---

Libyan State-sponsored Terrorism

I take that point firmly on board. The IRA attacks were upon all UK citizens. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the United States and Libya signed a comprehensive claims settlement agreement on 14 August. The important point is that that followed an explicit approach by Libya to the US to resolve outstanding compensation claims in order to improve their relations. Under the agreement, compensation will be paid from a humanitarian fund to several categories of victims. Libya's sovereign immunity before the US courts will be restored, and terrorism-related legal action, prior to June 2006, before the US courts will be barred. It is true, however, that those who will receive compensation will be of either US or Libyan nationality, with the exception of those involved in the Lockerbie case. Although the provision of the outstanding compensation to the families of the 52 British victims of Lockerbie is welcome—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that—I am of course disappointed that the agreement between the US and Libya could not provide compensation for all British claimants in the US proceedings regarding Libyan-sponsored terrorism. I assure the hon. Gentleman, and all others with an interest in this issue, that the UK Government recognised the importance to the UK victims of their US legal claims, which is why we made real efforts to raise their interests with the US Government. When it became clear that the negotiations were taking place between the US and Libya, the UK Government made a number of diplomatic representations urging the US Government to include, on the list of recipients of any compensation package, UK claimants who had brought cases in the US against Libya. We attempted to do that, but regrettably it did not prove possible for the UK claimants to be included in the US-Libya agreement. A key reason for that, as the Prime Minister explained in writing to H20—the law firm representing the claimants—was the US view that international and US law did not permit the US Administration to espouse as its own the claims of non-US nationals. The US Administration was precluded by law from espousing the claims of UK nationals as part of the compensation agreement. Also relevant to the US decision was its assessment—I must underline that it was its assessment—of how likely the cases were to succeed in the US courts. Why Lockerbie and not the IRA victims? Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the inclusion of British Lockerbie victims among the recipients of compensation, it is worth emphasising that they have been able to benefit from this agreement because of the unique circumstances of the case. Unlike Libya's support to the IRA, the Lockerbie bombing was subject to a UN Security Council resolution that required Libya to accept responsibility and pay victims' families appropriate compensation. Libya agreed to do so in 2003 following negotiations between the victims' families and Libya. The sums paid to the Lockerbie families under the US-Libya agreement represent the last unpaid tranche of previously agreed settlement payments. Regrettably, no such mechanism, settlement or court judgment is in place in relation to the legal actions regarding the supply of arms by Libya to the IRA. I wish that things were different, but those are the facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman has urged the Government to open bilateral negotiations with Libya to seek compensation for the British victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism. The Government considered that very carefully at length and on a number of occasions, and we understand that it is a difficult and sensitive matter for those involved. Although the Government made diplomatic representations to the US Government about their agreement with Libya, the Government's position remains—I respect his view, of course—that we will not seek to enter into a bilateral discussion with Libya on this matter.