HC Deb 14 July 1948 vol 453 cc1175-8
13. Mr. Stokes

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Yugoslays who were recently detained at Esterwegen have now been set free; and how many are to be forcibly repatriated.

Mr. Mayhew

Fifteen have been released. Five are to be repatriated.

Major Lloyd

Does this not make the thirty-eighth violation of treaties by Soviet Russia?

Mr. Stokes

Does not the Minister think it entirely contrary to the traditions of this country that people should be forced to be repatriated to a Government which will not give them any fair hearing at all? In fact, on this occasion, is he not condemning them to death?

Mr. Mayhew

No, Sir. The obligations are clear on this matter. A full statement has been made, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Stokes

That is a Pontius Pilate attitude.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett

On whose authority is the decision made to repatriate these people?

Mr. Mayhew

These Yugoslays are repatriated if there is a clear, prima facie case of being traitors to the Allied cause.

Mr. Bartlett

Who decides whether there is a clear prima facie case? That is the important point.

Mr. Mayhew

It is a legal decision, taken by a legal tribunal in Germany and confirmed by the legal adviser to the Foreign Office.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson

Is there any appeal against that legal decision?

Mr. Mayhew

It is not a matter of judicial decision and appeal. It is a matter of interpretation whether a prima facie case exists.

Mr. Nicholson

Are the accused given any opportunity to defend themselves?

Mr. Mayhew

Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. Strauss

Does the existence of a prima facie case give any ground at all why these people should not have a fair trial? Is it not well-known to His Majesty's Government that these people will not get a fair trial?

Mr. Platts-Mills

On a point of Order. Is it open to hon. Members of this House to make imputations such as that which has just been made against the Yugoslav Government? Is there any evidence at all to warrant the suggestion that these people will not get fair trials?

Mr. Stokes

Further to that point of Order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Yugoslav Government have themselves issued an order that no competent lawyer may defend a so-called war criminal, except for finding out the truth in the interests of the State?

Mr. Strauss

On that point of Order. May I say that the facts on which I relied have been stated by His Majesty's Ministers in this House?

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps I had better answer the point of Order. I always thought that the difficulty about sending these people back to Yugoslavia was the fear that they would not get a fair trial. I thought that this was generally recognised. Therefore, these allegations are in Order.

Mr. Platts-Mills

On a point of Order. Is the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, in your position, as we all are, are influenced by propaganda—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we all are—any reason why the Rule of the House that hostile imputations against a foreign Government are not allowed, should be over-ridden?

Mr. Speaker

I am not influenced by propaganda of any kind but by what I hear in the House. I am influenced by the attitude of His Majesty's Government, among others, towards Yugoslavia.

Mr. Gallacher

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I with other hon. Members of the House have the greatest regard for you as Speaker and for your position, but I must ask you why it is that exception should have been taken on several occasions to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) on the ground that he was making innuendoes against the Government of the United States, and then we get the most violent and unjustifiable slander about countries in Eastern Europe and nothing is said?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member was not aware that I had already intervened when the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) said something against Russia. It is "fair do's" all round as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Silverman

Arising out of the original Ruling, is it not rather a mistake to say that the reason why there is a full examination into the question of whether there is a prima facie case is due to the fear that there may not be a fair trial? Is it not really the case that it is not due to that at all but that the obligations by which the Government are bound are to hand back only where a prima facie case has been established, exactly as is the case under the extradition laws which have always existed between friendly countries?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, that is a matter for the Government. After all, these matters in the Balkan countries are very confused, and there is a fear that there may be partisan feelings from before the war into which we have to look. I do not want to be unfair to the Yugoslav Government, but one has to watch the foreign situation from the Foreign Office point of view.

Mr. Silverman

Then may I ask if His Majesty's Government would in any circumstances hand over a prisoner to another Power, if they doubted whether he would get a fair trial, whether there was a prima facie case or not; and is it not the case that when a prima facie case has been established and after a strict investigation, His Majesty's Government have no option whatever but to carry out their Treaty obligations?

Mr. Stokes

Before my hon. Friend answers, may I ask him whether it is a fact that when these arrangements were made with the Yugoslav Government it was understood by the statements that a free and proper trial would be held, whereas the situation today is entirely different?

Mr. Silverman

How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Stokes

It was stated by the Yugoslav Government.

Mr. Speaker

We had better not pursue this further now.