HC Deb 11 December 1945 vol 417 cc184-6
4. Mr. Sparks

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Marine Batson, CH/X 108132, escaped from the Stakehill military detention barracks on or about 28th October last; and whether he has since been recaptured.

Mr. Lawson

I am aware of his escape. No report of his recapture has yet been received by the War Office.

Mr. Sparks

Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend punishment of recaptured men pending the publication of the findings of the court of inquiry?

Mr. Lawson

That is another question.

63. Mr. Proctor

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will see that Private Greenwood, 14973322, is credited with his previous service in the Royal Navy for the purposes of demobilisation.

Mr. Lawson

This has already been done, and his release group correctly assessed. He forfeited a short period of service whilst in the Royal Navy. This has necessarily been excluded.

75. Mr. Sparks

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 7649588 Private Lynham was called to the Forces on 28th July, 1945, was accused of being a deserter since 17th October, 1940, and punished with 14 days' loss of pay; and whether, in view of the fact that the first notice this man received directing him to report for service was dated 20th July, 1945, and that he had been continuously employed for ten years previously by his employers who were engaged on vital war work, he will take steps to cancel this punishment.

Mr. Lawson

I am aware of this case. The soldier did not comply with an en- listment notice ordering him to report on 17th October, 1940; it has been ascertained that this notice was correctly posted under the provisions of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. He was ordered to join in July, 1945, following investigations, and did so. I see no reason to interfere with the award of forfeiture of pay for absence without leave, which was made in accordance with the appropriate section of the Army Act.

Mr. Sparks

May I ask the Minister if he is aware that this man did not receive the original notice of enlistment, that he was informed he had served 18 months in an Army Training Corps and six months in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, and that he was a deserter from the Army when, as a matter of fact, he had not been in the Army at all and the first enlistment order he received was dated 20th July, 1945?

Mr. Lawson

All I can say is that in the circumstances I do not think this man got off so badly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will state the circumstances. I understand that it had been ascertained that the original notice was posted to him correctly. He elected to accept of his own free will the commanding officer's award of punishment rather than to go for trial by court-martial. He was awarded forfeiture of 14 days' pay for absence without leave from 2nd August, 1942, and in the circumstances he was not punished for desertion or absence without leave from the 17th October, 1940, to 1st August, 1942. His punishment for that period was barred by the Army Act. In the circumstances he elected to accept the judgment given.

Mr. Bowles

May I ask what proof is demanded by the Act of Parliament in question, and, in this case, what evidence was accepted as to who posted the envelope, and when, and where?

Mr. Lawson

That is a detailed question which, I think, would require a rather more detailed answer, and I would like to see it on the Paper.

Mr. E. P. Smith

Can the Minister say why these notices, which are rather important to the men concerned, are not registered?

Mr. Lawson

I believe, as a matter of fact, they are now, but I am not quite sure.

Mr. Sparks

While thanking the Minister for the reply, I would again like to ask if he is aware that this man did not receive his original notice of enlistment, that he did not attempt to evade service, that he was continuously employed by his employers who were engaged on important war work for ten consecutive years, and whether the Minister will not consider cancelling this punishment, which I think is most undeserved and unfair?

Mr. Lawson

In view of the facts of this case, I did investigate it to the best of my ability and I gave the answer on the facts supplied to me, but, if my hon. Friend desires it, and I would certainly desire it, I would like to discuss the matter with him so that he can put the matter in detail before me.

77. Lieut.-Colonel Sharp

asked the Secretary of State for War why 457963 Lance-Bombardier Gribben, No. 4 Liaison H.Q., British, B.A.O.R., was permitted to remain in the hospital of the Polish Field Ambulance, detailed to him by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, where sanitary conditions were deplorable, where there were no English-speaking personnel, and where he received no mail; whether Lance-Bombardier Gribben has now been removed to a British hospital and is receiving the treatment he requires; and if assurances will be given that British units will exercise proper supervision over the health and living conditions of men who are on detached service.

Mr. Lawson

This soldier was examined by a Polish medical officer, was admitted to the Polish Reception Station on 15th November, and transferred to a British medical unit on 3rd December. On transfer his condition was good, and he seemed to be quite happy. The sanitary condition of the Polish unit was good, but the food was not up to British standards. It is not always possible for soldiers in small detachments to be looked after by one of their own medical officers, but the Polish units have been asked to transfer any British patients as quickly as possible.