Straw turns his back on US Senate inquiry into Megrahi

• Detail from a memorial window in Lockerbie town hall. Picture: Jane Barlow

The former justice secretary declared he had "nothing to do" with the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi last year, which was ordered by Scottish ministers on compassionate grounds, and therefore would not be attending the hearing.

His decision came a day after both Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill and Prison Service director of health Dr Andrew Fraser confirmed they would not be attending.

Even American relatives of those who died on board Flight 103 last night said they believed the inquiry was fast becoming a waste of time.

Frank Duggan, spokesman for the Victims of Flight 103 group said: "We all know what the parties are going to say, and that is to point the finger at everyone else."

The increasingly farcical nature of the hearing was underlined yesterday after the committee in charge of the it was forced to withdraw a draft letter issued on Thursday which originally requested former prime minister Tony Blair's attendance.

Only hours after the letter inviting Mr Blair was released to UK media on Thursday evening, a spokesman for the Senate committee then declared "unequivocally" that the former premier had not been asked to attend.

The U-turn led to claims from SNP MSPs last night that the senators had come under pressure to remove Mr Blair's name from their list. They said the hearing was fast becoming a "ludicrous" spectacle.

First Minister Alex Salmond repeated that if they truly wanted to find out whether an "oil-for-terrorism" deal had been brokered by the former UK Government, then Mr Blair should be asked to attend.

It was Mr Blair who signed the so-called "deal in the desert" with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi which led to the signing of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between the two countries.

The senators in charge of the hearing announced plans for an inquiry last week amid growing anger in Washington over the behaviour of BP, following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

However, claims that Megrahi's release was part of this deal have remained unproven because Mr Straw did not have the power to allow the bomber to go home. That lay with Mr Mac-Askill who chose to reject Megrahi's release under the PTA.

Consequently, Mr Straw claimed yesterday he had very little to do with the senators' inquiry. Confirming he would not be attending, he said: "I saw no papers about it, and was not consulted about it. Indeed I was on holiday at the time and only learnt about it from an item on the BBC website."

He added: "I believe that Mr MacAskill has confirmed that the decision was one taken entirely on medical grounds, without involvement from the UK Government, and without pressures from BP. The central issue is, 'Why was Mr Megrahi released by the Scottish Executive?'. I had nothing to do with that.

"It is, in my experience, highly unusual for the legislature of one sovereign state to conduct an inquiry into decisions of another sovereign state. There are therefore important issues of principle here which could affect UK Governments of any party, and which will need carefully to be considered before I come to a final view."

Mr Straw's aides say that, by going to the US Senate, ,he would effectively be representing the Scottish Government.

The confusion was only added to by the revelations about Mr Blair's involvement. The draft invite asked the former prime minister to come to Washington to elaborate on "your involvement with and knowledge of communication between BP, the government of Libya, the Government of the United Kingdom, and the Scottish Government regarding the decision to release al-Megrahi".

The US Senate foreign relations committee offered to pay Mr Blair's air fare and help with logistical arrangements, while praising his "long proven record on human rights".

But the committee now insists the draft letter was unauthorised and mistakenly given to the press. Committee staff director Frank Lowenstein made a statement hours after the letter was released. He said: "Let me state unequivocally that prime minister Blair will not be asked to testify by the foreign affairs committee at the upcoming hearing on the Megrahi affair."

The move prompted claims from the SNP last night that the committee had crumbled under pressure in Washington to keep Mr Blair's hands clean.

Christine Grahame, SNP MSP said; "It is ludicrous that when the committee clearly says it wants to focus on the $900 million BP oil deal with Libya, and if there was a connection with the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and Megrahi, it is not asking to speak to the man responsible – Tony Blair."

Holyrood - Investigation is snubbed on 'a point of principle'

ALEX Salmond said yesterday his ministers had rejected the summons to the US Senate hearing on Lockerbie on a "point of principle", insisting he was answerable to the Scottish people and not a foreign legislature.

As they defended their decision to knock back a request to testify before senators, both he and justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said it would have been "unprecedented" for a minister from one legislature to be hauled before the hearings of another.

He and Mr MacAskill also repeated their claims made on Thursday evening that they had no information to offer senators, who have said they want to explore whether BP was involved in the deal to free Megrahi.

The Scottish Government is now facing calls from groups who claim Megrahi is innocent to summon an inquiry of its own to go right back through the case from the start.

They believe the Senate inquiry - which is focusing on BP's involvement in the case - is obscuring the wider questions over the prosecution of the Libyan. Mr Salmond said yesterday that his government had rejected the request from the US Senate to attend the hearing for reasons of "principle and practicality."

He said: "I'm First Minister of Scotland. Myself and my ministers are accountable to the people of Scotland. It would be unprecedented for us to go to a foreign legislature."

As a parallel, Mr Salmond pointed to the Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq war which is calling UK ministers for evidence, but has not asked American politicians and officials to attend.

On a practical note, Mr Salmond added that his government had nothing to add on the question of BP's involvement in the affair. It is the question of whether BP lobbied the UK Government to enable Megrahi to apply for release which is at the core of the US senators' hearing.

Mr Salmond maintained that because the UK Government had been involved in talks with BP and the Libyans, Tony Blair should be asked to attend the hearings.

Mr Salmond's response was yesterday matched by Mr Mac-Askill who similarly argued that he was "accountable to Scotland". He also denied claims that he was "running scared" from an inquiry, and said the Scottish Government was co-operating fully with the US "as best we can".

Mr MacAskill said: "The US Senate's invitation is primarily predicated on an investigation into what may or may not have happened with regard to a BP oil deal.

"The Scottish Government was neither party nor privy to what was going on there, so we've made it quite clear that we have no information that we can provide regarding that".

He added: "I'm the cabinet secretary for justice.

I am accountable to the Scottish parliament and I'm elected by the Scottish people.

"That's why when I was asked to appear before a Scottish parliamentary committee on al-Megrahi, I did so, and that's proper form."

However, Labour stepped up their attacks on the SNP government, insisting that the decision not to go to Washington marked a "lack of confidence" in the decision to release Megrahi. Labour's justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "It speaks volumes about the lack of confidence he has now in his own decision that he is running a mile from scrutiny of it."

Mr Baker argued it was "perfectly legitimate" for American politicians to ask Mr MacAskill to come to Washington and answer questions, saying the senators "represent so many of the families who lost loved ones".

The Labour MSP said: "The US senators want to know why Megrahi was released.

"Only one person can tell them that - that's Kenny Mac-Askill."

He also called on Mr MacAskill to meet American families who lost loved ones when Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down over Lockerbie.

Meanwhile, the "Justice for Megrahi" group yesterday wrote to the Scottish Government, urging them to hold a public inquiry.

It comes after the Scottish Government suggested that a wider inquiry, perhaps under the auspices of the United Nations, might be the best way to resolve the doubts over the case.

Chairman Robert Forrester said: "In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself.

"Clearly, it is our belief that Mr al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice and, in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import."

Eddie Barnes

Washington & US - 'There is no question that there was a plot. The only question is, did it work?'

THIS is how the US media has been viewing the case in their opinion pages:

Wall Street Journal

"The complex circumstances surrounding Mr Megrahi's release have revived questions about BP's connection to the affair. BP has said that in late 2007 it lobbied to speed up the passage of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya, which was ratified in 2009 and could have allowed Mr Megrahi to return to his home country.

"Libya applied for Mr Megrahi to be sent back under the agreement, but its application was rejected. Instead, the Scottish Government granted him a so-called 'compassionate release' on the grounds that he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer and likely had no more than three months to live. More than 11 months after his release, Mr Megrahi remains alive."

The Huffington Post

"There is no question there was a plot. The only question is whether the plot worked, or whether it got what it wanted anyway by a remarkable coincidence. It was, ultimately, up to Scottish politicians whether to release Megrahi, and they publicly refused a prisoner swap. We know that Straw lobbied them to do it, but they insist they made the decision independently on 'compassionate grounds'."

North Jersey Record

"We thought a life sentence meant you die in prison. But then the Scottish Government released Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, eight years after he was locked up. We thought BP was responsible for inflicting the worst man-made environmental disaster on the US. But then came the terrible news the oil giant may have been involved in another disaster for Americans - freeing al-Megrahi."

Washington Times

"It is misplaced compassion to release a terrorist to be able to die in comfort with his family in a place of his choosing. His victims were not given those choices, and they received no compassion. Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said he made the decision to free the terrorist in good faith, and that he has no regrets. Between him and al-Megrahi, that makes two of them."