Commons Hansard Debates text for disussion about the crash of Pan Am 103 and the British political views about the recent developments

 Lockerbie 23.7.1997

 This Table of Contents lists column numbers, headings, time lines and names of Members in the
                                       Commons Hansard Debates text for 
                                               Wednesday 23 Jul 1997

6.18 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): It would be churlish of me not to offer a dollop of sympathy to my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, because he comes now to a debate on a subject on which there have already been 11 Adjournment debates. I know very well that he is responsible for an important White Paper tomorrow, but parliamentary good fortune seldom smiles on us. It is my good fortune, however, to have the time to deploy yet again an aspect of the case that is Lockerbie. I offer no apology for doing so, however, because the matter is not trivial. It is extremely important, not only for the relatives who want the truth about the death of their loved ones on 21 December 1988, but from the point of view of our country.

Before charges were laid, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who is present, several others and I went to Libya. Apart from anything else, we saw the importance of Libya to the British economy. It is an Arab country which is placing massive orders. Anyone who doubts the importance of this issue should know that it is reliably reported that, when President Mandela came to visit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, at the South African President's insistence this subject took up 40 minutes of the hour that he had with the British Prime Minister. It is, therefore, a matter of considerable importance, and the time of the House of Commons is not improperly used on the issue.

I shall take the opportunity that parliamentary time has given me to explain to the Crown Office the background of the questions that I repeatedly ask different Ministers.

It began back in December 1988--new year's eve, to be precise--when a police officer, a constituent and friend, came to me and said that he was very worried about so many Americans, on the awful site of Lockerbie, searching and rummaging through the wreckage, and possibly destroying important evidence.

The purpose of this Adjournment debate very much concerns the police. It is to request that the incoming Government ask a judge of the Court of Appeal in England, or a distinguished judge from the European Community, or Judge David Edward QC, who is the very distinguished Scottish jurist in the European Court, to review the material that the Crown Office claims to have, and to request that we have a fresh mind on the crucial evidence that the Crown Office says that it has against the two Libyan suspects.

The purpose of the debate is also to request that, eight and a half years after the event--with no ill reflection on the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, or policemen who I believe have worked hard and honourably--the responsibility should be transferred to the Metropolitan police, with its international contacts. Later I shall explain--against the background of my visit to the Metropolitan police, at the request of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, to meet an assistant commissioner--why I request that. It is because of the international contacts of the Metropolitan police.

I return to what we believe happened at the start of the tragedy. I do not minimise the appalling nature of the crime. Anyone who, as I did, went down to Lockerbie and saw the remnants of a huge airliner strewed over the Scottish countryside must acknowledge that pictures could not convey the horror of that scene. Police from Strathclyde and Lothian, and I believe from the Minister's county of Fife, had to be bussed down there day after day, to help out the smallest force in Britain.

It began, many of us believe, with the shooting down, without apology, by the USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying about 350 pilgrims from Iran to Mecca. The Iranian Minister of the Interior at the time wasAli Akbar Mostashemi. Mostashemi made repeated statements that blood would rain down in revenge for what had happened. Crucially, he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1985. He had close contacts with the terrorist drug gangs of Beirut and the Beka'a valley.

Those gangs had infiltrated an American drugs sting operation, by which heroin was taken from the Beka'a, via the Rhein-Main airport in Frankfurt and into the United States. They got hold of a very naive first-time courier; his name was Khaled Jafar. The young man was told that he would be met by "friends" when he reached Frankfurt. He took with him a Samsonite case of the very type that was to feature in the fatal accident inquiry and in the Lockerbie case. The so- called friends took him for, doubtless, a lovely day in Heidelberg and the Neckar valley, during which time other friends--the Neuss gang, for it was they, and Marwen Khreesat in particular--changed the contents from heroin to Semtex. Crucially, the Samsonite case was exempted luggage because of the arrangement at a very high level of the American and German Governments. That is how it got through the usual careful procedures at the Frankfurt airport.

I need not go into the rest of the story and the explosion, except to say that some of us believe that, within hours, the Americans had guessed, at a very high level, what had gone wrong. It is a matter of fact that the American helicopters were on site within an hour and 25 minutes. It is a matter of fact that warnings went out to personnel of the embassy in Moscow that they were not to travel. It is also conjecture with a great deal of evidence behind it that the South African general staff, Generals van Tonder and Malan, Rusty Evans and Pik Botha, were pulled off that plane. It is also suggested that a number of service men in the American forces in the Rhine army were taken off the pre- Christmas flight.

Places became available and those were taken mostly by students--the young Flora Swire, the young Bill Cadman, Pamela Dix's brother, Helga Mosey and, crucially, 32 students of the university of Rochester, New York. Had it been suggested that during the changing presidency in America--it was the interregnum between President Reagan and President Bush--the American Government and authorities knew sufficient to pull off VIPs and let students and young people travel to their doom, American public opinion would have been outraged.

We believe that, at a very early stage, the American Government asked the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to play Lockerbie low key. It is an incredible fact which I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that, in the 800 self-serving pages that Margaret Thatcher wrote, she never mentioned Lockerbie once. What she did say was that the "much-vaunted" Libyan retaliation for her unwarranted attack on Ben Gazi and Tripoli in 1986 never came about. If the British Prime Minister, with her access to intelligence, really believed that, how on earth could she suppose that the Libyans were responsible for the Lockerbie crime?

That is part of the background. We also believe that there never was a Malta connection and that Mr. Tony Gauci of Mary's house in Valetta gave all sorts of different identifications of the people to whom he was supposed to have sold clothing. The hard fact is that, in a court case, Air Malta won damages against Grenada Television for suggesting that it was lax or involved. The Maltese Government, the Maltese police, the airport authorities and Air Malta do not accept that unidentified baggage left Valetta airport.

The Crown Office must consider many other aspects of the legal case. It must forgive our curiosity about how much can be built up from the so-called "forensic evidence" of a slither of micro-circuitry found we do not know when, by whom or in what circumstances, but subject, it appears, to a Scottish winter. And what a Scottish winter or a winter in the Fielder forest would do to a small, delicate mechanism, heaven only knows. Furthermore, the Crown Office has absolutely refused to show its so-called "evidence" either to Edwin Bollier, the head of the makers, or more seriously to his engineer, Ulrich Lumpart. There may be all sorts of legal reasons--one might think that they are legal excuses--for not doing so, but, after eight and a half years, are we not after the truth of what happened, rather than sticking rigidly to tight legal precedent when the price of that tight legal precedent to our country is simply enormous in terms of our relations with the Arab world?

This is more a Foreign Office matter, but I have put two oral questions, which will have been brought to the Prime Minister's attention, first in June and then on 16 July. Like many serious lawyers in Edinburgh, I have ceased to believe that the Crown Office has a case that would not be thrown out within days by any Scottish judge on the ground that there is no case to answer. Bluntly, there has been no serious effort to find the truth. This is a terrible thing to say, but had an effort been made to find the truth, the makers of the critical evidence would have been shown their own slither of micro-circuitry to establish, for instance, its colour. I gather that one cannot judge from a photograph and that the colour might be crucial, in that one batch went to Libya but another went to the Stasi in East Germany. That might have led to a different destination, which was not Libya. Some effort would have been made to ascertain whether the alleged evidence of the timing device went either to East Germany or to Libya, and how.

Many other aspects cast great doubt. One of them dates back to March 1989, when my curiosity was really aroused. That was when the then Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, made a statement at the Garrick club to some half dozen journalists to the effect that he thought that the Lockerbie crime would be solved within days or weeks. I had known Paul Channon since he was Rab Butler's parliamentary private secretary. He is neither a liar nor a fantasist, and he is careful about what he says. It is inconceivable that he would have said that unless he had meant it. I also find it inconceivable thatthe journalists--experienced Lobby correspondents--misunderstood or misheard what he said. The conclusion to be drawn is that requests--indeed, orders--in relation to Lockerbie came from a much higher source, namely 10 Downing street.

The Minister of State has notice of a number of serious letters from lawyers in Edinburgh on this matter, which my parliamentary good fortune allows me to go through properly. The first is from Peter Anderson of the well-respected firm, Simpson and Marwick. In his letter to the Prime Minister of 23 June, he says:

Mr. Anderson states:

I believe that, after the Secretary of State, I was the first Member of Parliament whom Lord Hardie saw after his appointment. He received me in the Crown Office most courteously. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is an honourable man, but as he was a participant in the fatal accident inquiry, he should recognise that there is an additional reason for having a fresh mind look at the topic.

Peter Anderson goes on:

says this careful lawyer, Peter Anderson--

this is a reference to Marwen Khreesat--

The Crown Office must reflect on what a heavyweight Edinburgh lawyer says about that. Anderson goes on, however. Assuming that I would be limited to the usual half-hour Adjournment debate, this is a particular part of the letter to which I drew the attention of officials as soon as I knew last week that I was lucky in the ballot.

Anderson states:

the Lord Advocate--

That is a reference to James Thurman. I raised withthe previous Prime Minister in oral questions the circumstances in which James Thurman was removed from his job and the possible consequences for the Lockerbie case.

Anderson goes on:

the fatal accident inquiry--

That is a matter to which particular scrutiny should be given by Judge Edward or a judge of the Court of Appeal or a European judge. I hope that the amour-propre of the Scottish legal system will not be a barrier to pursuing that line of inquiry.

Peter Anderson is sensitive to that point. He states:

he is addressing the Prime Minister--

Mr. Anderson continues:

I have been in this place for 35 years, and I am not unconscious of Washington's overwhelming influence on any British Government. The question is: what will happen in the United States as a result of the on-going lawsuits involving not only James Thurman, but Juval Aviv, who was acquitted by an American court?

For the sake of coherence and fairness, I turn now to the reply that Peter Anderson received in a letter from Philip Barton, writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, on 16 July. Mr. Barton says:

Privilege applies in the House of Commons, and I am very careful about what I say under the rules of privilege. However, I said the same thing in the Inner Temple when I was asked to speak about the matter. Admittedly Lord Justice Hurst, who was in the Chair, was extremely uneasy--that may be an understatement—about my comments. However, I bluntly repeat them now.

I think that the first Lord Advocate was in a very vulnerable position. He had lost a blue-chip Conservative seat, which his party believed he should not have lost. He was then appointed Lord Advocate, with great murmurings from heavyweight legal Edinburgh. Soon after, he was faced with a dilemma: pressure was applied from Downing street, as a result of pressure from Washington, that he should restrain himself--I shall put it that way--on the subject of Lockerbie.

I do not know the extent to which Law Officers react when faced with raison d'etre and requests from Downing street. I can say only that, being human, it would be very easy for a Lord Advocate to acquiesce in the requests of his Prime Minister. It is rather unlikely that that Lord Advocate would say boo to that Prime Minister.

I assure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that I am not impressed--and nor are several Edinburgh lawyers, including the professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh--that four Lord Advocates have come to similar conclusions. I do not think that I shall be misunderstood when I point out that those four Lord Advocates were advised on the subject by the same one or two important officials. In the circumstances, I do not ask for any kind of investigation of the officials. However, for heaven's sake, it is now eight and a half years later and many of our interests in, and relations with, the Arab world are involved. A legal mind from outside should at least take a fresh look at the case. That is my response to that paragraph of the letter written on behalf of the Prime Minister. Mr. Barton continues:
 "You may have evidence that has a bearing on the case against the two Libyans. The investigation remains open
and the prosecuting and investigating authorities will consider any evidence brought to their attention. If you do have
any evidence pertinent to the criminal investigation, I would urge you to bring it forward so that it can be properly
considered."

That is a very passive attitude to adopt in view of what we have read about the findings of the state prosecutor in
Frankfurt regarding Abolhassem Mesbahi, a co-founder of  Iranian intelligence. I consider everything that I read with
great caution, but it is not realistic simply to imply that some Iranian who is in hiding in Germany should
report to the police in Dumfries and Galloway. That is part of my argument as to why the case should be handed to the
Metropolitan police, who deal with their international contacts every day. Mr. Barton continues:
 

     "You suggest that the Law Officers and Crown Office have become so closely identified with a particular view that
their assessment of the evidence is partial. The Lord Advocate in the discharge of his legal duties is entirely
independent from Government influence."

I am sorry, but a hoarse laugh from one in this place who has watched Lord Advocates and Crown Officers over 35
years. Lord Advocates, like Attorneys-General, are members of the Government and must balance various issues. Mr.
Barton goes on:
 

     "It is quite unthinkable that one Lord Advocate, let alone four, would allow themselves to be associated with
anything other than a fair consideration of all the evidence."

I am sorry, but it is not unthinkable to me--it is all too thinkable. The letter continues:
 

     "You also suggest that a Judge of the European Court should review the evidence. I should point out that
consideration of the evidence in a criminal case is a matter within the  exclusive purview of the Lord Advocate."

Does the Lord Advocate really determine the nature of our relations with the Arab world--a subject upon which
President Mandela, on behalf of the Organisation of African Unity, spent two thirds of his time with the Prime
Minister? Is that matter simply to be left to the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office? That is preposterous. The letter
continues:
 

     "If the Lord Advocate concludes that there is a sufficiency of evidence, after a full consideration of all the details of
that evidence, then the appropriate forum to test the case is the criminal trial of those standing accused of the charges."

Again, that is all very well, but we have no extradition treaty with Libya. The Libyans say, "We see the Birmingham
Six and the Guildford Four. We hear all these rumours of unsafe decisions in British courts of law. What on earth will
happen to the Libyan Two?" I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, if the boot were on the other foot and there
were two Scots whom we believed to be innocent, I am not sure that we would ship them to Tripoli, so I am not
impressed by that part of the reply.

Peter Anderson's response was:
 

     "I received the expected reply from the Prime Minister's Private Secretary and attach a copy of it. Whilst it says what
I always thought it would, I seriously question whether any of the four Lord Advocates have reviewed, with detailed
scrutiny, the evidence and whether they have asked the pertinent relevant questions of those who have been reporting to
them."

That is Peter Anderson's view; it is also mine. It will be within the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Minister that I
asked for an interview with the Government's troubleshooter, the Minister without Portfolio, who gave me half an hour,
listened attentively and undertook--I am sure that he will carry out his word--that the matter would be looked at in
various places in the Government. Now is the urgent time to set about that task, as my hon. Friend promised.

On 17 July, I asked the Prime Minister,
 

     "pursuant to . . . the answer of 11 July, Official Report, column 626, if he will transfer responsibility for the
Lockerbie bombing to the Metropolitan police."

 The Prime Minister replied:
 

     "Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary have from the outset conducted the Lockerbie Criminal Investigation. There
is no reason to depart from that. The investigation relates to  the mass murder of 270 people committed in Scotland. My
noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, has responsibility for ensuring that crimes in Scotland are properly
investigated and Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 authorises him to issue instructions to any
Chief Constable with regard to reporting offences alleged to have been committed in his area. The transfer of this
inquiry to the Metropolitan Police would remove that power from the Lord Advocate in this case and would impede the
proper investigation of it."--[Official Report, 17 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 258.]

I should like to know what proper investigation has been done. Has there been any investigation of reports coming out
of Qom in Iran? My hon. Friend the Minister will have received documents from Mr. Stephen Breen of The Scotsman
on what has happened at Qom, the holy city in Iran. There were claims, on 23 December 1988, that great vengeance
had been taken on the Americans, with all sorts of colourful language beloved of certain mullahs. When the Iranian
Government found that the situation was really very awkward, they decided that they should all be withdrawn by the
holiest of orders and commands.

All that material, which was given to The Scotsman and its reporter, Mr. Stephen Breen, who has taken such a long-
term and sustained interest in these matters, was sent to the Crown Office. I give this as an example. How can one
expect the Dumfries and Galloway police, for all their virtues, to have the resources to launch an investigation that may
well mean making detailed inquiries through some Iranian expert, and certainly our embassy in Teheran? That is one
reason why the matter should be given to the Metropolitan police.

There is another reason. Because of my interest in Lockerbie, I became extremely concerned--it should be the concern
of the Crown Office, too--about the brutal and terrible murder in this city of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher.
With the agreement of Queenie Fletcher, her mother, I raised with the Home Office the three remarkable programmes
that were made by Fulcrum, and their producer, Richard Bellfield, called "Murder at St. James's". Television
speculation is one thing, but this was rather more than that, because on film was George Stiles, the senior ballistics
officer of the British Army, who said that, as a ballistics expert, he believed that the WPC could not have been killed
from the second floor of the Libyan embassy, as was suggested.

Also on film was my friend, Hugh Thomas, who talked about the angles at which bullets could enter bodies, and the
position of those bodies. Hugh Thomas was, for years, the consultant surgeon of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast,
and I suspect that he knows more about bullets entering bodies than anybody else in Britain.
Above that was Professor Bernard Knight, who, on and off, has been the Home Office pathologist for 25 years. He was
considered a distinguished enough pathologist to be put in charge of Cromwell street. When Bernard Knight gives
evidence on film that the official explanation could not be, it is time for an investigation.

With the agreement of the Home Secretary, I contacted Sir Paul Condon, who was very helpful and said, "You must go
and talk to my assistant commissioner, David Veness." I spent the Thursday before last--I had never done it before--in
Scotland Yard, and talked at length, explaining exactly why I was seeming to meddle in the  case of Yvonne Fletcher. I
have to say that the senior police officers, David Veness and Chief Detective Superintendent McDowall, were
extremely nice to me, and said, rather movingly, that in 20 years there were half a dozen crimes that they would
particularly like to solve, and Yvonne Fletcher's was one of them, because she was, as they put it, "one of our own". I
can understand that.

I then asked, "In this kind of investigation, frankly, can any small force conduct the international type of inquiry that
the Met can, with its resources?" The answer was no. I am not saying to the House that the Met was asking to be
involved in Lockerbie. I am just stating the fact that if we are serious about it, it must be the major police force, and not,
for all their virtues, a small police force. I understand that fourth-generation police officers are now dealing with the
case, as those who were there in 1988 are either retired or promoted--and probably very rightly promoted, as in the case
of the present chief constable of Lothian, Roy Cameron. Let us be realistic about the matter.

On 17 July, I asked the Prime Minister,
 

     "pursuant to his answer of 14 July . . . what steps he proposes to bring to a conclusion the Lockerbie issue."

The Prime Minister replied:
 

     "As I told my hon. Friend on 18 June, Official Report, column 509, we will try every avenue to make progress in
this matter, but the onus is on Libya to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions."--
[Official Report, 17 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 258-59.]

Those resolutions, however, were formulated a long time ago. That is deeply unsatisfactory--and even more
unsatisfactory, as the Crown Office should realise, because of what happened in relation to Juval Aviv.

On 18 June, I asked the Prime Minister
 

     "if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for policy in relation to approaching the UN to lift
sanctions against Libya of the acquittal of Juval Aviv by an American court."

The Prime Minister replied:
 

     "As my hon. Friend knows, Juval Aviv has been acquitted by an American court. We are also aware of the
allegations that have been made by him, but the advice that I have received is that it does not alter the case that the
existing evidence in respect of those who perpetrated the Lockerbie bombing suggests that it was carried out by
Libyans."

I know the rules about internal matters in the Government, but a Prime Minister who was going to Hong Kong, Denver
and Amsterdam--and, indeed, around the world--with all his other responsibilities, would naturally have to rely on
advice.

Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is a distinguished lawyer, that asking one of his senior legal
colleagues--a judge at the Court of Appeal--to cast a glance at the issue eight and a half years later is not an
unreasonable request.

The Prime Minister went on:
 

     "I believe that the United Nations Security Council sanctions should remain until the Security Council resolutions
are properly and fully complied with; they are not being complied with at the moment."--[Official Report, 18 June
1997; Vol. 296 , c. 309.]

With respect, the whole UN policy depends on what is in the Crown Office in Edinburgh. On another occasion, the
Prime Minister rightly told me that it was not the Security Council's business to carry out such investigations, yet it was
having to take the word of the Crown Office in Edinburgh.

I warned my hon. Friend the Minister's private secretary that I would quote from a letter, dated 18 July 1997, from
Alistair Duff, another well-known Edinburgh lawyer, who represents the two Libyans. He wrote:
 

     "I know that you have been lucky enough to secure an adjournment debate on the subject of Lockerbie and the
Crown Office. I wish to raise with you a matter of concern to me and, I know, to others involved in the Scottish
criminal justice system.
 

     After the recent revelations about the information supplied to the German authorities by the Iranian agent our
Government and the Crown Office were pressed to indicate what steps they would take to investigate this 'evidence'
pointing, yet again, to Iranian involvement in the bombing. The reply, as ever, was that 'anyone with information to
report should forward it to Dumfries and Galloway police'! Notwithstanding the high regard which I have for our police
forces and acknowledging the undoubtedly diligent attitude of the Dumfries police, this official mantra is nothing other
than a formula for inaction. Furthermore, my view, shared I believe by professional colleagues, is that the refusal by
Government and Crown Office to take such evidential developments seriously (and to be seen to be doing so) is
bringing the Scottish system of criminal justice into disrepute.
 
The notion that the former Iranian agent, from a hideout in Germany, should contact the desk sergeant at Dumfries
police station, as if surrendering his driving licence for examination would be laughable if it was not the inevitable
response which emanates from Crown Office every time another line of enquiry apparently opens.
 

     It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Crown Office simply does not want to pursue avenues of investigation
which might lead to inconvenient destinations.
 

     I hope that you may take account of these views in pressing the Government during the debate."

That letter was written by a well-respected Edinburgh lawyer.

Yet another Edinburgh lawyer wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister--the QC who is Professor of Scots law at the
university of Edinburgh, Robert Black. In his letter of 21 July, which my hon. Friend will have read, he wrote:
 

     "I understand that a further Adjournment Debate on the Lockerbie bombing is soon to take place, and that you will
be replying on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
 

     May I, as a native of Lockerbie and as a Scots lawyer who has attempted to keep abreast of developments in this
tragic affair, urge you to give serious consideration to permitting the evidence against the Libyan accused persons to be
reviewed by a senior member of the judiciary not currently serving in Scotland, with a view to determining whether in
quantity and quality, that evidence is prime facie sufficient to justify the charges which have been laid against the
accused.
 

     There is a growing body of opinion within the legal profession in Scotland that, whatever may have been the
evidential position in November 1991 when the petition naming the Libyan accused was presented to the sheriff in
Dumfries, subsequent developments (such as the disclosure of the apparent lack of any documentary evidence whatever
showing that an unaccompanied suitcase was routed from Malta via Frankfurt onto Pan Am Flight 103 at London; the
discrediting in criminal proceedings in the United States of evidence emanating from the American forensic scientists
whose findings appear to be the thesis"--

indeed, the linchpin of the thesis--
 

     "of Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing) have undermined the case advanced in that petition. The Crown
Office in Scotland, however, gives the (perhaps unwarranted) impression of being reluctant to consider the impact of
evidence which became available only after 1991 upon the material available to it when the petition was originally
drawn up."

We do not know that anything has really happened since 1991. If the Crown Office and the police have been active, all
that we can say is that we have no evidence that they have been so. In fact, it looks as if the hatches had been battened
down. To put it bluntly, nothing has been done.

Professor Black goes on:
 

     "It is in order to counteract this impression, and with a view to maintaining the deservedly high reputation of the
Crown Office in the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland, that I earnestly request Her Majesty's
Government to invite a senior judge to conduct an independent review of the whole evidence now available in relation
to the Lockerbie bombing. Any of the following would appear to me to be suitable persons to perform this function.
Judge David Edward (the United Kingdom judge on the European Court of Justice), Lord Hope of Craighead or Lord
Clyde (the present Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary)."

The Scottish legal system could not be affronted if either of those two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from Scotland, who
are extremely clever and distinguished judges, were asked to look at the evidence. After eight and a half years,
witnesses' memories dim. Potential witnesses die or become old and forgetful. If nothing is done, how long are we
expected to go on supporting these sanctions against Libya?

After all, by 1953 the perpetrators of the atrocities at Auschwitz and Buchenwald were being helped and welcomed
back into the European community of nations.
Is there a difference between an Arab and a European country, because that question is beginning to be rather sharply
asked?

Back to the lawyers. George More, another well-known Edinburgh lawyer, wrote to the Prime Minister on 14 July:
 

     "Dear Prime Minister,
 

     I have acted on behalf of the Libyan Peace Committee as their Legal Adviser in Scotland since 1992 in relation to
the Lockerbie case. I visited Libya in 1992 and again in 1995 and I keep in touch with my contact in Tripoli. From what
I have seen, and from the information I have received, there is no doubt that theU. N. Sanctions have caused a
considerable amount of suffering in Libya and tragically it is the ordinary people who have suffered the most.
 

     In the light of the revelations in The Scotsman newspapers last week and the police investigation being carried out in
Frankfurt, both of which indicate that the downing of Flight Pan-Am 103 in December 1988, was sponsored by the
Iranian Government, I feel very strongly that your Government should ensure that all new information is thoroughly
investigated. It would be most unjust for the Libyan people to continue to suffer as a result of the Sanctions even if it
was only possible that the Libyan Government was not involved in the crime. As a supporter of your Government, and
in the belief that you can bring a fresh mind to the whole problem, I urge you to ensure that all necessary investigations
are now carried out as soon as possible to avoid any unfairness to the Libyan people."

The Minister has received a letter from the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding signed by
Cyril Townsend, the former Member of Parliament for Bexleyheath. He says:
 

     "I understand that you will be replying to an Adjournment Debate on Lockerbie next Wednesday introduced by"  the
hon. Member for Linlithgow.
 

     "I very much welcome this as it is such an important subject, especially as it is over eight and a half years since Pan
Am 103 was blown up.
 

     My Council is concerned that the current impasse in relations with Libya has had a detrimental effect on British-
Libyan trade relations. This was a subject that I personally raised with Anthony Nelson, the previous Minister for Trade
at the Department of Trade and Industry".

Indeed, I have raised this subject with my hon. Friends responsible for trade in both Houses of Parliament. I was
assured by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, who made inquiries after an oral question
in the House, that the Department's lawyers have not had access to the evidence that the Crown Office says it has.

For lawyers from one Government Department who are so intimately affected not to have seen the evidence that is in
the hands of another Government Department raises an eyebrow. Doubtless all sorts of legalistic reasons will be
produced, but it is not good when the interests of our country are so badly threatened by what may be a terrible mistake.

Furthermore, I want to raise with the Crown Office the case of Dr. David Fieldhouse. The background to the case is
that, on 21 December 1988, Dr. David Fieldhouse, who has become a friend of mine, heard on his car radio that there
was a major incident at Lockerbie, and immediately drove north in the expectation that he could be helpful.

Who is Dr. Fieldhouse? He comes from Bradford, and was the police surgeon of the city of Bradford for 14 years. He
was considered responsible enough to be put in charge of a previous major incident--the Bradford footfall fire. He has
had many ups and downs, and in my opinion has been treated abominably. On 22 June 1997, he wrote to the Prime
Minister:
 

     "Dear Prime Minister,
 

     As you will doubtless know from proceedings in the House of Commons over the past few years the Pan Am 103
Lockerbie terrorist bombing has left a lot of questions unanswered and lines of enquiry ignored or suspended.
 

     I volunteered my services in Lockerbie shortly after hearing of the crash and, during the night and day following it,
pronounced death in respect of 59 persons. In the immediate aftermath of the event and during the subsequent months I
co-operated fully with the law enforcement agencies to provide details of the work which I had done. I was enabled to
do this by notes taken at the time and my not inconsiderable experience as a Police Surgeon with West Yorkshire Police
during the preceding fourteen years.
 

     One of the very many things which have puzzled me since the event, and more particularly since the Fatal Accident
Inquiry, is the apparent lack of concern to correlate the bodies which I recorded having found with other records made
after mine"--

"after" is underlined.
 

     "This has led to one body (which I labelled DCF 12) not appearing to tie up with any of the ones subsequently listed
as having been retrieved and examined by the Pathologists.  I am not sure that the transcript of the Fatal Accident
Inquiry will give a very good indication how little attention was paid to this matter. I was at pains at the time of that
Inquiry to reverse the discredit heaped upon me by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie by his dubious questioning of the Police".

Remember that that accusation--for such it is--of dubious questioning of the police at the fatal accident inquiry was
made not by someone off the street, but by a police surgeon of 14 years experience with extremely distinguished
service at a previous major incident. When that is said in a letter to a British Prime Minister, the Departments have an
obligation to comment on it, because the questioning was under oath.

Dr. Fieldhouse goes on:
 

     "from whom he received answers to questions which it seemed at the time were designed to hide the truth and, in the
process, discredit me.  I made two determined attempts to see your predecessor to ask him a particular question, but I
got no further than a Private Secretary. I can not ask that question of you. Would  you be able to find out if John Major
actually received my letters to him--or if they were diverted by his staff who could have been under orders from others?
 

     Other questions, inter-related, come to mind:
 

     Do you think I am right to be concerned that the body details did not tally?
 

     Do you think I am still right to be concerned at the way I was treated at the Fatal Accident Inquiry--notwithstanding
that I received a full, written, formal apology from Sheriff Principal John S Mowatt in his Determination (page 36) for
what had been said erroneously about me?
 

     Do you think I am right to wonder if the above two points could in some way be relevant to the whole issue as to
who perpetrated the offence?
 

     Do you think that people of this Country, and in particular the relatives of the deceased, have a right to clarification
of all these issues?"

The relatives of the deceased, to whom I have become very close, certainly think that Dr. Fieldhouse deserves an
answer. He continued:
 

     "If, in addition to the above, you are interested in knowing how this affair has impugned my integrity and severely
dented my career I shall be pleased to meet you and put you in the picture. All is not what it seems--even now.
 

     I wish you well in the forthcoming years."

There is a great deal to the story. Some of it appeared in a book, which I have treated with great caution, called "Trail of
the Octopus" by the American agent Les Coleman. But there is a great deal of explanation to be given by the American
authorities on the whole relationship between the Drug Enforcement Agency and the CIA and its hostage relations
operations in Beirut at the time.

There is also the whole question of Major Charles McKee, and the feeling that there were certain people in key
positions who never wanted Major McKee to get back to the United States to start complaining about them. All those
matters bring us back to my request that there should be an investigation by the Metropolitan police. It is unreal to
expect the Dumfries police to cope.

British companies are worried that they are not being allowed to compete on equal terms with other European
companies. Many jobs are at stake. Problems that affect trade include the lack of ECGD cover and the problem of
acquiring visas for local partners to come to Britain. That matter must be settled.

There is also, of course, the human aspect. The Minister has received a letter from the secretary of UK Families Flight
103, saying:
 

     "I am writing on behalf of U.K. Families Flight 103, the relatives and friends of those killed at Lockerbie, about the
recent statements made in Germany by Abolhassem Mesbahi.
 

     We believe that the Scottish Office has an obligation to convince the bereaved that the new information concerning
Iran's connection with the bombing is being thoroughly and properly investigated. Can you give us evidence that urgent
and appropriate action is being taken?"

The secretary, Pamela Dix, had also written to Lord Hardie saying:
 
 

     "I am writing on behalf of UK Families Flight l03 concerning the recent activity in Germany. You will be aware of
the allegations by the former Iranian intelligence officer, Abolhassem Mesbahi, that the bombing of the plane was
ordered by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in revenge for the shooting down of the Iranian air bus in July 1988.

 Given that this man's credibility has already been tested in a German court of law, where his testimony brought about
the successful convictions of Iranian terrorists, we assume that the Scottish Office and the Dumfries and Galloway
police are taking immediate steps to interview Mesbahi in Germany. If this has not yet been arranged, then we urge you
to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. We expect the Crown Office response to be a proactive one in this regard."

The relatives would have been here had the Adjournment taken place at the usual time of 10 o'clock. I should be
grateful for an undertaking that the Mesbahi information is being properly investigated.

A letter dated 18 July was sent to my hon. Friend the Minister from Martin Cadman of Norfolk, with whose Member of
Parliament--my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner)--I went to see the Minister. He writes:
 

     "My son Bill, 32 was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988.
 

     I understand that you will reply for the Government in the adjournment debate on Lockerbie next Wednesday . . .
My wife and I and other relatives have been trying since 1988 to learn the truth about Lockerbie. None of the inquiries
which have been made public including those by the Air Accident Investigation Branch, the Fatal Accident Inquiry and
the US President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism have revealed the whole truth. Nor were Ministers
in the last Government forthcoming, including for example Douglas Hurd and Jeremy Hanley in their replies in
adjournment debates."

My hon. Friend the Minister might like to know that it was on this subject that, for the only time since the war, a
Foreign Secretary has replied to an Adjournment debate. I am not suggesting that it should be the Foreign Secretary on
this occasion; I am merely pointing out that the previous Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, decided that the subject was
so important that he should not leave it to one of his junior Ministers, but should instead reply himself.

The letter continued:
 

     "We were encouraged by the tone and much of the content of the reply by Foreign Office ~Minister Tony Lloyd on
11 June this year."

Indeed, the relatives who are going to see my hon. Friend the Foreign Office Minister tomorrow at 4.15 pm will have a
copy of the reply by my hon. Friend the Scottish Minister in their hands. I can tell my hon. Friend that two televisions
teams are interested in the whole background to the issue, and are making in-depth investigations into the subject.
Doubtless they will be approaching the Crown Office. The British public, let alone the relatives, are not uninterested in
this matter.

Cadman goes on:
 

     "But he repeated some of the well worn phrases we had become used to, such as that it is not acceptable to allow the
accused [Libyans] to dictate the terms and circumstances of their trial--a moment's thought shows that they have indeed
dictated the terms and circumstances ever since the warrants were issued over six years ago in November 1991.
 

     I don't know if you have been told the whole truth. People experienced in these matters have told me that very few
people, mainly officials, are allowed to know. The rest are told only that there are some things that it is better that they
do not know. I hope that you will not be put off by this sort of specious advice but will press for the whole truth so that
you may reply properly and as fully as appropriate in the debate."

If only for ministerial self-preservation--I do not say this unkindly at all--I should have thought that it would have been
wise for any Minister answering such debates to say, "Look. I am protecting my back. I am asking a judge of the Court
of Appeal, a European judge, Lord Hope or Lord Clyde, another Scottish Law Lord in Ordinary to make the
investigation." It is not asking a great deal.

Cadman goes on:
 

     "Ministers have the right to know. The public have the right to know. Above all, the relatives have the right to know.
Early in 1989 my wife and I were interviewed by a man from the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist squad. He had a file
of papers which included the post-mortem report on my son. I asked to see it. He said he was not supposed to show it to
me. I asked him how could he as a stranger have a greater right to know how our son died than his parents. He had the
courage and good sense to acknowledge this; and I hope that he felt the good effect on us of knowing how our son died.
I hope that you will appreciate the force of this argument.
 

     We do not need to be protected from the truth. But we should be protected from being told lies. We were told lies by
the police witness at the Fatal Accident Inquiry. We should also be protected from not being told the truth. We did not
get an answer at the FAI to why our son's body was left out in a field at Tundergarth from when he was seen by the
doctor who pronounced him dead on the 22nd December 1988 until his body was removed to a mortuary on the 24th."

I acknowledge at this stage the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who, in the short
time that he has been here, has shown an estimable interest in this difficult matter. I hope that the Speaker has given her
permission, as I have, that he should contribute to the debate.

Cadman goes on:
 

     "We did not get a straight answer to why our son's death certificate was dated 24th December. (It was subsequently
changed to the 22nd after the FAI). Who gave the orders not to move the bodies? What was the role of the Americans
on the ground in the immediate aftermath?"

Cadman should get an answer to those questions. He says:
 

     "Our right to the truth should not be denied by any lingering unethical element in the British government's relations
with the US government. We hope that the present Government is not deterred by whatever we believe persuaded the
previous Government to conspire with the US Government not to reveal the truth.
 

     You will know that new evidence has recently come to light from Germany implicating Iran. You and your
colleagues may agree with us that the lack of progress in resolving this case is alone enough to warrant a new,
independent, and far-reaching inquiry into all the circumstances of the bombing, including possible motives for it.
 

     My main purpose in writing to you is to urge you to announce the setting up of such an inquiry in the debate next
Wednesday. If this is not possible, please bring this letter to the attention of Lord Hardie to whom I have already
written."

I do not know what attention is being given to such letters.

I asked the Prime Minister
 

     "what response he has sent to the letter of 22 June to him from ex-police surgeon Dr. David Fieldhouse of Bradford,
about the circumstances of the body count after the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie."

The Prime Minister replied:
 

     "Dr. Fieldhouse's letter is being studied carefully. A reply will be sent shortly."--[Official Report, 7 July 1997; Vol.
297, c. 316.]

The Department will forgive me if a reply has already been sent, but it has not yet been received. I do not know what
studying these letters actually means, other than a put-off. The time has come when they have to be answered.

When I saw him, the Lord Advocate undertook that he would discuss seriously with the Foreign Office what the results
of all the deliberations were going to be. For reasons that I perfectly understand, a meeting offered by my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at 9 o'clock this morning had to be postponed,
and, at his request, I have been asked to see him on this subject at 6 o'clock tomorrow night, but I draw to the attention
of the
Crown Office the sort of problems that the Foreign Office has.

Frankly, the Foreign Office has been put in a difficult position. Even Douglas Hurd said to me--I think that he will
excuse my repeating this, not that it was particularly a secret--in the corridors of the House, "Look: you must
understand that a British Foreign Secretary cannot tell the Crown Office what to do and demand explanations from it."
So the Crown Office should know exactly the situation that the Foreign Office faces.

Faced with a letter from the ambassador and permanent observer for the League of Arab States to the United Nations,
Dr. Hussein A. Hassouna, and the ambassador and permanent observer for the Organisation of African Unity to the
United Nations, Mr. Ibrahima Sy, the Foreign Office says:
 

     "We have the honour to refer to the joint letter dated 27 June 1997 of the Permanent Observer for the League of
Arab States and the Permanent Observer for the Organisation of African Unity to the United Nations . . . enclosing a
joint letter from the Secretaries-General of those two organisations relating to the question of the sanctions against
Libya.
 

     The letter of the Secretaries-General once again tries to misrepresent the question of Libya as a dispute between
Libya and two countries. This is not the case. The sanctions imposed on Libya in Security Council resolutions 748
(1992) and 883 (1993) were as a result of the Libyan Government's refusal to comply with obligations which had been
required of it by the unanimous decision of the Security Council in resolution 731 (1992). The question which the
Council continues to address, therefore, is not a dispute between a few States, but the matter of Libya's continued
defiance of a unanimous and binding decision of the Security Council.
 

     We regret that the letter of the Secretaries-General of the Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League does
not mention the existence of any of the Security Council resolutions relating to Libya, nor does it mention Libya's
failure to comply with them. Instead the Secretaries-General repeat earlier proposals for trial of the Lockerbie accused
in a venue outside Scotland or the United States, proposals which do not conform to the requirements of the relevant
Security Council resolutions. We do not believe that Council decisions should be a matter of negotiation; they should
be obeyed in full.
 

     The Government of Libya knows that for the sanctions against it to be swiftly lifted, all it needs to do is comply with
the Council's resolutions. Yet it continues to refuse to take such a step. The first objective of all Member States and
Regional Organisations interested in seeing an end to this matter should be to persuade the Government of Libya to
fulfil its obligations so that sanctions can be lifted and the authority of the Council be upheld.
 

     In the meantime we have taken note of the proposals in the joint letter of the Secretaries-General relating to
humanitarian flights. Resolution 748 (1992) of course already contains provisions for the Libyans to apply to the
Committee established pursuant to that resolution for special dispensation for humanitarian flights. We would like to
reiterate our willingness to continue to consider such applications, as provided for in resolutions 748 (1992) which does
not limit humanitarian needs to medical evacuations. In addition, for the last three years the Committee has permitted
flights to the Haj, thus facilitating travel by Libyan citizens to undertake this act of religious devotion. We see no
reason why this practice should not continue."

The whole trouble with that is that, in fact, Libyans who used to come here cannot get medical aid. A great deal of
hardship is involved. I refer to the letter dated 26 June 1997 from the permanent observers of the Arab League states
and the OAU:
 

     "Pursuant to Article 54 of the Charter of the United Nations, we have the honour to enclose herewith a joint letter
signed by His Excellency Dr. Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, and His
Excellency Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, concerning the efforts of
the two organizations to find a peaceful and just solution to the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the
United States of America and the United Kingdom".

What all that amounts to, surely, as Lord Fraser was asked by me all those years ago, is that at least our lawyers should
talk to their lawyers. That is what they want.

A letter dated 19 June 1997 from the Secretary-General of the Arab States and the Secretary-General of the OAU says:
 

     "As a follow-up to the efforts being deployed individually and jointly by the League of Arab States and the
Organization of African Unity to find a peaceful and just solution to the dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
and the United States of America and Great Britain, and in conformity with the decision of the two organizations to
coordinate both Arab and African efforts aimed at contributing to the process of finding a lasting solution to the
dispute, we have the honour to inform you that the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity have,
in this regard, agreed as follows:
 

     FIRST: To call upon the Security Council to convene a special meeting in order to consider the following specific
proposals, one of which could be agreed upon as a basis for a solution:
 

     (i) Hold the trial of the two suspects in a third and neutral country to be determined by the Security Council;
 

     (ii) Have the two suspects tried by Scottish judges at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, in accordance
with the Scottish Law;
 

     (iii) Establishment of a special criminal tribunal at the ICJ headquarters in The Hague to try the two suspects.
 

     SECOND: Pending the final and peaceful solution of the crisis and the adoption of one of the above-mentioned
proposals, we urge the Security Council to undertake the following measures which, we believe, will go a long way in
mitigating the severe impact of the air embargo, by exempting flights that may be run by Libyan authorities:
 

     (i) Flights for humanitarian purposes of medical treatment and the importation of medicines;
 

     (ii) Special flights to send material assistance from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to African countries;
 

     (iii) Flights of religious purpose;
 

     (iv) Flights related to participation in official missions."

Like British industry, the two Secretaries-General complain bitterly of the difficulty of getting in and out of Libya.
What does it all boil down to? It boils down to a policy based on evidence that is at best flimsy and perhaps non-
existent.

I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 July:
 

     "pursuant to his oral answer of 16 July, Official Report, columns 387-88, in reference to the letter from Alain
Dejammet, Stephen Gomersall and Bill Richardson permanent representatives of France, the United Kingdom and the
USA, to the President of the Security Council, what recent review of the evidence relating to the Lockerbie case has
been conducted by the UN Security Council."

The reply from my right hon. Friend said:
 

     "None. It is not the Security Council's job to do so. The evidence is held by the national investigating and
prosecuting authorities and is not in the public domain."--[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 556.]  The UN
really ought to be a bit discerning about the material on which it bases its own policies. Frankly, it is taking the word of
the British Government, and the British Government are taking the word of the Crown Office. Some of us think, for
reasons that have taken an inordinate length of time to describe--I do not see how else to bring the matter home after 12
Adjournment debates--that the Government should take action to ascertain the validity of the evidence.

I had hoped that, on election to office, my right hon. and hon. Friends would bring new minds to this subject. They
have had some time to do so. The faults, if there be any, lay with their predecessors. I am not here to make yah-boo
party points; I am asking very, very little. Distinguished lawyers should take a look at what other lawyers have decided
and done.

I end with the statement of Paul Foot in The Guardian this week, which is headed "The Injustices Darkening Our
Skies". It refers first to the German evidence, when it says:
 

     "The Foreign Office greeted last week's Der Spiegel scoop about the Lockerbie bombing with its familiar mix of
embarrassment and silence."

I hope that, sooner rather than later, there will be some comment on the German evidence.

Foot ended by saying:
 

     "The new Foreign Office Minister Tony Lloyd studiously copied his Tory predecessors by expressing his deep
concern while stopping well short of any new initiative. 'The notion that all these inquiries were conducted in such a
way that a particular result would be arrived at,' he said, 'would be a fantastic coincidence or a fantastic conspiracy.'
Precisely. Take your pick."

The purpose of my long, long speech that chance has made possible tonight is that my right hon. and hon. Friends
should be serious about some new initiative. I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has to
say.

7.58 pm

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for allowing me to
take part in this debate and for the mountains of information that he has passed to me which he has accumulated over
some considerable time. I intend to be brief. My hon. Friend has expressed his great concern about the whole issue in
significant detail.

I should like to air the issue from the perspective of my constituents and to deal with what they want, because they want
the chapter of the entire sad tragedy to be closed. There are, however, families in my constituency--as there are in
America and elsewhere in the United Kingdom--who want justice to be done. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the
Member for Linlithgow has complimented Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. I should admit that I served as a
member of the Dumfries and Galloway police authority for 11 years, four of which were as its chairman. I should add
that my term as chairman was served after the Lockerbie tragedy. I have every faith in Dumfries and Galloway
constabulary. Although it is the smallest force in Scotland, it is, none the less, an excellence force.

I am confident that all the evidence that has become available in recent months and years has been made available to
Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. I also have every confidence that it has performed its role as an enforcement
authority by investigating all the evidence.

I appreciate that there is a feeling that the tragedy is slipping away from us. I know full well that the American families
think of next year--the tragedy's 10th anniversary--as a significant watershed. I can only imagine the frustration that
those families feel, although I know full well the frustration that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow feels after
having spent many hours delving into what he regards as evidence. He has spent many hours investigating the matter
and believes that he has formed a picture of what really happened.

My inquiries indicate that all the evidence produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and by other parties
has been examined and investigated by those with a duty to do so. I think that he and I agree on two matters: we want
justice to be done, and we want improved relations with the Arab world, with the consequent benefits for many United
Kingdom industries and companies.

I am sure, however, that I do not have to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that our new Labour
Government have been in power for only 12 weeks. We require time to examine closely what has happened over the
past eight and a half years. I believe that now is not the time to hand over all of the relevant information to a third party
or to third parties. A new Government will provide an opportunity to move the matter forward.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend said that I want information to be handed over to third parties. I am not sure that "third
parties" is how one would describe Judge Edward, Lord Clyde, Lord Hope, a Lord Justice of Appeal, in England, or a
senior European judge. They are not simply "third parties".

Mr. Brown: I am referring to involvement by another investigative authority--the Metropolitan police--although I
include also some of the people eminent in the legal system mentioned by my hon. Friend.

As I said, the new Labour Government provide an opportunity. There is also an opportunity for the Libyan authorities
themselves to seize upon that opportunity, because it is a two-way process. I believe that the suspects will receive a trial
if the opportunity arises. As I said in my maiden speech, two or three weeks ago, I firmly believe in the Scottish legal
system and that a fair trial can be conducted in Scotland. We now need all those who have spent so much time on the
matter to pull together, to impress on the Libyan Government the fact that the two suspects must be handed over so that
they can receive that fair trial.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for giving me an opportunity to speak briefly in this
debate.

8.4 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I am pleased to be able to reply
to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and I am grateful for his usual
courtesy in having given advance notice of the main issues that he planned to raise in this--his 14th--debate on the
Lockerbie criminal investigation. He mentioned 11 or 12 debates, but we have factually established that the total is 14.
In his most recent

Adjournment debate, he said that he must be extremely lucky to have secured such a debate. He must have an
exceptionally lucky star, because that debate was only six weeks ago. I share with him, however, an appreciation of the
seriousness of the issue and of the debate.

As this is the first such debate to which I have responded, I should like to express my deepest sympathy for all those
who lost friends or family in that terrible outrage on 21 December 1988. I also pay tribute to the unprecedented efforts
of those who assisted at the disaster site and to the work of the investigative agencies involved, particularly Dumfries
and Galloway constabulary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow suggested, however, that it is no longer realistic for that police force to
continue to conduct the investigation, which it began on 21 December 1988. The investigation came to be conducted by
Scotland's smallest police force for the simple reason that the crime was committed in that police area. There are
contingency plans--to request and obtain the assistance of other police forces--in place between police forces when
dealing with such major incidents. I am sure that he appreciates that.

In response to the Lockerbie incident, the then chief constable, John Boyd, put that mutual aid plan into operation--so
that, by the middle of the week after the occurrence of the disaster, more than 1,000 police officers from 11 police
forces, both from Scotland and England, were involved in the investigation. The Metropolitan police was one of the
police forces so involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow should, however, note that it became a criminal investigation once--on 28
December 1988--the cause of the crash was confirmed to be the result of the detonation of a bomb. From that point
onwards, responsibility for investigation and prosecution of the crime became that of the then Lord Advocate, Lord
Fraser of Carmylie. In exercising his responsibility for the prosecution of crime in Scotland, my noble and learned
Friend the Lord Advocate is empowered by statute to give instructions to the chief constable on the investigation and
reporting of offences.

The statutory relationship between the prosecuting and investigating authorities is reflected in the very high level of
consultation between them on the case over the years, in relation to inquiries both in the United Kingdom and in foreign
jurisdictions that required the issue of letters of request. As was said in reply to the fifth debate on the topic initiated by
my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, on 13 December 1994, the procurator fiscal for Dumfries worked full time
on the Lockerbie case from the date of the event until after issue of the warrants. For most of that time, he shared
accommodation with the police.

During the investigation, members of the investigating team visited no fewer than 23 countries to pursue criminal
inquiries. In total, during the criminal inquiry, some 70 countries made inquiries on behalf of the investigating
authorities. The Dumfries and Galloway constabulary was able to pursue those inquiries as efficiently as any
other police force--with such assistance as was necessary from other police forces--and remain able to call upon such
assistance when the circumstances so dictated.

I think that it is vitally important--I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will agree--to recognise the
level of co-operation offered by and obtained from other police forces. Moreover, the international dimension has been
and continues to be crucial to the case. It is an active and live aspect of the investigation.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend write to me on the following subject? Was there any point in time at which the
Scottish police would have liked to interview certain persons in Germany, but, for some reason or other, it was made
difficult for them to do so by the German police? I do not expect him to answer that question off the top of his head, but
I would like a letter on the subject.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend is pursuing this matter intensely and he must have some foresight about what I am going
to say. If he is unhappy with my response, I shall wish to investigate further and write to him.

Particular mention should be made of the relationship that was established between the German police--the BKA--and
the Scottish police and, indeed, between Scottish prosecutors and their German counterparts. There has in the past been
unwarranted criticism of the level of co-operation between the Scottish and German investigating authorities. It has
always been the firm policy of the Lord Advocate not to give details of investigative steps that are taken. No criminal
investigation could be properly pursued where details of what steps had been taken were disclosed or heralded in
advance. However, in relation to the co-operation between the Scottish police and their German counterparts, I remind
my hon. Friend that the then Foreign Secretary on 1 February 1995, in view of the criticism to which I have
referred, took the unprecedented step of confirming that requests were made for the interview of two individuals in
Germany, that such requests were granted and that, indeed, Scottish police officers were present during those
interviews. That might serve as one example of the manner in which relevant lines of inquiry can be pursued in the
course of the criminal investigation. My hon. Friend's question perhaps ranged wider than that point, and I am happy to
put on record the relationships that have existed between the Dumfries and Galloway police and other police
authorities.

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
 

     "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.

Mr. McLeish: I have made the point that, based on the information, discussions, analysis and continuing review in the
Crown Office, there is a reason for proceeding with the petition warrants issued in respect of the two Libyans accused.
That judgment is predicated on the basis that evidence exists that would bring those two to trial. In a sense, I am
confirming the view--and reinforcing the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to my hon. Friend--
that there is no evidence that we need an outside person to come in and take a fresh look. There is evidence that
suggests we should proceed to prosecute the two Libyans, and that is the basis of the current debate.

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 of 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.

My hon. Friend, along with others, may consider that the prosecuting authorities do not have sufficient evidence to
prosecute the case against the two accused. Such assessments are made in a vacuum because the details of the evidence
cannot be disclosed publicly.

My hon. Friend mentioned the impact that the United Nations Security Council sanctions are having on Libya and on
British commercial interests. It is more than five and a half years since the Libyan Government were called on to
surrender their two nationals for trial in Scotland or the United States. The demands for surrender are backed by United
Nations Security Council sanctions, two of which are mandatory. However, surrender of the two accused for trial in
Scotland or the US would transform the situation on sanctions. They can be lifted as soon as the requirements of the
resolutions are fully complied with. We cannot arrange for Libya to fulfil those requirements--that is a matter for the
Libyan Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend on 17 July, the Government will
try every avenue to make progress in this matter, but the onus is on Libya to comply with the relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions.
The United Nations Security Council sanctions were renewed as recently as 10 July 1997 and the Government believe
that they should remain in place until they are complied with. Anyone with an interest in resolving the matter should
seek to encourage Libya to comply in full with the resolutions.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to put on record that I have tried, as have some parliamentary colleagues, to encourage the
Libyans. I have told them that I believe that they would get a fair trial in Edinburgh. I am proud of Scottish justice, but
one has to consider the situation from the Arab African point of view. They are not going to come to Scotland for trial.
My hon. Friend the Minister is younger than me, but we shall both be kicking up the daisies before the matter is
resolved if we stick to a policy of the onus being entirely on Libya. The problem will go on and on.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend will appreciate that my comment should not be taken as a suggestion that he and others
have not tried to get Libya to comply in full with the resolutions. I appreciate what he has said for the record.

Once the accused had appeared before the court, a full disclosure of the evidence against them would be made available
to the defence in this case as in any other case. That disclosure would include not only the evidence to be led in proof of
the charges against the two accused, but also any evidence uncovered during the investigation that was consistent with
their innocence. The trial could then proceed before a jury, untrammelled by premature disclosures of the evidence and
in a forum in which the accused were properly represented and given an opportunity to test the strength of the evidence
against them. That is the proper course to follow in deliberating on the guilt or innocence of anyone charged with a
crime. With all due respect to my hon. Friend--I hope that he will acknowledge the spirit of this suggestion--the Floor
of the House is not the proper place to be entering into discussion concerning the evidence in the case against the two
accused or the sufficiency of that evidence.

I am aware that my comments today will provide little comfort to my hon. Friend or to those who lost friends or
relatives as a result of this terrible crime. I am aware that the relatives desire truth and justice.

Mr. Dalyell: We raised the matter of what is being said in the holy city of Qom in Iran and the evidence produced by
Stephen Breen of The Scotsman. I must be candid with my hon. Friend. I treat that with some caution, because some
Iranian groups may well have wished to claim credit for that which they did not do. I understand that, given the volatile
nature of what goes on in the Islamic Republic of Iran, all sorts of things may have happened. We are entitled to ask
what steps are being taken to find out the truth or falsehood of what is said. The Dumfries and Galloway police do not
have all the facilities to find out what happened without strong Foreign Office translation support. However, we really
ought to find out what happened.

Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that before I sit down.

If the prosecuting authorities were to disclose the details of the evidence at this juncture, all hope of there being a
criminal trial of the two accused would be extinguished. The rightful expectation that justice be done could not be met.

There have, of course, been suggestions that the trial should proceed in a third country. My hon. Friend must by now be
aware that we have objections to that in principle and in practice. First, the acceptance of a trial in a third country would
be tantamount to allowing suspected terrorists to dictate where and by whom they should be tried for the crime of
which they stand accused. Secondly, it would imply that we accepted the argument that the accused could not get a fair
trial in
Scotland. My hon. Friend has put on record his compliments to the quality of justice in Scotland. As long ago as
September 1993, the Libyans accepted assurances delivered through the UN Secretary-General that trial in Scotland
was fair. Thirdly, the United Nations Security Council resolutions require that the accused be delivered for trial in
Scotland or the United States and not elsewhere. Fourthly, there would be enormous practical and legal difficulties in
attempting to establish a trial outwith Scotland or the United States.

Finally, we do not believe that the Libyans intend that any such trial should take place. They have in the past stated that
they are powerless to make the accused leave Libya for trial in Scotland or the United States in the absence of an
extradition treaty with either of those countries. Equally, however, we must ask what powers they have to compel the
attendance of their two nationals should any third country trial be set up in, for example, The Hague when there is no
extradition agreement between Libya and the Netherlands.

On the suggestions that the two Libyan suspects be tried at The Hague, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there
is no general international criminal court. The Bosnian and Rwandan tribunals were established because of the inability
of the countries involved to hold a fair trial. I submit that that is not so in relation to the Lockerbie case.

I am aware that the current sanctions regime may be having an impact on the life of ordinary Libyan citizens, but the
Government cannot accept that the blame for this situation should lie at the door of the Security Council or us.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend said that the Government cannot accept the blame. The truth is that theGovernment are
being blamed along with the American Government, who may be the real motivators in all this. They are being blamed
by most of the Arab world, almost the whole of Africa, President Mandela and a great many people in this country who
have studied this issue. All the letters from the careful Edinburgh lawyers should be taken into account. To be blunt,
this
Administration, like the last Administration, are in cloud cuckoo land.

Mr. McLeish: My remarks are predicated on two simple points. First, we have the evidence to prosecute and pursue the
two Libyans and, secondly, there are international pressures and sanctions which are being brought to bear on Libya to
release the suspects. Although we could be criticised and attacked, logic suggests that the matter could be resolved by
the Libyans presenting the two suspects and a trial taking place. Whether they are innocent or guilty is for the trial to
establish.

The main reasons for the deprivation of the Libyan people go much wider than has been suggested. There is no
objective justification for easing up on the UN sanctions regime before Libya has complied with the requirements of the
Security Council resolutions.

I also share my hon. Friend's concern that British business may be losing out on a valuable export market. Once again,
in our judgment the fault lies with the Libyan Government. It must also be remembered that our difficulties with the
Libyan Government extend back to beyond Lockerbie to the murder of WPC Fletcher in April 1984. My hon. Friend
has discussed that matter tonight.

Mr. Dalyell: The issue of WPC Fletcher is thrown into doubt by the three fulcrum programmes "Murder at  St James's".
I plead with the Crown Office--television speculation is one thing, but Bernard Knight, the Home Office pathologist,
said that the Government's explanation is impossible; Hugh Thomas, the consultant surgeon in Belfast, said that the
bullets could not have entered in that way; and George Stiles, a ballistics expert, said that he does not believe that it
could have happened in that way.

The Minister should remember that David Veness sat in his office in Scotland Yard last Thursday and told me that they
were re-analysing the Yvonne Fletcher case. If Scotland Yard has sufficient doubt to re-analyse, how can one base a
major foreign policy issue on such flimsy evidence? It is all very well to say, "bring the Libyans," but I went on at
inordinate length to explain why serious people have the gravest doubts about whether the Libyans did it in the first
place. I realise that the Minister is in a difficult position--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I understand the complexities of the debate and the Minister has been
generous in giving way, but I think that, at this stage, interventions should be a little briefer.

Mr. Dalyell: Given the complexity and doubts involved, it is building a major foreign policy on shifting sands.

Mr. McLeish: I may be doing a number of things tonight, but I am not shifting sands.

Mr. Dalyell: Building on shifting sands.

Mr. McLeish: I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have given the up-to-date position and I have tried to
deal with the concerns that have been expressed.

I was saying that it would be wrong to allow purely commercial considerations to dictate the policy we adopt on
sensitive issues such as these. I do not think for a minute that that is the thrust of my hon. Friend's contribution.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must make it clear that I did not say that my hon. Friend was
shifting sands. I would not insult him because he has been generous in giving way and I appreciate that a great deal. It
is a hard-working reply and I appreciate what he has done. I am saying that the policy was built on shifting sands in
relation to the Yvonne Fletcher and Lockerbie evidence. I would not insult him--I do not feel like that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. McLeish: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's sincere and generous comments.

As my hon. Friend has said, I had a letter fromU. K Families Flight 103. It was about Abolhassem Mesbahi and the
current revelations. I shall be frank; the latest revelations are being thoroughly investigated by the Crown Office.

We cannot go into detail about the investigations but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the matter is being dealt with
urgently in the Crown Office. That point will be made to the families who have written to me. I wanted to wait until
after the debate before speaking to them. My hon. Friend referred to the response from Downing street by Philip
Barton. In that letter, we make the point that
 

     "The investigation remains open and the prosecuting and investigating authorities will consider any evidence
brought to their attention."

As is always the case with these debates and the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, all of this
evening's proceedings will have been recorded and all of the material will be with the Crown Office. I shall certainly
want all the letters that I have received during that period to be given to the Crown Office. That is not only a courtesy to
my hon. Friend but essential and necessary in the circumstances of this evening's debate.

I shall conclude on that, hoping that some of the concerns I have raised—

Mr. Dalyell: Before he concludes, I should like to thank my hon. Friend, on the record, for the tone of his  reply, which
is somewhat different to some--not all--of the replies I have received. I thank him very much for the work that he has
put into this matter during a busy period.

Mr. McLeish: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend. When at the Dispatch Box one has responsibilities but also an
opportunity to be sincere, especially in relation to a crime as heinous as the one we are discussing.

In summary, I shall respond to U. K. Families Flight 103 and I shall pass the appropriate material that I have received in
the past few days to the Crown Office and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. I am sure that there
will be further discussions between me and my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and for Dumfries.

Question put and agreed to.

     Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Nine o'clock.