Megrahi: The British people deserve to be told the truth

David Lidington MP is a Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister.

It is intolerable that we have to rely on leaked documents and Whitehall spin to find out what British Ministers said and did in our name in their negotiations with Colonel Gaddafi.

A week ago, Lord Mandelson told us that he found “offensive” even the slightest suggestion that the government allowed the case of Mr Megrahi to be linked to broader discussions with Libya about better diplomatic and commercial relations. Yesterday, Jack Straw admitted that he had bowed to Libyan pressure to ensure that Megrahi would be eligible for transfer to Tripoli under the UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement that eventually came into force this year.  (It’s worth noting that Mr Straw did not volunteer this admission but was forced to make it after the damning correspondence had been leaked to the press). Today, the Times reports “sources close to” the Justice Secretary as pinning the blame on Gordon Brown personally for acceding to Libya’s demands. The Prime Minister himself just says as little as possible on the entire affair.

Labour’s curtain of secrecy is lifted a little – and each snippet of information gives rise to yet more questions. Why did Colonel Gaddafi thank the Prime Minister personally for his role in securing Megrahi’s release? Was there, as has been claimed in Washington, a clear understanding, now breached, that anyone convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity would serve his sentence in Scotland and not be transferred to Libya or released early? What were the “overwhelming United Kingdom interests” cited by Mr Straw as his reasons to abandon the position of excluding Megrahi from the Prisoner Transfer Agreement? Why did Ministers rush that Agreement through Parliament, over-riding the concerns of the Select Committee on Human Rights? What representations were made by Whitehall to Holyrood about Megrahi’s application to be transferred back home? Did the Blair or Brown government suggest to Libya or give Libya cause to believe that Mr Megrahi might be sent home as part of a wider deal?

This controversy has damaged Britain’s international reputation and interests and the government’s reluctance to come clean is corroding public confidence in the conduct of foreign policy. David Cameron, William Hague and I have repeatedly called on Ministers and in particular the Prime Minister to come clean, tell us the full story and publish relevant documents. If Ministers have nothing to hide then they should have nothing to fear about such openness.

I fear that we are now beyond the point at which people will be reassured by a ministerial statement. I have therefore written to Mike Gapes MP, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and asked if his Committee will initiate an inquiry into UK-Libyan relations and the way in which the Megrahi case was handled. My colleague Ben Wallace MP has asked the chairman of the Scotland Select Committee to similarly at how Whitehall dealt with Holyrood over this issue. A Select Committee has the power to cross-examine Ministers and officials and to examine and publish documents. It could start work almost immediately, without waiting for the new parliamentary session, and the Committee’s cross-party membership would mean that its conclusions would carry weight.

I actually agree with the present government that we should seek better political and commercial relations with Libya. Gaddafi’s decision in 2003 to give up his WMD programmes, renounce terrorism and cooperate against al-Qaeda was a strategic gain for the West. American officials have told me that Libya’s willingness to share intelligence has helped significantly in the battle to contain and defeat international terrorism. American, French, German and Italian companies are keen for trading and investment opportunities in Libya and have the support of their governments. There would be nothing wrong in British Ministers fighting their corner for our own firms. But the Megrahi case – the conviction and sentence of the man found guilty of the worst terrorist outrage in British history- should always have been kept separate from talks about political cooperation and trade. The British people have the right to know whether or not their government maintained that distinction.