§ 23. Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement indicating the legal basis of the screening of prisoners on Koje Island and of the refusal of the United Nations 2223 command to repatriate those prisoners who are stated to be prepared to resist repatriation.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydI would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. Baker) on 23rd June.
§ Mr. DribergCan the right hon. and learned Gentleman just say whether that reply, which I have not got before me, indicates the legal basis of the screening or merely says that he is satisfied that it was legal?
§ Mr. StokesIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the majority of people of this country would absolutely refuse to agree to any persons being sent back against their will, whatever the law may be?
§ Mr. DribergWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman be just a little more forthcoming about the legality of the screening, since he has on two previous occasions orally avoided answering the question, no doubt inadvertently?
§ Mr. LloydI have suggested that the hon. Gentleman should look at the reply. He will see the answer there.
§ 30. Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many prisoners in Korea have not yet undergone the process of screening.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydBetween 4th April and 19th April, it was possible to screen about two-thirds of the total numbers of prisoners of war and civilian internees, that is to say, about 120,000 out of some 170,000. The figure of 70,000 prisoners available for repatriation given to the Communists on 19th April included all prisoners in Communist-dominated compounds where there had been violent resistance to screening.
The screening process is continuing and has been accelerated as a result of General Boatner's re-grouping operation. It is being revealed that the Communist-dominated compounds contain further anti-Communist prisoners who are opposed to repatriation. I cannot give any up-to-date figures of prisoners still awaiting screening, other than to say that they are certainly less than 40,000.
§ Mr. A. HendersonDid the original screening cover Chinese prisoners of war as well as North Koreans?
§ Mr. HamiltonCould the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what is the average time that has been taken to screen an individual prisoner?
§ Mr. LloydI have already said that I propose to make a statement on these matters, and this is a matter which I will certainly cover.
§ Mr. BingDoes the fact that the Minister of State is answering Questions on these matters mean that he is accepting political responsibility, in part, for what takes place in these camps?
§ 31. Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what precautions have been taken to see that the 100,000 prisoners in Korea who have refused repatriation did not include many whose main motives were that they preferred the superior food and comparative immunity of the prison camps to anything they might expect under the Communist regime, including the hardships and dangers of active service.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydI am satisfied from my own personal investigations and from what I saw in the United Nations prisoner of war camps that prisoners who refused repatriation were prompted by genuine fear of political persecution or physical punishment if they returned to China or North Korea.
§ Mr. CocksHas the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the statement in the American Press that the screening took two minutes for each prisoner, and does he think that that is adequate time to ascertain the motives behind a prisoner's decision?
§ Mr. LloydThe screening process is not a single operation. There were public announcements over the loud speaker apparatus, notices were pinned up to be read and there was an announcement of the Chinese Communist amnesty to all people. There was a process whereby the prisoners were asked to answer individual questions, and I do not 2225 believe that that process, in fact, did take so short a time as two minutes, although, on average, it may have done so because if a person wanted to return and answered "Yes" to a single question no further questions were put to him.
§ Mr. StokesCan the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that adequate precautions are being taken to see that the abominable injustices that followed some of the screening after the last war are being avoided in this case?
§ Mr. Langford-HoltCan my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether any of these prisoners have applied for political asylum, for which there are many precedents?
§ Mr. LloydThe view of most of the prisoners to whom I spoke was that if they were to return to Communist China they would suffer physical punishment or be put to death, and that seems to constitute a desire for political asylum.
§ 32. Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nationality and numbers of those who have been engaged in the process of screening prisoners in Korea; and whether any Chinese interpreters from Formosa were so employed.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydChinese prisoners were individually and carefully screened by 50 Chinese-speaking American officers and men, who had not previously been employed on Koje Island. No Chinese Nationalist interpreters were used. As there were very few Korean-speaking Americans, North Korean prisoners were interrogated through 150 Koreans, under the supervision of some Korean-speaking American personnel. None of the Korean interpreters were members of the Republic of Korea Army.
§ Mr. CocksDoes the Minister not consider that it would have a valuable effect on public opinion if all prisoners were re-screened by a neutral authority?
§ Mr. LloydThat is precisely the suggestion which has been put forward, and I think it would possibly have a valuable effect upon public opinion in view of the misrepresentations which are made in so many quarters; but whether it will assist in arriving at an Armistice is a very different matter.
Mr. I. O. ThomasWould the right hon. Gentleman say whether any representations were made to have the personnel conducting the screening inquiries representative of more than the American group in Korea and thus give some indication of impartiality?
§ Mr. LloydAs I said, the screening of the Chinese prisoners was conducted by American Army personnel. Because of the necessity fordoing it quickly there was no time to bring in other people. So far as the Koreans are concerned, it was not an American group which was used, but their own people who happened to speak English.