Lockerbie, Megrahi and Labour Hypocrisy - The Truth comes out

All the documents relating to Megrahi's release were made public today. As expected they vindicate the Scottish government and are highly embarrassing for Scottish Labour which continued to publicly oppose the release 2009 while they knew their ministers in London supported release and had done for a year. (Will Iain Gray and Richard Baker now admit defeat?)

However the new papers also show that the ludicrous American suggestion that the UK government successfully put pressure on Scotland simply is not supported by the facts. In the new papers the cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell says "Moreover it is clear that Her Majesty's Government (HMG) considered that any attempts to pressurise or lobby the Scottish govenrment could be counterproductive to achieving this outcome." eg Megrahi's release.

This weekend saw another red herring in the Mail on Sunday - based on a false Vanity Fair piece and picked up by Guido. Paragraph 14 of the cabinet office document and subsequent letters between Jack Straw and Des Browne discuss a UK government "understanding" that Kenny MacAskill was prepared to discuss the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement in 2007 in return for certain concessions on compensation for prisoners taking slopping out cases and devolution of firearms law. This was their “misunderstanding”, no doubt based on wishful thinking – they were desperate to conclude a PTA, in terms acceptable to Libya. The SNP wanted a specific exclusion of Megrahi from the deal (a position they maintained). So there was no deal or trade off. The UK Government reneged on seeking such an exclusion because Libyans wouldn’t accept it (or they wouldn’t progress energy/BP deal)  In 2007, the issue was not about his release – it was about his non-release. Remember Megrahi did not have cancer at that point, the PTA was the only discussion and it was rejected by Scotlan. So all the UK speculation about what MacAskill might want was just that - speculation.

The Scottish government rejected the dodgy Prisoner Transfer Agreement cooked by Tony Blair in return for oil deals. In 2008 the UK govenrment was firmly in favour of release. But how much more evidence do we need of Labour hypocrisy? All the Scottish Government documents can be viewed here. The Scottish govenrment's detailed response to today's new information is here. But the most damning assessment of Labour's role comes from the Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell whose assessment I will reprint in full:

SIR GUS O’DONNELL’S CONCLUSIONS

i. none of the materials that I have reviewed contradicts anything in the

then Foreign Secretary‟s statement to the House Of Commons (12

October 2009) or the current Foreign Secretary‟s letter to Senator

Kerry (23 July 2010), or statements made by the former Prime Minister on

this matter;

ii. it is evident from the paperwork, including in documentation already

released, that the Libyans made explicit links between progress on UK

commercial interests in Libya and removal of any clause in the PTA whose

effect would be to exclude Mr Megrahi from the PTA. It is also evident,

including in documentation already released, that BP did lobby the former

Government to make them aware that failure to agree the PTA could have an

impact on UK commercial interests, including Libyan ratification of the BP

exploratory agreement (EPSA) signed in May 2007. As is already in the

public domain, these commercial considerations played a part in the former

UK Government‟s decision to reverse its position and agree to the

removal of this exclusion clause. And once the exclusion clause had been

removed from the draft PTA, the former UK Government in turn held up final

signature until progress on commercial deals had been achieved. The

records show that Cabinet Office and FCO Ministers and officials were

mindful of, and pressed Libyan interlocutors for progress on, the major BP

deal (alongside other UK deals) in the context of agreeing the PTA. But:

a) while the PTA provided a framework to consider the transfer of

prisoners, it did not permit transfer when an appeal was outstanding and,

critically, in line with every other PTA, provided no automatic right to

transfer;

b) any decision on an application for transfer of Mr Megrahi under the PTA

was for Scottish Ministers alone to make. Scottish Ministers retained an

absolute veto over any request for prisoner transfer in the case of Mr

Megrahi, a veto they used in August 2009 by rejecting his application for

transfer;

c) the PTA did not in any case form the basis for the release of Mr Megrahi;

14

d) there is no evidence that pressure was placed on the Scottish

Government by BP for the transfer or release of Mr Megrahi (either under

the Prisoner Transfer Agreement or on compassionate grounds);

e) there is nothing in the paperwork to indicate any pertinent contacts

between BP and HMG after February 2008;

f) the Libyans were not told there were linkages between BP‟s

exploratory agreement and the transfer or release of Mr Megrahi (either

under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement or on compassionate grounds).

iii. it is clear from the paperwork that at all times the former

Government was clear that any decision on Mr Megrahi‟s release or

transfer under a PTA was one for the Scottish Government alone to take.

The documentation considered by the review demonstrates that they were

clear on this in their internal deliberations and, crucially, in their

contacts and exchanges with the Libyans, including at the highest levels,

and with the Scottish Government. In Gordon Brown‟s only meeting

with Colonel Qadhafi, on 10 July 2009, he made clear that the decision was

solely a matter for Scottish Ministers and HMG could not interfere.

iv. nonetheless, once Mr Megrahi had been diagnosed with terminal cancer

in September 2008, HMG policy was based upon an assessment that UK

interests would be damaged if Mr Megrahi were to die in a UK jail. The

development of this view was prompted, following Mr Megrahi‟s

diagnosis of terminal illness, by the extremely high priority attached to

Mr Megrahi‟s return by the Libyans who had made clear that they

would regard his death in Scottish custody as a death sentence and by

actual and implicit threats made of severe ramifications for UK interests

if Mr Megrahi were to die in prison in Scotland. The policy was primarily

motivated by a desire to build on previous success in normalising

relations with Libya and to safeguard the substantial gains made in recent

years, and specifically to avoid harm to UK nationals, to British

commercial interests and to cooperation on security issues. The desire to

see such a result developed and intensified over time as Mr

Megrahi‟s health declined and the imminence of his death appeared

greater;

15

v. Policy was therefore progressively developed that HMG should do all it

could, whilst respecting devolved competences, to facilitate an appeal by

the Libyans to the Scottish Government for Mr Megrahi‟s transfer

under the PTA or release on compassionate grounds as the best outcome for

managing the risks faced by the UK. This action amounted to: proceeding

with ratification of the PTA; explaining to Libya in factual terms the

process for application for transfer under a PTA or for compassionate

release; and informing the Scottish Government that there was no legal

barrier to transfer under the PTA;

vi. I have not seen any evidence that HMG pressured or lobbied the

Scottish Government for the transfer or release of Mr Megrahi (either

under the PTA or on compassionate grounds). Jack Straw stated clearly in

his calls with Alex Salmond including on 13 and 24 October 2008 and his

meeting on 28 April 2009 that this was a matter for the Scottish

Government. Indeed, throughout this period, the former Government took

great effort not to communicate to the Scottish Government its underlying

desire to see Mr Megrahi released before he died. Moreover, it is clear

that HMG considered that any attempts to pressurise or lobby the Scottish

Government could be counter productive to achieving this outcome. Although

it is likely that the Scottish Government was aware of this desire, there

is no record that it was communicated or that UK interests played a part

in Mr Megrahi‟s release by the Scottish Government on compassionate

grounds. When the matter came to the then Prime Minister in August 2009,

he did not seek to exercise any influence on the First Minister or the

Scottish Government. Mr Megrahi‟s release on compassionate grounds

was a decision that Scottish Ministers alone could – and did – make

 

********************************************************

 

 

Comments

[Mary White]

"When the matter came to the then Prime Minister in August 2009, he did not seek to exercise any influence on the First Minister or the Scottish Government."

I must admit that part makes me laugh. Like GB HAD influence on the First Minister or the Scottish Government considering the despicable way he behaved towards them.

[Jess The Dog]

What a can of worms!

According to the report, it was a bad thing, but no-one did anything wrong. Although the UK government wanted Megrahi returned to Libya, because of pressure from BP and (I reckon) BAE Systems plus the money-grabbing former PM Blair, this doesn't matter because it was the Scottish government's decision and it was compassionate release not prisoner transfer anyway. How disingenuous.

It's clear that Salmond and McAskill resisted PTA. The compassionate release issue is another one entirely. My guess is that the Scottish government was delighted to see the back of Megrahi because it forestalled the other can of worms that would have opened if his appeal had gone ahead...the Scots Law kangaroo court held in the Netherlands.

Megrahi's conviction is unsafe (most commentators finger Iran, following the earlier USS Vincennes shoot-down in the Gulf). He was either released through expediency or through a genuine belief in the prognosis of his illness. The latter is hard to believe, but - if he is as innocent as many believe - a miracle recovery is perhaps not unreasonable!

[Doug Daniel]

I find it repulsive the way the media are trying to tarnish the SNP's reputation by insinuating that there is something in these documents that suggests the SNP may not have acted with honourable intentions after all, despite there being absolutely nothing in the documents to give any credence to these insinuations. You can really tell that there is an election coming up, and it seems that after the surprise of 2007, the media will do anything to make sure the result is not left to chance.

Journalists supposedly embark upon a career in journalism in order to expose lies and corruption, thus allowing people to read the truth. At what point does a Scottish journalist decide that helping the Labour party is more important than bringing out the truth, as well as the integrity of their profession and themselves?

The SNP have no case to answer. Whether or not people agree with their actual decision, they cannot deny that they made it with the best of intentions. The only dishonesty is from Labour and the media. Disgusting.