§ 14. Mr. Maxton(for Mr. McGovern)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to publish the report 347 of the committee of inquiry recently held into the alleged brutal treatment of conscientious objectors at Dingle Vale Camp at Liverpool; and, if not, what are the reasons for refusal?
§ Captain MargessonI would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his Question on this subject on 28th January.
§ Mr. MaxtonWas it that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the matter?
§ Captain MargessonI did not say I was considering it. I said it would be a subject for court-martial.
§ Mr. MaxtonI understood that the commanding officer was not to be subject to court-martial but that it was only a somewhat junior officer.
§ Captain MargessonI am answering Question No. 14. There is another Question later about the commanding officer.
§ 15. Mr. Maxton(for Mr. McGovern) asked the Secretary of State for War on whose authority a military representative went to the Edinburgh Appellate Tribunal for Conscientious Objectors and gave evidence in favour of certain conscientious objectors, giving the impression to the court that Private S. G. Tomlinson was not a genuine objector as no evidence was given in his favour; and is he satisfied that no improper action was taken in order to secure a further term of imprisonment for this man because of the leading role he had played at the committee of inquiry and his refusal to serve?
§ Captain MargessonIn all cases of serving soldiers appearing before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 13 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, J939, the established procedure is for an officer of the unit to which the soldier belongs to be present at the hearing to provide such information regarding the soldier as the chairman and members of the Tribunal may require. As regards the last part of the Question, if my hon. Friend is referring to the Court of Inquiry relating to Dingle Vale, I cannot find that Private Tomlinson took any part in that inquiry.