HC Deb 18 February 1947 vol 433 cc1087-97

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Law Officers' Department; the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Procurator-General and Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the costs of prosecutions, of other legal proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency.

Mrs. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

I want to have one or two questions answered. Under Subhead H, "Expenses in connection with the trials of international war criminals," an additional sum of £54,000 is being asked for. I want to take a point of view that is taken very often by the Opposition: I want some more details, in relation to the expenses in connection with the trials. I should like to ask the Law Officer who is to deal with this matter, to give me details of the fees and expenses of the prosecuting counsel in charge of the case. I should like him to specify the people concerned and give details of the expenses, separately. I should also like to know what arrangements were made in relation to hospitality while the trials were going on, and whether the charges were met by the individuals concerned out of the expenses paid, and on what financial basis those arrangements were made. I may want to say something further when I get some information, but in the first place I should like to have detailed information in relation to this matter.

The Solicitor. General (Sir Frank Soskice)

I desire to apologise to the Committee for not being here when this Supplementary Estimate was called. I will endeavour to give the information which is asked. Hon. Members will observe that the £40,000 which relates to the expenses of the trial has been increased to £94,000 in the Supplementary Estimate, making a difference of £54,000. I will endeavour to summarise the position of the total expense of the Nuremberg trial, and to give such particulars as I am able to furnish

The £94,000 is made up as follows: £63,000 attributable to the Nuremberg trial for the year, March, 1946, to March, 1947; £27,300 attributable to the trial of the Japanese war criminals; and £3,700 attributable to the expenses during the same year of the London Office, which it was necessary to maintain for the purpose of the trial; making a total of £94,000, which appears in the Supplementary Estimate, and which I ask the Committee to approve. These figures, as appears from the terms of the Estimate, are referable only to the year, March, 1946, to March, 1947. They are not the total expenses, and I will endeavour now to supplement them by giving the figures which will bring out the total expenses referable to the Nuremberg trial, the Japanese trial and the London Office

I take the Nuremberg trial first. Up to March, 1946, or, to be more precise, up to 1st April, 1946, the cost of the Nuremberg trial was £23,600. For the same period, the cost of the Japanese trial was £1,223, and for the London office the cost for the same period was £3,825. I will summarise that, and in my summary I will endeavour to give the total cost of the Nuremberg trial, then the total cost of the Japanese trial, and then the total cost of the London office. The figure for the Nuremberg trial is £90,600, and for the Japanese trial, £28,523, to which I will add an estimated figure of £15,000, which is the estimate of the cost which will be incurred before the Japanese trial comes to an end; that trial is likely to go on until something like July, 1947. The total cost of the London office, which is made up by the addition of the two figures I have given, is £7,525.

In reply to the hon. Lady, I will endeavour to set out how the figure of £90,600, in respect of the Nuremberg trial is made up. The figure is made up in this way: Counsels' fees, £50,552: cost of the tribunal, £26,800; general expenses, £4,960; and for the German legal expert and staff of translators, £4,354. The balance is made up by an estimated figure of £4,000, which will include the fees of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. If the hon. Lady wants to know the details of the counsels' fees, I can give them in respect of each learned member of the Bar employed. There were six learned counsel, and I think I am right in saying that the British delegation was smaller than the Russian and American delegations, and about the same size as the French delegation. The cost of that was: for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), £22,915; Mr. G. D. Roberts, £12,693; Colonel 11. J. Phillimore, £4,378; Lieut.-Colonel Mervyn Griffith-Jones, £4,193; my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Elwyn Jones), £4,396; and Mr. Barrington, £1,977. With regard to the fees of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the £4,000 will very fully cover his fees, because a large part of them were incurred after 1st April, 1946, and, therefore, will have to be set off against his salary, and so he will not, in fact, receive it. With regard to the time taken, the trial started in November, 1945, and went on until the end of August, 1946. That, of course, was not the whole time spent by the learned counsel who were engaged in the trial. For example, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby had to go to Berlin from 5th October to 15th October, 1945, and he also went to Nuremberg a considerable time before the trial started.

He was there from 25th October, 1945, until 3oth August, 1946, meaning that he was away from his practice for nearly a wear. The hon. Lady can work out the dates. That, of course, applied in general to the other learned counsel who took part in the trial. It meant that one took six practitioners from their practices and kept them away from their practices for nearly a year, at a time when it was important, having regard to the fact that the war had come to an end, that they should get hack and try to rehabilitate themselves in their profession. The fees I have quoted are gross; that is to say, they include the percentage which they have to pay out to their clerks, so that they get less in fact. than the total amount of those fees.

9.15 p.m.

I would add also—and I think the whole Committee will agree—that this was about the most important trial in history. It was of the greatest importance that it should be properly conducted, and that the fullest confidence should be placed in the learned counsel in whose hands the control of the case was put. When the trial started, it was, of course, impossible to estimate the actual time it would take. The fees that were paid were negotiated in the ordinary way, and are not dispro- portionate to the fees which are paid fort cases of that magnitude and that importance; indeed, I think it is perhaps fair to say that there never has been a case equal to that in magnitude and importance, both from the point of view of international relations generally and in the eyes of history.

The hon. Lady then asked about the position with regard to expenses. There was a very small entertainment allowance which was granted. It worked out, I think, at £55 for the whole time in respect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby, and I think it refers to two particular occasions when it was necessary for him, in the course of his duties, to entertain members of foreign delegations. Apart from that, I understand that all the expenses of that sort which he incurred had to come from his own pocket. He had a small messing allowance which, for the year worked out at £65. Those are the expenses. I could give the analogous expenses in the case of all the other learned counsel engaged, but they were about the same sort of amount. I do not know whether the hon. Lady would like me to digest all the other general expenses, all of which were expenses of a very general character which it is difficult to give in detail, except at very great length. Unless she would like me to give them in detail, I will take it she is satisfied with what I have given. The other expenses, of course, consisted in the general arrangements which were made for the conduct of the trial. A large staff had to be there, and elaborate arrangements had to be undertaken for the purpose of the trial which, of course, lasted for the period I have indicated. I hope that this information satisfies the hon. Lady. Those are the facts, and I ask the Committee to say that it feels that the expenditure was justified. I suppose that it would have been possible to save money here and there, but, on the other hand, it was of the greatest importance that the thing should be done properly. I hope the hon. Lady agrees that that is so.

I would like to say a few words with regard to the other item of increase in order to explain the Supplementary Estimate fully. The other item relates to an increase of expenses under Subhead E; that is to say, the expenses incurred in the conduct of litigation on behalf of various Departments and by the Solicitor to the Treasury in his own capacity. The figure that was put into the original Estimate had of necessity to be, to a certain extent, conjectural. It was not known, or it could not be gauged with complete accuracy at the time the original Estimate was prepared towards the end of 1945, precisely how much litigation would be likely to arise out of the ending of the war.

It transpired that a good deal more litigation was necessary than had been anticipated. In those circumstances, the estimate figure of £131,000 was thought to be too little, and I ask the Committee to approve the increase of £46,000. I can, if the Committee desire, give the general particulars of the type of increases which were necessary, particularly in the case of the War Office, the Admiralty and various other Departments. There is a long list showing how the increases were necessitated. With regard to appropriations-in-aid, the figure has been increased by £48,000.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot refer to appropriations-in-aid.

The Solicitor-General

With that explanation, I ask the Committee to say that the expenditure was justified and to approve it.

Major Cecil Poole (Lichfield)

I am sure the Committee are grateful to the learned Solicitor-General for the detailed statement of expenses which he has given in connection with the Nuremberg trial. I understand that the Nuremberg trial is costing something like £90,000, the Japanese trial £43,000, and there is £7,500, for London offices and general expenditure, making the total charge in the region of £140,000. I want to be perfectly frank and to say that I think that it is money well spent in having rid the world of a lot of very undesirable people, but, at the same time, I fail to see why this charge should fall upon the British taxpayer. I would ask whether this amount is likely to be included in our reparation claims against ex-enemy countries. It may seem ungracious that one should try a man and expect his own countrymen to pay for the trial, but I think that is legitimate in this case, and I do not see why, in our ultimate repara- tion charge, this figure of £140,000 should not be included. I speak only for myself, for I would not like it to be thought that, in spite of the fact that fairly high fees were paid to learned counsel engaged in the prosecution, I think the figures are in any way excessive.

I am sure that the whole Committee would wish to pay its tribute, as I believe has already been done, to the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). Here the major question is, I think, to thank him not so much for what he did, but for undertaking the colossal responsibility which was laid upon him—a responsibility unprecedented in the legal history of this country. I think that the fees, while they may be large, are by no means excessive. In fact the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fortunate enough to belong to a profession in which the fees are high, and, if I may say so, are often excessive. I hope that before this Parliament goes out, something will be done to end very excessive legal charges, but while the scale is what it is, we must be prepared to pay it We all know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a poorer man for having gone to Nuremberg and received fees of £22,915, than had he stayed in London, taken the briefs which came along, and built up a practice which he was forced to neglect while at the trial. I believe that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that he, and all who tool; part in the trial, conducted it so successfully, and achieved such desirable results are worthy of our congratulations, and certainly of the amount of money which is being expended.

Mr. Marlowe (Brighton)

I am sure the whole Committee will agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole) that this was money well spent. It is necessary to get it into proper perspective because the hon. and gallant Member fell into the error of drawing attention to the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) had earned £22,000 on this matter. All of us who have anything to do with taxation know perfectly well that that is not true at all. After the expenses had been deducted and taxes taken off, I doubt whether there was £4,000 in it for the right hon. and learned Gentleman It is necessary for that to be made clear, otherwise it goes out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been paid £22,000 when he has actually not been paid anything like that sum. No one objects to any hon. Member of this Committee investigating why a sum of money is paid. It is perfectly proper and right that it should be done, but I cannot help feeling that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) who raised this matter did so for the particular purpose of probing what had been paid to the right hon. and learned Member—

Mr. Leslie Hale

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to allege and impute motives against an hon. Member by name when she does her duty by investigating a subject?

The Deputy-Chairman

It is quite in Order for an hon. Member to ask the reason or suggest a reason for a matter being raised.

Mr. Marlowe

I am now fortified in what I originally believed. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) at once began to assume that motives were being imputed. I was not doing so at all—

Mr. Hale

The hon. and learned Member did.

Mr. Marlowe

I was stating the very elementary fact, with which the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool would agree, that she wanted to find out what the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby was paid. Now she has been told, and I hope she is quite satisfied that the probable net sum of money was in the region of £4,000—a very modest fee to be paid for the great services rendered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I remember so well how it was assumed in the last Parliament that everybody who belonged to the Conservative Party was a Fascist beast, and that only hon. Gentlemen who belonged to the Labour Party were anxious to destroy Fascism. Now the hon. Lady is quibbling at the expense of a few thousand pounds spent on this particular purpose. She is quite entitled to make her inquiries, but I have no doubt that she did so for the particular purpose of probing into this matter. I agree with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield that it is money well spent, but it is not so much money as the hon. Lady hoped she would find. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Everyone will agree that this is a small amount, and also the total includes what was paid to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Elwyn Jones). It will be agreed that the money was well spent on him as well. This was a small sum for the purpose of finally deciding the guilt of those war criminals, and we ought not to make it the subject for any further inquiries.

Mrs. Braddock

I am not so politically charitable as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield (Major Poole). I wanted to know exactly what the Labour Government had paid to a Conservative representative. I wanted to know it particularly, because the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has been using the position politically, in relation to the work he has done. Time and time again on the political platform he has made reference to this position, and I wanted to make it perfectly clear in public on the Floor of the House of Commons exactly how charitable in this regard the Labour Government was to a political opponent. I have listened on many occasions from the other side of the Committee to how much Mr. Laski got for giving a lecture to the troops. If we are to talk about 100 guineas for fees for members of the. Labour Party lecturing to anybody, I suggest quite openly and honestly that it I, simply chicken feed in relation to the £23,000 paid as fees and expenses to a Member of the Opposition by the Government at the moment in control.

I make no bones about it. I made a statement upon the public platform that at the very first opportunity I would ask for the answer that the country was entitled to have. The Member opposite was quite right. I dislike anybody who holds certain opinions. I do not like their faces. I have certainly no intention, whenever I get an opportunity of — [Interruption]—I am not going to adopt in this House anything different from what I have adopted right throughout my years of working class agitation outside. I have no intention of being politically challengeable by anybody who holds views that I consider are detrimental—

9.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Lady is now getting rather wide.

Mrs. Braddock

It may be so, Mr. Beaumont. I thank the Solicitor-General for the information, of which I will make the very fullest political use at every opportunity.

Mr. Assheton (City of London)

The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) has told the Committee candidly what her motives were in asking for this information. I should like to say that there is no-one on this side of the Committee, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell-Fyfe), who has the slightest objection to the information being made public. My right hon. and learned Friend took upon himself a task which must have been greater than that laid upon any counsel in any criminal case in history. He bore a burden of immense responsibility in a manner to which the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major C. Poole) paid tribute. My right hon. and learned Friend discharged those tasks with the greatest possible dignity, and to the satisfaction of the people of this country. With regard to the sum of money paid in fees, it was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) that although the gross fees may have been over £20,000 the net amount received by learned counsel was far nearer a matter of £4,000, or something of that order. In addition to that, I know the Committee is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend was absent from this country for about a year and that during that time he neglected entirely his own practice.

Mrs. Braddock

Did he draw his Parliamentary salary?

Mr. Assheton

I am afraid I have no idea. Whether he did or did not, I think he was quite entitled to it. If the people of the country learn the facts that have been disclosed tonight, there will be no criticism of the fees that have been paid, and no one will say that this Government who invited my right hon. and learned Friend to take this case, and who settled the fees, were in any way to blame.

Mr. Osborne (Louth)

There are two points to which I would call attention. The first surely is that my right hon. and learned Friend was not appointed to do this very difficult and important job merely because he was a Member of the Opposition. The Government appointed the best qualified man. If he had been sitting on the other side of the House he would have been appointed in the same way, and he would have received the same fees. The second point is that if the political spite and hatred which the hon. Lady has shown is typical and characteristic of the party opposite, God help this country.

Mr. Kendall (Grantham)

I would not have intervened had it not been for the speech by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). It seems to me that the speech made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lichfield (Major Poole) was a very proper speech. I think it is wrong and improper to suggest motives which, presumably, the hon. Lady is going to do on the public platform in regard to the fees received by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) for having done such an excellent job of work at Nuremberg. It would just be as bad if the Members of the Conservative Party suggested that the £4,000, tax free, which has recently been voted for the Prime Minister was given for personal motives. Equally easily, some one could come along and say that the Prime Minister had given himself an increase of something like £150,000 per annum. Nobody has suggested that here, because that would be improper, and I hope that the Committee, without any further ado, will pass this supplementary amount of money asked for by the learned Solicitor-General.

Mr. Butcher (Holland with Boston)

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for the clear exposition he has given of the cost incurred for the Nuremberg trial, and I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lichfield (Major Poole). I agree that those who are learned in the law belong to a profession in which the fees seem rather high, but it is news to me that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division (Mrs. Braddock) is not willing to pay the rate for the job. Surely, that is one of the first principles of all trade unionists, that the right people should be paid the right rate. I believe that the Government were extremely fortunate in being able to secure the services of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), and I have the feeling that if he figures in the big cases in this country with the admirable sense he showed at Nuremberg he will be earning as much as was earned by the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

I would not have ventured to rise to address the Committee but for the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). The hon. Lady told the Committee about certain pledges which she had given on political platforms. Nobody will complain about that, but I should like to remind her when she talks about what she stated on public platforms, that she has made other statements particularly with reference to the procedure of Parliament which could be held against her. I could quite easily—for I have them in my possession—quote to the Committee statements which were made by the hon. Lady—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is now getting out of Order, and if he quotes from the statements which he says he has he will be even more out of Order.

Mr. McKie

I deplore the hon. Lady's speech, and I have in my possession evidence on which I could, quite easily, have her arraigned for a breach of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved: That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Law Officers' Department; the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Procurator-General and Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the costs of prosecutions, of other legal proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency.