| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lockerbie
Q2. Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met President Clinton, they discussed the advisability of continuing with the pursuit of those persons alleged to have committed the murders at Lockerbie in December 1988. [6369]
The Prime Minister: On 29 November, I discussed Lockerbie and Libya briefly with President Clinton. Both Britain and the United States remain committed to bringing to justice those responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. The evidence supports the charges against the two accused.
Dr. Godman: Why does the Prime Minister place so much emphasis on the need to try such persons in either Scotland or America? Why America? Why does he not tell President Clinton that it makes much better sense to try those individuals at the High Court in Edinburgh or, failing that, at an international tribunal at The Hague? Surely he cannot expect the Libyan authorities to allow those individuals to subject themselves to a television show trial in Washington.
The Prime Minister: 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. That is where the crime was committed--above Scotland--and that is where I believe the accused should most properly stand trial. I hope that that will occur and I hope that the accused will be surrendered by the Libyan Government so that justice can be seen to be done.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As we have an absolute obligation to the relatives of those who died in that appalling massacre, and as the people of Libya are suffering terribly from the policy of sanctions, what is the argument against passing a simple law in this House that would enable the two accused persons to be tried at The Hague in exactly the same way as other foreign alleged criminals--from Serbia, for example--are being tried? Should we not try to resolve the problem quickly in the interests of those who lost relatives in that appalling carnage?
The Prime Minister: I, too, have seen some of the suggestions that the accused should be surrendered for trial in one place or another, but there is no guarantee whatever that the accused would be made available for trial if we went to the trouble of setting up a trial in a third country--at, for example, The Hague.
On a wider but relevant point, I do not think that we ought to allow suspected terrorists to dictate where and how they should be tried. That would imply an acceptance of the accused's assertion that they would not receive a fair trial in Scotland. That is not an assertion that I believe the House should accept.
Engagements
Q3. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6370]
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Campbell: Since the Prime Minister's majority is getting smaller and smaller, will he stop the privatisation of the railways, which is costing taxpayers £1 billion, stop the back-door privatisation of the health service, and certainly not go ahead with the privatisation of the Post Office? Will he resign now, call a general election and take his little creeps with him?
The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is of course no. I am rather surprised to hear that question from him. Unless I misremember, it was the hon. Gentleman who, not very long ago, said that the Labour leadership
- "got it into their heads that Labour is unelectable unless it goes down this social democratic road. That is rubbish". The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would claim that that is exactly the road that they are going down. On that basis, and considering what the hon. Gentleman just said, he ought not to want an election.
Q4. Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6371]
The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Alexander: In view of the healthy economic statistics that my right hon. Friend gave the House a moment ago, especially the fact that inflation is now at its lowest level for 50 years, is it not abundantly clear to all independent observers that Britain is a success story? Will he confirm to the House and the country that he has no
intention of putting all that at risk by coming forward with the sort of half-baked ideas that we had from the midday sun in Singapore recently?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely correct about the success that the country now has, which is recognised in almost every country in the world with, perhaps, the solitary exception of this one. I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that we have success. We have provided the basis to turn our country into the most enterprising country in Europe. We are now in a position to return to a tax-cutting agenda and to give people more choice, more opportunity and genuine ownership--a genuine stake in this society. That is the way in which we believe it is right to proceed, and will proceed.
Q5. Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 January. [6372]
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that there is no place in the modern Conservative party for those who believe in closer ties with Europe?
The Prime Minister: Sadly for the hon. Lady, that is not what my right hon. Friend said.
Mr. Hargreaves: In view of the number of questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during recent Defence questions, will my right hon. Friend take time to speak with the Secretary of State for Defence on the subject of the forthcoming order of ambulances for the Army?
The Prime Minister: Nothing has yet been decided on the subject of the order of ambulances for the Army. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who answered questions this afternoon, will report the views of the House to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Holloway Prison
3.30 pm
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy pursued by the authorities in Holloway prison in manacling pregnant prisoners in labour.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I am grateful to have the opportunity to clarify both Prison Service policy in general and the practice in Holloway. It is our policy to secure all prisoners under escort for whatever reason, but where medical treatment is concerned we remove restraints for both male and female prisoners as and when requested by medical staff. However, it is the policy of the Prison Service not to keep women handcuffed while in labour and childbirth. It has never been Prison Service policy to keep women handcuffed during labour and childbirth. Although I am explaining this now for the benefit of hon. Members, the policy was also explained by the Director General of the Prison Service on a number of occasions over the weekend. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. We must have order in the House. The Minister is making an important statement. Those who are not interested are perfectly free to leave, but the rest of us would like to hear what she has to say.
Miss Widdecombe: The practice at Holloway prison is to follow the national policy to which I have just referred. The case that has probably prompted the hon. Gentleman's concerns stems from Channel 4's use of secret cameras outside the labour ward at Whittington hospital. I must say that their use on this occasion meant that the full story was not told.
The cameras filmed the prisoner every time she left the maternity ward and entered the public areas either to use the lavatory or to smoke a cigarette. During that time, which was prior to the confirmation of labour, she was secured. While she was in the labour ward, she was not handcuffed or manacled, even before labour was confirmed. Once labour was established, the prisoner was allowed out of the ward unsecured, as has been confirmed by hospital staff.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |