---

Column 109

The Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry recommended that the facility of live television evidence should be available in war crimes trials. The law already provides for that generally, as we saw in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Mr. Hattersley : What about Scotland?

Mr. Patten : I am coming to that point. I was comparing and contrasting England and Scotland. That provision is now in force for many serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter and serious fraud, and not especially for war crimes. Following a period of consultation, the Government proposed that a similar general facility should be provided in Scotland. A provision to that effect was included in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill last Session. The provision was removed from the Bill during its parliamentary passage because, I am advised, of the pressure of parliamentary time. The Government remain of the view that live television links should be available for the giving of evidence from abroad in all Scottish trials of all serious crimes. It is the Government's intention to add a provision to that effect and to have it introduced at an early legislative opportunity.

Mr. Darling : Will the Minister tell us when the Government intend to introduce the change? It seems to us that it is being introduced only for the benefit of this legislation. I do not know what consultation the Minister has had. Presumably, from what he said earlier, he is having that consultation in Spain rather than in Scotland. He must understand that there will be deep resentment if the law in Scotland is to be amended simply to enable convictions to take place under this legislation.

Mr. Patten : Any future legislative changes will not be brought forward before the end of this Session. If such changes were made to parliamentary law as it affects Scotland, had any trials begun, they would not be affected by any changes in the law that were coming at a later stage.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten : It is difficult to mix it with my hon. and learned Friend, but I will give way on this point on Scottish law and then no more.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : It would be absolutely outrageous if it were thought in the House that the reason that the Government withdrew that absurd condition in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill was time. We in Scotland are not willing to have our laws of evidence mucked about and watered down just to suit English legislation.

Mr. Patten : The north and south sides of the border should sometimes learn from each other about evidential and other procedures. I am content to say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that we might learn from some of the ways in which pre-trial publicity is dealt with in Scotland. I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) that the subject of a Scottish allegation raised interdict proceedings following the preparation of a programme on war crimes. Perhaps we should listen to what Scottish law says and, equally, the Scots should look to English and Welsh law to ensure that television evidence, which can be useful in obtaining convictions under proper process of

---

Column 110

those who are accused of murder, manslaughter, fraud, forgery and other serious international crimes, can be achieved.

Mr. Darling rose--

Mr. Patten : I must try to answer the rest of the arguments. I have given way on the Scottish point and I must now turn to the important points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I greatly respect him and I know that I will not be able to persuade him to change his mind. His speech gives me the opportunity to try to lay to rest two ghosts about what happened in post-war England. The first is that somehow the post-war British Government decided not to proceed against war criminals in this country. With great respect, I must advise my right hon. Friend that not only is there no evidence that there were any such war criminals in this country, but we did not have any laws at the time that would have enabled us to proceed against any such people in this country. That means that at no stage could Her Majesty's Government have decided to stop prosecutions. In any event, it would not have been Her Majesty's Government who would have taken that decision ; it would have been the prosecuting authorities of the time.

The second important ghost that we need to lay to rest is that a distinguished Minister came to the Dispatch Box in 1948 and said, on behalf of the Government, that all war crimes trials should come to an end. I shall tell the House what was said on that occasion ; indeed, it was widely reported. I have gone into this matter in great detail because I respect the views of those who feel that a binding statement was given at that time. Let us forget the issue whether it is possible to bind one's successors. I have looked at the papers myself and have indirectly employed some historians. It may interest some of my hon. Friends to know that we have a surprising number of historians in the Government service. It is clear to me that the only announcement that was made in this place in 1948 was that the quadripartite allied hearings of alleged war criminals in Germany or German-occupied territory of nationals or foreigners who were then in German-occupied or German territory should cease and that it should be the legislative task of the future German Government to take over those prosecutions. The Federal Republic of Germany took over that legislative burden from 1948 and prosecuted alleged war criminals, not just in 1948, 1958, 1968 and 1978, but almost up to the present day--and those provisions still remain on their statute book. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was, rightly, concerned about fair trials. In his opening speech his right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook flagged the fact that we should listen carefully to the right hon. and learned Gentleman--and we did so. He raised three important points. The first related to identification and its importance. As I understand it, judges can give clear warnings to juries about identification and its dangers. The English and Welsh system varies from the Scottish system, with its different dock identification system.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point related to process. Under the present law and present procedure, there is nothing to prevent any judge at any time stopping a case from proceeding if he thinks that a

---

Column 111

fair trial would not be possible. That important common law principle exists now. I note that I have the assent of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and others.

The third point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham in his important speech. We have the judgment of the Deputy Chief Justice of England, Lord Justice Tasker Watkins, on this issue. It will always be up to the courts to decide whether a delay acts against the interests of a fair trial. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind can be set at rest on that matter.

Several other opponents of the Bill made their views starkly known, including the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who made several interesting interventions. The opponents also include my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. Among their number is also my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who has considerable expertise in extradition law to which we all pay tribute-- [Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members visit the Library where they will find that "Stanbrook on Extradition" is the standard text for anyone wishing to bone up on that subject.

We have also heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Winchester (Mr.Browne). I guess that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I will never have a meeting of minds over what is and what is not retrospective legislation. But he was unfair to Hetherington and Chalmers, a pair of distinguished former Directors of Public Prosecutions. I do not have any DPPs as close personal friends, but I have taken advice and I am told that they are not men normally given to rash judgments or to setting out on quixotic crusades to achieve prosecutions. The hon. Gentleman was less than fair to those retired DPPs.

I wish to say three things in response to the important speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. His speech will bear reading. First, the making of statute criminal law in this place is in the hands of all Members of the House, not those of lawyers, however distinguished, in another place or in the courts. Secondly, the very nature of legislation is that it is selective. My right hon. Friend has been in this place a long time and he must know that in the criminal law, for example, we legislate to deal with specific nuisances and evils. These days we rarely legislate generally because much of the generality of criminal law--thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal and so on--has already been dealt with.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : That is common law.

Mr. Patten : Of course, it is common law. That is an important element in England and Wales.

I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington that in the Bill before the House we are not inventing any new offence. Murder was an offence in Germany and in German-occupied territory between 1939

---

Column 112

and 1945. As many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, international law finds its fountainhead back in the fourth Hague convention of 1907. That made it absolutely clear that activities involving murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide were against international law. That was recognised in the manuals of both the British and German armies. There is no doubt that murder, manslaughter and culpable homicide were crimes then, as they are now. It is rather a matter for the judgment of the House and the other place : we must decide whether to extend our jurisdiction and provide the laws, which the courts may then interpret.

In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, let me say that our judgment must be of equal standing to that of any lawyer outside the Chamber.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked about the present state of international law on any alleged incidents connected with the Gulf conflict. All the states involved in the Gulf conflict are parties to the Geneva convention of 1949. We took that convention into our own law in 1957. So we have a wide jurisdiction over war crimes committed anywhere in the world after 1957 under international law.

Ms. Short : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten : No. I am afraid that I do not have time.

There is no need for new legislation to deal with those who might be accused of crimes in the Gulf conflict, but there is definitely a need for legislation in the cases which may be covered by the Bill. As a result of the procedural motion which the House passed on a free vote last week, if the Bill receives a Second Reading--I am confident that it will--it will go straight to a formal Third Reading at a subsequent date. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council explained on Wednesday why we were following that course. The House has given overwhelming support to both the principle of war crimes legislation and the Bill itself. I have no doubt that that support will be expressed again this evening. As my right hon. Friend explained last week, that was one of the decisive factors in the Government's mind in concluding that the Bill should be reintroduced.

As we have said, the Government hope that accommodation will be achieved between this place and another place without the need for any special measures. Nevertheless, the Government concluded that the Parliament Act 1949 should remain in reserve as a means of resolving any irreconcilable differences. The Bill is a good Bill. The task may be regarded as a difficult one, but the Bill should be passed. I look forward to its reaching the statute book, with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, at an early date.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time : The House divided : Ayes 254, Noes 88.

Division No. 98] [10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Alexander, Richard

Allason, Rupert

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Amess, David

Arbuthnot, James

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Atkinson, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barron, Kevin

Batiste, Spencer

---

Column 113

Battle, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Beith, A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Bellotti, David

Bendall, Vivian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bermingham, Gerald

Bevan, David Gilroy

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Blunkett, David

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Boyes, Roland

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Chris

Callaghan, Jim

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Carrington, Matthew

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Clelland, David

Cohen, Harry

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Crowther, Stan

Cryer, Bob

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Curry, David

Darling, Alistair

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Durant, Sir Anthony

Eastham, Ken

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Evennett, David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Fallon, Michael

Fatchett, Derek

Fearn, Ronald

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Flynn, Paul

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Foster, Derek

Fox, Sir Marcus

Franks, Cecil

Fraser, John

Freeman, Roger

Fry, Peter

Fyfe, Maria

Gale, Roger

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Gorst, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Gregory, Conal

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grocott, Bruce

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Hague, William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Haynes, Frank

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Hinchliffe, David

Hind, Kenneth

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Geraint

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Jack, Michael

Janman, Tim

Janner, Greville

Jessel, Toby

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Kennedy, Charles

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Knapman, Roger

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Latham, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Leadbitter, Ted

Lee, John (Pendle)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

McAvoy, Thomas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

McKelvey, William

Maclean, David

McLeish, Henry

McLoughlin, Patrick

McMaster, Gordon

McNamara, Kevin

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mans, Keith

Maples, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Maude, Hon Francis

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Meale, Alan

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morgan, Rhodri

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Needham, Richard

Neubert, Sir Michael

---