HC Deb 26 June 1951 vol 489 cc1156-8
23. Mr. Fitzroy Maclean

asked the Secretary of State for War what reasons he has for assuming the death in action of 1115452 Gunner Ernest Clinton.

Mr. Strachey

This soldier was reported missing in action in Korea on 3rd January, 1951. A report was subsequently received through unofficial channels that he was a prisoner in enemy hands. On 24th March, however, a body was discovered on the site of the action in which he was reported missing. This body was identified as being that of Gunner Clinton by his unit commander and two of his comrades. In view of this evidence, I regret that my Department had no alternative but to accept the report of this soldier's death in action on 3rd or 4th January, 1951.

I have just learned, however, that Mrs. Clinton has now received a letter from her husband, written in a prisoner of war camp, stating that he is alive and well. I am communicating with Mrs. Clinton and, provided the Department is satisfied with the authenticity of this letter, Gunner Clinton will be reclassified as a prisoner of war.

Mr. Maclean

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by his dilatory and inefficient conduct and handling of this case, he has caused unnecessary suffering to Mrs. Clinton by his refusal to check up on points of detail, and is he also aware that by handling this sort of case in this kind of way he plays right into the hands of the "Daily Worker." of which he was once such a distinguished contributor?

Mr. Strachey

I entirely repudiate all those statements made by the hon. Member. Any lesson that there is is that we should be very careful indeed and take a very long time before we issue definite classifications of these soldiers in cases in which there is strongly conflicting evidence. Far from our having been dilatory, if there is any criticism it would be that we accepted prematurely the evidence that was in our hands.

Air Commodore Harvey

Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman mean that prisoners of war are now being allowed to write to relatives? Will the right hon. Gentleman report on this point. because nothing has been said in the past about them being allowed to write at all?

Mr. Strachey

I do not think this is the only letter which has been received in this country. There have been very few; but there have been some.

Mr. Maclean

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he ever checked up on the tattoo marks on the body found, and was he able to confirm that they correspond with the marks described to him by Mrs. Clinton? Was that gone into?

Mr. Strachey

It was gone into, and in the case of one body, which at an earlier stage was thought to be that of Clinton, sketches of the tattoo marks were sent to Mrs. Clinton and she gave a negative answer, but in the case of the other body this was not done.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones

Through what channel did Mrs. Clinton get this letter from her son?

Mr. Strachey

That is one of the matters on which we are writing to Mrs. Clinton to check up.