BP pushed for Megrahi release deal

Published on Friday 23 July 2010 11:38

DOCUMENTS released last night reveal the full extent of BP's lobbying of the British government over the Libyan prisoner transfer deal which included the Lockerbie bomber.

• Photograph: PA

In a seven-page letter to the US Senate, Foreign Secretary William Hague disclosed that the multinational had at least five meetings with the former Labour government in October and November 2007 over concerns that disagreements over a prison transfer deal involving the bomber might scupper the company's exploration plans in the North African country.

But Hague said BP had behaved in a "perfectly normal and legitimate" way in lobbying over the signing of the controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA). The company feared that unless the PTA was signed its commercial interests would be threatened but Libya had said that it would not sign unless Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was included.

Hague's letter is part of the united front being put up by both the Westminster and Scottish governments this weekend over refusing to appear before a US senate hearing into the Lockerbie affair on Thursday. Writing in Scotland on Sunday today, First Minister Alex Salmond makes clear his determination that no Scottish ministers should travel to Washington for the hearings, saying that Scottish parliamentarians are "not accountable" to the US government.

In his letter, Hague makes clear that the meetings over the PTA included talks with former Justice Secretary Jack Straw, the UK's Libyan Embassy, and Tony Blair's foreign affairs advisor.

During the meetings, which took place in October and November of 2007, BP warned ministers about the hold up to a deal. Hague confirms that at around the same time, the Libyans had told UK ministers explicitly that a failure to include the Lockerbie bomber in the PTA would scupper the agreement.

In his letter to US Senator John Kerry yesterday, Hague insisted none of this constituted a breach of good practice, nor showed that BP had lobbied for the bomber's release. He said: "This was a perfectly normal and legitimate practice for a British company."

Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer was found guilty in 1999 of murdering 270 people by blowing up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

When the Libyans applied for the release of Megrahi under the PTA, the request was turned down by Scottish Ministers. Instead, he was released him on compassionate grounds, after justice minister Kenny Macaskill received medical opinion that he had contracted terminal prostate cancer and had only about three months to live.

Hague's letter will now form part of evidence being compiled by the US Senate's foreign relations committee, which is holding the hearing on the circumstances surrounding the bomber's release this Thursday.

One of those senators, senior Democrat Frank Lautenberg yesterday issued a second plea to the Scottish Government to come and give evidence at the inquiry to explain its decision to release Megrahi.

In a letter to Salmond he said: "I am pleading for direct representation from the Scottish government at our hearing next week to help us seek answers. Your co-operation in sending a knowledgeable person will help establish a credible record of what transpired."

For the second time in a week, however, Salmond rejected the request as did MacAskill. He said yesterday: "I am the justice secretary of Scotland, I am elected by the people of Scotland and I am answerable to the parliament of Scotland."

The questions answered by Hague yesterday relate to the wrangling between the UK and Libya over the PTS between the two countries. At the same time, BP was pressing to tie up a deal with Libya to exploit its huge oil reserves off the north African coast.

That deal was threatened, however, because, at the request of the Scottish Government, the UK wanted to exclude Megrahi from the deal.

Hague writes: "In negotiation of the PTA during the second half of 2007, the Libyan government made clear to the UK that they would not agree to the terms of the PTA if it contained such an exclusion."

As was revealed last year, Straw agreed to remove the exclusion, arguing it was not necessary. This was because both states had the right to refuse any request.