HC Deb 19 January 1954 vol 522 cc825-7
39. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the statement made by Major-General West in a television broadcast that one year was long enough for any soldier to stay in Korea represents the policy of his Department; and how many of our troops have been in Korea for a longer period.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

This statement is broadly in line with the effects of the existing War Office policy by which no man is held to serve in Korea for more than one winter or for more than 18 months as a maximum. In practice, this policy results in the great bulk of men being relieved after about 12 months, although, in order to stagger reliefs, a small proportion of them are held longer. While the number of these men is not readily available, I can say that not more than one in four serves for more than 12 months and few serve for over 15 months.

Mr. Shinwell

Is it not obvious from the hon. Gentleman's reply that War Office policy is in conflict with the statement made by Major-General West in his broadcast? He said that a man should not remain in Korea longer than 12 months, but it is apparent that men are retained there longer than 12 months.

Mr. Hutchison

No, it is not in conflict. What Major-General West said was that one year is about enough for anybody to do there, and about one year is what they do.

40. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Secretary of State for War how many cases of cowardice on the part of British troops have occurred in Korea; and whether the statement by Major-General West on such cases in a television broadcast was made with his consent.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

There was only one case in Korea, apart from Fusilier Lydon, in which there was a specific charge of cowardice, but there have been a number of other cases which may have involved an element of cowardice dealt with under other charges. I shall be giving further details in reply to a later Question. Major-General West's appearance in this broadcast was approved by my right hon. Friend; but, since the programme was unscripted, there was, of course, no question of his prior approval of the statements made. My right hon. Friend has, however, already informed the right hon. Member that he does not think anything that Major-General West said on this subject is open to criticism.

Mr. Shinwell

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the letter I have received from his right hon. Friend is far from satisfactory? This matter will have to be raised as an important issue on a subsequent occasion. Meanwhile, may I ask him whether the script of the broadcast, which is no doubt in his possession, as it is in mine, does not convey the impression that Major-General West specifically asserted that there had been several cases of cowardice in Korea? Would it not be advisable that, if there were such cases, instead of the statement being made in an unscripted broadcast, it should be made by the War Office?

Mr. Hutchison

I am quite sure that if the principle of allowing generals to make unscripted broadcasts is approved—and my right hon. Friend agrees that it is desirable—one cannot control what in fact is going to be said.

Mr. Shinwell

While I express no objection to high ranking military officers indulging in unscripted broadcasts on television or the radio—that is a matter for the War Office and themselves—is it not undesirable for statements to be made which appear either to be in conflict with War Office policy or convey information which, for some reason or other, the War Office does not convey either to the country or to the House?

Mr. Hutchison

The War Office is constantly conveying information to the country in one way or another. I do not think the War Office can anticipate everything that may come out in an unscripted broadcast.

Mr. Wigg

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.