§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
10.17 pm§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)This debate takes place in circumstances that are entirely different from those of the previous 14 Adjournment debates on Lockerbie. Rosemary Wolf, the representative of the American relatives, is reported on Ceefax this evening as saying that Britain and the United States may allow two Libyan suspects to be tried in Holland. She said that she had been told by Madeleine Albright in a meeting that a trial under Scottish law but not on Scottish soil was being explored. This Adjournment debate is really a plea of encouragement for such a course of action.
We believe that there is no realistic hope of the Libyan suspects coming to either Scotland or the United States.
§ Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton)My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituent Julia Cadman, whose brother died at Lockerbie, has approached me on several occasions and asked me to express her concern at the delay in the trial and offered her views on how that should proceed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the overriding issue is one of flexibility in how the trial should proceed? That trial should go ahead and there should be fair jurisdiction when it does.
§ Mr. DalyellFlexibility is extremely important, but the Libyans have given clear assurances that they would come. Of course, it is fair to point out that the court would operate under all normal provisions of Scots criminal law, except that it would be in a neutral country venue; that there would be no jury; that the jury should be replaced by an international panel of judges led by a Scot; and that the Scot leading the panel should be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
§ Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be extremely useful if we were advised of what discussions, if any, have taken place between Foreign Office and Scottish Office officials, and. indeed, the Lord Advocate, in respect of the third country option, and whether those discussions were under way on 6 July, when the Scottish Grand Committee met in Edinburgh?
§ Mr. DalyellI would have to think carefully about that proposition.
The Libyans did agree that the UN Secretary-General should be asked to decide on the other, probably four, judges. I believe that they should be given a chance, and that the bottom line is a trial in Holland or no trial at all. That is the reality.
§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)I am more than grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kindness in allowing me five minutes to speak in a campaign on which he and I have engaged for many years.
Everyone would agree that there is a desperate need to ensure that we have a trial and thus clarify the facts of the appalling events that took place at Lockerbie. 1025 That is one thing on which everyone can agree. Sadly, over the years, the prospects of a trial taking place have faded away, first, because the Libyans, rightly or wrongly, have been unwilling to send people for a trial in which they believed the jury would have been previously influenced; and, secondly, because the United Kingdom and the United States have been unwilling to make any provision to change that. However, the Libyans have now said that they would co-operate in sending the two accused persons to a third country. Now, because their rights and their faith have been challenged, they have said that, if need be, they would hand them over to a third country—Egypt.
As we understand it, the UK and the US have obviously changed their view. There are many possible reasons for that: first, there was the European Court decision which suggested that they should decide where the trial should take place; secondly, there is the fact that many countries have been breaking the sanctions, and more have said that they will break them in September unless there is a change in policy; and, thirdly, there is the fact that the Scottish Parliament might take a special interest in the issue and table legislation that would bring it into conflict with the British Government. Whatever the reason for the Government's decision, it is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—I say hon. Friend even though we sit on opposite sides of the House—that there has been what we can all agree is good news.
I want to make one simple point. Having observed all that has happened, year after year, I hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who is a man of integrity, will use all his power to ensure that these developments will not be a trap. We must not have a situation whereby the United States can say, "We have offered the Libyans a trial in the Hague with an independent jury, but they have turned it down. We always knew that they were rascals, twisters, vagabonds and rogues." I am afraid that there are those in the American State Department who might engage in that activity, even though I am sure that, like civil servants everywhere, most American civil servants are nice, kindly people.
I appeal to the Government to use all their power to make sure that discussions proceed with good will and integrity. The obvious step now, if the Government can confirm the various reports that we have heard, would be for officials of both Governments to enter into private discussions, to sort everything out and to ensure that real progress can be made. On the basis of what the Libyans have said, that should take only a short time; if it took five years, we would know that the assurances that they have given are bogus and could not be trusted. Personally, I believe that, for their own good reasons, Britain, the United States and Libya are now anxious to resolve matters. My hope is that the Minister of State will make it clear that it would be the intention of the UK and US Governments to enter into discussion and consultation on the basis of good will and integrity, with the intention of producing a solution. What we want to know is who carried out this dreadful deed, and we want to make sure that the guilty parties are held responsible.
There is one more point that we should all bear in mind. We should consider our responsibility towards the relations of those who lost their lives in this terrible 1026 tragedy. We surely have a duty—much more important than party politics—to ensure that those whose relations lost their lives in an appalling tragedy will find out the facts, and the truth. I hope that the Government will say that they will use all their powers to endeavour to resolve the issue in private discussions and to ensure, first, that a trial takes place and, secondly, that the truth is told.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd)First, let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there is no doubt that his tenacity and diligence are well recognised through his pursuing of an issue that is important not only to him, but to a much wider audience.
My hon. Friend and others who are present—my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—are merely some among those who have rightly championed the cause of the Lockerbie families. Moreover, it is a matter of fact that those families have been regular attenders when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has raised the issue in Adjournment debates, and on other occasions.
The terrorist crime that we are discussing produced two sets of victims. Obviously, there were the 270 innocent men, women and children who lost their lives on that terrible night in December 1988, but there were also the relatives and friends who have had to endure grief and uncertainty for nearly 10 years, not knowing beyond all doubt who inflicted the pain of their sad loss. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton raised the issue on behalf of his constituents, but, having spoken to members of the families involved, I know that, even after all these years, the process of grief may in this case have been made not better but worse by the passage of time.
I can only begin to imagine the sense of loss and—obviously—the thirst for justice that motivate the Lockerbie families and their friends after 10 years of the search for truth. I assure the House that the Government share their objective. Resolving the tragic crime of Lockerbie has been a priority for the Government since 1 May 1997. This was a crime involving the mass murder of 270 people, and it cannot and will not be allowed to fade away simply because of the passage of time. The Government have devoted considerable time and energy to the search for a just solution, and we will continue to do so. That commitment—along with our commitment to fight terrorism from wherever it may come—is unshakeable. I think that the House and the country would want that to be well established.
Soon after the Government were formed, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate reviewed all the evidence at his disposal, and reached the same conclusion as his predecessors in that office. Specifically, he reached the conclusion that the evidence justified the proceedings against the two Libyans accused. That was a decision of the Lord Advocate alone, and was made on the basis of the facts made available to him.
The Lord Advocate is, of course, entirely independent in the pursuit of his prosecutorial functions. I respect the Lord Advocate; I respect his decisions, as I respect 1027 his professional skill, his judgment and his integrity. I do not say that just because it is important to record the fact that my noble and learned Friend has a difficult job to perform; I know from personal contact that he has applied himself to his task with considerable care and diligence. Moreover, from the very beginning he ensured that he went back to first principles in deciding that there was a case to answer—not just on the basis of the outrage that occurred at Lockerbie, but on the basis of the evidence that came before him.
On the basis of the Lord Advocate's decision, it was indeed right to pursue criminal proceedings. It has always been the Government's objective to secure a criminal trial at which justice would be done. We have sought to do that in accordance with the conditions set out in the three relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It remains our view, supported by the Security Council through its resolutions, that a Scottish or United States court is the place for the criminal trial, to which, as we have previously said, we would gladly invite international observers from any interested body, including the United Nations, the Organisation for African Unity, the Arab League and Libya itself. I repeat that we feel that we have nothing to hide in this process.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)I have the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to intervene in the debate.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I have long argued that such a trial should take place at the High Court in Edinburgh? I remind him of what the then Prime Minister said on 9 January 1996, when I asked him:
Why does the Prime Minister place so much emphasis on the need to try such persons in either Scotland or America? Why America?The then Prime Minister said:We are not asking them to. We think that the trial should take place in Scotland. We certainly do not think that it would be desirable—necessarily—for it to take place at The Hague. If, as they have occasionally intimated, the Libyans accept Scottish law and a Scottish judge, I know of no good reason whatsoever why the accused should not appear before a court in Scotland."— [Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 16.]I said to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that if such a trial were impossible in Scotland, it should be held at The Hague.
§ Mr. LloydI have heard my hon. Friend express similar sentiments in previous Adjournment debates. It is a matter of fact that he has been one of the friends—I can say this with no sentimentality attached to it—of the families of Lockerbie in wanting to pursue the matter to a conclusion, both through the House and elsewhere.
I do not speak for the previous Government, but I can certainly speak for the present Government. It has been our intention from the outset, on the basis of the Lord Advocate's view, that criminal proceedings were right and proper, and that those proceedings should take place. We want to see the accused before the courts. It remains our view that a Scottish or a United States court is the place for this criminal trial. Within that 1028 context, we would most certainly invite international observers. It would be almost bizarre if those observers did not wish to be present in keeping with the normal traditions of, in this instance, the Scottish judicial system.
There have been—perhaps this touches on my hon. Friend's most recent intervention—criticisms of the fairness of Scottish justice and the alleged partiality of courts in Scotland. I must state very clearly that we reject those criticisms. We do so because they have no foundation and because the Scottish legal system has proved itself against the test of time and against the test of challenge. That is an important safeguard within that legal system.
We reject thee criticisms because we believe that they have no foundation. What I have said is self-evident, and I think that it will have the support of the whole House. I notice that there are in the Chamber many Members representing Scottish constituencies.
Although it is self-evident that the Scottish legal system has no apologies to make, last December two independent legal experts chosen not by the British Government or the Lord Advocate, but by the Secretary-General of the United Nations were invited to Scotland to examine the Scottish legal system for themselves. One was a distinguished Zimbabwean High Court judge and the other a distinguished Dutch judge. They came to Scotland to examine the system, and they concluded not only that the Scottish legal system was fair and independent, but that, contrary to some Libyan claims, the accused would receive a fair trial in Scotland under that judicial system, and that their rights during the pre-trial, trial and post-trial proceedings would be fully protected in accordance with international standards.
That is important. The Lord Advocate and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland took the view that there was nothing to hide from outside witnesses. Those outside experts gave the seal of validity and approval to the Scottish judicial system. We welcome that as an acknowledgement that a trial under Scottish procedures would confirm with the best standards that apply in any part of the world. I do not expect that there will be disagreement in the House with that assessment.
I said earlier that the United Kingdom upholds the binding UN Security Council resolutions concerning Lockerbie and UTA. That remains the case. Those Security Council resolutions followed other atrocities. The shooting of WPC Fletcher, which is subject to continuing interest and challenge, has always been attributed to Libyan suspects.
§ Mr. DalyellAs my hon. Friend may know, I went to Scotland Yard at the invitation of the assistant commissioner, David Veness, for a long, long meeting. I have no doubt that Scotland Yard is doing its best, but when is the inquiry likely to conclude? We were promised that a good deal earlier.
§ Mr. LloydMy hon. Friend refers to the inquiry into the shooting of WPC Fletcher. I cannot give him an answer tonight. I know that the inquiry is examining the evidence from independent television sources. It is 1029 important for that to be completed. I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend's query. I undertake to inquire for him whether it is possible to give a date for the conclusion of that inquiry.
The atrocity that took place at Lockerbie was one of a series of atrocities committed as acts of terror, whose provenance was the state policy of the Libyan Government. There was a similar incident involving the UTA aircraft, and there was the bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany in 1986. In both cases, criminal proceedings are still taking place. The disco case is still before the German courts. The French have opted for a trial of suspects in absentia. Such a procedure has no precedent and cannot be replicated under Scottish law.
Because of that pattern, it remains necessary that we uphold as binding the UN Security Council resolutions. I remind the House that, as recently as 2 July this year, the sanctions review process at the United Nations reconfirmed the sanctions package that was imposed against the Libyan Government. That is right and proper, as the review process concluded that the Libyan Government had taken no steps to conform with their obligations under those Security Council resolutions.
We pledged to the families that, when we came into office, we would be willing to explore options in order to bring justice for them and for us all, ensuring that terrorist crimes are subject to the rule of law. Over the past 15 months, we have conscientiously pursued that undertaking to the families by considering how justice could best be secured. Naturally, we shall stay in touch with our partners and allies about such issues, but I underline the fact that no decisions have been taken.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow well knows, some of the families and others have suggested that a trial in a third country under Scottish criminal procedure might offer the best way forward. It is vital that everyone understands the legal, diplomatic and political complexities of such an undertaking. As my hon. Friend knows better than I, those complexities have been rehearsed in debates that he has attended over the years. Suffice it to say that those issues are no less complex today than they were previously. I repeat that our objective is to bring the two accused to a trial that will be regarded internationally as fair and competent.
As has always been the case, the solution to this distressing case lies in the hands of the Libyan Government, who, over the past six years, have chosen to adopt a policy of intransigence and non-compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions. Those resolutions are as binding on Libya as they are on the United Nations family. The issue remains unresolved because Libya refuses to abide by its international obligations. I note hon. Members' comments about the Libyan position, but we have seen no signs whatever of the Libyans wanting to bring the issue to a conclusion. Their track record does not lead us to conclude that they have sought to bring the matter to an end. I have already mentioned their entirely bogus assertion that a trial in Scotland would somehow not be fair, despite their acceptance more than five years ago of assurances given in that regard by the Government of the day, which we have repeated.
1030 More recently, Libya has tried to twist the interim judgment of the International Court of Justice. The court merely decided that it wanted to consider in detail at a full hearing the issues presented to it by Libya. The key point, which Libya seeks to obscure, is that the UN Security Council resolutions still stand. Those resolutions specifically require that, to have the impact of the sanctions regime lifted, Libya must surrender the two suspects for trial in Scotland or the United States. They are extremely clear and well-defined; there is no ambiguity in the obligations to the Libyans under that process.
I am acutely conscious of the fact that a wide range of conspiracy theories has grown up about Lockerbie in the last 10 years. Some have been put to me directly by the victims' families. I say with no hint of criticism that I well understand them. It is not surprising that some bizarre theories—and some less bizarre—circulate, given that the evidence held by the prosecuting authorities must, perforce of circumstances, remain confidential to preserve the fairness of a criminal trial, which remains our aim.
We are rightly proud of the genuinely magnificent and painstaking work done by the Scottish police, led by the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has paid tribute to the role of the police on more than one occasion.
§ Mr. DalyellAfter 10 long years, does not work get out of date? After all, key witnesses or key dramatis personae may depart this life in the course of time.
§ Mr. LloydI have absolute sympathy with my hon. Friend about the passage of time, but I repeat that, since they came to power, the Government have sought to bring the matter to an acceptable conclusion, which would mean making sure that the two suspects appear before the courts. I must emphasise to him that, in the Lord Advocate's view, the evidential base still clearly exists to allow that prosecution to go ahead. The unacceptable passage of time has done nothing to lesson the pain of the families; indeed, it has served only to increase it. Nevertheless, that problem can be resolved only if the Libyan Government ensure that the two suspects appear before an acceptable court—a Scottish court.
We want the evidence to be tested in court at the earliest possible opportunity, and the place to do that is a Scottish or a United States court. The Libyan authorities are well aware that the way is open for them to arrange the surrender of the two accused for a fair trial in Scotland or in the United States, in compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has written twice to Libyan Ministers, restating our position. The suggestion has been made that the Government refuse to talk with the Libyans to understand their point of view. That simply is not the case; we have had exchanges at Foreign Secretary level with the Libyan equivalent of a Prime Minister and with the Foreign Minister, and there are regular exchanges with the Libyan authorities in Tripoli through the British interests section.
I invite the House to draw its own conclusion from the Libyans' repeated failure to respond positively. 1031 The sanctions imposed by the Security Council on Libya more than six years ago are still in force because of Libyan intransigence, and we must not forget that. The greatest kindness that Libya's friends could render would be to persuade the Libyan authorities to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions forthwith.
1032 We will continue our search for justice for the sake of the families—
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.