Previous Section Home Page

Column 152

Mills, Iain

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Moate, Roger

Monro, Sir Hector

Morrison, Sir Charles

Moss, Malcolm

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Neubert, Sir Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Norris, Steve

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Paice, James

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Portillo, Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Riddick, Graham

Rowe, Andrew

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shelton, Sir William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Speller, Tony

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Steen, Anthony

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Summerson, Hugo

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Viggers, Peter

Waller, Gary

Wheeler, Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wilkinson, John

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Younger, Rt Hon George

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. David Lightbown and

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Dr. Marek : I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (4).

I have tabled the amendment because I am genuinely perplexed. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will explain these matters in simple and lucid terms so that we can all understand them.

Mr. Maude : I cannot guarantee that I can meet the concluding part of the request of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), but I shall endeavour to fulfil the first part.

The amendment would remove subsection (4), which provides for a reimbursement made under the clause to be treated as a repayment for technical purposes under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866. Strictly this is because the reimbursements made under the clause will not be repayments of stamp duty but equivalent payments. This will not affect the amount that taxpayers receive, only the form of the payments. It is to avoid any possible risk that the legal status of a document that has already been stamped may be prejudiced if stamp duty already paid had to be refunded.

Section 10 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act permits the Inland Revenue to deduct tax repayments from the gross revenue that it collects before paying it into the Consolidated Fund. Subsection (4) of the clause is necessary because the reimbursements will technically not be repayments of duty but tantamount to tax repayments. It is sensible, therefore, to deal with them in the same way as tax repayments. There is no question of the Inland Revenue making a payment in a case where no tax has been paid. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Column 153

Lockerbie Bombing

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

1.3 am

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : I have obtained a copy of part of an investigation report submitted by the Lockerbie police to the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. The report is significant because it appears to contradict statements made to the House on 14 November by the Foreign Secretary about the Lockerbie bombing. In reply to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)--whose role, in my opinion, in relation to Libya has been serious and honourable throughout--the Foreign Secretary said :

"I deliberately put in that sentence that there was no evidence about the involvement of other Governments."--[ Official Report, 14 November 1991 ; Vol. 198, c. 1230.]

However, the report, publicly quoted I believe for the first time by me tonight, unambiguously details evidence from the Scottish police which implicates a Syrian-based terrorist organisation. The report is entitled :

"Bombing of Pan Am 103 : Interview of Marwan Abdel Razzaq Mufti Khreesat as a suspect."

I should say to the House that I asked Sir William Sutherland, QPM, chief constable of Lothian and Borders, with whose force I have worked in harmony and respect for 30 years as a Member of Parliament, to approach chief constable Esson, and deputy chief constable Orr about the possibility of my talking to them. Understandably, these two police officers and their colleagues in the Scottish police, for whom I have sincere admiration, declined to do so. I would not like colleagues to think that I have been discourteous to the police or critical of them in the face of what is the greatest crime committed against civilians of the western world this decade.

I shall quote from the conclusions of the report, a copy of which I have given to the Foreign Office, together with tonight's speech. It states :

"Evidence could have been led to the fact that after being in Germany for 13 days he [Marwan Khreesat] had not approached Dynacord, which was supposed to be the reason for his visit."

That company was not approached by police until 22 February 1989. I am exceedingly unhappy about the actions of the German police and the CIA and I am sending copies of this debate to the American and German ambassadors.

The long report ends :

"It is possible that the brown suitcase was delivered to another person while Dalkamoni was parking his car' and that that suitcase contained another IED (Improvised Explosive Device), and that the suitcase referred to is the brown Samsonite suitcase which contained the IED on PA103.

The IED which was recovered in the Ford Taunus appears to be similar to the IED which destroyed PA103.

A similar device, hidden in a record player, was used on the El Al plane in August 1972, and one Marwan Omar Krisat is still wanted in this connection.

There can be little doubt that Marwan Abdel Razzaq Mufti Khreesat is the bomb-maker for the PfLP-GC, that he was brought to West Germany for that express purpose and there is a possibility that he prepared the IED which destroyed PA103. As such he should not be at liberty but should be closely questioned regarding his activities with a view to tracing his associates in the attack."

Has the Foreign Secretary been shown that document by the Scottish police? Although it was written in 1989, I understand it has never been contradicted or withdrawn.

Column 154

In my discussion of 50 minutes with the courteous Lord Advocate, I gained the impression that for the first 18 months of the inquiry there was substantial information, still relevant, pointing to the involvement of an Iranian and Syrian-based organisation.

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

I shall quote pages 212 and 213 of David Leppard's excellent book "On the Trail of Terror". It states :

"The commissioning and the inspiration for the bombing came from the Iranians. They commissioned an operation against an American civilian airliner in revenge for the shootdown of the Iranian airbus in the Gulf in July of 1988. The original commission was given to Jibril. Jibril's commission was frustrated because the [West German] unit that was to go against aircraft including American civilian aircraft was arrested.

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

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

I cannot do better than quote the last paragraph of the powerful leader in The Sunday Times of 24 November 1991 :

"Maybe it has been necessary to be nice to Iran and Syria to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Beirut. It must be more than coincidence that both countries were officially cleared of any Lockerbie involvement just a few days before Terry Waite and Thomas Sutherland were at last released. Our joy at their freedom should be tempered by the shame of the cost : the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bomb must now come to terms with the fact that most of those behind the murder of their loved ones are going to get away with it. The cause of justice is being sacrificed on the altar of diplomatic convenience. We will live to regret it."

I find it extraordinary that the prime suspect, as identified by the Scottish police, has not--after three years and some £20 million of taxpayers' money spent on the inquiry--been interviewed. I also find it extraordinary that

Column 155

we appear not to have actively sought information about the suspected involvement of officials, or foreign officials, of the Iranian and Syrian Governments in the conspiracy to blow up a western civilian airliner in the latter half of 1988.

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

I was deeply concerned to read a front-page report in this week's Tribune by Ian Williams, the paper's United Nations correspondent. He wrote :

"Speculation is growing in the United Nations that John Major and George Bush are looking to fight their 1992 election campaigns on the back of military action against Libya."

That, apparently, is the view of the United Nations in some quarters.

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

1.12 am

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

As a person of African descent, I am particularly concerned about the plight of African countries and their peoples. That is why I am so keen to see justice done in the case of Libya. I am also opposed to terrorism, and keen to see the perpetrators of this horrendous crime brought to justice-- but not tried by a kangaroo court. After the Gulf war, President Bush talked about a new world order and about big nations not taking advantage of small ones. He talked about the need for legality, international law and respect for a nation's sovereignty. It is on precisely those points that I wish to dwell. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow spoke about the evidence in the case, but I wish to deal with other matters. Let me make three points. The first concerns the legal position. The Minister must state the legal basis on which he is acting when he asks the Libyans to hand over two of their nationals. Under which international convention or agreement is he acting?

Under the 1971 Montreal convention, the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, unless there is an extradition treaty in force between countries--in this case, between Libya and Britain--Libya is entitled, indeed obliged, to try the offenders under her own domestic law. Article 7 applies, as there is no extradition treaty between Britain and Libya. The article states :

"The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence

Column 156

was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State." Furthermore, article 14 of the Montreal convention states : "Any dispute between two or more Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court."

Libya was a signatory to the Montreal convention on 19February 1974. Britain is also a signatory to the convention.

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

Since Libya received the warrant from the Lord Advocate, it has acted in accordance with its own domestic law and with international law by appointing a High Court judge who is carrying out an investigation into the charges levelled against the two Libyan citizens. The Minister should state why the Government are not prepared to allow police officers, or other relevant officials, to co-operate with the Libyans in their attempts to deal with the matter, as international law both permits and demands that they do, especially as the articles in the Libyan criminal procedure code, which prohibits the handing over of the men without proper evidence, were set up by the British in 1953. The legal system in Libya has not been altered since that time, I understand. Just as Britain would not hand over its citizens to another country for trial without proper prima facie evidence, neither should Libya be expected to do so. My second point concerns the position of Malta. The charges laid by the Lord Advocate make much of the Maltese link in the trail that led to the Lockerbie tragedy. Like so much else in the version of events that we have been given, there are grounds for believing that this, too, is open to question. I recently visited Malta and spoke to senior members of the Maltese Government about the Maltese connection in all this. I was told in no uncertain terms that the Maltese Government, who had their own investigating team working alongside the Scottish police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, co- operating with them at every stage and seeing the same evidence, came to a completely different conclusion from them.

In the opinion of the Maltese authorities, the evidence to support a Maltese connection is, at best, very feeble. They had found no evidence to support the United States-United Kingdom assertions that the bomb originated in Malta. The Maltese Government's views

Column 157

could not be reconciled with the views of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments, despite visits to Malta by the Minister of State, the deputy Attorney-General of the United States and the Lord Advocate.

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

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

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

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

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

1.21 am

Next Section

  Home Page