I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for providing me with a copy of the paper prepared for him by the distinguished professor of Scots law, Robert Black, on the subject of third-country trial. I also am not a lawyer, but I will attempt to deal partially with some of the issues raised. In one sense, this is not an appropriate forum for me to examine that paper point by point, because of my lack of ability to go into detail. I assure my hon. Friend that the paper is being considered by my colleagues in the Crown Office who are responsible for the prosecution, and they will respond in detail. They are much more competent than I am to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the paper also be considered by the Foreign Office lawyers, because some of us are desperate to have a second opinion on the Crown Office view?

Mr. Lloyd: The lawyers in the Foreign Office are, of course, actively engaged in the debate. My hon. Friend will know that, during the recent consideration of the location of the Lockerbie trial by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Foreign Office lawyers were present, together with the Lord Advocate. However, I do not wish to pretend to my hon. Friend that there is some mechanism under which the Foreign Office would even seek to interpose itself above the Lord Advocate in his legitimate and undeniable constitutional role as the legal authority in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not name civil servants in the House, but two civil servants in the Crown Office who have given key advice have been there for a long time, and I understand that both have been honoured by the American Administration. That causes some of us to raise our eyebrows. All I am asking is that either the distinguished lawyers in the Foreign Office, or the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or Judge David Edwards QC, consider the issue. After all, the issue involves the British national interest, apart from anything else.

Mr. Lloyd: There is no distance between us on the fact that this matter is of considerable national interest. Perhaps the best way to respond to my hon. Friend is to say that, since the Government came into office six months ago, and since I first responded to an Adjournment debate prompted by my hon. Friend, I--and every relevant member of the Foreign Office team and the Scottish Office and of the Scottish legal system--have spent much time looking at the evidence. I make no criticism of the time we have spent, because it was right and proper that we should do so.

I emphasise that we approached the issue with no fixed agenda or preconceived views, except a wish to examine the evidence afresh. The Lockerbie bombing is, rightly,

Column 551
of fundamental importance, not only in terms of my hon. Friend's concerns and the interests of the families involved--desperately important though those are--but because the issue affects the whole nation and its role in the world. We know that we are considering global issues, and I emphasise that we came to the issue with real determination to look at it afresh.

The Lord Advocate has gone through the evidence, and has shared it with members of the Foreign Office. As my hon. Friend knows, the Lord Advocate is firmly of the view that the evidence against the two accused Libyans justified the legal proceedings taken against them.

Mr. Dalyell: The Lord Advocate was a very controversial counsel in the original and highly controversial fatal accident inquiry. And is it known to the Foreign Office that senior officials of the Crown Office have had honours from the United States Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not in a position to comment on that. I must honestly tell my hon. Friend that the Lord Advocate is not only a lawyer of considerable expertise but somebody who, in the light both of his background and of the care and patience with which he has reviewed the present situation, should not in drawing the same conclusions as his predecessors be accused of initial bias. He was aware of the pressure that existed; indeed, he is the third Lord Advocate to examine the evidence afresh, and each one has a responsibility not only to himself--

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Lloyd: I was saying that the Lord Advocate, both because of his background and professional training, and because of the office that he holds, made it his business to come to the issue anew. I understand what my hon. Friend says about his previous role, but there was a gap of some years after his initial involvement--a distance not only of time but of separation of responsibilities.

It is hardly for me to say this, but I believe that, personally, the Lord Advocate is a man not only of considerable talent but of rectitude. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that he approached the task with precisely the kind of interest and vigour that my hon. Friend would wish, and came to the conclusion, as others had done before, that the evidence justified the legal proceedings against the accused.

I repeat to my hon. Friend that the authorities' only interest is in ensuring that we identify and prosecute the perpetrators of that terrible act of murder. I have no hidden agenda, and the Foreign Secretary has none, either. We fully accept the view of the men and women who have diligently and tirelessly worked on the case--indeed, my hon. Friend paid tribute to them.

We believe that the evidence firmly supports the case against the accused. Inevitably, many alternative theories have been propounded by those who, unlike the Lord Advocate, have not had access to the evidence--but none of those stands up to scrutiny.

Column 552

For example, it is worth noting that one of the theories spread abroad concerns the evidence of Lester Knox Coleman, whose account formed a large part of the television film, "The Maltese Double Cross". I think that my hon. Friend knows that Mr. Coleman has now confessed to an American court that his story was false. That is just one example of the inevitable speculation that has surrounded the case.

I use the word "inevitable" because I understand that, for those who seek the truth, the fact that the evidence will not be made available until there is a trial means that their knowledge of what is there is restricted. It also means that other theories will be suggested, and those are bound to be examined.

My starting point is that the Government come afresh to the issue, and are satisfied both that the evidence justifies the criminal charges brought against the two accused, and that the place to test that evidence is in a court of law.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not know whether the Minister will remember this, but the late Alan Frankovitch, the film maker, said that he was always extremely careful about Lester Coleman, who was peripheral, not central, to the film.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes the point for himself. There is no doubt that Mr. Coleman has now come out with a version of events different from that which he held firmly before.

The way to put an end to such speculation is to bring the matter to trial, and that is what the Government seek to do. I think that my hon. Friend will accept the fact that, since the general election, the new Government have come to the issue with a vigour that was not there before. He referred to the fact that not only the Foreign Secretary but the Prime Minister will meet the relatives; that is a courtesy that it is proper to extend to them. This offer to meet is not a guarantee to take the issue on to a different plain, because we believe that we must make sure that we bring the accused to trial.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow began by talking about the role of President Mandela, and he will have noted that the Prime Minister had an exchange of views on Lockerbie with President Mandela during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary covered the same ground with the South African Foreign Minister. As my hon. Friend said, President Mandela is an exceptional statesman, whose views are welcomed by the whole world, and he shares our desire to make progress in many areas, particularly Lockerbie.

President Mandela offered his thoughts to the Prime Minister on a third-country trial, but my right hon. Friend explained for our part why a trial by jury in Scotland would be fair and impartial. We explained the formidable obstacles to a third country trial, and how instead we should make progress through inviting international observers to a trial in Scotland. We will pursue that with vigour.

Our position has always been that there should be a trial in Scotland or the United States. President Mandela has not sought to mediate, and he is fully aware of the great importance we attach to Lockerbie and our views on how we must proceed. During his last visit to Libya,

Column 553
he emphasised the importance of respecting the United Nations. The Government believe that the Libyans should respect the UN by complying with the UN Security Council resolutions, which, among other things, insist upon a trial in Scotland or the US.

We have had discussions with many other leaders on the subject of Lockerbie in recent weeks. We have asked those who may have influence with the Libyan Government to seek to convince Libya that it should submit the accused to a fair and transparent trial in Scotland. Libya, for its part, has exerted great efforts in trying to have the sanctions against it eased.

We have made it clear, as we will do again today in a meeting of the United Nations Security Council in New York, that we cannot countenance such a move until Libya meets the requirements of the Security Council resolutions. But we have made it equally clear that, when Libya does comply, we will support the suspension of sanctions. There is no hidden agenda--we want the issue to be resolved as much as anyone.

What Libya has done over the past six years is to prevaricate and put up smokescreens to disguise why it has failed to comply precisely with the requirements of the Security Council resolutions. In 1993, Libya said that it was satisfied with the assurances it had been given over the fairness of a trial in Scotland. It said that it could not force the suspects to present themselves for trial in Scotland, but it would urge them to do so. Nothing happened. Now it is alleged that the suspects would not receive a fair trial in Scotland. We think that that is absolutely preposterous.

We are asked to believe that Libya would hand the accused over for a trial in another country. But if it is unable to force the suspects to attend a trial in Scotland because of the absence of an extradition treaty, why should it be any more able to deliver them for trial in another country? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made the point that the Libyans have said that there was no obstacle to the accused appearing in a third country. It is very hard to hear that a trial by Scottish judges under Scottish jurisdiction outside Scotland would be acceptable, while the same process with the added safeguard of an independent Scots jury in Scotland would be such a bad thing.

Mr. Dalyell: What on earth, then, is the objection to an incoming Labour Government offering to meet those people and talk to them, to find out face to face exactly what their position is? Is it not high time that we talked to them?

Mr. Lloyd: We have made it clear that we would welcome independent observers from the Arab League, the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations if they came to Scotland to discuss the trial process and satisfy themselves that a Scottish trial would be conducted impartially, independently and fairly. We believe that that is the way forward.

That invitation has been accepted by the United Nations, and we look forward to pursuing precisely the question of the independence and acceptability of a Scottish trial with those who are themselves independent. It is important for us not to give the false impression that we can accept some form of negotiation with those who claim to represent those accused of crimes of the utmost seriousness in this country.

Column 554

Propounding his own views and those of Professor Black, my hon. Friend asked why only the Lord Advocate--or at least the Scottish legal establishment--took the view that there was a difficulty about a third-country trial. I refer him to the conclusions of Professor M. Cherif Bassaouni of the international human rights institute of De Paul university, Chicago, who was the keynote speaker at a conference organised by the International Bar Association in conjunction with the Arab Lawyers Union, and who concluded that there would be insurmountable practical difficulties in establishing a trial in a third country.

The professor proposed what he called a Scottish solution, which he considered the only way forward. His agenda was very similar to that of the Scottish legal authorities.

Mr. Dalyell: I was at that conference, and a lot of other things were said. As I recollect, one of the objections was the difficulty of moving a jury. That objection, at least, I would have thought, had been met by Professor Black.

Mr. Lloyd: A jury is there not only to protect the rights of a defendant but to protect the Crown and the wider public interest; it is there precisely because it is not the professional legal officers, of whom my hon. Friend complains, who are able to dictate the pace and the conclusions of the trial process; the jury establishes some independence. I feel strongly--this is a personal view--that the jury system may not be perfect, but it is the best of all the systems devised in legal circles.

I would be most reluctant to go down the road that my hon. Friend suggests. He mentioned Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where juries were dispensed with; they were justified by the then Government on the basis that there was a severe risk of intimidation of witnesses. Neither he nor I would want to pretend that there would be witness intimidation in a trial in Scotland, were the accused to appear there. I know that he would accept that.

Perhaps I am venturing beyond my legal competence, but, in response to my hon. Friend's point that any appeal of a third-country trial would take place in Scotland, I can only reply that the same appeal structure would apply to a trial conducted in Scotland. I can refer him to instances when judges in both England and Scotland have discharged juries--as, recently, in the case of those accused of IRA activities--on the basis that a trial would have been prejudiced by the publicity.

There are safeguards in the Scottish and the general British legal systems for a mistrial such as might take place under those circumstances. We hold to the view that a jury trial is acceptable, offers protection for all sides, and would not easily take place outside the confines of the Scottish system.

Those matters, however, are not the real issue. The real point is that Libya wilfully refuses to make the suspects available for trial, and shelters behind the alleged views of the two accused. Few serious cases would ever be brought to trial if the accused were allowed to decide whether or where the case should come to court.

Column 555

The Libyans suggest that publicity in Britain would prejudice that trial. I have already said that we do not accept that. We are proud of our judicial system and the legal safeguards that it provides for the defendant--as well, of course, as the desire to pursue the guilty. That is why we have no hesitation in inviting international observers to a trial of the suspects in Scotland.

As I have said, we have now invited the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organisation for African Unity to Scotland to see the system for themselves. We will be glad to answer their queries, and to meet any concerns that they may have. At the request of my hon. Friend, the Government's invitation to the United Nations, the Arab League and the OAU has been placed in the Library of the House. I know that he will have seen it. We are grateful to the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, for accepting that invitation.

While we will not negotiate with the Libyans, we talk with them on an on-going basis through the British interest section in Tripoli. It is always possible for them to put to us any areas of difficulty or concern that they have about a fair trial in Scotland on that basis. We would seek to answer those questions, but without accepting a priori that we feel that there is anything faulty or prejudicial about the Scottish legal system.

The worst possible outcome would be a trial that collapsed on technicalities. The truth might then never emerge, and that would be a real risk in a trial without precedent, set up by a new instrument to allow a Scottish court to sit in a third country. It cannot be right that those accused of a savage crime should dictate the form and venue of their trial.

To be honest, my hon. Friend is being slightly casual--I say that in kindness, as I do not normally accuse him of anything other than the utmost thoroughness--in suggesting that the choice of a trial anywhere in the world is comparable to the forced choice of a trial either in the United States or Scotland, when there is a clear judicial criterion by which both those places are determined.

It is simply not the same to say that the accused ought to have unlimited choice as to where the trial should take place. That would set a precedent for the trial of other suspected terrorists accused of killing innocent people both here in the United Kingdom and more generally, and the horrific nature of such a crime means that we must in the end insist on a trial in one of the two places where there is a clear judicial locus.

Mr. Dalyell: Casual or not, the difficulty is that we will whistle in the wind. My hon. Friend talks about "in the end". When is there going to be an end? This has gone on for nine long years. Is it to go on for another nine, beyond the life of this and many other Governments? When will it be brought to an end? The difficulties with the Germans were brought to an end at least five years after 1945.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, in the end I, like everyone else, recognise the terrible frustration, particularly of those most directly concerned--

Mr. Dalyell: The relatives.

Column 556

Mr. Lloyd: Of course. They are the ones most directly concerned. I also recognise the frustration felt by everyone else on the issue.

We are pursuing this matter with real vigour. That is why we have issued the invitations to the world community and why we are asking it to involve itself in a way that we have not done previously. It is why we are asking that the United Nations Security Council resolutions be applied. They are not the resolutions of the United States--suspicious as my hon. Friend is of the United States--or even of Britain, but resolutions put forward by the United Nations as a community of the world.

It is those resolutions that we insist should be complied with. That is why we are inviting the world community to join us in that venture. That is the vigour that we want to apply to the present debate, because we also want to bring the matter to an end. The only way that we can put an end to the speculation and pain is by pursuing the matter in that way. We will continue to push that as hard as we can.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that I am suspicious of the United States. I was once a member of the executive of the British American Parliamentary Group, and would consider myself in many ways friendly to the United States, but I am extremely suspicious of them on this because they have been brutally critical of their forensic scientist, James Thurman. Many of the doubts about this whole issue are coming out of the United States.

Mr. Lloyd: I remind my hon. Friend that the then Lord Advocate wrote to him in October 1995 explaining that the proof of the Lockerbie case did not depend on the evidence of Mr. Thurman. The allegations against him were made by a former colleague, Dr. Frederick Whitehurst, and related to criminal investigations other than Lockerbie. It was alleged that he had committed perjury, obstructed the course of justice and fabricated evidence.

The allegations were investigated, and found to have no validity. A report published by the inspector general found that there was no evidence to support them. The report criticised lapses in Mr. Thurman's supervisory procedures, in recognition of which he was reassigned to other duties. He was not dismissed, as has been widely reported, although Dr. Whitehurst was dismissed from his post. Mr. Thurman's centrality to the case is not what my hon. Friend may believe it to be.

We believe that the role of the United States in the investigation to date, and in any future prosecution, has been, and will continue to be, one of the fullest co-operation. We have shared the evidence that has been collected with them, and their co-operation has, in turn, earned our deep gratitude, just as the work of the Scottish investigators has earned American praise. Any prosecution will entail further co-operation. There is no disagreement between us that the prosecution should

 Column 557
proceed. We intend to continue to act in the same spirit of consultation and co-operation that has characterised the pursuit of the case so far.

In this instance, let me assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of United States dominance of the process or of the evidence. The Lord Advocate's decision to continue the prosecution was made on the basis of the evidence presented to him. It is in our national interest, not that of anyone else. It is part of our duty to those who died at Lockerbie and to their relatives that we proceed on that basis. The question of the dominance of one country over another in this case is peripheral, a non-starter. It is Britain's interest that determines the way we act.

My hon. Friend raised several other issues, some of which were very technical. I have taken notes of what he raised. He knows that others will have taken more careful notes, including the Official Report. I will ensure that those issues are raised elsewhere, and, as far as it is in my power, I undertake that he will receive a reply from me or, where more appropriate, from others.

I do not want to raise any expectation in my hon. Friend that the answers he gets will take some of his points further, because one or two of them are matters that are for others to answer. I cannot at this stage, for example, go beyond referring him to what the Prime Minister said to him in the Commons. His remarks were self-evident. I do not suggest that there is anything further to be said.