Alleged War Criminals (Hansard, 24 April 1991)

§ Viscount Mountgarret
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to raise an objection to the Question before it is answered. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows that next Tuesday there will be an extensive 266 debate on this subject. I fear that to ask such a Question at this time could lead our discussions to degenerate into a debate about what will then be discussed. I question whether there is a procedure whereby a noble Lord may put forward an objection when another noble Lord begs leave to ask a Question. I may be wrong and shall be happy to listen to advice and guidance from the Front Bench.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)
My Lords, I have no reason to believe that the Question is in any way out of order. I do not believe that it would be appropriate in those circumstances to take any action which would prevent the noble Lord from asking his Question and my noble friend from replying.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, we are not aware that any consideration was given at that time to the possibility of action against alleged war criminals who might have been resident in the United Kingdom. There was no reason to believe that war criminals had come to this country, and the question therefore did not arise.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in 1945 the Cabinet discussed how best to handle the problem of suspects discovered in this country? Is he aware that parliamentary Questions were asked and answered on that subject? Is he aware that Hansard records that on 1st December 1947 I, as a junior Minister, answered a Question about a suspect who had been arrested in this country and that that case was considered also by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Chancellor? In that case, how can Ministers maintain that those responsible were unaware of the possibility of war criminals being in this country? Why do Ministers try to maintain that that unawareness was the reason that we did not legislate to try such people in this country?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I have had an opportunity to see the record of the Cabinet decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, refers. A proposal was being discussed to surrender from the British zone in Germany to the United States' authorities five German industrialists whom the Americans wished to put on trial in the United States'zone. The papers also recorded the Cabinet's view that we should: in general …advocate a policy of discontinuing trials for war crimes". The discussion was about trials in continental Europe. It was not thought that any war criminals could have entered this country. Therefore, the Cabinet could not have been considering war crimes trials here. That is my information. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was an involved and interested party at that time. However, the decision to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred was a Cabinet decision. At that time it was not considered that any war criminals were in this country.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, while there was no evidence at that time that war criminals were in this country, will my noble friend confirm that thousands of refugees were admitted here from the Baltic States, Poland and the Soviet Union with very little 267 screening? Will he also confirm that in 1948 no law existed in this country under which proceedings could have been started?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The immediate post-war years saw a large influx of immigrants from Europe to Britain from a wide variety of sources. There were displaced persons who were recruited to combat the chronic labour shortage in Britain, others were members of the Polish armed forces who did not wish to return to live under a Communist regime and others were former prisoners of war who were allowed to stay here. The situation in Europe at that time was fairly chaotic. There was a screening process. However, although that was considered to be effective, it has now been shown that that screening process may not have been so effective.

Viscount Tonypandy
My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm as a result of his inquiries that at the time nobody believed that there were war criminals in the United Kingdom—people guilty of war crimes? Secondly, is there any evidence at all that either the government during the war or the Labour Government of 1945–50 ever dreamt of making the United Kingdom a safe haven for Nazi war criminals?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is quite correct. At that time it was not thought that there were any war criminals within the United Kingdom. If there were such criminals, it was certainly not considered that the United Kingdom should be a safe haven for them.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, I ask this question out of ignorance and not from any desire to catch the noble Lord out. The Minister said that he has seen the Cabinet papers relating to this issue. Are they public? It is outside the 30-year rule. Can those papers be consulted in the Public Records Office or are they hidden?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, as far as I know I am not privy to private documents of the Cabinet. Thirty years have elapsed and as far as I know the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is entitled—as I am—to look at those papers.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is it possible to place a copy of those Cabinet papers in the Library before 30th April?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I shall look into that. I am not aware that there are any constraints. If there are, I shall write to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. If there are not, I shall place a copy of the papers in the Library.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am relying not on my memory or on my opinion but on the records at the time? Is he aware that the Cabinet meeting to which he refers concerned itself with the deportation of suspected war criminals held in this country? What about the other records to which I have made reference and other records which I hope to be able to explain to the House next week?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I can only give the same answer that I gave previously. The records which the noble Lord mentioned referred to a policy of discontinuing trials for war crimes. That discussion was about trials in continental Europe. I deferred to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, because he was there at the time and although he was not in the Cabinet, he was a distinguished Minister at the Foreign Office and may know more about it than I do. However, at that time it was not considered that war criminals were in this country. Therefore, the decision which the Cabinet reached related to war criminals in Europe.