House of Lords Again Vetoes British Nazi War Crimes Bill

The War Crimes Bill, overwhelmingly adopted by the House of Commons six weeks ago, was rejected late Tuesday night by the House of Lords, for the second time in less than a year.

But the measure, which would allow British courts to try suspected war criminals living in Britain, is expected to become law despite opposition by the peers.

The House of Commons made clear when it approved the bill March 20 that the rarely used Parliament Act would be invoked if necessary to prevent the Lords from blocking legislation.

The Lords turned down the bill by 131-109 on a free vote, a much slimmer margin than their 207-74 rejection on June 6, 1990.

But the same reasons were cited by the unelected, primarily hereditary upper chamber of Parliament: the advanced age of the suspects, passage of time and the view that retribution rather than justice was the objective.

Lord Waddington, leader of the Lords, opened debate with a plea in favor of the measure, which he first piloted through the House of Commons last year as home secretary.

He said he was one of a handful of people to have read an unpublished report identifying at least three alleged war criminals living in Britain.

But they are immune from prosecution under present law because they were not British citizens at the time of their crimes and the crimes were committed against non-Britons in another country.

The amendment to nullify the War Crimes Bill was introduced by a 92-year-old Labor peer, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He conceded that it was impossible to prevent the bill from becoming law but urged the peers to “stick by their principles and not be ashamed of them.”

The opposing views heard during the eight-hour debate were best summarized in the arguments of Lord Jakobovits, chief rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth, and Lord Shawcross, a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials.

Jakobovits stressed that the accused would be given absolutely fair trials under the measure, and where that could not be assured, the proceedings would be stopped.

“Our task,” he said, “is to ensure that by our default, the law will not exonerate the horrendous crimes of which we speak, letting the thousands of voices of the martyrs crying out from the earth go unheeded and unanswered.”