The Waugh Room

Monday 7th February 2011 | 13:56

Lockerbie: the killer paragraphs

So, at last the truth is out.

Gordon Brown's government worked secretly to secure the release of al Megrahi.

Why? Because it was worried that Libya would both scupper a BP oil deal and/or pull out of a deal to curb its WMD. As soon as it looked like al Megrahi had teminal cancer, British policy shifted under threats from Gaddafi of "severe ramifications".

How? Not by lobbying directly the Scots, but by "facilitating" the Libyans' appeals for release. Also, by hinting a side-deal to give Alex Salmond some wins on devolution of 'slopping out' and firearms law.

That, in a nutshell, is what we learn from today's report by Sir Gus O'Donnell.

I know you may not want to read the whole document, but here's the killer (pun intended) paragraphs.

34. iv

"It is my conclusion that..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;

34. 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;

34. vi. .....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."

Also, an earlier paragraph 14, seems to confirm that the Scots were also playing footsie over what they could get out of any Brit help on releasing al Megrahi.

14. Subsequently it is clear that HMG's understanding was that a PTA19 without any exclusions might be acceptable to the Scottish Government if progress could be made with regards to ongoing discussions relating to liabilities for damages under the Scotland Act for breaches of Human Rights (the „Somerville‟ judgment), and devolution of firearms legislation."

Love that line "HMG's understanding".. How could they have had that understanding unless the Scots communicated it?

I note that one document not released today was a minute of a phone call between Jack Straw and Sir Mark Allen. Sir Mark had played a key role in getting the Libyans on board under Blair on WMD. He then left MI6 to work for BP. Straw has in the past conceded that he did talk to Sir Mark during this period, but we have not been told what exactly they said to each other and whether there were any nods or winks. Looks like we never will.

David Cameron will undoubtedly be lauded as a freedom of information hero in the United States tonight.

But the bigger question today is what would he have done in Gordon Brown's shoes?

Would he have listened to the very strong lobbying of BP and the security chiefs and arrived at exactly the same conclusion - despite the public backlash it might provoke?

And if he had, would he have dissembled just as Brown did?