Not the finest hour

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2010. The comments following the post are also well worth reading.

An independent judicial review into the Lockerbie bombing is now essential

[This is the heading over a letter in today's edition of The Herald from Iain A D Mann. It reads as follows:]

It is becoming clearer by the day that an independent judicial inquiry is now essential into all the events surrounding the PanAm 103 disaster and the subsequent conviction of one person, the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, for the crime ...

The pathetic attempt by some US Senators to investigate this deeply complex matter in one afternoon session, by grilling a few foreign politicians on the basis of misguided assumptions and misunderstood facts, underlines how important it now is to have such an inquiry in the United Kingdom (or Scotland) under proper judicial conditions.

If a public inquiry continues to be refused by those in authority, the alternative is to find some way to re-open Megrahi’s second appeal in the Scottish courts. I cannot believe that the Scottish Government and/or the Scottish Justice Department could not devise some way of achieving this if they really wanted to. It pains me to say so, but I believe that the original trial in Camp Zeist, before three High Court judges with no jury, was not the finest hour of our much-vaunted legal system. Its reputation would be repaired, and perhaps enhanced, if it were now seen to provide an opportunity for all the relevant and previously unheard evidence to be reconsidered and tested in court.

Whether that scrutiny is by a public inquiry or a court appeal process, it is imperative that this time both the UK and US governments make available all the relevant documents that they have so far disgracefully refused to disclose, on the spurious grounds of either “national security” or “not in the public interest”. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, after an exhaustive three-year investigation, reported no fewer than six possible reasons for a possible miscarriage of justice, and these must be properly examined and tested judicially.

I am sure there are many like me who want to prove to the world that our country – Britain and Scotland – is still a true democracy, where justice is not denied or distorted by those in authority for whatever misguided reason. The families of all the 270 victims of the PanAm atrocity deserve to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[A letter from Tam Dalyell in today's edition of The Scotsman reads:]

... Alex Salmond and his justice secretary should travel to Washington to blurt out the unpalatable truth; namely that their decision to release Mr Megrahi had nothing whatsoever to do with BP, compassion or legal precedent.

It had everything to do with avoiding an appeal which would have revealed the delaying and disgraceful behaviour of the Crown Office over 21 years, the "inexplicable" (the UN observer's word) decision by the judges at Zeist and the shortcomings in Mr Megrahi's original defence, not to mention the involvement of the American government in scapegoating Libya, for the crime that was carried out by Jibril, Abu Talb and the PFLP-GC.

The Americans should now be told that the motive for Mr Megrahi's release was the avoidance of the humiliation of Scottish justice in the eyes of the world.

Gaddafi “was not involved in” Lockerbie

[What follows is the text of an article by Richard Galustian that was published on 27 July on the website of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and republished yesterday on the AntiWar.com blog:]

Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar, head of the Libyan National Army, has stated that former Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif Islam, "is free and in a safe place." Haftar further said he welcomed the idea of the younger Gaddafi playing some sort of political role in Libya's future.

In an interview (Arabic) with Al-Hayat newspaper, Haftar also stressed that he had no problems with moderate Muslim Brotherhood members but could never deal with the extremist elements.

The recent talks in Paris between Haftar and UN-backed Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj were little more than a "show," an attempt to stage manage an impression of a Libyan unity government. It failed!

The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood's Executive's rejected all communiques from Paris despite the olive branch extended to it by Haftar.

The United States, UK, and the UN are egging on their regional and international allies including France to finish the job in Libya to totally discount any thought of allowing Saif a role in the future of Libya. This new colonial order is afraid of his growing popularity.

To the West, Saif al-Islam is the poster child of the old order. The US and the UN want Saif al-Islam on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague also to isolate and silence him. Quite simply he knows too much about the West's past duplicity.

Additionally, Saif al-Islam is wrongfully being held responsible for his father’s actions, from Lockerbie, which ironically his father was not involved in, to being part of the alleged plot of his father with Qatar to kill the then Saudi King Abdullah.

The West has become skeptical of Haftar mainly due to his closeness to Russia, however both Haftar and Saif Gaddafi are popular with the Libyan people.

It is likely the West would prefer Haftar out of the picture, but his recent battlefield successes make that look unlikely...for now.

With tribal support, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi could contribute to a Mandela style reconciliation process. But the West would then be forced to face that its "liberation" of Libya did not produce the kind of result it foresaw. And the West cannot stand to be shown to be wrong when it comes to its "regime change" operations, even when its consistent failures are impossible to ignore.

For immediate purposes, the West appears to have scored a major coup by setting the stage for Libya to spit-out Saif al-Islam right into the open jail cell in the ICC despite the lack of evidence against him. The ICC is merely a tool of the American dominated UN and Gaddafi’s son, the victim.

Will the US and its allies succeed in their conspiracy? And what happens next in Libya if they do?

An unpleasant picture

[What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Morag Kerr that was published in The Herald on this date in 2010:]

Has it occurred to the US senators and others who maintain that Megrahi should have remained in prison that, if that had happened, his appeal would not have been withdrawn and would have been decided by now? Any rational examination of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) findings and the evidence as a whole must concede the overwhelming probability it would have been successful, and Megrahi would now be home by right as a free man. Kenny MacAskill may be prevented from “looking behind the appeal”, but the rest of us are under no such constraints, and the conclusion is not difficult to reach.

The notes of MacAskill’s meeting with Megrahi are now public, and reveal an unpleasant picture of a sick and desperate man being treated like a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed manure) in an attempt to pressurise him into dropping his appeal. The hand-written letter from Megrahi [RB: quoted in Megrahi: You are my Jury, page 353] is really quite distressing, when read in the light of the SCCRC report and the striking weakness of the case against him in general. This is not someone who should have escaped on a technicality; this is an innocent man sitting in jail looking at a medical death sentence.

Our criminal justice system and we as a nation are guilty of a far worse crime than taking international relations and trade deals into account when releasing a foreign prisoner. We have convicted a man on evidence that, in my view, wouldn’t support the issuing of a parking ticket, imprisoned him 1,800 miles from home and family, and turned him into an international hate figure while he is in the terminal stages of aggressive prostate cancer.

If any wide-ranging inquiry is appropriate, surely this is the matter that should concern us, rather than silly conspiracy theories linking Megrahi’s release to the Gulf oil spill.

Reaction to Megrahi’s appearance at pro-Gaddafi rally

What follows is excerpted from an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2011.

Lockerbie convict appears at rally in Libya

[This is the headline over an item published yesterday on The Lede blog on The New York Times website. It reads in part:]

Video broadcast on Libyan state television on Tuesday of a rally in support of Col Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government appeared to show Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.

The public appearance in Libya comes nearly two years after Mr Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds and said to have just three months to live.

In a copy of the video posted online by London’s Telegraph, Mr Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was seated in a wheelchair, wearing a surgical mask. (...)

Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said the footage would stoke further “anger and outrage” at Mr Megrahi’s release from jail in 2009 and was “a further reminder that a great mistake was made,” by Scotland’s local government, the BBC reports. (...)

His continued survival is likely to further anger from some of the families of the victims killed in the bombing. Several American families objected to the release of Mr Megrahi, who served only 8 years of a 27-year minimum sentence. Of the 259 people killed on the plane, 198 were American, and the United States strongly opposed his release. Other victims were killed as the wreckage of the plane plunged to earth in Lockerbie.

Scottish politicians from opposition parties reacted to the footage with anger, Scotland’s STV reports. Iain Gray, of the Scottish Labour Party, called Mr Megrahi’s appearance an “embarrassment” for Mr MacAskill, and the leader of the Scottish government, Alex Salmond. Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond are leaders of the ruling Scottish National Party.

John Lamont, a Scottish Conservative, said: “The last thing relatives of the 270 people murdered by the Lockerbie bomber need to see is the sight of him alive and well and free, almost two years after he was released by the SNP government.”

Complicating the debate is the fact that the relatives of some people killed in the bombing continue to doubt that Mr Megrahi was responsible for the attack and have called for a fresh inquiry.

Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee from the Scottish National Party told STV that she believes Mr Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and is “not unhappy” to see him alive.

[This report at least recognises that serious concerns exist over the conviction of Megrahi, something very unusual, and very welcome, in coverage of Lockerbie in the United States. It also (unlike most UK newspapers apart from The Herald) refers to Megrahi as the "Lockerbie convict", which he is, and not as the "Lockerbie bomber", which, on the evidence, he is not.]

UK Government "learned significant lessons" after deal in the desert row

[What follows is the text of a Press Association news agency report published on this date in 2010 on the website of The Independent under the headline Coalition to improve Holyrood relations after Lockerbie row:]

The UK Government said today that "significant lessons" have been learned in relations with Scotland after the row over the Lockerbie bomber's release.

The Tory-Lib Dem coalition said it wants to build more "positive relations" with Edinburgh after the fallout from the freeing of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

The comments came in a response to a recent Scottish Affairs Select Committee report into relations between the two administrations.

"We believe that there are significant lessons from this disagreement that have already been learnt," the UK Government response said.

"The Government's priority is to build more positive relations with the Scottish Government in all areas."

The SNP Government clashed with the previous Labour administration at Westminster over a controversial "deal in the desert" agreed with Libya three years ago without Edinburgh's knowledge.

The Memorandum of Understanding paved the way for a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which Megrahi unsuccessfully applied for to Scottish ministers.

Today's response states: "In future the Government will consider carefully the appropriate balance between interests of confidentiality and the responsibility to keep the Scottish Government informed of international agreements made on its behalf.

"This includes consultation with the devolved administrations on matters relating to international relations which touch upon devolved matters."

Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 bombing in which 270 people were killed. He was released on compassionate grounds last July after medical evidence indicated he only had three months live.

Calls for the decision to release Megrahi to be re-examined grew in volume in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and revelations that BP had lobbied for the PTA, amid concern that ditching it could damage an exploration deal it had signed in Libya.

Foreign Secretary William Hague described Megrahi's release as "wrong and misguided" at the weekend.

The coalition Government also remains committed to maintaining the Scottish Secretary, despite the Lib Dems, who occupy the role through Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk MP Michael Moore, having previously campaigned for it to be scrapped.

Today's response said: "The Secretary of State for Scotland will play a full and active role in policy formulation, ensuring that the devolution settlement in Scotland is fully respected during policy development, and also ensuring that the UK Government is represented in Scotland."

Slim Virgin and Lockerbie

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer that was published on the OhmyNews website on this date ten years ago:]

The Salinger Investigation of the Pan Am 103 Bombing

Pierre Salinger was White House press secretary to Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Salinger also served as US Senator from California and a campaign manager for Robert Kennedy.

But Salinger is also famous for his investigative journalism. Hired by ABC News as its Paris bureau chief in 1978, he became the network's chief European correspondent in 1983.

During his distinguished career, Salinger broke important stories, such as the secret negotiations by the US government with Iran to free American hostages in 1979-80 and the last meeting between US Ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein in 1990, during which she led the Iraqi president to believe that the U.S. would not react to an invasion of Kuwait.

Salinger, who was based in London, spent a considerable amount of time and energy investigating the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. He and his collaborator, John Cooley, hired a young graduate, Linda Mack, to help in the investigation.

"I know that these two Libyans had nothing to do with it. I know who did it and I know exactly why it was done," Salinger said during his testimony at the Zeist trial, where one of the Libyans was convicted of murdering the 270 victims.

"That's all? You're not letting me tell the truth. Wait a minute; I know exactly who did it. I know how it was done," Salinger replied to the trial judge, Lord Sutherland, who simply asked him to leave the witness box.

"If you wish to make a point you may do so elsewhere, but I'm afraid you may not do so in this court," Lord Sutherland interrupted.

Searching for the True Identity of 'Slim Virgin'

Slim Virgin had been voted the most abusive administrator of Wikipedia. She upset so many editors that some of them decided to team up to research her real life identity.

Attempts to track her through Internet technology failed. This is suspicious in itself as the location of normal Internet users can easily be tracked. According to a team member, Slim Virgin "knows her way around the Internet and covered her tracks with care."

Daniel Brandt of the Wikipedia Review and founder of Wikipedia-Watch.org patiently assembled tiny clues about Slim Virgin and posted them on these Web sites. Eventually, two readers identified her. Slim Virgin was no other than Linda Mack, the young graduate Salinger hired.

John K Cooley, the collaborator of Salinger in the Lockerbie investigation, posted the following letter to Brandt on Wikipedia Review, which has been set up to discuss specific editors and editing patterns and general efforts by editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy:

“She claimed to have lost a friend/lover on pan103 and so was anxious to clear up the mystery. ABC News paid for her travel and expenses as well as a salary.

“Once the two Libyan suspects were indicted, she seemed to try to point the investigation in the direction of Qaddafi [Libyan President Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi], although there was plenty of evidence, both before and after the trials of Megrahi and Fhimah in the Netherlands, that others were involved, probably with Iran the commissioning power. [In 2001, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison; Lamin Khalifah Fhimah was acquitted.]

“Salinger came to believe that [first name redacted but known to be Linda] was working for [name of intelligence agency redacted but known to be Britain's MI5] and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us.”

Soon after Cooley wrote to Brandt, Linda Mack contacted him and asked him not to help Brandt in his efforts to expose her. All doubts about Slim Virgin's true identity had vanished. Today, Linda Mack is rumored to reside in Alberta, Canada, under the name of Sarah McEwan.

[RB: Three months later I made the following brief reference on this blog to a later article on the subject by Dr De Braeckeleer:]

This is a link [RB: the link is now (2017) broken] to an interesting commentary, based on the researches of Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer, asserting that Wikipedia articles on Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie have been systematically altered by a Wikipedia editor (pseudonym "SlimVirgin" but allegedly identified as Linda Mack -- a well-known name to Lockerbie buffs, and strongly suspected to be a MI5 asset or plant) in order more closely to reflect the "official" UK and US line on the Lockerbie disaster.

See http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/russmag.html

[RB: What a hornets' nest I had stirred! See the comments following the blogpost.]

The opportunity to corrupt the evidence

[The following are the final four paragraphs of an article by Gwynne Dyer headlined Libya, Bulgarians and Lockerbie published on this date in 2007:]

On 21 December, 1988, Pan American flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Most were Americans, and it was initially suspected that Iran carried out the operation — possibly with the help of its Syrian ally — in revenge for the killing of 290 Iranians six months earlier aboard a civilian Iran Air flight that was shot down by a US warship in the Gulf. (The United States was backing Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, and the American warship mistakenly believed that it was under attack by the Iranian air force.)

US and British investigators started building a case against Iran and Syria — but a year and a half later Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, turning overnight from an ally to an enemy of the United States. In the US-led war to liberate Kuwait that was being planned, the cooperation of Iran and Syria was vital — so suddenly the Lockerbie investigation shifted focus to Libya, and in due course (about ten years) two Libyan intelligence agents were brought to trial for the crime.

In 2001 one of them, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Scotland, where the plane came down. Libya paid $2.7 billion in “compensation” to the victims’ families, without ever admitting guilt, but the verdict always smelled fishy. Jim Swire, father of one of the victims on Pan Am 103, said: “I went into that court thinking I was going to see the trial of those who were responsible for the murder of my daughter. I came out thinking (al-Megrahi) had been framed.”

Late last month, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission declared al-Megrahi’s conviction “unsafe” and granted him the right to appeal the verdict because “the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.” That may well be true, and it may not have been an accident either. But, as former British ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles told the BBC recently, “No court is likely get to the truth, now that various intelligence agencies have had the opportunity to corrupt the evidence.” And so it goes.

Compassionate release application

What follows is an item posted on this blog just before noon on this date in 2009.

Application for compassionate release

I understand from an impeccable source that an application on behalf of Abdelbaset Megrahi for compassionate release has this morning been received by the Scottish Government Justice Department. As with the case of prisoner transfer, the decision rests with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill. Unlike prisoner transfer, compassionate release does not require the prisoner to abandon any ongoing legal proceedings.

Confirmation came in the form of an e-mail sent this afternoon by the Crown Office to relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103.

[RB: The Scottish Government’s website describes the process as follows:]

Section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 gives the Scottish Ministers the power to release prisoners on licence on compassionate grounds. This process is akin to the system of medical parole that exists in many other jurisdictions.

The Act requires that Ministers are satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment. Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, generally it encompasses:

• those suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period;
• where the prisoner is severely incapacitated; or
• where continued imprisonment would, in light of the conditions in which the prisoner is being held, endanger or shorten his or her life expectancy.

Application from Mr Al-Megrahi

An application from Mr Al-Megrahi requesting compassionate release was received by the Scottish Ministers on 24 July.

In accordance with normal procedure, the application was forwarded to the Scottish Prison Service, where the Prison Governor, Social Work, and medical staff provide advice on the application. Each report supported that Mr Al-Megrahi was suitable for compassionate release.

The Act requires that the Parole Board is also consulted. The Parole Board advised that Mr Al-Megrahi was suitable for compassionate release.

If compassionate release is granted, the prisoner is released on licence. The licence sets out a range of conditions, including conditions on residence.

The conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was a farce

[The following are letters published in The Guardian on this date in 2010:]

I support President Obama's call for "all the facts to be laid out" regarding the Lockerbie affair (Cameron tells Obama he will release Lockerbie files, 21 July). He should be reminded that the Montreal convention of 1971, enacted under the UN-linked International Civil Aviation Organisation, was the proper legal instrument to address the terrorist bombing of flight PA 103 over Lockerbie.

The US, resenting the convention provision that the two suspects could be tried in Libya, orchestrated UN sanctions in an attempt to force their surrender to an American or British court. The sanctions caused the deaths of most of 15,750 Libyans suffering from serious medical conditions because they could not be evacuated by air for treatment abroad. In addition, more than 780 Libyans died in ambulances en route to neighbouring countries. It was judged that there had been 1,135 stillbirths and 514 maternal deaths caused by the shortage of medicines, serums and vaccines blocked by the sanctions. A UN report in 1998 confirmed the impact of sanctions on Libya.

The conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was a farce. Even Lord Sutherland, presiding over the arbitrarily contrived Scottish court in Holland, emphasised the "uncertainties and qualifications" in the case, referred to parts of the "conflicting" evidence "which might not fit" and to a conclusion "which is not really justified". The US ignored international law, imposed sanctions on Libya which resulted in 16,000 deaths, and orchestrated a blatant miscarriage of justice.

Geoff Simons

Author of Libya and the West: From Independence to Lockerbie

As politicians in both Britain and the US queue up to comment on the release of Megrahi, they remain silent about the need for an inquiry into the atrocity itself. To deny the families of the 270 victims of Lockerbie an investigation into this gross act of terrorism is an international disgrace, and the failure to seek to identify those responsible encourages more acts of terrorism.

I have a personal concern about the failure to hold an inquiry as I was with Bernt Carlsson, the UN assistant secretary general, shortly before he checked in on Pan Am Flight 103. As president of the development committee of the European parliament I had invited him to Brussels, where he spoke about his hopes for an independent Namibia and the end of apartheid to a packed meeting of MEPs.

David Cameron should call for an independent inquiry led by the UN to find out the truth about Pan Am Flight 103.

Michael McGowan

Former MEP for Leeds (1984-99)

In all the hype about releasing Megrahi, one crucial fact seems to have got submerged. He was about to appeal with new evidence, and very likely win, when "persuaded" to abandon the appeal and be sent home "on compassionate grounds". Cynics might think this was to avoid the embarrassment of the court deciding that all along they had the wrong man. A case where two wrongs make a right?

Anthony Cheke

Oxford

US jury awards damages against Pan Am over Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a report published on the website of The Independent on this date in 1992. It reads as follows:]

In the first of what could be scores of damages trials stemming from the Lockerbie bombing, a US jury yesterday awarded $9.23m (£4.8m) to the family of a Pepsi-co executive.

The award, reached after a trial in Brooklyn federal court, was less than the $25m sought by the family of Robert Pagnucco. The family won the liability portion of the civil suits on 10 July with a verdict that Pan Am committed 'wilful misconduct' by failing to detect a bomb on Flight 103.

First parliamentary hints of neutral venue Lockerbie trial

[What follows is taken from House of Commons Hansard (columns 893-894) on this date in 1998:]

Mr Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) Pursuant to his answer of 6 July—Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 6 July 1998; c 6—what assessment he made of the implications of his description of the Libyan suspects in respect of the Lockerbie bombing as the perpetrators of that bombing for the conduct of any court proceedings in Scotland. [49914]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr Henry McLeish) On 10 July, I wrote to my hon. Friend explaining that that was merely a slip of the tongue on my part in failing to refer to the two Libyan accused as the "alleged perpetrators". The Government are committed to a fair trial for the two Libyan suspects.

Mr Dalyell I have no supplementary question as I have an Adjournment debate on the subject tonight.

Mr James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) Can the Minister comment on today's reports that the Government are about to change their policy on the locus of any trial? As a lawyer, I have reservations about such a precedent, but does he agree that it is in the interests of the victims' families that the accused should be brought to trial and that that may overcome concern about where that trial should be held?

Mr McLeish We are dealing with an act of mass murder. The Government are determined to bring those responsible to justice, and that has always been our objective. It remains our view that a Scottish or a United States court is the place for the trial. We do not accept criticism of the Scottish judicial system and its procedures, in which we have every confidence. However, we are willing to explore any option that will bring justice for the families, and discussions on such options have taken place from time to time.

Dr Liam Fox (Woodspring) May I ask for clarification of that answer? Is today's story inThe Guardian true? Have the Foreign Secretary and the American Secretary of State discussed the matter, and is a statement forthcoming shortly? If so, when will the Lord Advocate—the independent prosecutor—make a statement in the House of Lords, to which he is responsible, as he promised to do on 25 June?

Mr McLeish It is no secret that my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary is in close contact with his American counterpart on issues of mutual interest, of which Lockerbie is a major one. Options are always being explored, and nothing has ever been ruled out. I am sure that the hon Gentleman would not wish me to speculate on this morning's press comment.

Dr Fox Given the Government's record of leaking and speculating to the press before coming to the House, we have an absolute right to know that the Government are not considering a change of policy. I asked the Minister a simple question. Is the essence of the story in The Guardian this morning true, or is it not true?

Mr McLeish The House will accept that this is a serious issue. Let me repeat that discussions have taken place—and are taking place—about important subjects, of which this is one. No prudent Government would wish to rule out any option. We are dealing with an act of mass murder, and we owe it to the families to bring those responsible to justice. That is our key objective, and I hope that the House can unite around it. It would be foolish to speculate on press comment. All options are being considered, and the House should have confidence in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will do his best for the families and for justice.

Dr Fox As we approach the summer recess, is it reasonable to assume that there will be no change in policy while hon Members will be unable to ask appropriate questions of Ministers? Will the Minister continue to defend the principle—defended by the Government and their predecessors—that there will be no caving in to political expediency? We must not open up the possibility of years of litigation in a foreign court rather than the achievement of the swift resolution of the Lockerbie case that the relatives, Members of the House and the people of Scotland all want.

Mr McLeish The hon Gentleman is simply not listening. I said in my opening comments that our view remains that a Scottish or United States court is the place for this trial. We do not accept criticisms of the system, and we continue to have every confidence in the Scottish judicial system and procedures.