§ 17. Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)If he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations to resolve Lockerbie-related problems. [54301]
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook)Last August, I announced agreements with the Governments of the Netherlands and of the United States on the conditions under which we could hold a trial of the two accused in a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. The agreement has been endorsed in a unanimous resolution of the Security Council, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in discussion with Libya on the arrangements for the handover of the two accused.
We have been able since to respond positively to all the concerns raised by the Libyan legal team, with the exception of the demand that, if convicted, the two accused should not serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. If they are found guilty, we can see no valid reason why they should not serve sentence in the jurisdiction of Scotland, where the mass murder took place.
§ Mr. DalyellIs it not a matter of record that the Libyan Government have constantly said that it is up to the defence team to decide, from its point of view, the locus of serving a sentence, if there is one? Does he not therefore take encouragement from the fact that, as far as most of us know, the defence lawyers have not objected to the locus of Scotland in terms of a sentence, if any sentence is passed?
§ Mr. CookIt is, indeed, the case that the defence lawyers have not expressed any view on where the accused should be held in prison. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that, before we made our offer last August, there was no statement from the Government of Libya expressing any concern about imprisonment in Scotland. That concern surfaced only after we had met their demand for a trial under Scottish law in a third country. We now expect Libya to oblige the Security Council resolution by surrendering the two accused for trial on exactly the same basis as that for which Libya itself has lobbied for a long time.
§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)As the Government of Libya have indicated in writing that they agree to the proposals, subject to some amendments, and as the British Government have said that there will be no amendments, is it not rather insulting to the House 153 that the draft order setting out the proposals for the trial and the expenditure has been dealt with under a procedure entailing that the order cannot be discussed in the House? Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it would be appropriate for the House to debate the order and to be able to express a view on it? Does he not also agree that there is a case for quiet private discussions and flexibility, and that the issue could well be resolved very speedily?
§ Mr. CookThe draft was passed by an Order in Council under the standard procedures for Orders 154 in Council, and gives effect to a Security Council resolution, which has standing in international law. As for flexibility, the Libyan defence team has come up with no concern on which we have not been able to reassure it, except for the one matter of it wishing to dictate where the two accused might serve their sentence if convicted.
There is nothing to stop any hon. Member debating the issue. I rather wish that we were dealing with a regime that would allow the Libyan people to discuss it in the same open way.