HC Deb 21 September 1948 vol 456 cc687-9
40. Mr. Stokes

asked the Secretary of State for War why the decision to try the four German generals was delayed until they had been returned to Germany as civilians; and if he is satisfied that this trial accords with the terms of the Geneva Convention.

37. Mr. Benn Levy

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement regarding the incarceration and proposed trials of Field-Marshal von Runstedt, General Manstein, General Brauchitsch and General Strauss.

110. Mr. Crawley

asked the Secretary of State for War if medical officers of his Department examined the three German generals who have recently been repatriated; and what report they made as to the fitness of the generals to stand a trial.

Mr. Shinwell

I would ask my hon. Friends to await the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tomorrow.

Mr. Stokes

As I am not prepared to await that statement, may I ask my right hon. Friend two questions: first, whether it is not a fact that the War Office doctors pronounced these generals as unfit to stand their trial; and, secondly, whether it is not a fact that we are still at war with Germany, that these men were our prisoners of war, and that under the Geneva Convention they ought to be tried as prisoners of war and not sent back to Germany and civilianised?

Mr. Shinwell

My hon. Friend's impatience is characteristic, but nevertheless I must ask him to restrain himself until tomorrow.

Mr. Frank Byers

In view of the fact that many of us were given exactly the same answer yesterday, may we have an assurance that a full statement will be made tomorrow, and not merely a passing reference?

Mr. Shinwell

Yes, I think it will be.

Earl Winterton

Can the Minister say why, three years after the end of the war, a Question of this juridical character is answered by his Department and not by the appropriate Department—the Attorney-General, the Home Office—or even by Parliament?

Mr. Shinwell

I think that will also be answered tomorrow.

Mr. Stokes

May I ask my right hon. Friend a question which he can answer. and which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs cannot? Why were these officers not told before they were repatriated that they were going to be tried on their return—or were they? Did the War Office doctors say that they were fit to stand trial or not'? My right hon. Friend must know that?

Mr. Shinwell

I cannot imagine that I can say anything which could not be said as well by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Stokes

On a point of Order. This matter was referred to quite considerably in Debate last week. Because we got no reply, some half dozen or more hon. Members put down Questions. Again, yesterday, we got no reply, although Heaven knows why. I have tried again today, and got no reply. Is that the way, Mr. Speaker, in which Ministers should treat this House?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must not ask me whether this is the right or the wrong way; that is a matter for Ministers to decide for themselves. My business is merely to see that the Question is asked, when the Minister is then responsible for giving his answer. I cannot dictate to Ministers what they should do.

Mr. Stokes

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to do that; I am merely asking whether, in view of the history of the case, you consider that the right way to treat this House?

Earl Winterton

Further to that point of Order. Has not the hon. Gentleman a perfectly simple remedy, which is to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a matter of urgent importance, namely, the refusal of the Secretary of State for War to answer the Question?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman certainly has that remedy, but, of course, I have to take into consideration whether the matter is to be debated at an early stage. I am informed that a statement will be made tomorrow, when the matter can, therefore, be debated. I think that ends that.