FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (Hansard, 22 May 1979)

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I am grateful for the opportunity of raising in the House relations between this country and the Federal Republic of West Germany and, in particular, an aspect of those relations of which I have given notice to the Minister, namely, the repeal of the German Statute of Limitations, which is at present before the German Parliament.

We in this country have long been concerned about the bringing to justice of those who perpetrated not merely war crimes but crimes of genocide; crimes directed not only against our soldiers and other troops against whom German armies fought, but those against totally innocent people—crimes committed not only during but even before the war.

By the German penal statute of 1871, any prosecution of those against whom investigations have not now begun will have to terminate on 31st December of this year unless the German Parliament sees fit to repeal that statute.

I submit that we, from the Palace of Westminster, in no spirit of ill will, in no unhappy memory of the bombing of this Chamber, but, after those years of war and ill will, having come together with the Federal German Republic in the EEC, having worked and operated with it in a spirit of comradeship in many areas, should now appeal to the Bundestag to enact the Bill which will enable the prosecution of war criminals and of those who were guilty of crimes in concentration camps to continue. This problem is sometimes thought to be an internal matter for Germany, and to an extent it is. The German people are sovereign in their own Parliament, as we are in ours, and they make their own decisions, as we do. But it is not an internal matter when we consider those who were the victims of the crimes with which we are concerned. I served as a war crimes investigator in Germany. I 1014 and my colleagues dealt with Stalag Luft 3 and we attempted, not always with much success, to find and to bring to justice those who had shot our prisoners of war in contravention of the Geneva Convention and of all decencies.

Speaking as a vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, I can assure the House that the Jewish community in Britain is deeply concerned with these problems. The Association of Jewish Ex-Service Men and Women has spearheaded a campaign on behalf of all who have lost relatives and friends in the holocaust. That is a matter that concerns not only Germans. In the main, those who were killed were not Germans; they were Poles and Russians, Czechoslovaks and Hungarians, Danes and Frenchmen. Although we hear a great deal about the 6 million Jews who were killed, 5 million non-Jews were killed.

This is a matter of concern not only to the Jewish communities but to all those who are devoted to justice. Nor is it a question of revenge. It is a demand for justice to those who were slaughtered and those who remain. Murderers who have succeeded in escaping justice all these years should not lightly sleep in their beds in the knowledge that they may now return to the leadership of those evil Fascist and Nazi movements that exist not only in Germany but, alas, in Britain as well.

There is no spirit of revenge when we consider the case of Hess. He was a leader of the Nazi movement. If I say that I think that the Russians are right, I know that in the House that will be taken as an expression of deep approval. They must indeed be right. They say that it is not in a spirit of revenge that Hess remains imprisoned, and that if he is to be allowed out he must at least say that he will not take the lead, even at his age, as the symbol of Nazism but will retire into decent obscurity where he wishes to pass his last days. If that is the basis upon which the matter is put, we may consider it in one light. If, on the other hand, we say that because a person is elderly or old he is incapable of leading a movement that should be destroyed, that is another matter.

The Statute of Limitations in Germany is not regarded as an internal matter for Germany by any of the resistance movements in the world, nor by any of the 1015 minority groups that suffered in the days of Nazi persecution. The years that have passed have not caused memories to fade, nor should they. We ask not for revenge but that these crimes should not be forgotten, if only to avoid a recurrence of the disasters that occurred in the past.

As I have said, this is not an internal matter for the Germans. It is not a matter that concerns only one section of the British people or one party. I pay my deep and personal tribute to Airey Neave, who worked with some of us on this issue shortly before his tragic murder. He and hon. Members on both sides of the House, one of whom, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), is now a Deputy Speaker and unable to take part in the debate for that reason, devoted much time and thought not to revenge but to preventing a recurrence of the crimes with which Airey Neave was so deeply involved in the Nuremberg trials.

Whether we are on one side of the House or the other, we share in common the wish to see democracy flourish and Nazism and dictatorships of all sorts die away. We share a wish that the Federal Republic of West Germany should exist and live alongside us in peace and deal with its own problems in a way that will cause it to be proud. We share the wish that it will not offer to the East Germans and others who wish it ill probably the greatest propaganda gift that they could have, namely, the suggestion that it is no longer concerned with the commission of crimes in times of war and in times before war, crimes of genocide, crimes in concentration camps and crimes in prisoner-of-war camps. In East Germany, Poland and other countries they have been carefully hiding records. They have not been giving forth the information that would enable prosecutions to take place. They have been holding it back and producing it as and when they see fit. They would certainly rejoice in the opportunity which would be presented were the German Statute of Limitations not to be repealed.

The effect of the repeal would not be very great in numbers. In this country, Statutes of Limitations prevent the institution of proceedings where no step has been taken in the courts—steps such as the issue of a writ or of a summons. In 1016 Germany the rules are different. There, once an investigation has begun, once a person's name is on the file, the process of the court is said to be in action and the statute does not operate. For a person to take advantage of the statute, he must have hidden himself successfully away for over 30 years. He should not receive the prize of eternal peace as a result. However, not many people will be affected by this.

What matters much more is the moral principle. We should say to our colleagues and friends in the EEC that we do not regard the expression of opinion in this House as an interference in the sovereign rights of a foreign Parliament or people but that we appreciate and share their views. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), Mr. Douglas Henderson—a member of the Scottish National Party who is no longer a Member of Parliament—and I went to the German Embassy and saw the ambassador. We were received with great cordiality and kindness. We had the impression that there was no difference of view between him and us. When the Bill for the repeal of the statute was tabled in the German Parliament, it was supported by 215 deputies of the Social Democratic Party, 40 members of the Christian Democratic Opposition party and by some of the free democratic parliamentarians. Some of the leading figures in Germany expressed their warmest hope that this statute would be repealed.

The Bill then moved into Committee. There was a suggestion of a compromise which, if accepted, might be unconstitutional under German law. This is a matter into which I would hesitate to enter, the intricacies of our own law being sufficiently vast and miserable for us without having to try to cope with those of the German Republic, especially in view of the language difference.

It is the earnest wish of the vast majority of Members of Parliament, on both sides, that the German Parliament should repeal the statute. German Members of Parliament should understand that in so doing they will be expressing the view of the majority of their people and of ours. They should regard this not as a purely internal matter for them and their people but as a human rights issue.

1017 When, tomorrow, the new German President is installed, we in this House wish him—or I understand that it might be her—the very best of luck. We hope that whoever is elected to that post will have a successful, healthy and peaceful term of office. We hope that the German people will continue the process of reconciliation with those with whom they dealt so ill, the process which was begun by Mr. Adenauer, which has been continued by many of the present parliamentarians and which we invite them to see as one of good faith, good fellowship and good nature, not as one of ill will or revenge

Equally, should the Germans decide not to repeal that statute, I hope they will appreciate that their good name will be most adversely affected not only in this House but amongst all those whose memories have not faded, who suffered, or whose families were lost in the Nazi holocaust.

I hope that in those circumstances the Minister will express the view of the Government and of the House in saying that they will take the step that I have been so happy to have this opportunity of urging upon them in this Chamber.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce)

I think that the whole House will acknowledge the very strong feelings which have been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on this subject, which I am sure represent the views of a great number of people in this country. Over many months and many years, inside and outside Parliament, he has expressed his strong concern about matters which cover individual rights and individual justice.

I should like to accept with pleasure the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in raising the subject, spoke of the present very warm relations that we have in this country with the Federal Republic of Germany. May I set the scene, before I seek to comment on the specific points about the Statute of Limitations, by saying that the Government plan to place a high priority on good relations with the Federal Republic. The Prime Minister very much welcomed the opportunity that she had very recently to meet Chancellor Schmidt at such an early stage after the 1018 election. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Federal Republic is one of our most important partners, both in the North Atlantic Alliance and within the European Community. During Chancellor Schmidt's visit, the two Governments were able to exchange views on a wide range of subjects, including defence and Community affairs, and we have now established a close working relationship between our two Governments which I believe will be important for the future.

It is against this background that I should like to comment on the Statute of Limitations relating to war crimes and murder. Immediately after the last war, the three Western Powers had responsibility, in what is now the Federal Republic of Germany, for the prosecution of war crimes. Since 1955, responsibility for such prosecution has been entirely a matter for the Government and the courts of the Federal Republic. The time limit, under the Statute of Limitations, for the prosecution of Nazi war crimes and murder was extended, as the hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows, in 1965 and again in 1969. It is now due to expire on 31 December this year.

The law on limitations in the Federal Republic of Germany provides a number of ways in which the limitation period can be suspended—for example, while investigations into alleged crimes are being pursued. But, unless the provisions of the existing statute are altered, anyone guilty of murder committed during the last war will no longer face prosecution after 31 December 1979, always providing that legal proceedings have not been instituted before that date.

The Government understand the concern which has been expressed in this country and elsewhere, and by the hon. and learned Gentleman, about the application of the Statute of Limitations in the Federal Republic of Germany to murder and Nazi war crimes. We share the widespread view that the crimes committed by the Nazis should never be forgotten. The question whether the Statute of Limitations should or should not apply to Nazi war crimes and murder is a matter of active public debate, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows and has already described, in the Federal Republic of Germany.

A Bill which would lift the time limit on these crimes has been tabled in the 1019 Bundestag by 208 Social Democrats and seven Free Democrat Members and secured its First Reading on 29 March. It is currently going through the Committee stages. It is thought that the Second and Third Readings could be taken before the Summer Recess at the end of June. Chancellor Schmidt has already declared his support for it. The Federal Government as such have not yet formed a final view on the problem. It is, however, being treated as a non-party issue, and it seems likely that a free vote will be allowed on the further readings which will take place in the Bundestag. The Federal German Republic naturally insists that the debate is an internal German affair, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would acknowledge that the Bundestag has a difficult decision to make in this respect.

Recent reports from Germany underline the practical difficulties of bringing war crimes to a conclusion. Four people accused of murder were ordered to be released because of lack of evidence. As time goes by, it is likely to become progressively more difficult for the prosecution to prove cases because witnesses are becoming too old to give evidence or have even died.

According to the Federal German Ministry of Justice, between the end of the last war and 1 January 1978, the legal authorities of the Federal Republic investigated accusations of possible participation in war crimes against over 84,000 people. In 74,260 of those cases, the accused was acquitted, the case was dropped for lack of evidence or the accused died before the investigation was completed. A total of 6,432 people were convicted, in 12 cases the accused being 1020 sentenced to death and in 151 cases to life imprisonment. Legal proceedings have been instituted against a further 3,708 people whose cases are presently being investigated.

Her Majesty's Government believe that there should be no time limit on the initiation of legal proceedings or the imposition of punishment with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity—such crimes as those to which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has referred. We are also in no doubt that this is primarily an internal matter for the Federal German Republic. Responsibility for the prosecution of war crimes, and for any modifications to the Statute of Limitations, in the Federal Republic of Germany lies clearly with the courts of the Federal Republic and with the Government. Therefore, I do not think that it would be appropriate or wise for Her Majesty's Government to raise this directly with the Federal authorities in Germany.

Having said that, may I point out that individuals, or organisations, or Members of Parliament for that matter, who feel strongly about the issue are, of course, free to make representations direct to the Federal German Government. I believe that many have already done so. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself said he has done so with the German Ambassador in London.

I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the outcome of this debate will be fully noted by our friends in Germany, particularly in the Bundestag in the coming debate.