HC Deb 06 June 1946 vol 423 cc2295-306

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Joseph Henderson. ]

10.59 P.m.

Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

On the Estimates, on 29th March last, the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) moved an Amendment that certain words be added at the end of Subsection (2) of Section 72 of the Army Act, which relates to the procedure of courts of inquiry dealing with soldiers absent without leave. This matter has been raised in this House on more than one occasion, and I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House could give cases of men who have been posted as deserters but in regard to whom ample grounds could be given for a reopening of the inquiry, which, when all things were taken into consideration, would probably mean giving some concession to the unfortunate dependants of these men. I know it could not be done in all cases, but, surely, after a certain time had elapsed, inquiries could be made again into the cases of a special nature. The wives and children of these missing men, in many instances—and I know a number of them—I shall prove tonight, are existing on public assistance and charity. Many are quite young women, doomed to a life of uncertainty, and cannot get married again in the eyes of the law, yet believing in their own minds that their husbands have died in some way or another. Yet the Army are satisfied with one court of inquiry's evidence. Surely, after a time, say, 18 months or 2 years, if it can be justified, the case should be reopened and the character of the man taken into consideration. His family should be able to come forward and swear on oath as to their opinion, and the conduct of the man should be taken into consideration. His conduct in civilian life should be investigated, and everything taken into account regarding the family and its surroundings. Why should these women and children be subject to mental torture and be deprived of a contented social security in the future? All could be removed if only the War Office would act.

The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, in his reply to the question of missing men at the time, said many things that it is not necessary for me to repeat, but I would like to touch on one or two points before I bring my two cases forward. He said: I am of the opinion that the Army Council Instruction recently issued informs and orders the court of inquiry not to declare a man an absentee unless there is evidence to show that he is an illegal absentee. That seems to me not at all possible at one inquiry. On what grounds can a court finally decide? I do not think that a case can always be finally decided at one court of inquiry. There are probably many factors which, at the time, could not come to light and which, after a lapse of time, could be considered in the way to which I have previously referred. The Financial Secretary also said many men—I am afraid it is a substantial number—have disappeared. I would go so far as to say that most of them have disappeared by acts of their own '—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1946; Vol. 421, CS. 761 and 762.] I am not prepared to believe that. I am prepared to stand that at any price from any member of any Government Department, because, whilst a number may be illegal absentees, it is not true of all of them. But should the genuine cases suffer because there are some illegal deserters? Certainly not. That is why I raise this question tonight on the cases of two men I have known since boyhood. I have lived amongst them, I knew their families, and I stand here tonight believing those men are not alive.

The Financial Secretary said, too, that hon. Members who are interested in cases should not have the slightest hesitation in bringing them to the notice of the Minister, and that he will always be willing to look into any case. I have brought along two cases of those I have watched grow up, two cases of boys who, I believe, were good husbands, good fathers, and would never commit an act which would deprive their wives and families of financial means or of their presence.

Let us take case number I, that of Corporal Sankey. He joined the Army in 1938, went to France, and was at Dunkirk. He was slightly shell-shocked and, after spending some time in this country, went out on D-Day. On 25th July, 1944, Sankey was brought back to this country, unable to walk or speak, severely shell-shocked. He was taken to a hospital at Chester-le-Street and he came on leave on 8th December, when he was far from well. His nerves were in a very bad state and, after being ten days on leave, was sent to the Gresford Colliery district to a convalescent camp. He was graded C.2 and, a few days afterwards, was sent to see a specialist in Shrewsbury, who found him suffering from a severe nervous condition. He went back to the Gresford Colliery district. Nothing has been heard of that man since he walked out of the camp one morning. Let us look at the position of the poor woman and her two children. She received, on 12th October, 1944, just a statement to acknowledge the receipt of a letter saying that her husband Is absent since 25th September, 1944. On 8th November, 1944, she received a statement saying that she should get into touch with the officer at the Gresford Colliery district who might find out the where about of her husband. On 28th January, 1945, she was told that her husband was still absent. I then began fighting the case. The War Office wrote to me: You sent me the enclosed correspondence about Lance-Corporal L. J. Sankey, who has been missing from his unit. Every effort has been made to trace this soldier, but without success. I would like the House to follow some of the following statements in this letter: A Court of Inquiry was held at the time of the soldier's being declared a deserter, Absent first, a deserter afterwards—they do not appear to know which- In September, 1944, to decide whether his absence could be attributed to any circumstances beyond his control—particularly if there was any reason to suppose that he had fallen down one of the disused mine shafts, of which there are many near this station at Gresford. This was a shell-shocked man, who was continually having blackouts while home on leave, who probably walked out of the camp, his mind confused, and who, while wandering, might have fallen down one of these disused mineshafts. Were there a hundred, or even 500 troops sent out? If an individual, the son or husband of a woman, went alone to North Wales on holiday tomorrow and the woman told the police that he was missing, several hundred Scouts and all sorts of people would search every nook and corner of the district where he was missing.

Here is another curious thing:

In accordance with normal practice, the proceedings of the Court have now been destroy ed; "— after one enquiry into the man's condition, or while a man is absent from his unit— but we asked the President of the Court to give us what details he could. While he could not remember the exact circumstances of the case, he said that he had no reason to suppose that Lance-Corporal Sankey was absent because of sickness or any other misadventure. The only member of the Court—the only other officer in a position to give any information about the proceedings—was killed in action. The civil and military police authorities have been notified, and all instructions about notification of absentees have been carried out I have sat on the bench in Birmingham as a magistrate during the last two or three years, and men have come before us who have been absent from their units for 12 or 18 months. They have stolen something, or have made a false move, and have been found with illegal identification cards. I do not believe that a shell-shocked man could wander around this country for almost two years without being picked up somewhere or other. I fully believe that he is not alive.

I now take the case of Private Renshaw, who leaves a wife and two children. I have received a letter today that his wife has had to be taken away suffering from a nervous breakdown owing to the worry of the position, not knowing what has become of her husband; in fact, believing he is dead. Of Private Alfred Renshaw, on 13th February, 1945, she was told: Information has been received—your husband is absent without leave from his unit. On 7th July, 1945, she was informed that he was "In a state of desertion." Again, on 5th September, he was still reported as being absent without leave. What is the position of this man? Extensive enquiries were made, states the War Office, in C.M.F., but the only information that has been brought to light is that Private Renshaw reported to the British Military Mission in Hungary at 5 p.m., on 3ot h December, 1944. He was absent within 12 hours of reporting to a British Military Mission in a country where, I suggest, no man could find his way about in a few hours. I am sorry we have no more evidence, but here is the case of a man who, I firmly believe, went out from that camp and probably was shot or made away with in a country where things were not too good. I am sorry to keep the House at this late hour, but I suggest that these cases are really urgent and I beg of the Minister to reconsider the whole matter, and these two cases especially, and to approach them in a humane manner. I am sure that all hon. Members of this House, from their experience of the Minister, believe that he is being humane in dealing with these cases, and I have no complaint to make regarding the cases which I have submitted to him.

Here is an opportunity to let these two women, and, probably, many others, know that they can live a life of security. Should they live on public assistance? Should every such man be treated as a deserter? Should a court of inquiry meet, declare its findings and then destroy the papers and never bother again to go into the facts of the case? I believe that Renshaw and Sankey are not alive, and I urge the Minister to give these two women the notification of the presumed death of their husbands, so that they may receive the pension and live in security, as they have a right to do.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)

I am sure the House is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) for the sincere and vigorous manner in which he has championed the cause of the families of two soldiers whom he has known personally. A point of considerable importance, in the way of principle, is raised by this Adjournment Debate. The allowances which are made to wives and families of soldiers called up are, I think, regarded in this House as a right, and not as temporary allowances given at the pleasure of the State. They replace sums of money which the fathers or husbands would themselves have received if their children had not been called up. it should be, in my submission, a principle that these sums of money are not taken away by the State unless the State is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the soldier has not contributed, by his wilful act, to a state of circumstances in which the State is entitled to take away these sums or allowances.

We have had two cases given to the House tonight. The first was a case in which, on medical evidence, it was apparent that the soldier had already had a severe breakdown and may have suffered from less of memory. The second was a case which, if I may introduce a controversial note which might appeal to hon. Members opposite, occurred beyond the Iron Curtain. It is a case from which it is apparent that an individual may disappear without his being responsible for it. If hon. Members opposite accept that, as I gather they do, then, surely, it is equally apparent that it is entirely wrong that the State should stop allowances to wives and children because a soldier disappears in circumstances in which it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the soldier was responsible for his own disappearance.

It was apparent from the correspondence which the hon. Member had been good enough to show me that in both cases the decision had been taken by the State. During the period of the war, I served for a time as an Adjutant, and at one time a commanding officer said to me that one could make a man do anything they liked in the Army, if one went the right way about it, except make him have a child. Many of us know that this experience is perfectly true of the Army. I do not quarrel at all with the fact that, under the Army Council instructions, a man who is absent for a time becomes the subject a court of inquiry, which has to declare him absent for the purpose of the Army's records. I submit—and it is a point of principle which I hope will command support—that whatever the Army may do in respect of its records in relation to a soldier, no decision will be taken adversely against the family of the soldier in respect of allowances unless it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the soldier himself was responsible for the act on which he is charged. I would conclude with this appeal. I ask my hon. Friend, who has been reasonable on similar occasions in the past, to give a specific assurance to the House tonight, that no curtailment of the allowances of any family will take place in respect of the disappearance of a soldier, unless it is made absolutely plain, Leyond reasonable doubt, that the soldier has been absent owing to his own fault.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I hope the Financial Secretary is going to tell the House that in the two cases to which his attention has been drawn so eloquently, he is going to order fresh courts of inquiry. These two cases seem to me to raise exactly the same issue of principle as that raised by hon. Members on both sides the House in the Committee stage of the Army Annual Bill, that is to say, the class of case in which there is no positive evidence whether the man is illegally absent or not. Indeed from the letter from the Financial Secretary's Department, which was read, it seems to me that a tacit, and indeed a specific admission has been made, that this is the state of affairs. That being so, I must call in aid the Financial Secretary's own statement in the Army Annual Bill Debate—that positive evidence should be brought forward to show that the man is illegally absent. If the letter means anything at all, then certainly in the case of the man in Hungary, there was no such positive evidence. It the Financial Secretary wishes to be consistent, and I am sure he does, in order to be fair, he must promise to have these two cases reconsidered, and I hope that he is going to get up in a moment and say so. There is only one other matter I would raise, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to reconsider only these cases which are raised on the initiative of hon. Members of this House. There must be many cases where members of the public have not the necessary contacts with their Member, and perhaps have no opportunity to raise a case. I hope that in those cases the Financial Secretary will see that reconsideration is given to the many such cases in which real injustice is being done to the widow and orphans of Service men and to the memory sometimes of a gallant soldier.

11.24 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger)

I could not give any undertaking that we. would go through the War Office files of all those who have been declared deserters by courts of inquiry, because, if we tried to do that, I am afraid our task would be an impossible one. The whole point is one of evidence. It has been said both in the Debate on the Army Annual Bill and again tonight that the question should be one of positive evidence that the man has become a deserter by his own act, and my hon. Friend, who I believe has some legal knowledge, will know of course that in courts of law the evidence has to be considered. The courts of inquiry are set up for the purpose of considering the facts in so far as they can be ascertained. Let me say at the outset of my remarks tonight, as I said on the Debate on the Army Annual Bill, that the War Office is always prepared to consider, or to reconsider, individual cases. If evidence, or prima facie evidence, is brought to our notice, we will certainly look into those cases and, indeed, on the occasion when I spoke last on this matter, I mentioned the case that an hon. Member of this House had brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend who, on the evidence, had the proceedings of the court of inquiry quashed, and the man who had been declared a deserter was declared missing, I believe. Without going into details—which I was able to do at greater length on the last occasion than I am able to do tonight—it would be as well if I read that part of the Army Council Instruction which I mentioned in my last speech when this matter was brought to the attention of the House. Army Council Instruction No. II, 1946, gives certain directions to those who convene courts of inquiry, and I think I might read this relevant passage if the House will permit me. Those provisions '— that is, the provisions under the Army Act— emphasise that, before making their declaration the court must be satisfied, after inquiry in the prescribed manner, that the soldier, absented himself without leave or without sufficient cause. Obviously, it is left to the court of inquiry which is in possession, as nobody else could be in possession, of the facts, in so far as they are ascertainable at the time, to decide how they are going to arrive at their decision. It is not for the War Office, quite remote from the circumstances concerning the case, to come to a decision. It must, obviously, be within the power of the court itself, as, indeed, the law of this land is interpreted by the various courts of the land, in possession of all the facts, to come to a decision.

Mr. Blackburnrose

Mr. Bellenger

I have only a limited time and, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to try and give as much information as I can on the matter. I would like to proceed with the Army Council Instruction: It is therefore clearly the duty of the court in the interests of the soldier — and I would like hon. Members to take note of that— To take into consideration any evidence character and anything else— That they believe to be available,"—

Mr, Blackburn

There never is any such evidence.

Mr. Bellenger

Hon. Members may care to interpret it as they like; I prefer to interpret it as I like. I will continue: Tending to show that the absence may have been due to some sufficient cause, such as illness, misadventure or, particularly in the case of a soldier stationed abroad, foul play."— and this is the case raised by my hon. Friend tonight— It is also the duty of the officer assembling the court to ensure that there is placed before the court any relevant material on such matters as he knows to he available. I am only going to say, in relation to the two cases brought to the attention of the House tonight, that we have looked into them as far as we can and on the available evidence, we are not able to alter the decision of the court" of inquiry.

Mr. Blackburnrose—

Mr. Shurmer rose

Mr. Bellenger

My hon. Friend wants me to answer his case tonight and, as I have a very limited time, he must allow me to develop my case as far as I can.

Colonel Wigg (Dudley)

On a point of Order. Is it not usual for a Minister to give way when an hon. Member wishes to make a point?

Mr. Bellenger

That is so, but either the time of the House can be taken up by hon. Members developing their case, or they can permit me to answer their case. I will say this, as an illustration of what I may call the principle which has been raised by two of my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman opposite. Quite by coincidence, the day before yesterday I was replying to one of the Ministers who had written to me about the case of a soldier who had been declared a deserter. I looked into that case very particularly and I found this, which illustrates the point I want to make. A certain soldier was declared by the War Office to be missing after Dunkirk. One can well understand that, after the confused circumstances of Dunkirk. I may say that I myself was at Dunkirk, so I can well understand it. Two years later evidence was brought that the man was not missing, but was a deserter, and a court of inquiry declared that he was a deserter two years after the War Office had declared him missing, with all the consequences that followed in relation to allowances. I do not know what the evidence was that came before the court of inquiry; I am not concerned with that at the moment. I should have thought that at that time if any hon. Member had pressed that case in the House, the War Office would have been told "Why declare this man a deserter?"That man is now on his way home from Australia. He has re-appeared. It goes to show that it is not in all these cases when the soldier is declared a deserter that the War Office has made a mistake. Any evidence that is brought to the attention of the War Office which will shake a decision of a court of inquiry will be considered.

Mr. Blackburn

Will the man be given the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. Bellenger

It is not a question of giving a soldier the benefit of the doubt, but of assessing whether a man is a deserter on the evidence available. I think that the extracts I have read from this Army Council Instruction tonight have shown that courts of inquiry must take into account all the evidence available—some of it meagre I admit—and then come to their decision. Unless hon. Members can shake that decision by any other evidence they can bring forward, or unless any other evidence is brought to bear, then I think the decision of the Court of Inquiry must stand. I admit that what follows from that decision may cause hardship to the dependants of the man. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does."] If I may use an expression used by the Leader of the Opposition the other day, soldiers do not disappear through a trapdoor as easily as hon. Members seemed to suggest.

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified, for this Session by the Order made upon 16th August.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.