§ 3.7 p.m.
§ Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether the British Government recommended to Commonwealth Governments in 1948 that no fresh trials of suspected war criminals should be started after 31st August of that year; and whether that recommendation was observed by all Commonwealth Governments, including the British.
Earl FerrersMy Lords, the Governments of Australia, Canada, Ceylon, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and South Africa were consulted in July 1948 about a British recommendation that in general no new war crimes trials should be started in British military courts in Germany. Available records suggest that the governments concerned concurred with this proposal. An exception was made by the British Government in the case of Field Marshal von Manstein and those involved in the Stalag Luft III murders.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the government decision to end trials and to wind up the process of retribution applied to all suspects in British and British-controlled territories? Therefore, is he aware that the War Crimes Bill is a direct reversal of the government decision in 1948?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, it identified the British belief that war crimes trials in continental Europe should come to an end. I can only give to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the indication which I gave as regards the last Question; namely, that at that time there was no possibility of war criminals being in this country. It was believed that there were no war criminals here. That was the decision taken then. We are talking about some 45 years ago. Even if that were proven to be wrong, there is no particular reason why, later on, a government should not take a different decision from that taken in 1948.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, far from bringing the war crimes trials to an end, did not the United Kingdom Government in 1948 hand over the process in the British zone of Germany to the new emerging West German Government who have since then from time to time brought war criminals to trial?
As regards retribution, that applied to the Nuremberg quadripartite tribunal where for three 269 years the leading Nazis and accomplices of Hitler—those who had not committed suicide—were tried. By that time, the trials had come to an end.
Earl FerrersMy Lords, that may well be so. I believe there was general agreement at that time—the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may remember it—that there had been sufficient prosecutions of those who were involved in war crimes in Germany. It was decided that that should come to an end and on that point there is no disagreement. However, the premise upon which the noble Lord asks the Question is slightly different. At that time it was not anticipated that war criminals in this country would be involved.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm my own recollection, that the trials under the Nuremberg strategy were not, as my noble friend indicated, confined to the leading Nazis but went a great way down the line?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I do not wish to become involved in an argument between two of my noble friends, one of whom is noble and learned. However, I should like to investigate to ascertain who is right and, even more interestingly, who is wrong.
Viscount TonypandyMy Lords, I too would be nervous, to cross swords with the noble and learned former Lord Chancellor. However, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was no more a member of the Cabinet than I was. If my memory is correct—I know that old men forget—he was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. That puts the matter in perspective. Is it not the case that the Commonwealth agreed with the prosecutions in Germany, but that since then the Commonwealth has had prosecutions both in Australia and Canada on this subject?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, the noble Viscount says quite rightly that old men forget. I find that sometimes young men find it difficult to remember. The noble Viscount is correct in that there were four cases investigated in Canada. In Australia, one case was begun under their legislation but the trial was suspended due to the accused's ill health.
§ Lord Mowbray and StourtonMy Lords, is it not the case that in regard to the case to which my noble friend referred—that of Field Marshal von Manstein—many people, including the late Lord Paget and many other peers in this House, were later not convinced that his conviction brought further justice to the world?
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that between 1947 and 1948 I was working in the Foreign Office on European affairs and had the agreeable duty of briefing and advising the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary? Indeed, because the other place was meeting in this Chamber, I was in the box in this 270 House when the noble Lord was on the Front Bench. Is the Minister aware that my memory appears to be serving me rather better than the noble Lord's?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, that is dangerous territory for a Minister to enter. Either the advice of my noble friend Lord Campbell was so bad that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, did not take it, or his advice was so good that the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was not up to the advice that he was given. It is clearly not proper for me to comment any further.