House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Jan 1992

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : Hon. Members will recall that on 14 November last year my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement in the House in which he reported that a warrant had been obtained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The warrant,

Column 158

backed by a full statement of the facts, was delivered to the Libyan Government by the Italian Government, and a text of it has been placed in the Library.

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

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

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

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

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

I turn now to the speeches made by the hon. Members for Linlithgow and Tottenham. Both went into the events in considerable detail. I have no intention of doing so. As they know, two individuals have been named in a warrant. It is our intention that those two individuals should be

Column 159

brought to trial. In such circumstances, it would be wrong for me to comment on the evidence, not least because to do so may prejudice or be thought to prejudice a fair trial.

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

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

Mr. Dalyell : Will the Minister explain his use of the word "sufficient"?

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

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

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

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

The hon. Member for Linlithgow has called for a round-table conference with middle eastern countries to discuss the prevention of terrorism. Indeed, to be fair to him, that is the only thing for which he called. I have to say

Column 160

that that is a wholly inappropriate, not to say inadequate, response to one of the gravest crimes committed in post-war Europe. Two named people are charged with the gravest offences. They should stand trail. They will get a fair trial. It will be for the prosecution to prove the case against them. If there is any reasonable doubt as to their guilt, they will be acquitted. That is the way forward, and I hope that this House will endorse it.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grant : It has not been proved.

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

Mr. Dalyell : The Minister has been very good about giving way. If the country is a tyranny, why is it that 5,500 expatriates, British people working there, earning the Minister's bread and butter, my bread and butter and the bread and butter of the rest of us, take a very different view of what they think is an incorrupt and very efficient regime? The fact is that 5,500 of our fellow countrymen, many of them Scottish engineers, are working in Libya. It is simply not good enough to shrug our shoulders and say, "These people knew perfectly well what dangers they were going to." Perhaps they did know, but that is no reason to wash our hands of them. What does the Foreign Office think will happen to them if there is any further military

Column 161

action? Who would sanction it first? If there were sanctions, it would mean that those people could not come back as they do now. The general pattern is eight weeks in Libya working and two weeks over here seeing the headquarters of their homes and their families. It is high time that the Foreign Office, if it does not want to talk to the Libyans, at least talked to people such as Dick Morris of Brown and Root and employees of the 36 other British firms that are working in Libya. The Foreign

Column 162

Office should ask them whether they think that what the Minister has described is a sensible way to go about matters. For my part, I am extremely alarmed by the tone of the Minister's reply--

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

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

Written Answers Section

Home Page