| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dalyell: If the Scottish police were present on occasions as observers, was there any occasion when they were denied the opportunity to interview certain persons? At some point, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that an approach has been made to the public prosecutor's office in Frankfurt in the past few weeks to hold talks about what it is alleged has emerged?
Mr. McLeish: I have touched on the topic of the relationships between the German authorities and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. My hon. Friend asked whether access had been denied on any occasion. On that point, I shall write to my hon. Friend. I shall deal later with my hon. Friend's second point about the most recent revelations.
I should stress the calibre of officers involved in the inquiry. For example, the senior investigating officer, who was in post between the date of the disaster and the beginning of 1990, moved on to become the chief constable for the largest police force in Scotland. Other senior officers from other police forces were also closely involved in the investigation. Against that background, my hon. Friend has suggested that responsibility for the
investigation should be transferred to the Metropolitan police from Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. It is unfair to Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, and to other police officers who have contributed over the years to the investigation, some of whom are now very senior indeed, to make such a suggestion. It would be incompatible with the system of criminal investigation in Scotland and, frankly, there is no good reason to change at this point.
Mr. Dalyell:
Some of us think that there is a good reason why we should make that change. A major crime has not been solved after eight and a half years. Added to that, our country is being greatly damaged, economically and politically, in the Arab world. We should not be legalistic about that after all this time. If this were a normal crime, I would not be raising these points or challenging what my hon. Friend has said. However, the circumstances are extraordinary.
Mr. McLeish:
I shall touch on the points that myhon. Friend has raised about the wider international significance. He suggested that there should be an external review of the evidence held by the prosecuting authorities by an English or European judge. He also suggested that a fresh mind is required. I am sure that there is no suggestion that the Lord Advocate is unable to assess accurately the sufficiency of the evidence or, worse, that his assessment of the case is not impartial.
The Lord Advocate is alone responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland. He has already given an assurance, on 25 June 1997 in another place, that he is satisfied on the information available to him that there is no reason not to proceed with the petition warrants issued in respect of the two Libyans accused. I am unclear on what basis it is being suggested that his assessment of the evidence should be reviewed by someone who may not be qualified in Scots criminal law and who would certainly not be accountable for the prosecution of the crime in Scotland. I point out that no fewer than four Lords Advocate, as my hon. Friend mentioned, from two different Administrations, have given full consideration to the totality of the evidence against the two accused. They have each concluded independently that the evidence justifies the proceedings against the two Libyans accused.
Mr. Dalyell:
I went into the circumstances of the first Lord Advocate at inordinate length. The difficulty is, humanly speaking, that once a predecessor has taken a decision on a matter so complex, one would have to be a professor of Lockerbie studies to change it. Lords Advocate have many other matters to deal with and I wonder whether they can really go into detail that might be required to overturn a predecessor's judgment. John Stuart Mill had a phrase about the
Mr. McLeish:
I have made the point that, based on the information, discussions, analysis and continuing review
Mr. Dalyell:
May I gently say to my hon. Friend that, in the impossible event that I were Lord Advocate and knew that I had been counsel in a highly controversial fatal accident inquiry, I would have wanted to protect my own reputation--to put it at its lowest--and have someone come in and look at the matter? The problem is not only a question of the actuality, but the perception of the situation. The fact is that the present Lord Advocate played a controversial part in the fatal accident inquiry. That is a reason for having a fresh mind to consider the issue. What can be the difficulty in bringing in Lord Hope, Lord Clyde or Judge Edward? Those are not people who would make mischief.
Mr. McLeish:
I think that my hon. Friend would agree with the logic of my comment in suggesting that we have the evidence to justify the proceedings against the two Libyans accused. Is it not the case that the issue now is that the two Libyans should be released by Libya, so that due process can take place? It is important to reinforce the points that have been made about the past four Lords Advocate and the continuing involvement of the Crown Office.
As I have already said, the judgment is that there is no need to ensure that the issue is widened to the independent scrutiny that my hon. Friend has suggested.
Mr. Dalyell:
Dear oh dear. It is whistling in the wind to think that the Libyans will be brought to a British court. President Mandela spent 40 minutes of his hour with the British Prime Minister on the subject. There is no chance of their coming to a British court, given the situation in the Arab world. That is why my hon. Friend should be getting Foreign Office advice.
Mr. McLeish:
I shall refer to further points that my hon. Friend has made later.
My hon. Friend asked what steps are being taken to investigate the recent allegations concerning statements from the office for islamic propaganda and statements reported in Der Spiegel magazine from the person named as Abolhassem Mesbahi. As I have already said, and as I told my hon. Friend in my written reply to him on 16 July 1997, it is the firm policy of the prosecuting and investigating authorities not to disclose details of investigative steps. The prosecuting and investigating authorities are, of course, acutely aware of their duty to investigate exculpatory evidence no less vigorously than incriminatory evidence. They take that duty seriously. While details of investigative steps cannot be given, all appropriate steps are taken in the discharge of that duty. Further than that I cannot go.
Any assertion that the refusal to disclose what steps are being taken is an excuse for inaction is not correct. Prosecuting and investigating authorities are not in the
habit of proclaiming to all and sundry what steps they propose to take in pursuance of whatever course of action they deem to be appropriate. Equally, neither I nor the prosecuting and investigating authorities can be drawn into discussion or disclosure of details of the evidence because of the real danger of prejudicing the prospects of a fair trial for the two accused.
Mr. Dalyell:
My hon. Friend used the phrase, "all and sundry". If he or I had lost a son or a daughter, we would think that we were entitled to know, as Dr. Jim Swire vehemently asks, whether the authorities had gone to see those at Der Spiegel or talked to the public prosecutor in Frankfurt. If the authorities say that they cannot disclose such details, we must be forgiven for thinking that a lot of people are sitting on their proverbial backsides. I am afraid that that is the perception.
Mr. McLeish:
I do not think that that can logically be drawn from what I have just said. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts my sincerity. I have confirmed that the issue is serious. My hon. Friend has been close to many people involved and has a much greater appreciation of the issues than I could possibly have. The fact that evidence and details of the investigation cannot be released into the public domain should not be taken as a sign of inaction from the Crown Office or the Government or an indication that we are not taking vigorous steps to pursue the case.
"vested interests of the mind".
Even in the light of all the doubts that have been raised, if a fresh mind--such as Lord Hope, Lord Clyde, Judge Edward, an English judge from the Court of Appeal or a European judge--came to the conclusion that the Crown Office had done exactly what it says it has, I would undertake to shut up on that subject.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |