| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lockerbie
10. Mr. Dalyell: If he will make a statement about his meeting with the Lord Advocate in September on the issues arising out of new information on Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions. [12121]
Mr. Robin Cook: I met my noble Friend the Lord Advocate on 4 September. His view remains that the available evidence supports the case against the two accused Libyans, and that there is no evidence of the involvement of nationals of any other country in the Lockerbie bombing. I fully accept that assessment.
It is for the Libyan authorities to fulfil their clear duty to surrender the two men accused of that act of mass murder to stand trial in Scotland. I am today inviting the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organisation of African Unity to send a delegation
to Scotland, to show them the judicial system there and to discuss arrangements for a trial in Scotland with international observers.
Mr. Dalyell:
Since one of the reasons given by the Foreign Secretary for objecting to a trial on Lockerbie in The Hague is that the Americans might refuse to submit evidence that they held to a court outside Scotland or the United States, can we reflect on why the Americans should do that? Is there a suggestion that the Americans might be unwilling, after nine years, to give information to the Dumfries and Galloway police?
Mr. Cook:
We have had full co-operation throughout from the United States authorities and they have shared fully with the investigating powers all the evidence available to them. It would not be possible, however, to mount a prosecution without the co-operation of the US authorities, who hold part of the evidence. Most of those killed on the Pan Am jet were Americans, and the majority of their relatives do not want a trial to take place outside Scotland or the United States.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
As the interest of those who lost their relatives in the dreadful disaster is that a trial should take place and the guilty parties be identified and punished, is the Foreign Secretary really saying that there are no circumstances in which he will consider a trial outside Scotland, especially as the Libyans have already said that they would willingly surrender the two accused to an independent party--perhaps Egypt--if the trial were held in any third country?
Mr. Cook:
If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, what happened at Lockerbie was not a disaster; it was murder. No one in the House should forget that. I find it strange that it should be argued that a trial by Scots judges under Scots law in another country would be fair, but a trial by Scots judges under Scots law in Scotland would not. We have nothing to be defensive about concerning the impartiality of our courts, and I shall be proud to display that when I meet the delegation.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
I welcome the Foreign Secretary's announcement of the invitations that he has extended. Is the assertion that no fair trial can be obtained in Scotland not only unfounded but unnecessarily provocative? If the test of fairness of a judicial system is transparency, does not the Scottish system stand comparison with many others, including the Libyan system? May not fairness be established by the presence of independent observers at every stage of the legal process?
Mr. Cook:
The hon. and learned Gentleman makes some fair points about the nature of the Scottish legal system. It is, after all, the legal system to which we subject our citizens. I see no reason why there should be a separate system for those from Libya, but I understood that other countries may not be so persuaded. That is why I have made in good faith the offer that we are willing to discuss any reservations that other countries may have, confident in the knowledge that we can put them right. We would welcome monitors and observers from them at a trial so that justice could not only be done but be seen internationally to be done.
Mr. Godman:
It is almost nine years since that terrible night when Pan Am flight 103 fell out of the sky. As one
Mr. Cook:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
11. Mr. Walter:
What assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom job creation of the United Kingdom's adoption of the employment chapter in the Amsterdam treaty. [12122]
Mr. Doug Henderson:
The employment chapter provides a mechanism for the exchange of best practice, for ensuring that employment is taken into consideration in all the Community's activities and for agreeing guidelines to be taken into account in national employment policies. It will have an impact on job creation when member states have identified policies for promoting employability, competitiveness and labour markets responsive to economic change.
Mr. Walter:
I am still not clear from that answer how many extra jobs will be created in the United Kingdom as a result of this chapter; nor is it clear what the cost of the incentive measures talked of in the treaty will be or what the impact will be on the Community budget and on the United Kingdom taxpayer.
Mr. Henderson:
Of course there are no guarantees on anything in life, but the important thing about job creation is ensuring that Government policies are consistent and helpful to those who are creating jobs in the private sector. That is why our position in Amsterdam was to give every assistance to policies that would improve training and competitiveness. The inclusion of the employment chapter in the treaty gives hope for the future, not only for Britain but for other European countries.
Mr. Gapes:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the European Union stands not simply for a free market but for social and employment aspects that affect millions of people throughout our continent? For that reason, many hon. Members are delighted that there is now an employment chapter in the European Union.
Mr. Henderson:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can reassure him that the treaty concluded at Amsterdam gave priority both to giving protection to work people throughout the European Union, which I believe is consistent with any definition of a civilised society, and to the creation of jobs, which is primarily linked to competitiveness and getting British and other workers throughout Europe adapted to the skills that will be required to take on world markets.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley:
Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is any connection between the fact that Britain has the lowest unemployment rate in Europe--
Mr. Davidson:
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the reasons why so many Conservative Members lost their jobs at the last general election was their opposition to Britain signing up to the employment chapter? There is no future for the European Community on the basis of low wages and poor conditions. I and many other Labour Members welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that employment will in future be at the heart of what we do in Europe.
Mr. Henderson:
There is a great temptation to agree with my hon. Friend, but Conservative Members, who sat on the Government Benches before the general election, were well on their way to redundancy long before that treaty was concluded.
Mr. Wilkinson:
Are not the processes of ever-closer union via economic and monetary union inimical to job creation and sustainment? Do not Britain's large contributions to the European Union--in effect, more every year, especially to the cohesion fund and the structural fund--destroy jobs in this country by providing subsidies to competitor nations in the European Union? Should we not set our face against such job-destructive policies?
Mr. Henderson:
There is a temptation among Conservative Members to believe that the big argument in economic policy is between Britain and the other European Union nations: the big argument is about how Britain and other EU countries can modify and change their economies and their employment practices to take on a challenge world wide. I do not believe that the conditions that were agreed in Amsterdam in any way detract from that important objective.
13. Ms Corston:
If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with China. [12124]
Mr. Fatchett:
We wish to establish a new, more constructive phase in our relationship with China, following the successful transfer of sovereignty in Hong Kong. When they met in New York in September, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his Chinese opposite number agreed that we should aim to work together on a whole range of bilateral and global issues.
Ms Corston:
Can my hon. Friend say how the Government intend to apply their welcome ethical foreign policy to China? Does he agree that, although we must be firm on human rights, the most effective way of improving human rights in China is to improve and strengthen all kinds of contact between our two countries, including economic ties?
Mr. Fatchett:
We are keen to take the opportunity that has been presented by the successful handover of Hong Kong. We will engage with China on a range of issues.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Has the hon. Gentleman given further thought to how we in the House can best monitor developments in Hong Kong?
Mr. Fatchett:
The way in which we do that is, of course, a matter for the House, not for Foreign Office Ministers. We have a number of opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is successful at raising the question of Hong Kong whenever the opportunity arises. There are Question Times, there will be debates on Hong Kong and an annual report will be published by the Foreign Office on the work of the Joint Liaison Group; so there will be many opportunities in the House, as well as meetings of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The House will have a continuing interest in Hong Kong. That is right, because Britain has a continuing responsibility under the Sino-British agreement.
Mr. Tipping:
In his discussions with the Chinese Government, will the Minister look closely at claims that the Chinese are making about global warming? They are clear that they need to make pledges and commitments. It is important that there is growth in China, but at the same time will my hon. Friend closely examine China's environmental credentials?
Mr. Fatchett:
It is pleasing to see that the Chinese Government are tackling the issue of global warming. It is important that the developed countries take a lead. We shall not make progress if the rich hide behind their affluence and put the responsibility for global warming on the developing countries. We need a relationship between the developed and developing countries, and China will play an important part in that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |