§ 4.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on war crimes committed during the Second World War which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
"The House will be aware of recent allegations that suspected war criminals have found haven in this country. Lists of names have been sent to us by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others. Inquiries conducted by my department suggested that some 33 of the people named are still living in this country and we undertook to consider what action, if any, should be taken.
"The legal position is as follows. We would normally deal with alleged crimes in foreign countries by way of extradition. However, all the cases in question relate to crimes committed in territories now controlled by the Soviet Union, with whom we have no extradition treaty. Nor do the courts in the United Kingdom at present have jurisdiction to try offences of murder and manslaughter committed abroad when the accused was not a British citizen at the time of the offence. If we were to prosecute in these cases we should need to legislate to extend the jurisdiction of our courts.
"The passage of time does not lessen the horror with which we now read about wartime atrocities, but it does inevitably complicate the investigation of any allegations which might be made.
"I decided that it was impossible to take this issue forward without a better idea of what evidence existed. I therefore asked the Simon Wiesenthal Center to provide evidence to substantiate the allegations. In July of last year the center provided us with a large quantity of documentary material. This material contained serious allegations against a number of people. The material was carefully considered within Government. Our conclusion was that as it stood the material would not be sufficient to support a criminal prosecution, even if there were jurisdiction.
"In the circumstances it is clear that further work has to be done. I have therefore decided to appoint an independent inquiry to examine material relating to the allegations, to conduct interviews—possibly including interviews in the Soviet Union—and to consider the likely value of the evidence which could become available to United Kingdom court proceedings. In the light of its assessment, the inquiry team will advise whether the law should be amended in order to take jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed overseas by persons now resident in this country. In the event of such a change it would be for the prosecuting authorities to decide, after such investigations as they may think necessary, whether any action should be taken in individual cases. I have placed the inquiry's full terms of reference in the library. I am very grateful that Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, the former Crown Agent in Scotland, have agreed to undertake the inquiry.
"All of us who have considered these matters recognise that they are intensely difficult. The allegations are very serious and must be pursued. However, I do not believe that the material now before us would justify me in proposing to Parliament a change in the law. The inquiry which I have announced will enable us to form a clearer view of the weight to be given to the allegations, and will enable us to determine whether it would be 34 right to propose a change in the law to extend the jurisdiction of the courts."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement on this intensely painful matter, which will revive painful memories for many of us.
Very serious allegations have been made by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in America and others against persons living in this country. Those allegations are in respect of the alleged commission of war crimes by some of those persons during the Second World War. In that situation it is right that there should be full inquiry into the allegations and investigation of evidence that has already been obtained and any other available information. To achieve that, there must clearly be an independent inquiry. On this side of the House we welcome the Statement and the proposed inquiry.
That inquiry will have the task of examining and weighing the material relating to the allegations that have been made against those who have been able to find haven in this country. They may be innocent or they may not, but it is a matter that calls for the most serious examination. The evidence to be considered will presumably include information already collected by the Wiesenthal Center, which of course must be examined and weighed for the strength or weakness that it may present.
It is a task which will be familiar to the two distinguished public servants who are to conduct the inquiry, Sir Thomas Heatherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, the former Crown Agent in Scotland. It has already been indicated in the Statement by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that they will be given every facility to perform their task both in this country and abroad. It is a very heavy responsibility and upon their judgment must depend a very great deal.
§ Lord WigoderMy Lords, I too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say at once that at this stage there can certainly be no question of this matter being in any way a party political issue.
I welcome much of what is contained in the Statement, but I hesitate a little over the suggestion at the beginning of the first paragraph that:
The House will be aware of recent allegations".As I understand it, the allegations now go back certainly many months and it may well be some years. I should be grateful if the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, could indicate on what date the Government first became aware that allegations of this nature were being made. I should not want it to be thought—and I am sure the Government would not want it to be thought—that they had been in any way dilatory in pursuing this matter.I accept that there may well be problems concerning both jurisdiction and the obtaining of evidence. It may well be that the appointment of the two distinguished public servants named in the Statement will help to resolve the problem of 35 evidence. Have the Government considered going back yet again to the Wiesenthal Center to see if they can resolve some of the problems about the further evidence, because it may be that it has facilities for obtaining evidence perhaps even more efficiently and effectively than Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers?
Finally, I welcome without reservation the clear indication in this Statement that appalling wartime atrocities will not be forgiven nor forgotten however many years elapse, and that, if and when evidence becomes available, the Government will be quite unrelenting in bringing the alleged criminals to trial.
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I am very grateful for the reaction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. As we know, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is a person who is a great expert on these matters, having been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. What he has said is of great importance. When he said that these issues bring back painful memories, he struck a chord which will evoke sympathy throughout the House and indeed throughout the country. They are very painful memories indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked when we had the information about this. He queried the use of the word "recent". The list of the names which was received from the Simon Wiesenthal Center contained unsubstantiated and often generalised allegations. It did not form an adequate basis for a decision and my right honourable friend invited the center to substantiate its allegations. In July last year it gave us a large amount of material in relation to a few people. Since then we have subjected the material to legal analysis and have been considering the implications.
This is a difficult matter because the public interest considerations do not all point in the same direction. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, says that he hopes the Government will take the necessary action to prosecute people. I can only say to him that it would be wise to await the outcome of the inquiry. At present we in this country do not have the legal facilities to prosecute. If that were to be necessary then it would require a change in the law. That in itself would bring forward some fairly hefty implications.
§ Lord Mason of BarnsleyMy Lords, as an official of the House of Lords and House of Commons War Crimes Group, perhaps I may say on its behalf that we do not wish to see a witch-hunt in this affair. It would be totally wrong to allow such an atmosphere to be generated. However, in view of the growing suspicion about the numbers of Nazis, however small, who may be in the United Kingdom, and who may have been concerned with the Holocaust and mass persecution of the Jews, it is right that the air should be cleared. I hope therefore that it will be a quiet, low-key, but nevertheless deep inquiry. May I ask the noble Earl whether the report will be published and therefore available for debate?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that it should be a quiet, low-key inquiry. That indeed is what we hope it will be. It will be necessary to wait and see the report of the inquiry before I can say in what way the results will be made public.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, has my noble friend any idea of the time factor likely to be involved? He obviously cannot give any undertaking, but one wishes to know the period of time that is contemplated as a possibility before the inquiry may be concluded.
§ Lord WigoderMy Lords, will the noble Earl be kind enough to answer the first query that I raised about the date when the Government first heard of the unsubstantiated allegations?