Skip to main content

Spandau Prison

Volume 923: debated on Monday 20 December 1976

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

8.42 a.m.

I raise the subject of Spandau Prison. I have taken an interest in the case of Rudolf Hess since I did a spell of guard duty as a young Army officer at Spandau. Sir Winston Churchill wrote in the third volume of his history of the Second World War:

"I am glad not to be responsible for the way Hess has been and is being treated."
But the British Government are partly responsible on behalf of the British people for what happens at Spandau, and what happens there is a disgrace to us all.

I would like here to pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has done over the years to try to obtain the release of Hess. In October last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) raised the matter in an exemplary speech during an Adjournment debate. I am grateful to him for joining me in waiting to take the opportunity to raise the matter again today. He said in that debate:
"It is no part of my case to suggest that Hess was other than a dedicated fanatical and ruthless Nazi Party leader. The case for clemency…does not rest on any alleged innocence during the Night of the Long Knives, or, indeed, on any claim to ignorance of the impending attack on Russia. All the evidence would suggest that he was fully implicated in both episodes, as well as in many of Hitler's crimes."—[Official Report, 20th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 206.]
I entirely agree with that view.

At Nuremberg, Hess was found guilty of crimes against peace and war crimes. Lord Justice Lawrence imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. When I was at Spandau in the bitter cold of a Berlin winter, Shirach and Speer were still imprisoned with Hess. On 30th September 1966, Shirach and Speer were released. Tonight and every night, Hess, now aged 82, is in solitary confinement in that ghostly pile with its 600 empty cells and high brick walls. His health is failing. And this barbarous punishment is being carried out in the names of us all.

In Britain today, a life sentence can often mean only 10 years, with remission. Hess has been in captivity since May 1941. It is obvious that he is no danger to anyone. If he should be released, after a bout of publicity he would be forgotten by all but historians. The longer he remains in Spandau, the greater the danger that he will gain widespread personal sympathy. Should he die in prison, as appears highly likely, he will become the rallying point for extreme Right-wing elements in West Germany and elsewhere. The three books of letters he has written to his wife have sold better than any works on the German resistance to Hitler. No useful purpose is served by his continued imprisonment. On the contrary, there is staggering inconvenience and expense.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, told the House in October 1975:
"It is the Government's belief, for reasons of compassion, that Hess should be released and released now."—[Official Report, 20th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 209-210.]
That was also the position of previous Governments. Two of the parties to the quadripartite agreements—France and the United States—have joined Britain in urging clemency on the fourth party, the Soviet Union, but to no avail. The Soviets have remained vindictive and intransigent.

I praise the Government for the efforts made to obtain the release of Hess. I ask this morning for a further specific and categorical statement that they will continue to press the Soviet Government with all the energy and resources at their command to release Hess and to close down Spandau. Once it has been shut, I should like the bulldozers to move in.

During Questions on 18th February, I raised with the then Foreign Secretary, the present Prime Minister, the case of Rudolf Hess. After saying that the Soviet Union had turned down Britain's request, he added:
"I inquired into the extent of the guard when I was in Berlin recently, I understand that, taking into account the four countries concerned, there are 20 warders and 104 soldiers, who take it in turns in their tours of duty one month in four to guard this one man. But I see no prospect of a change in the situaation at the moment."—[Official Report, 18th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 1265.]
I hope that the Minister will tell us how many non-military personnel are supplied by Britain on a permanent basis. I understand that the salary of at least one—the deputy governor—is paid by Britain.

Excluding the military guard, what is the total cost to Britain of keeping Spandau open? I appreciate that the Berlin Government carrys the main financial burden. Last year I tabled an Early-Day Motion congratulating the Government on making a further approach to the Soviet Government and regretting that British soldiers were still called upon to carry out guard duties at Spandau. A total of 81 hon. Members were kind enough to sign that motion, including the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard), who was one of its leading supporters.

For 90 days a year the British Army supplies a guard of one officer and 25 men armed with personal weapons. I can assure the House from personal experience that itis a ridiculous, disagreeable and degrading task, as the Minister knows. For young professional soldiers, it is boring in the extreme and a cruel military charade.

In reality, the security of this frail 82-year-old man is the responsibility of the highly competent civilian warders. The soldiers are for show. They know it, and they resent being called upon to perform this duty. It imposes a considerable strain on the resources of our small manpower garrison in Berlin.

If, as is most likely, the Soviet Union turns down a further request by the Government for the release of Hess, I should like the future of the military guard to be reconsidered by Britain in conjunction with the United States and France. I should prefer it to be removed, but failing that, it should be greatly reduced. At the very least, the military pomp and circumstance must go. At Spandau, there is no cause to blow a trumpet. We should be ashamed of what is being done in our name so long after the war.

In May this year, I went to the Soviet Embassy in London with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). The Soviet Ambassador refused to see us and the counsellor who did was unnecessarily hostile. He gave us the traditional Russian reply that Hess was seen as a symbol of Nazi Germany and had worked closely with Hitler prior to the attack on Russia. He also made the point that Hess had never relented.

Following our visit to the embassy, we got in touch with Hess's wife who was prohibited by the governors of the prison from informing her husband of our visit. She had particularly wished to tell him of the Russians' complaint that he had never relented.

Hess's son, Wolf Rudiger Hess, wrote to me to complain that although the prison regulations are supposed to allow the prisoner access to the lawyer of his choice, the lawyer whom Hess had chosen—Dr. Bucker—was not allowed to see him. Hess is not allowed to make any statement, verbally or in writing. He is thus not allowed to relent. Hess's son has told me in a letter:
"There is no doubt at all that my father would express his regret for the millions killed in the Second World War."
It is clearly intolerable that any prisoner, whatever his crimes, should be treated by the authorities in this despicable way. I complained in writing to the Minister of State at the Foreign Office in June. His reply was courteous, but unsatisfactory.

The Government are operating these petty, out-dated, inexcusable regulations in conjunction with the other Powers. The House has the right to demand that these censorship regulations be relaxed and that a more civilised and rational attitude be adopted by the governors—our governors.

In many matters, the Soviets give the impression of being totally inflexible, yet just when it seems that the ice has become permanent, there is a sudden and unexpected crack. The release at the weekend—at the start of Amnesty International's Prisoner of Conscience Year—of Vladimir Bukovsky was just such a crack. Who can deny that international pressure over the years was a vital factor? So often, liberal, humanitarian pressure seems quixotic and futile, yet in the long run, it is resoundingly worthwhile, even when dealing with the Russians.

The object of this debate is to reinforce that pressure: to make the Government try again to persuade the Russians to agree to the release of Hess; and to show that the House and the British people have not forgotten the cruel absurdity that is Spandau.

It is no longer good enough for the Minister to say—as his predecessors have said—that we do not like what goes on but that the Russians will have it no other way. Let us remember our humanity and forget the rest.

8.54 a.m.

It is a great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), who speaks with great authority on this subject, having been an officer guarding Hess in Spandau.

I raised this subject on the Adjournment last year and mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) had worked tirelessly to secure Hess's release, but that no response had been elicited from the Russian Government. I also declared by interest on two grounds—first, that in May 1941, Hess flew over to see my father, whom he had not seen before and did not see again, and secondly, that I wrote a book on the subject which is now out of print, though there is still a copy in the Library.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexley-heath and I are not the only Members with an interest in this subject. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) guarded Hess in the war, as a soldier, and took charge of him. He was in good hands then. Not only that; my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon interrogated him after the war at the Nuremberg war trials. It is true to say that hon. Members from all parties support the release of Hess.

After the war, at Nuremberg, Hess was charged with crimes against the peace; war crimes; crimes against humanity, and having a common plan or conspiracy to commit those crimes. He was acquitted on the charge of crimes against humanity and having a common plan or conspiracy to commit those crimes. He was found guilty on the first two charges. While there might have been a case at that time to execute Nazi war criminals, I suggest that, the judges having refused to execute him at the time—only the Soviet judge thought he should be executed; the majority took the view that there was no case—there is no case for keeping him in prison today.

Hess presents no threat or danger to anyone, and if he were released he would fade into the background. There can be no useful purpose in keeping him guarded by large numbers of soldiers at considerable cost. Far from having a symbolic value, his continued imprisonment creates a great deal of sympathy for somebody who in the past did nothing to deserve it, in the years when his crimes were committed. It seems most undesirable to create sympathy, because the people of Germany do not remember the crimes committed in the past; they see an 82-year-old man kept in prison on his own and they feel sympathy for him.

Hess has spent 34 years in captivity, 30 of them in Spandau. That is a long period of imprisonment by any standards. The last 9½ years have been spent in solitary confinement. Nine and a half years in solitary confinement is a barbarous form of punishment.

Last year the Minister then concerned—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—agreed that the time had come to make a further request to the Russian Government that Hess should be released. The Minister later wrote to me saying that he would let me know the answer from the Russian Government. It is with great regret that I must inform the House that no answer was ever given by the Russian Government. When a senior British Minister makes an important statement on behalf of the Government and forwards a request to the Russian Government, as a matter of courtesy that Government should reply. If the Russian Government refuse to reply surely there is a case for sending them a reminder, especially since they have had a year to think about it.

Therefore, I support my hon. Friend in making the request that the Government should again make an approach to the Russians—this time in conjunction with the American and French Governments.

I have had two parliamentary replies from the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson)—recently, on behalf of the Government. In the first, on 1st December 1976, he said:
"The Soviet Government have been left in no doubt that it is Her Majesty's Government's view that Hess should be released."—[Official Report, 1st December 1976; Vol. 921, c. 149–150.]
In the second he mentioned that not only had the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made representation to the Soviet ambassador, the Prime Minister had also raised the question with the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko, in March this year. He said that the Soviet response had been totally negative in each case. There was no real response—just a formal reply indicating a lack of interest. I am sure that if the American, French and British Governments made a joint statement it would be different. It would ensure that there was a consideration of the matter. It would be difficult for the Russian Government merely to give a formal reply.

I hope that the Minister will be as direct as Sir Winston Churchill was when he wrote:
"Reflecting upon the whole of this story, I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated."
I hope that the Minister can take this matter up once more, together with the French and American Governments, in the hope of eliciting a reply from the Soviet Government.

9.0 a.m.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on rais- ing this subject again. We are well aware of the humanitarian aims that lie behind the desire to have this matter ventilated in the House again. When this House ceases to be moved by compassion it will be a poorer place.

The problem to which the hon. Member has drawn attention has a long history. The House will recall that we last discussed Herr Hess's continued imprisonment during the Adjournment debate on 20th October 1975. Perhaps I could repeat some of the background.

Herr Hess made his bizarre flight to Scotland on 10th May 1941 and spent the remainder of the war in prison in the United Kingdom. In 1947 he was tried with other Nazi leaders at Nuremberg, was convicted of crimes against peace and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was sent to serve that sentence in Spandau Prison in the joint custody of the Four Powers—the United Kingdom, France, the United States and the Soviet Union. The other Nazi war criminals imprisoned with him have long since been released but, except for a brief period in hospital, Hess has remained. Now at the age of 82 he has spent 35 years in prison, the last 10 of them as Spandau's sole inmate.

The arrangements for guarding the prison were agreed between the four occupying Powers after the war, and their execution is supervised by four Governors, one nominated by each of the Four Powers. Each of them provides a guard for one month at a time in rotation. Because the prison is located in the Western Sector of Berlin, the Soviet troops, when it is their turn for duty, are driven in from the East. In addition to the guard, there are a number of civilian warders, five of whom are British.

The British Garrison in Berlin is responsible for providing the military guard at Spandau during the months of January, May and September. It then consists of one officer, one sergeant, three junior NCOs and 21 privates. As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath has clearly indicated from his own experience, this is not by any means a popular duty, but the soldiers understand that their disagreeable task is part of an obligation brought by international agreement—the point is carefully explained to them—and so they do their duty.

Since the subject has been raised under a financial debate, I perhaps ought to mention that the existence of the guard causes no additional charge to public funds, because it is made up of troops whom we would otherwise need to have in Berlin as part of the British Garrison In accordance with the Allied Declaration on Berlin dated 26th May 1952, which was published as Command Paper 8564, expenditure on local supplies and services for the British Forces in the city is met without charge to United Kingdom funds.

Similarly, the maintenance and running cost of the prison and wages of the civilian warders are paid for by the Federal German Government through the Berlin budget. It follows, therefore, that even in the present financial climate and the search to exploit every possible economy, however small, there would be virtually no saving if this commitment were to be ended.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take seriously the point that this would be a very good moment to reduce the size of the guard. I appreciate that it would not make any financial saving but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would have a lot of other advantages.

That point has not escaped me. I shall come to it later.

The real and—in the view of this Government—compelling reasons for releasing Hess are those of common humanity. The requirements of justice have, after 35 years, surely been met in full, and the demands of compassion deserve a hearing. Successive British Governments have taken the view that Hess should be released on humanitarian grounds and over the last 12 years repeated representations to this effect have been made to the Soviet Union. On several occasions we have acted in concert with the French and American Governments, who share our view that Hess should be set free. One such occasion was after last year's debate, to which I referred initially, when my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, now Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs, made a special appeal to the Soviet authorities. More recently, in March of this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister again raised the question with the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko, during the latter's visit to London. On each occasion the Soviet response was entirely negative.

Why does the Soviet Union continue to set its face against humane action? It maintains that Hess, once released, would become a focal point for resurgent Nazi aspirations, and that in any event Russian public opinion would not tolerate the release of a man who, as deputy to Hitler in the years before 1941, shares responsibility for the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens in the years that followed. Hon. Members can judge for themselves the validity and reality of these claims, but, whatever the real reason may be, as long as the Russians refuse to contemplate Hess's release there is nothing the other three Powers can do to change the situation.

It has been suggested in the past that we should take action to release Hess without the consent of the Soviet Union. This is unacceptable. The Four-Power agreements governing Hess's imprisonment are valid and binding. They are part of the complex of agreements concerning Berlin, on the strict and total observance of which by all the Four Powers depends the survival of West Berlin as a free and democratically-governed city.

In these circumstances we and our allies are powerless to put an end to the deploable incarceration of this 82-year-old man until the Russians can be brought to admit the inhumanity of its continuation. I have already referred to the efforts which this Government and their predecessors have made in this direction in the past. It is hard to see what purpose would be served by a fresh approach at this point. But I can assure hon. Members that this Government will continue to look out for suitable occasions to raise the question again with the Soviet authorities.

The hon. Member for Bexleyheath spoke of the number in the guard. Without commitment, I tell him that I shall consider this question. I think that the numbers will be dealt with in the Four-Power agreements, but I shall look into that and write to the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank sincerely for raising the subject.