| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich) indicated assent.
Mr. Dalyell: I see my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) nodding in agreement because he has been to Libya and witnessed what the reaction is likely to be.
Mr. Austin-Walker: I have indeed had discussions with the lawyers for the two accused, and I believe that we would all agree that it is in the best interests of the accused and of the families of the victims of Lockerbie
that those accused are brought to trial soon. I have also had discussions, as my hon. Friend is aware, with the Secretary of the Arab League, who has made proposals, which I believe are acceptable to the defence counsel in Libya and to the Libyan Government, for a trial to take place in The Hague before Scottish judges under Scottish law. Does my hon. Friend consider that that would be a way to proceed, and would he urge the Government to accept that offer?
Mr. Dalyell: I do, and I believe that my hon. Friend's intervention is extremely important and must be replied to by the Government.
Secondly, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to allow our hostile relations with Libyans, many of whom were educated in Britain, to drift on indefinitely and for a longer period than our post-war hostility to Germany after massive bloodshed, mayhem and horror in the second world war?
Thirdly, how does information about the whereabouts of the timer, and in whose possession the timer is,in any way prejudice a trial? The truth, I believe, is that if the authorities have a timer at all, it is not the timer from Pan Am 103 but a different timer, probably acquired later via Senegal.
We do not know when the timer was found, who found it and what happened to it after it was found, and it beggars belief that such a sensitive device, after months of exposure to a Scottish winter, could, in fragments or otherwise, be in a pristine condition. It is all too clear why the Government will not show the timer to the makers, Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpart--because they might identify it as not having been of a Libyan batch. Photographs are all that have been made available.
Pamela Dix, their secretary, speaking for the relatives of the Lockerbie victims, says that they are deeply suspicious of photographs and want an independent forensic inquiry, conducted by agreed experts. Will such an inquiry be considered?
Finally, can it be true that the Minister, in his meeting with the relatives, Dr. Swire and the Rev. John Mosey, said that the British Government were opposed to a trial in The Hague partly because they were worried about the possibility of wrongful acquittal? "Fear of wrongful acquittal"--did he say that?
Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood):
I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on securing the debate on this important subject. I am grateful to him and to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for agreeing to allow me to make a short contribution to the debate, in which I shall concentrate on the Libyan question. I begin by declaring an interest which appears in the Register of Members' Interests--I visited Libya last April as a guest of the Islamic Council of Scotland.
I do not intend to examine the position of the Crown Office. However, it is fair to say that many people with no particular axe to grind are having increasing doubts
about the Crown Office's position--particularly about why apparently solid evidence which might have led the Crown Office to a different conclusion has been rejected. I shall make two points about the sanctions policy.
First, what is the objective? The hon. Member for Linlithgow pointed out correctly that the objective is not succeeding in relation to Iraq. History shows that such economic sanctions do not succeed, and there is not the slightest evidence that such sanctions will be effective in achieving their declared purpose in relation to Libya--especially as there appears to be no real communication between the British and the Libyan Governments on the issue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to explain why the British Government are so opposed to the international court idea, to which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred.
Finally, there is a widespread view that the British are the only people who are obeying the sanctions policy. The Americans are using the South Koreans to get around the policy and the Italians, being Italians--I do not want to sound like a Euro-sceptic--never obey any of those policies. The net result is that the British are obeying the sanctions and other countries are not. Great damage is therefore being done to jobs--particularly in the west of Scotland, given its export orientation--without achieving any political objective.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) for his kind remarks at the end of his speech. I assure him that the Government and I are acutely aware of the great suffering of the relations of the victims of the appalling Lockerbie disaster. The Government will do everything we can to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice--that is the bond which unites all of us in the House tonight. However, we have substantial differences of opinion as to how that could best be achieved, and that is why we are debating the issue this evening.
I am slightly saddened that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has raised the issue again, only two and a half months after he last raised it in the same terms on 29 November last year. It does not do the cause any good to run continually around this course when there are no new facts and no changes which might make the Government look at the issue afresh. We discussed the matter at great length during the debate on 29 November and I have met the hon. Gentleman and the families of the victims. We all want to achieve the objective of bringing to justice the persons responsible for a horrendous crime, but replaying the record when we have substantial differences of opinion on how to achieve that objective is not necessarily the best way forward. The hon. Gentleman raised precisely the same points today as when he was previously answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but he raised other points as well and I shall attempt to respond.
Mr. Dalyell:
If that is not the best way forward, what is the best way?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
The best way forward is that which the Government are adopting. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are better ways. I know that he does not agree with us, but we have made it abundantly clear to him why we are taking the action that we are and going down the road that we are. I shall spell out the reasons again for the hon. Gentleman, so that there can be no conceivable doubt.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow quoted the Bishop of Leicester--and in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he did so in full--but he paid no regard to the phrase used by the bishop in regard to the responsibilities of the Iraqi Government. The House will forgive me if I repeat that part of the bishop's broadcast. He said:
Responsibility for what is happening to the Iraqi people rests squarely with Saddam Hussein and his cohorts. Security Council resolution 986 would allow a net purchase of $2.5 billion worth of medical and humanitarian aid per annum in exchange for the oil that Iraq could sell. The UN conditions for providing that relief are perfectly reasonable, but Saddam Hussein's regime has consistently rejected them. I am not prepared to accept any responsibility on behalf of western Governments for the action of that evil man in denying to his people the aid that is available to them.
The $2.5 billion that is available to Iraq under the UN arrangement compares with a total of $5 billion spent annually on all civilian purchases made in Iraq before the Gulf war. It is ridiculous for anybody to suggest that the hardship being caused to the Iraqi people by the absence of medical and humanitarian aid is the responsibility of western Governments, because it is not--it is the responsibility of the home Government. I cannot spell that out more strongly or with greater sincerity and fervour.
Iraqi and United Nations representatives are meeting today in New York to discuss implementation of the Security Council resolution. I am not hopeful that they will arrive at a solution, because every time until now the Iraqi Government have turned down the UN offer. Nevertheless, I pray that the Iraqis will see reason on this occasion.
There is an argument that sanctions are not effective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood implied.I do not believe that that is so. I hold the opinion that in this case, as with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in that troubled area, sanctions have been immensely effective. We have seen substantial compliance as a direct result of the sanctions that we have imposed on Iraq.I refer in particular to Iraq's recognition of Kuwait and the weapons inspections that have been allowed. I wish that I could say that that was satisfactory, but it is not. The British Government are not satisfied that all chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed--clearly they have not. Iraq's development of Scud missile technology continues apace, and we have not received any satisfactory explanation from the Iraqi Government of how they will comply with UN requirements--and that is critical in preventing Iraq going on the warpath again.
Iraq's human rights record has been appalling and remains appalling. I refer to the report by Mr. van de Stoel--as my right hon. Friend did in the last debate--of 8 November 1995, in which he set out in graphic and horrific detail the torture and abuse that the Iraqi regime is inflicting on its political prisoners. Therefore, sanctions must be continued, and we must ensure that Iraq complies with the UN resolutions. We cannot look for a swift end to these problems, but it must be made clear that this dictator will not be allowed to rearm his country and go on the warpath once more, as I believe he has every intention of doing. The international community must remain vigilant at all times to contain this man and maintain the sanctions as a warning to him that he must not again invade Kuwait or attack western interests.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood and the hon. Member for Linlithgow have a great and abiding concern about Libya, especially with respect to the Lockerbie disaster. I greatly respect that, and the relatives who suffered from this appalling tragedy are lucky to have a champion such as the hon. Gentleman. For all his good intentions, however, I profoundly disagree with the conclusions that he draws as to the way forward on this issue.
I believe that the sanctions against Libya--unlike those relating to Iraq, they do not include oil--must remain in place. They are limited, but they are having an effect on the Libyan regime. There has been a change in Gaddafi's attitude to actively supporting terrorism over the past few years, and there has been some lessening of his aggression against the west. With regard to the Lockerbie disaster, however, we have not yet reached the point that we must reach--to get the two people whom we want indicted and brought to justice released to us for trial in Scotland.
I recently met the relatives of the victims of the tragedy. I cannot express this evening my sympathy for them any more strongly than I did on those occasions, but it is sincere: I can think of no worse horror befalling any father, mother, family or relative than to have their beloved killed in such a fashion. But sympathy cannot divorce us from the reality of the political situation: we have no possibility of getting those people to trial unless we can persuade or force the Libyan Government to release them to us for trial in the place where they should be tried.
There has been an offer of a sort from the Libyan Government to release the men for trial in a third country. I did not find unanimity among the relatives for that offer. Some thought it was a good one, others did not. In any case, it was a phoney offer. It was made in an advertisement in the Washington Post of 8 November, and it has not been sustained by the Libyan leadership.
The Libyan position is contradictory. In a letter to the president of the Security Council on 27 January this year, the secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Co-operation repeated Libya's demand that an
That is very different from saying that the accused will be delivered for an independent trial at The Hague or elsewhere.
We cannot be sure from one moment to another what the intentions of the Libyan Government may be.I explained to the relatives the reason why we find the
idea of trial in The Hague unacceptable. They were the same as those given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in the Adjournment debate on 29 November. His main points were that, first, it is unacceptable to allow suspected terrorists to dictate where and how they should be tried. The United States and Scottish courts have both exercised jurisdiction, and they are the courts with a proper right to do so. The trial should be held in one or other of them, as the Security Council resolution has demanded.
Secondly, a third country trial might imply that the Lockerbie suspects could not get a fair trial in Scotland. The Libyan Government indicated in 1993 acceptance that the suspects would indeed get a fair trial if they were tried in Scotland, and I am sure that no Member of this House would suggest otherwise. The court in The Hague, as proposed, would not have a jury, and that in itself is a fundamental breach of the principle of Scottish law.We would have to think very carefully before considering a trial that did not accord with the full precepts that Scottish law demands. There is no provision for a trial outside Scotland. Enormous practical and legislative difficulties would therefore be involved in the arrangement of such a trial, should that be appropriate. Legislation would be required in both countries.
Even if it were possible to set up a court, there would be no guarantee that suspects would be made available to it. The Libyan Government have never given a strong and positive undertaking to hand over the accused; indeed, they have maintained that they have no powers to force the suspects to go to trial anywhere. Thus there is enormous scope for the Libyan Government to prevaricate, and to try to delay the matter into the distant future.
As the hon. Gentleman said, when I was talking to the relatives and trying to convey my profound sympathy for their suffering, I said that they, like Her Majesty's Government, would consider it important for no trial to take place in any form that would not have a proper, legal and justifiable outcome. I said that it would be possible for a court--constituted we know not how or where--to come up with an acquittal that the evidence did not justify. That would not be satisfactory, and I do not believe that any hon. Member would want such an outcome.
Only after years of painstaking effort was sufficient evidence amassed to enable the then Lord Advocate to seek the warrants. The present Lord Advocate and his two predecessors are fully satisfied that the evidence supports
the charges that have been brought. After so much work, it would be a tragedy to undermine the deployment of the evidence before an appropriate and properly constituted court of law that was able to try the case fairly and reach the right conclusion under the law, whatever that conclusion might be. The case is prepared so as to be readily presentable before a Scottish or United States court. That is the way in which it is prepared, and it would not be appropriate to try to deploy it elsewhere--before a tribunal or court whose constitution could not be compatible, under present law, with the way in which such matters are dealt with in Scotland.
"We had several meetings with Iraqi Ministers and were angered and frustrated by the way it seemed to us that they were prepared to hold their own people hostage to put pressure on the West to totally lift sanctions when, with a modicum of good will, modest amounts of medical and food aid could be supplied to the Iraqi people without any great principle being breached."
"independent inquiry should be conducted to arrive at the truth of the incident".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |