom I have already written. I do not know what attention is being given to such letters.

I asked the Prime Minister what response he has sent to the letter of 22 June to him from ex-police surgeon Dr. David Fieldhouse of Bradford, about the circumstances of the body count after the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. The Prime Minister replied: Dr. Fieldhouse's letter is being studied carefully. A reply will be sent shortly."—[Official Report, 7 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 316.] The Department will forgive me if a reply has already been sent, but it has not yet been received. I do not know what studying these letters actually means, other than a put-off. The time has come when they have to be answered.

When I saw him, the Lord Advocate undertook that he would discuss seriously with the Foreign Office what the results of all the deliberations were going to be.

For reasons that I perfectly understand, a meeting offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at 9 o'clock this morning had to be postponed, and, at his request, I have been asked to see him on this subject at 6 o'clock tomorrow night, but I draw to the attention of the Crown Office the sort of problems that the Foreign Office has.

Frankly, the Foreign Office has been put in a difficult position. Even Douglas Hurd said to me—I think that he will excuse my repeating this, not that it was particularly a secret—in the corridors of the House, "Look: you must understand that a British Foreign Secretary cannot tell the Crown Office what to do and demand explanations from it." So the Crown Office should know exactly the situation that the Foreign Office faces.

Faced with a letter from the ambassador and permanent observer for the League of Arab States to the United Nations, Dr. Hussein A. Hassouna, and the ambassador and permanent observer for the Organisation of African Unity to the United Nations, Mr. Ibrahima Sy, the Foreign Office says: We have the honour to refer to the joint letter dated 27 June 1997 of the Permanent Observer for the League of Arab States and the Permanent Observer for the Organisation of African Unity to the United Nations … enclosing a joint letter from the Secretaries-General of those two organisations relating to the question of the sanctions against Libya. The letter of the Secretaries-General once again tries to misrepresent the question of Libya as a dispute between Libya and two countries. This is not the case. The sanctions imposed on Libya in Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) were as a result of the Libyan Government's refusal to comply with obligations which had been required of it by the unanimous decision of the Security Council in resolution 731 (1992). The question which the Council continues to address, therefore, is not a dispute between a few States, but the matter of Libya's continued defiance of a unanimous and binding decision of the Security Council. We regret that the letter of the Secretaries-General of the Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League does not mention the existence of any of the Security Council resolutions relating to Libya, nor does it mention Libya's failure to comply with them. Instead the Secretaries-General repeat earlier proposals for trial of the Lockerbie accused in a venue outside Scotland or the United States, proposals which do not conform to the requirements of the relevant Security Council resolutions. We do not believe that Council decisions should be a matter of negotiation; they should be obeyed in full. The Government of Libya knows that for the sanctions against it to be swiftly lifted, all it needs to do is comply with the Council's resolutions. Yet it continues to refuse to take such a step. The first objective of all Member States and Regional Organisations interested in seeing an end to this matter should be to persuade the Government of Libya to fulfil its obligations so that sanctions can be lifted and the authority of the Council be upheld. In the meantime we have taken note of the proposals in the joint letter of the Secretaries-General relating to humanitarian flights. Resolution 748 (1992) of course already contains provisions for the Libyans to apply to the Committee established pursuant to that resolution for special dispensation for humanitarian flights. We would like to reiterate our willingness to continue to consider such applications, as provided for in resolution 748 (1992) which does not limit humanitarian needs to medical evacuations. In addition, for the last three years the Committee has permitted flights to the Haj, thus facilitating travel by Libyan citizens to undertake this act of religious devotion. We see no reason why this practice should not continue. The whole trouble with that is that, in fact, Libyans who used to come here cannot get medical aid. A great deal of hardship is involved.

I refer to the letter dated 26 June 1997 from the permanent observers of the League of Arab States and the OAU: Pursuant to Article 54 of the Charter of the United Nations, we have the honour to enclose herewith a joint letter signed by His Excellency Dr. Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, and His Excellency Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, concerning the efforts of the two organizations to find a peaceful and just solution to the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United States of America and the United Kingdom". What all that amounts to, surely, as Lord Fraser was asked by me all those years ago, is that at least our lawyers should talk to their lawyers. That is what they want.

A letter dated 19 June 1997 from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States and the Secretary-General of the OAU says: As a follow-up to the efforts being deployed individually and jointly by the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity to find a peaceful and just solution to the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United States of America and Great Britain, and in conformity with the decision of the two organizations to coordinate both Arab and African efforts aimed at contributing to the process of finding a lasting solution to the dispute, we have the honour to inform you that the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity have, in this regard, agreed as follows: FIRST: To call upon the Security Council to convene a special meeting in order to consider the following specific proposals, one of which could be agreed upon as a basis for a solution:

1. (i) Hold the trial of the two suspects in a third and neutral country to be determined by the Security Council;
2. (ii) Have the two suspects tried by Scottish judges at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, in accordance with the Scottish Law;
3. (iii) Establishment of a special criminal tribunal at the ICJ headquarters in The Hague to try the two suspects.

SECOND: Pending the final and peaceful solution of the crisis and the adoption of one of the above-mentioned proposals, we urge the Security Council to undertake the following measures which, we believe, will go a long way in mitigating the severe impact of the air embargo, by exempting flights that may be run by Libyan authorities:

1. (i) Flights for humanitarian purposes of medical treatment and the importation of medicines;
2. (ii) Special flights to send material assistance from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to African countries;
3. (iii) Flights of religious purpose;
4. (iv) Flights related to participation in official missions."

Like British industry, the two Secretaries-General complain bitterly of the difficulty of getting in and out of Libya. What does it all boil down to? It boils down to a policy based on evidence that is at best flimsy and perhaps non-existent.

I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 July: pursuant to his oral answer of 16 July, Official Report, columns 387–88, in reference to the letter from Alain Dejammet, Stephen Gomersall and Bill Richardson permanent representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the USA, to the President of the Security Council, what recent review of the evidence relating to the Lockerbie case has been conducted by the UN Security Council. The reply from my right hon. Friend said: None. It is not the Security Council's job to do so. The evidence is held by the national investigating and prosecuting authorities and is not in the public domain."—[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 556.] The UN really ought to be a bit discerning about the material on which it bases its own policies. Frankly, it is taking the word of the British Government, and the British Government are taking the word of the Crown Office. Some of us think, for reasons that have taken an inordinate length of time to describe—I do not see how else to bring the matter home after 12 Adjournment debates—that the Government should take action to ascertain the validity of the evidence.

I had hoped that, on election to office, my right hon. and hon. Friends would bring new minds to this subject. They have had some time to do so. The faults, if there be any, lay with their predecessors. I am not here to make yah-boo party points; I am asking very, very little. Distinguished lawyers should take a look at what other lawyers have decided and done.

I end with the statement of Paul Foot in The Guardian this week, which is headed "The Injustices Darkening Our Skies". It refers first to the German evidence, when it says: The Foreign Office greeted last week's Der Spiegel scoop about the Lockerbie bombing with its familiar mix of embarrassment and silence. I hope that, sooner rather than later, there will be some comment on the German evidence.

Foot ended by saying:

The new Foreign Office Minister Tony Lloyd studiously copied his Tory predecessors by expressing his deep concern while stopping well short of any new initiative. The notion that all these inquiries were conducted in such a way that a particular result would be arrived at,' he said, 'would be a fantastic coincidence or a fantastic conspiracy.' Precisely. Take your pick. The purpose of my long, long speech that chance has made possible tonight is that my right hon. and hon. Friends should be serious about some new initiative. I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has to say.

7.58 pm

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for allowing me to take part in this debate and for the mountains of information that he has passed to me which he has accumulated over some considerable time. I intend to be brief. My hon. Friend has expressed his great concern about the whole issue in significant detail.

I should like to air the issue from the perspective of my constituents and to deal with what they want, because they want the chapter of the entire sad tragedy to be closed. There are, however, families in my constituency—as there are in America and elsewhere in the United Kingdom— who want justice to be done.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has complimented Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. I should admit that I served as a member of the Dumfries and Galloway police authority for 11 years, four of which were as its chairman. I should add that my term as chairman was served after the Lockerbie tragedy. I have every faith in Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. Although it is the smallest force in Scotland, it is, none the less, an excellence force.

I am confident that all the evidence that has become available in recent months and years has been made available to Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. I also have every confidence that it has performed its role as an enforcement authority by investigating all the evidence.

I appreciate that there is a feeling that the tragedy is slipping away from us. I know full well that the American families think of next year—the tragedy's 10th anniversary—as a significant watershed. I can only imagine the frustration that those families feel, although I know full well the frustration that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow feels after having spent many hours delving into what he regards as evidence. He has spent many hours investigating the matter and believes that he has formed a picture of what really happened.

My inquiries indicate that all the evidence produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and by other parties has been examined and investigated by those with a duty to do so. I think that he and I agree on two matters: we want justice to be done, and we want improved relations with the Arab world, with the consequent benefits for many United Kingdom industries and companies.

I am sure, however, that I do not have to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that our new Labour Government have been in power for only 12 weeks. We require time to examine closely what has happened over the past eight and a half years. I believe that now is not the time to hand over all of the relevant information to a third party or to third parties. A new Government will provide an opportunity to move the matter forward.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend said that I want information to be handed over to third parties. I am not sure that "third parties" is how one would describe Judge Edward, Lord Clyde, Lord Hope, a Lord Justice of Appeal, in England, or a senior European judge. They are not simply "third parties".

Mr. Brown

I am referring to involvement by another investigative authority—the Metropolitan police— although I include also some of the people eminent in the legal system mentioned by my hon. Friend.

As I said, the new Labour Government provide an opportunity. There is also an opportunity for the Libyan authorities themselves to seize upon that opportunity, because it is a two-way process. I believe that the suspects will receive a trial if the opportunity arises. As I said in my maiden speech, two or three weeks ago, I firmly believe in the Scottish legal system and that a fair trial can be conducted in Scotland. We now need all those who have spent so much time on the matter to pull together, to impress on the Libyan Government the fact that the two suspects must be handed over so that they can receive that fair trial.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for giving me an opportunity to speak briefly in this debate.

8.4pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish)

I am pleased to be able to reply to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and I am grateful for his usual courtesy in having given advance notice of the main issues that he planned to raise in this— his 14th—debate on the Lockerbie criminal investigation. He mentioned 11 or 12 debates, but we have factually established that the total is 14. In his most recent Adjournment debate, he said that he must be extremely lucky to have secured such a debate. He must have an exceptionally lucky star, because that debate was only six weeks ago. I share with him, however, an appreciation of the seriousness of the issue and of the debate.

As this is the first such debate to which I have responded, I should like to express my deepest sympathy for all those who lost friends or family in that terrible outrage on 21 December 1988. I also pay tribute to the unprecedented efforts of those who assisted at the disaster site and to the work of the investigative agencies involved, particularly Dumfries and Galloway constabulary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow suggested, however, that it is no longer realistic for that police force to continue to conduct the investigation, which it began on 21 December 1988. The investigation came to be conducted by Scotland's smallest police force for the simple reason that the crime was committed in that police area. There are contingency plans—to request and obtain the assistance of other police forces—in place between police forces when dealing with such major incidents. I am sure that he appreciates that.

In response to the Lockerbie incident, the then chief constable, John Boyd, put that mutual aid plan into operation—so that, by the middle of the week after the occurrence of the disaster, more than 1,000 police officers from 11 police forces, both from Scotland and England, were involved in the investigation. The Metropolitan police was one of the police forces so involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow should, however, note that it became a criminal investigation once—on 28 December 1988—the cause of the crash was confirmed to be the result of the detonation of a bomb. From that point onwards, responsibility for investigation and prosecution of the crime became that of the then Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmylie. In exercising his responsibility for the prosecution of crime in Scotland, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is empowered by statute to give instructions to the chief constable on the investigation and reporting of offences.

The statutory relationship between the prosecuting and investigating authorities is reflected in the very high level of consultation between them on the case over the years, in relation to inquiries both in the United Kingdom and in foreign jurisdictions that required the issue of letters of request. As was said in reply to the fifth debate on the topic initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, on 13 December 1994, the procurator fiscal for Dumfries worked full time on the Lockerbie case from the date of the event until after issue of the warrants. For most of that time, he shared accommodation with the police.

During the investigation, members of the investigating team visited no fewer than 23 countries to pursue criminal inquiries. In total, during the criminal inquiry, some 70 countries made inquiries on behalf of the investigating authorities. The Dumfries and Galloway constabulary was able to pursue those inquiries as efficiently as any other police force—with such assistance as was necessary from other police forces—and remains able to call upon such assistance when the circumstances so dictate.

I think that it is vitally important—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will agree—to recognise the level of co-operation offered by and obtained from other police forces. Moreover, the international dimension has been and continues to be crucial to the case. It is an active and live aspect of the investigation.

Mr. Dalyell

Will my hon. Friend write to me on the following subject? Was there any point in time at which the Scottish police would have liked to interview certain persons in Germany, but, for some reason or other, it was made difficult for them to do so by the German police? I do not expect him to answer that question off the top of his head, but I would like a letter on the subject.

Mr. McLeish

My hon. Friend is pursuing this matter intensely and he must have some foresight about what I am going to say. If he is unhappy with my response, I shall wish to investigate further and write to him.

Particular mention should be made of the relationship that was established between the German police—the BKA—and the Scottish police and, indeed, between Scottish prosecutors and their German counterparts. There has in the past been unwarranted criticism of the level of co-operation between the Scottish and German investigating authorities. It has always been the firm policy of the Lord Advocate not to give details of investigative steps that are taken. No criminal investigation could be properly pursued where details of what steps had been taken were disclosed or heralded in advance. However, in relation to the co-operation between the Scottish police and their German counterparts, I remind my hon. Friend that the then Foreign Secretary on 1 February 1995, in view of the criticism to which I have referred, took the unprecedented step of confirming that requests were made for the interview of two individuals in Germany, that such requests were granted and that, indeed, Scottish police officers were present during those interviews. That might serve as one example of the manner in which relevant lines of inquiry can be pursued in the course of the criminal investigation. My hon. Friend's question perhaps ranged wider than that point, and I am happy to put on record the relationships that have existed between the Dumfries and Galloway police and other police authorities.

Mr. Dalyell

If the Scottish police were present on occasions as observers, was there any occasion when they were denied the opportunity to interview certain persons? At some point, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that an approach has been made to the public prosecutor's office in Frankfurt in the past few weeks to hold talks about what it is alleged has emerged?

Mr. McLeish

I have touched on the topic of the relationships between the German authorities and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. My hon. Friend asked whether access had been denied on any occasion. On that point, I shall write to my hon. Friend. I shall deal later with my hon. Friend's second point about the most recent revelations.

I should stress the calibre of officers involved in the inquiry. For example, the senior investigating officer, who was in post between the date of the disaster and the beginning of 1990, moved on to become the chief constable for the largest police force in Scotland. Other senior officers from other police forces were also closely involved in the investigation. Against that background, my hon. Friend has suggested that responsibility for the investigation should be transferred to the Metropolitan police from Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. It is unfair to Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, and to other police officers who have contributed over the years to the investigation, some of whom are now very senior indeed, to make such a suggestion. It would be incompatible with the system of criminal investigation in Scotland and, frankly, there is no good reason to change at this point.

Mr. Dalyell

Some of us think that there is a good reason why we should make that change. A major crime has not been solved after eight and a half years. Added to that, our country is being greatly damaged, economically and politically, in the Arab world. We should not be legalistic about that after all this time. If this were a normal crime, I would not be raising these points or challenging what my hon. Friend has said. However, the circumstances are extraordinary.

Mr. McLeish

I shall touch on the points that my hon. Friend has raised about the wider international significance. He suggested that there should be an external review of the evidence held by the prosecuting authorities by an English or European judge. He also suggested that a fresh mind is required. I am sure that there is no suggestion that the Lord Advocate is unable to assess accurately the sufficiency of the evidence or, worse, that his assessment of the case is not impartial.

The Lord Advocate is alone responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland. He has already given an assurance, on 25 June 1997 in another place, that he is satisfied on the information available to him that there is no reason not to proceed with the petition warrants issued in respect of the two Libyans accused. I am unclear on what basis it is being suggested that his assessment of the evidence should be reviewed by someone who may not be qualified in Scots criminal law and who would certainly not be accountable for the prosecution of the crime in Scotland. I point out that no fewer than four Lords Advocate, as my hon. Friend mentioned, from two different Administrations, have given full consideration to the totality of the evidence against the two accused. They have each concluded independently that the evidence justifies the proceedings against the two Libyans accused.

Mr. Dalyell

I went into the circumstances of the first Lord Advocate at inordinate length. The difficulty is, humanly speaking, that once a predecessor has taken a decision on a matter so complex, one would have to be a professor of Lockerbie studies to change it. Lords Advocate have many other matters to deal with and I wonder whether they can really go into detail that might be required to overturn a predecessor's judgment. John Stuart Mill had a phrase about the vested interests of the mind". Even in the light of all the doubts that have been raised, if a fresh mind—such as Lord Hope, Lord Clyde, Judge Edward, an English judge from the Court of Appeal or a European judge—came to the conclusion that the Crown Office had done exactly what it says it has, I would undertake to shut up on that subject.

Mr. McLeish

I have made the point that, based on the information, discussions, analysis and continuing review in the Crown Office, there is a reason for proceeding with the petition warrants issued in respect of the two Libyans accused. That judgment is predicated on the basis that evidence exists that would bring those two to trial. In a sense, I am confirming the view—and reinforcing the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to my hon. Friend—that there is no evidence that we need an outside person to come in and take a fresh look at. There is evidence that suggests we should proceed to prosecute the two Libyans, and that is the basis of the current debate.

Mr. Dalyell

May I gently say to my hon. Friend that, in the impossible event that I were Lord Advocate and knew that I had been counsel in a highly controversial fatal accident inquiry, I would have wanted to protect my own reputation—to put it at its lowest—and have someone come in and look at the matter? The problem is not only a question of the actuality, but the perception of the situation. The fact is that the present Lord Advocate played a controversial part in the fatal accident inquiry. That is a reason for having a fresh mind to consider the issue. What can be the difficulty in bringing in Lord Hope, Lord Clyde or Judge Edward? Those are not people who would make mischief.

Mr. McLeish

I think that my hon. Friend would agree with the logic of my comment in suggesting that we have the evidence to justify the proceedings against the two Libyans accused. Is it not the case that the issue now is that the two Libyans should be released by Libya, so that due process can take place? It is important to reinforce the points that have been made about the past four Lords Advocate and the continuing involvement of the Crown Office.

As I have already said, the judgment is that there is no need to ensure that the issue is widened to the independent scrutiny that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Dalyell

Dear oh dear. It is whistling in the wind to think that the Libyans will be brought to a British court. President Mandela spent 40 minutes of his hour with the British Prime Minister on the subject. There is no chance of their coming to a British court, given the situation in the Arab world. That is why my hon. Friend should be getting Foreign Office advice.

Mr. McLeish

I shall refer to further points that my hon. Friend has made later.

My hon. Friend asked what steps are being taken to investigate the recent allegations concerning statements from the office for islamic propaganda and statements reported in Der Spiegel magazine from the person named as Abolhassem Mesbahi. As I have already said, and as I told my hon. Friend in my written reply to him on 16 July 1997, it is the firm policy of the prosecuting and investigating authorities not to disclose details of investigative steps. The prosecuting and investigating authorities are, of course, acutely aware of their duty to investigate exculpatory evidence no less vigorously than incriminatory evidence. They take that duty seriously. While details of investigative steps cannot be given, all appropriate steps are taken in the discharge of that duty. Further than that I cannot go.

Any assertion that the refusal to disclose what steps are being taken is an excuse for inaction is not correct. Prosecuting and investigating authorities are not in the habit of proclaiming to all and sundry what steps they propose to take in pursuance of whatever course of action they deem to be appropriate. Equally, neither I nor the prosecuting and investigating authorities can be drawn into discussion or disclosure of details of the evidence because of the real danger of prejudicing the prospects of a fair trial for the two accused.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend used the phrase, "all and sundry". If he or I had lost a son or a daughter, we would think that we were entitled to know, as Dr. Jim Swire vehemently asks, whether the authorities had gone to see those at Der Spiegel or talked to the public prosecutor in Frankfurt. If the authorities say that they cannot disclose such details, we must be forgiven for thinking that a lot of people are sitting on their proverbial backsides. I am afraid that that is the perception.

Mr. McLeish

I do not think that that can logically be drawn from what I have just said. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts my sincerity. I have confirmed that the issue is serious. My hon. Friend has been close to many people involved and has a much greater appreciation of the issues than I could possibly have. The fact that evidence and details of the investigation cannot be released into the public domain should not be taken as a sign of inaction from the Crown Office or the Government or an indication that we are not taking vigorous steps to pursue the case.

My hon. Friend, along with others, may consider that the prosecuting authorities do not have sufficient evidence to prosecute the case against the two accused. Such assessments are made in a vacuum because the details of the evidence cannot be disclosed publicly.

My hon. Friend mentioned the impact that the United Nations Security Council sanctions are having on Libya and on British commercial interests. It is more than five and a half years since the Libyan Government were called on to surrender their two nationals for trial in Scotland or the United States. The demands for surrender are backed by United Nations Security Council sanctions, two of which are mandatory. However, surrender of the two accused for trial in Scotland or the US would transform the situation on sanctions. They can be lifted as soon as the requirements of the resolutions are fully complied with. We cannot arrange for Libya to fulfil those requirements—that is a matter for the Libyan Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend on 17 July, the Government will try every avenue to make progress in this matter, but the onus is on Libya to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The United Nations Security Council sanctions were renewed as recently as 10 July 1997 and the Government believe that they should remain in place until they are complied with. Anyone with an interest in resolving the matter should seek to encourage Libya to comply in full with the resolutions.

Mr. Dalyell

I should like to put it on record that I have tried, as have some parliamentary colleagues, to encourage the Libyans. I have told them that I believe that they would get a fair trial in Edinburgh. I am proud of Scottish justice, but one has to consider the situation from the Arab African point of view. They are not going to come to Scotland for trial. My hon. Friend the Minister is younger than me, but we shall both be kicking up the daisies before the matter is resolved if we stick to a policy of the onus being entirely on Libya. The problem will go on and on.

Mr. McLeish

My hon. Friend will appreciate that my comment should not be taken as a suggestion that he and others have not tried to get Libya to comply in full with the resolutions. I appreciate what he has said for the record.

Once the accused had appeared before the court, a full disclosure of the evidence against them would be made available to the defence in this case as in any other case. That disclosure would include not only the evidence to be led in proof of the charges against the two accused, but any evidence uncovered during the investigation that was consistent with their innocence. The trial could then proceed before a jury, untrammelled by premature disclosures of the evidence and in a forum in which the accused were properly represented and given an opportunity to test the strength of the evidence against them. That is the proper course to follow in deliberating on the guilt or innocence of anyone charged with a crime. With all due respect to my hon. Friend—I hope that he will acknowledge the spirit of this suggestion—the Floor of the House is not the proper place to be entering into discussion concerning the evidence in the case against the two accused or the sufficiency of that evidence.

I am aware that my comments today will provide little comfort to my hon. Friend or to those who lost friends or relatives as a result of this terrible crime. I am aware that the relatives desire truth and justice.

Mr. Dalyell

We raised the matter of what is being said in the holy city of Qom in Iran and the evidence produced by Stephen Breen of The Scotsman. I must be candid with my hon. Friend. I treat that with some caution, because some Iranian groups may well have wished to claim credit for that which they did not do. I understand that, given the volatile nature of what goes on in the Islamic Republic of Iran, all sorts of things may have happened. We are entitled to ask what steps are being taken to find out the truth or falsehood of what is said. The Dumfries and Galloway police do not have all the facilities to find out what happened without strong Foreign Office translation support. However, we really ought to find out what happened.

Mr. McLeish

I shall deal with that before I sit down.

If the prosecuting authorities were to disclose the details of the evidence at this juncture, all hope of there being a criminal trial of the two accused would be extinguished. The rightful expectation that justice be done could not be met.

There have, of course, been suggestions that the trial should proceed in a third country. My hon. Friend must by now be aware that we have objections to that in principle and in practice. First, the acceptance of a trial in a third country would be tantamount to allowing suspected terrorists to dictate where and by whom they should be tried for the crime of which they stand accused. Secondly, it would imply that we accepted the argument that the accused could not get a fair trial in Scotland. My hon. Friend has put on record his compliments to the quality of justice in Scotland. As long ago as September 1993, the Libyans accepted assurances delivered through the UN Secretary-General that trial in Scotland was fair. Thirdly, the United Nations Security Council resolutions require that the accused be delivered for trial in Scotland or the United States and not elsewhere. Fourthly, there would be enormous practical and legal difficulties in attempting to establish a trial outwith Scotland or the United States.

Finally, we do not believe that the Libyans intend that any such trial should take place. They have in the past stated that they are powerless to make the accused leave Libya for trial in Scotland or the United States in the absence of an extradition treaty with either of those countries. Equally, however, we must ask what powers they have to compel the attendance of their two nationals should any third country trial be set up in, for example, The Hague when there is no extradition agreement between Libya and the Netherlands.

On the suggestions that the two Libyan suspects be tried at The Hague, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there is no general international criminal court. The Bosnian and Rwandan tribunals were established because of the inability of the countries involved to hold a fair trial. I submit that that is not so in relation to the Lockerbie case.

I am aware that the current sanctions regime may be having an impact on the life of ordinary Libyan citizens, but the Government cannot accept that the blame for this situation should lie at the door of the Security Council or us.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend said that the Government cannot accept the blame. The truth is that the Government are being blamed along with the American Government, who may be the real motivators in all this. They are being blamed by most of the Arab world, almost the whole of Africa, President Mandela and a great many people in this country who have studied this issue. All the letters from the careful Edinburgh lawyers should be taken into account. To be blunt, this Administration, like the last Administration, are in cloud cuckoo land.

Mr. McLeish

My remarks are predicated on two simple points. First, we have the evidence to prosecute and pursue the two Libyans and, secondly, there are international pressures and sanctions which are being brought to bear on Libya to release the suspects. Although we could be criticised and attacked, logic suggests that the matter could be resolved by the Libyans presenting the two suspects and a trial taking place. Whether they are innocent or guilty is for the trial to establish.

The main reasons for the deprivation of the Libyan people go much wider than has been suggested. There is no objective justification for easing up on the UN sanctions regime before Libya has complied with the requirements of the Security Council resolutions.

I also share my hon. Friend's concern that British business may be losing out on a valuable export market. Once again, in our judgment the fault lies with the Libyan Government. It must also be remembered that our difficulties with the Libyan Government extend back to beyond Lockerbie to the murder of WPC Fletcher in April 1984. My hon. Friend has discussed that matter tonight.

Mr. Dalyell

The issue of WPC Fletcher is thrown into doubt by the three Fulcrum programmes "Murder at St James's". I plead with the Crown Office—television speculation is one thing, but Bernard Knight, the Home Office pathologist, said that the Government's explanation is impossible; Hugh Thomas, the consultant surgeon in Belfast, said that the bullets could not have entered in that way; and George Stiles, a ballistics expert, said that he does not believe that it could have happened in that way.

The Minister should remember that David Veness sat in his office in Scotland Yard last Thursday and told me that they were re-analysing the Yvonne Fletcher case. If Scotland Yard has sufficient doubt to re-analyse, how can one base a major foreign policy issue on such flimsy evidence? It is all very well to say, "Bring the Libyans," but I went on at inordinate length to explain why serious people have the gravest doubts about whether the Libyans did it in the first place. I realise that the Minister is in a difficult position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. I understand the complexities of the debate and the Minister has been generous in giving way, but I think that, at this stage, interventions should be a little briefer.

Mr. Dalyell

Given the complexity and doubts involved, it is building a major foreign policy on shifting sands.

Mr. McLeish

I may be doing a number of things tonight, but I am not shifting sands.

Mr. Dalyell

Building on shifting sands.

Mr. McLeish

I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have given the up-to-date position and I have tried to deal with the concerns that have been expressed.

I was saying that it would be wrong to allow purely commercial considerations to dictate the policy we adopt on sensitive issues such as these. I do not think for a minute that that is the thrust of my hon. Friend's contribution.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must make it clear that I did not say that my hon. Friend was shifting sands. I would not insult him because he has been generous in giving way and I appreciate that a great deal. It is a hard-working reply and I appreciate what he has done. I am saying that the policy was built on shifting sands in relation to the Yvonne Fletcher and Lockerbie evidence. I would not insult him—I do not feel like that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. McLeish

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's sincere and generous comments.

As my hon. Friend has said, I had a letter from U. K. Families Flight 103. It was about Abolhassem Mesbahi and the current revelations. I shall be frank; the latest revelations are being thoroughly investigated by the Crown Office.

We cannot go into detail about the investigations but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the matter is being dealt with urgently in the Crown Office. That point will be made to the families who have written to me. I wanted to wait until after the debate before speaking to them.

My hon. Friend referred to the response from Downing street by Philip Barton. In that letter, we make the point that

The investigation remains open and the prosecuting and investigating authorities will consider any evidence brought to their attention. As is always the case with these debates and the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, all of this evening's proceedings will have been recorded and all of the material will be with the Crown Office. I shall certainly want all the letters that I have received during this period to be given to the Crown Office. That is not only a courtesy to my hon. Friend but essential and necessary in the circumstances of this evening's debate.

I shall conclude on that, hoping that some of the concerns I have raised—

Mr. Dalyell

Before he concludes, I should like to thank my hon. Friend, on the record, for the tone of his reply, which is somewhat different from some—not all—of the replies I have received. I thank him very much for the work that he has put into this matter during a busy period.

Mr. McLeish

I am again grateful to my hon. Friend. When at the Dispatch Box one has responsibilities but also an opportunity to be sincere, especially in relation to a crime as heinous as the one we are discussing.

In summary, I shall respond to U. K. Families Flight 103 and I shall pass the appropriate material that I have received in the past few days to the Crown Office and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. I am sure that there will be further discussions between me and my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown).

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Nine o'clock.