The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Last August, I announced agreements with the Governments of the Netherlands and of the United States on the conditions under which we could hold a trial of the two accused in a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. The agreement has been endorsed in a unanimous resolution of the Security Council, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in discussion with Libya on the arrangements for the handover of the two accused.

We have been able since to respond positively to all the concerns raised by the Libyan legal team, with the exception of the demand that, if convicted, the two accused should not serve their sentence in a Scottish prison. If they are found guilty, we can see no valid reason why they should not serve sentence in the jurisdiction of Scotland, where the mass murder took place.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a matter of record that the Libyan Government have constantly said that it is up to the defence team to decide, from its point of view, the locus of serving a sentence, if there is one? Does he not therefore take encouragement from the fact that, as far as most of us know, the defence lawyers have not objected to the locus of Scotland in terms of a sentence, if any sentence is passed?

Mr. Cook: It is, indeed, the case that the defence lawyers have not expressed any view on where the accused should be held in prison. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that, before we made our offer last August, there was no statement from the Government of Libya expressing any concern about imprisonment in Scotland. That concern surfaced only after we had met their demand for a trial under Scottish law in a third country. We now expect Libya to oblige the Security Council resolution by surrendering the two accused for trial on exactly the same basis as that for which Libya itself has lobbied for a long time.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): As the Government of Libya have indicated in writing that they agree to the proposals, subject to some amendments, and as the British Government have said that there will be no amendments, is it not rather insulting to the House

27 Oct 1998 : Column 153
that the draft order setting out the proposals for the trial and the expenditure has been dealt with under a procedure entailing that the order cannot be discussed in the House? Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it would be appropriate for the House to debate the order and to be able to express a view on it? Does he not also agree that there is a case for quiet private discussions and flexibility, and that the issue could well be resolved very speedily?

Mr. Cook: The draft was passed by an Order in Council under the standard procedures for Orders

27 Oct 1998 : Column 154
in Council and gives effect to a Security Council resolution, which has standing in international law. As for flexibility, the Libyan defence team has come up with no concern on which we have not been able to reassure it, except for the one matter of it wishing to dictate where the two accused might serve their sentence if convicted.

There is nothing to stop any hon. Member debating the issue. I rather wish that we were dealing with a regime that would allow the Libyan people to discuss it in the same open way.

27 Oct 1998 : Column 153

27 Oct 1998 : Column 155

1 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): I am very glad to have this opportunity, in a very brief Adjournment
debate, to raise the issue of The Hague trial. I know that my interest in the subject is shared very much by the hon. Member for
Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has fought so hard over the years to get the truth told about Lockerbie. I certainly hope that it
will be possible for him to speak in the debate.

One point that we have to bear in mind straight away is that, without this half-hour debate, there would be absolutely no
opportunity to debate a rather dramatic, significant and expensive initiative by the Government before 21 December 1998,
which is the date on which the United States has been quoted publicly, perhaps incorrectly, as saying that the plug will be
pulled on the proposals and that an endeavour will be made to impose more comprehensive sanctions. The House is therefore
entitled to ask a few questions about the proposals.

The first and most obvious question is whether there is any time limit on the proposed agreement. The resolution was
proposed in the United Nations and the agreement on the trial made between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
However, as the United States seems to have taken on the role of emperor of the world, in a position superior to that of such
rather pedestrian institutions as the United Nations, it would be helpful if the Government would say whether there is a
relevant time limit.

Secondly, is it the case, as reported in the press, that the premises of the proposed Scottish court will be located on a former
United States airbase? As is well known, that suggestion has caused great suspicion in Libya. It would be helpful if the
Government would say whether a decision has been made on the location and whether there might be some merit in locating
the court in an existing building. The third and most obvious question that the House should ask is what is the estimated cost
of the trial and who will pay for it?

I want to make it abundantly clear that I have absolutely no doubts about the integrity of the Minister of State, Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), whose attendance I appreciate. I appreciate
also the attendance of the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, who is very busy indeed, but has a great
interest in the problem.

It is very important that the Government should be aware of the real suspicions of the Libyans, who, in the normal course of
events, have a very good bargain in sending over two of their citizens for trial in exchange for an end to sanctions and all that
goes with them. Ministers should be aware that some in Libya have a suspicion that the whole business is a plot by the US,
which put the matter before the UN simply because it thought that it would not be able to renew sanctions.

Some specific issues arise from the proposals. The first is the agreement between Britain and the Netherlands. Can that be
changed without the agreement of the Libyan authorities? That is a very important point. As the trial procedure appears to
have been set out entirely on the basis of an agreement between Britain and the Netherlands, there seems to be absolutely no
reason why the two countries cannot propose changes. Is that the case?

18 Nov 1998 : Column 907

Secondly, what is the reason for a provision in the agreement for a possible transfer of the trial to Scotland if the two
suspects agree to it? It seems difficult to understand why the provision was included and I should like to know why it was.
Thirdly, will sanctions be suspended and not terminated? That matter, too, causes suspicion and is something on which the
Minister should comment.

There are wider issues that I hope the Government will consider. First, there has been massive press coverage and television
programmes in Libya--I have seen them myself--about the alleged plot to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi, which was revealed by
Mr. David Shaylor, a former MI5 official. The Foreign Office has said that the report is without foundation, that it did not
approve it, and that the whole thing is a figment of someone's imagination. However, the assassination attempt was real and
several people were killed. It is all recorded on film.

Secondly, Mr. Shaylor, who we understand was the head of the Libyan desk in MI5, not only stated that MI6 had initiated the
plot, but gave full details about an amount of money, alleged to be £100,000, and to whom it was paid--a Mr. Tonworth, who
was an intermediary for a fundamentalist group. Thirdly, it was stated that documents about the assassination attempt were
circulating freely within Government offices. Fourthly, it has come to my notice that about a quarter of the material that was to
be used in the "Panorama" programme was removed on Government instructions. Substantial and significant injunctions on
publication of the details have been imposed on newspapers and television programmes.

As the Minister is well aware, it is alleged that the whole business was thought up not by the current Government, but by the
previous Government. However, it would be very helpful in trying to resolve the dispute with Libya if the Government said
that there would be a proper inquiry. It would be helpful to know if there was no such sum, if the man who allegedly received
the money does not exist, and if the organisation in London, which seemed to start the business, does not exist. If there were
such an assassination attempt, I can think of nothing wrong in telling the truth. I have often taken the view that truth is the
secret weapon in politics. Indeed, I think that many of our problems in international relations would be resolved and removed
if the truth was told.

I should make it abundantly clear that that particular assassination attempt has been shown widely on television in Libya.
There have been full details of all that went before it; details of people allegedly giving information about it; and details of its
background. We have not seen many of those details in the United Kingdom, undoubtedly because of the injunction. However,
some comment should be made on the matter.

It would be helpful if the Government would state--as I am sure the Minister could for himself--that they had no part in the
mass of damaging and wholly untrue stories printed about Libya. I could mention many such stories, but will concentrate
specifically on one that was published very recently. The Sunday Telegraph--a respectable newspaper that I always buy and
enjoy reading--published one of the many stories circulating. It was headed:
 

    "New Clue Points to WPC's Killer".

18 Nov 1998 : Column 908

    As we well know, recently there has been a great deal of evidence on television programmes and in the press that the killer of WPC Fletcher was not someone
    from the Libyan embassy and that the bullet came from another building. I do not know the truth, but the story has stirred up some sentiment on the matter.

The dramatic story in The Sunday Telegraph stated that Scotland Yard had launched a fresh investigation into the murder of
WPC Fletcher after receiving new evidence about the identity of her killer. It seems that that new evidence pointed to a
Libyan, because the story went on to say that because of "dramatic new information" there would soon be an attempt to
extradite the guilty party from Libya. The newspaper, to strengthen the story, added a long comment from the Home Secretary,
who said that there would shortly be a conclusion of the review.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Ever since I visited Assistant Commissioner David Venness in Scotland Yard, I have
believed that Scotland Yard is doing its utmost to resolve the problem of what it called "one of its own". It is a matter not
only of a television programme but of the evidence, on camera, of George Styles, one of the British Army's senior ballistics
officers; of Hugh Thomas, consultant surgeon at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast; and of Bernard Knight, the Home Office
pathologist--who was considered responsible enough to be put in charge of Cromwell street and much else. It is a formidable
case.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As usual, the hon. Gentleman knows all about the situation. A report into the problem has been initiated
and we shall be interested to see it when it eventually emerges. I phoned the assistant commissioner whom the hon.
Gentleman named. He kindly put me on to the inspector in charge of the inquiry, who courteously explained that, as I had
suspected, the story in The Sunday Telegraph was, in his words, "a load of codswallop". There had been no new evidence.
The Metropolitan police had not been consulted about the story. There was no new inquiry. I asked him if I could quote our
conversation in this debate and he gladly agreed.

The inspector further explained that the original inquiry, which had been proceeding for a long time, was nearing completion.
However, the damage done by the story is pretty obvious. It is a shame that it appeared in a paper that I have always
respected. The quotation in the story from the Home Secretary came from a written answer some time ago in response to a
question about the inquiry.

There have been many other such stories. There was one about a secret chemical arms factory in a mountain, which I know
contained nothing but a pipe taking water to Tripoli. It was important to Libya. We asked for an independent investigation and
the facts were confirmed. Another rather strange story was published after the terrible recent events in Northern Ireland
suggesting that the new IRA had connections with Libya. Again, every inquiry that I made showed the story to be nonsense.
Such stories are printed all the time and cause concern in Libya. I am sure that the Government will confirm that the story that
I have referred to is untrue and that there was no question of the Government being involved in circulating such stories.

18 Nov 1998 : Column 909

Are the Government aware of the impact on British trade and industry of the negative opinions resulting from such activities
as we have witnessed over the alleged assassination? When I visited Libya for a couple of days recently, I was very worried
by a widely circulated document entitled "Embargo on Goods of US and UK Origin". It tells a supplier:
 

    "As for your argument regarding the easy nature of the procedures applied in dealing with UK companies, this is not a sufficient reason for you to disregard the
    instructions issued in connection with this matter. You are to note that GMRA's approval of some equipment from the UK was an exception intended to assist
    the company in specific circumstances and should not be used as a rule for what comes later."

That worried me a great deal because, although I have no interest in firms dealing with Libya, I know that Britain had a good
trade relationship with Libya. There is a good sentiment towards the United Kingdom in Libya, particularly because of the
events of the second world war. My fear is that, as has happened in other places, Britain is being outsmarted. I am sure that
the Minister is well aware that it is difficult to move in Tripoli for Frenchmen these days.

The Minister should be aware that, although the sanctions have been imposed by many countries, the resentment felt in Libya
is towards Britain and the United States. My fear is that the Government's well-intended initiative will collapse because they
are not prepared to go the extra mile to resolve the situation. The Government have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to
bring about a settlement in Northern Ireland, where the problems are frightening. We all hope that they succeed.

The issues that need to resolved could be sorted outin private, meaningful, detailed discussions. Such discussions took place
some years ago on Libya's previous links with the IRA. I understand that full information was given on the basis of private
discussions in which respect was shown. If the Government initiated such private discussions between officials and the
Libyan authorities, nothing would be lost and a great deal could be gained. There would be a better chance of success, an
opportunity to remove fears and proof of good will. If things went wrong, at least the Government's case would be
strengthened by having gone all the way and tried all that they could to resolve the situation.

As the Minister is aware, I received a letter from the Libyan Foreign Minister saying that Libya agreed to the trial if certain
assurances were given. The letter ended:
 

    "Libya has emerged from a horrendous endeavour to destroy it with greater strength and unity. We will be glad to co-operate with any honest endeavours to
    resolve the dispute, but will insist that our nation and people be treated with the dignity and fairness which this victory makes appropriate."

I have no doubt that, on the basis of his previous experience in the House and his work in the Foreign Office, the Minister
intends to try to resolve the issue. However, I fear, particularly for the sake of the relatives of those who lost their lives at
Lockerbie, that things will go wrong because of a lack of understanding, a lack of commitment and, perhaps, a lack of
awareness of what is involved in the various discussions. We have a duty to those who lost their lives to ensure that the truth
is told. I welcome what has been proposed, but I hope that the Government realise that to make it happen there could be a
case for endeavouring further to resolve the fears and suspicions of Libya. The Government may regard those fears and
suspicions as unjustified, but they certainly exist.

18 Nov 1998 : Column 910

I wish the Government every success in what they are doing. They should be driven by the feelings of those who lost relatives
in the dreadful bombing at Lockerbie. They want the truth to be told. That can happen only if there is a proper trial. To
achieve a trial, the Government must show the necessary good will. I hope that they will and that progress will be made.

1.15 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I wish that the Crown Office and the Foreign Office would start to talk directly to the
Libyans.

1.16 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): As the hon. Member for Rochford and
Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, the Government have already taken part in a dramatic and significant initiative on the
issues surrounding Lockerbie. That initiative was driven by the same sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expressed at the end
of his speech. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend the Lord Advocate were exercised by the
position of the families, as was I. At that time the families had been looking for truth and justice for nearly nine years and had
found little of either--only frustration.

When we came to power, we looked to see what we could do to break the impasse. We were also conscious of the words of
friends of Britain, such as President Mandela, who asked whether it was possible to begin to look at ways of moving the
situation forward. We considered carefully how that could be done, consistent with certain principles, which had to include
the need for real justice to be seen to be done, the need to maintain the integrity of the Scottish judicial system and the need to
ensure that no one could regard it as a search for a political compromise, because our prime concern was to ensure that what
was offered served the interests of the families.

We took that important initiative in good faith in a public domain. We look for that good faith to be returned. Enabling the
Scottish justice system to operate effectively in the Netherlands was not an easy undertaking. The legal and administrative
issues were many and complex. We are deeply grateful to the Government of the Netherlands for all the work that they have
done to make the trial possible. Our painstaking worked-out proposal of 24 August was unanimously endorsed by the United
Nations Security Council in resolution 1192 on 27 August. It is fair, comprehensive and workable.

Our objective is what it has always been: a free and fair trial--nothing more, nothing less. In discussing the elements of the
initiative with the Governments of the United States and of the Netherlands, we were acutely aware of the need to ensure that
the proposal was fair not only to the prosecution but to the defence. It would not be right, nor would it serve any of our
interests, to engage in a flawed process. The demands of justice require a fair trial.

We have made it clear that the terms of the initiative are not negotiable. That is right and proper, and I repeat that it is now
supported by the Security Council resolution. However, we have been willing to provide comprehensive clarification where
requested by Libya, and it may be helpful if I explain what some of those

18 Nov 1998 : Column 911

clarifications have been. It is right that we should be ready to explain why we are satisfied that the proposal provides for a
fair trial.

The answers that we have provided show that there is no hidden agenda, that the trial will be of the two accused alone, that
any witnesses who may travel from Libya will have safe passage and immunity from arrest for any offence committed before
arrival in the Netherlands, and that sanctions will be suspended when the two accused arrive in the Netherlands for trial. We
want Libya to understand that we are acting in good faith.

In response to his question, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have provided that clarification through the good offices of
Kofi Annan as United Nations Secretary-General. That was foreseen in the Security Council resolution. It is important
because it provides transparency and an additional assurance to the Libyans that we mean what we say. What we say is there
for all to see.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Why are sanctions being suspended rather than terminated?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will address several of the issues that he has raised, but first I shall run
through the main points about the process in which we are engaging.

We want a transparent process. It is helpful if the process is dealt with through the Secretary-General, because that makes it
clear that Lockerbie is not simply a bilateral British-Libyan operation, or even an issue between the United States and Libya,
but is now of international interest. The will of the international community, unanimously expressed through the Security
Council, is that Libya should accept the terms of the Security Council resolutions.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should enter into discreet negotiations with Libya. However, the families of those who
died on Pan Am flight 103 demand to know the truth. Secret bilateral deals would not help them, and are not necessary. The
channel of communication through the Secretary-General has worked well in providing Libya with the information sought,
and we have answered fully every question put to us.

The hon. Gentleman asked me several questions, and I shall try to answer them. There is no formal time limit on the process,
but he will realise that that does not mean that we can wait around indefinitely for a response. The offer was made in good
faith, and good faith on the other side demands some reciprocity, which we have yet to see.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the location of the trial. It is true that the place is a former air base that was used by,
among others, the United States. That does not happen now and has not happened for some time. There are no United States
troops there now, and the area is sovereign Dutch territory again. Even the Libyans do not now see its former role as a major
obstacle.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the costs of the trial. Various estimates can be made, but it is a measure of the spirit in which
the Lord Advocate and the Foreign Secretary entered into the process that cost was not an issue. Justice is the issue. Yes, the
suggested trial will be significantly more expensive than a trial in Scotland,

18 Nov 1998 : Column 912

but because we are determined to seek proper justice, costs are not a determining factor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will
welcome that assurance.

I was also asked whether the agreement with the Dutch could be rewritten or unwritten. That agreement is underwritten by an
Order in Council, and as it is of the nature of a treaty, it is not amendable. None the less, it is inconceivable that a process
that has been transparent could be altered without the alteration being equally transparent. I hope that even if the hon.
Gentleman is cynical about what the British Government might do, he would accept the fact that the Dutch Government come
here with clean and honest hands. There would be no reason why they should want to amend a treaty for nefarious purposes at
a later stage.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the suspension of sanctions. The Security Council resolution is specific on that point, and
says that when the two accused are delivered to The Hague for trial, sanctions will be suspended. I assume that the hon.
Gentleman fears that sanctions will somehow be reimposed later, but it would be incredible if we tried to get away with that
in the court of world opinion.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman further. Even if that were the hidden agenda of the British Government, once sanctions had
been suspended, a decision by the Security Council would be required to alter the sanctions regime from suspension. Neither
the British nor the Americans could do that; it would require action by the whole Security Council. That is a protection for the
Libyans.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the allegations by Mr. Shayler. It is far from unknown for those who seek to make
money out of their former careers to go way beyond the bounds of fact and enter a world of romance, and the Foreign
Secretary has made it clear that there is no truth in the allegations. I stand by that statement, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman
openly that neither under previous Governments nor under the present Government has there been any shred of evidence to
support Mr. Shayler's allegations.

I shall almost repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already told the House about the case
of WPC Fletcher, when I say that it is under active investigation by the Metropolitan police, who will report to the Home
Secretary when their findings are complete. There is no connection between the Lockerbie situation involving the trial and the
sanctions, and the case of WPC Fletcher. It is important that the House and the world know that.

We want the WPC Fletcher case to be resolved. We still believe that the action was committed by the Libyan authorities, and
it would be helpful if the Libyans conceded that point and accepted liability for compensation. That would be a positive step
forward in building good faith.

We have already provided clarification, and I have, I hope, provided some more today. In principle, clarification about the
trial process has been provided through the offices of the United Nations Secretary-General. We have not taken those steps
lightly, and they are not merely a gesture. We are serious; we want a trial before a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, so
that this distressing issue can be brought to an end.

18 Nov 1998 : Column 913

We have done, and are still doing, everything possible to ensure that outcome. We introduced the necessary changes to Scots
law by Order in Council on 16 September, and the Foreign Secretary has told the House that an agreement between the United
Kingdom and the Netherlands was signed on 18 September. We want to make progress, and we are confident that in
proposing to agree with the Government of the Netherlands on an early date for the agreement to enter into force, we are
acting with the will of the House. Work is under way to prepare the trial site. All we need now is a positive response from
the Libyans.

I want to reiterate that sanctions are not designed to punish the Libyan people. It is neither our wish nor our intention to keep
Libya under UN sanctions indefinitely for some undefined political purpose. The UN sanctions have a legitimate
purpose--they are designed and mandated by the UN Security Council to press Libya to fulfil its obligations under UN
resolutions. When Libya conforms to the resolutions, sanctions can be brought to an end.

I hope that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East takes my words to heart. We will support the suspension of
sanctions in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1192 when the accused arrive in the Netherlands for trial.
Given the purpose of sanctions and the way in which we propose to make progress, it would be wrong and illogical--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is time for the next debate.