HC Deb 21 February 1924 vol 169 cc1978-9
58. Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with regard to the letter received from the private secretary to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 14th February, 1924, with reference to the case of Guardsman John Carpenter, stating that the Secretary of State was in communication with the military authorities in case they might be able to throw further light on the matter, he will state whether there have been any such communications with the military authorities; and, if so, with what authorities and on what dates and what was the nature of such communications?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

May I draw attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, before this question is put that the name of a civil servant is mentioned. Is it in order to interpolate a Minister concerning an action done by a civil servant and, instead of referring to the Department, to refer to the individual?

Mr. SPEAKER

I think it only means that the letter was received from the Secretary of State through his private Secretary. The question may be asked.

Mr. DAVIES

Yes, Sir, a letter in regard to this matter was addressed to the War Office on Tuesday. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided, after very careful consideration of the representations made to him, that they did not afford any ground for interference with the sentence passed by the Court, but inasmuch as the position of the prisoner as a member of His Majesty's Forces is involved, he thought it right to communicate those, representations to the military authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no communication was made, according to his own statement, at the time I was informed that a communication had been made to the military authorities. It was only when I went five days later that any action whatever was taken; meantime His Majesty's guardsman was serving in prison?

Mr. DAVIES

I could not be aware of these facts when this reply was drafted, but I will go into the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.