HL Deb 01 December 1953 vol 184 cc763-5

2.40 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, the second Question is as follows: Will Her Majesty's Government make a statement in this House as soon as possible in regard to matters arising out of the court-martial of Captain Griffiths?

EARL FORTESCUE

My Lords, I rise to reply to the noble and learned Earl. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has also given me a list of questions which he wishes to ask me on this same subject. I am afraid that my answer to both the noble and learned Earl and the noble Viscount must be that I have no further information to give than was contained in the statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War in another place yesterday, and in his answers to supplementary questions on that statement. I have no doubt that both the noble and learned Earl and the noble Viscount have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of yesterday, as have noble Lords generally. I must ask noble Lords to await the arrival of the records of the trial in this country. Obviously, my right honourable friend will not be in a position to make a detailed statement on the subject until he has had an opportunity of examining them.

EARL JOWITT

While realisingthe difficulty of the noble Earl, may I call his attention to the fact that this is a very serious matter. There seems to be some ground for supposing that the instructions of General Erskine in command have been disregarded, and that things have been done which are not in any way in accordance with the high standard of honour of the Army. That being so, will the noble Earl realise that we should have a statement in this House at the earliest possible moment, and will he do his utmost to see that such a statement is made?

EARL FORTESCUE

In reply to the noble and learned Earl, I will transmit his remarks to my right honourable friend the Secretary for War.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that this matter of the court-martial and the reports of the trial have gone out through the whole Commonwealth, which in population is mainly non-European; and that might have a most dangerous effect on the stability of the British Commonwealth? May we have an answer on four particular points, which have nothing whatever to do with the trial and the acquittal, which is finished. First of all, is it clear that the order against "blood money" was understood by the troops and the officers? From reading the account of the court-martial, it appears not to have been understood; in fact, both the acquitted officer and others, and the defending officer, referred to it quite openly. The second point is, what is the rule about what is somewhat strangely called "mercy killing"? That also was referred to, and was reported by the acquitted officer to his superior officer, who said in the trial that he had no comment to make; it was no special feature of the report. The third point is this: what about "trying to escape"? Is it "trying to escape," if you tell a man to walk on and then shoot him in the back? The fourth question is: Is it an offence punishable by death to be found in a prohibited area? If so, when you have bombed the hide-outs, is it a capital offence for other natives to go to succour the wounded? Those are four questions to which I should like answers.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON)

My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that the information which he has, and the information which we have, must be fully supplemented. If the noble Viscount will be good enough to wait until we have had transmitted here the report of the court-martial proceedings, we shall be able to form an opinion on the matter. I beg him to wait until that arrives before making any more observations in this House about that matter.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Will the noble Viscount at least state from that Bench what has already been stated by the Judge-Advocate in the case—namely, that so-called "mercy killing" is an offence? Will the noble Viscount also state what has not been stated in anything to date, that the payment of "blood money" is an offence? Can he make those two statements, and make them here?

VISCOUNT WOOLTON

I have no further observations to make.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Then it is to go out that the acting Leader of the House is not prepared to substantiate the fact that "mercy killing" of the wounded is an offence, and that he does not think it proper to reinforce what we have understood to be the case: that the payment of "blood money" is an offence under military law.

VISCOUNT WOOLTON

That is an entirely unwarrantable remark.