Nazi War Crimes (Hansard, 3 December 1987)

§ 8. Mr. Winnick
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what action he intends to take in regard to those living in the United Kingdom who are alleged to have committed Nazi crimes in the last war.

§ Mr. Hurd
We are urgently considering the policy and legal implications of documents provided by the Simon Wiesenthal centre. I hope to be able to announce our conclusions soon.

§ Mr. Winnick
I appreciate what the Home Secretary has just said, but would it not be quite wrong if those held responsible for the most monstrous Nazi war crimes were allowed to get away scot-free because they happened to be living in the United Kingdom? Therefore, is not the real choice for the Government that of changing the law on extradition, as we have been urging on the Irish Government on another matter, or allowing legal proceedings to take place in this country?

§ Mr. Hurd
The truth is that we have no jurisdiction as things stand over crimes, however serious, committed overseas by individuals who were not British citizens at that time, nor is there, under present arrangements or likely arrangements, a possibility of extradition; nor can there be any thorough further investigation without jurisdiction. We have to decide whether we should assert jurisdiction by a change in the law, and if so how that should be defined. That is far from easy. The ethical and legal considerations are very serious and do not all point in the same way. We are considering how to proceed.

§ Mr. Stanbrook
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much we detest the perpetrators of war crimes, we should not institute extraordinary legal changes to enable mere allegations to be pursued?

§ Mr. Hurd
The difficulty is that it is hard to pursue beyond the stage of mere allegations when there is no jurisdiction. There is certainly no question of creating crimes or offences retrospectively. It is a question of the width of our jurisdiction over crimes that are recognised by everyone as crimes.

§ Mr. Flannery
When massive evidence is accruing about crimes committed during the war as in the case of Gecas in Edinburgh, will we tolerate a situation where a trial needs to take place to let us all know whether the crimes have been committed, or will we leave a man like that and apparently 16 others in this country and do nothing about them after all that we think they have done?

§ Mr. Hurd
The hon. Gentleman clearly has not listened to the exchanges over the past two minutes. I have set out the considerations and the options that we are considering.

§ Mr. Marlow
Will my right hon. Friend please be extremely wary on this issue and take note of the fact that the supporters of this particular proposal are motivated, not by justice, but by the demands of propaganda? Will he also be aware of the fact that many of his hon. Friends would be extremely concerned if he were to pursue such legislation, which would, in effect, be retrospective?

§ Mr. Hurd
The question is how we deal with extremely serious allegations. I do not want to repeat myself, in case I get the balance slightly different, but I have set out deliberately all the considerations. We must be very cautious about this, because the considerations either way are very serious. As soon as we have reached a conclusion we shall let the House know.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
If the Home Secretary announces jurisdictional changes in due course, will he also consider the necessity of announcing specific funds so that proper police investigations can be carried out into the allegations that have been made?

§ Mr. Hurd
Any change would certainly produce costs. There is no doubt about that. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman or anyone else would think that that consideration should be decisive.