§ 20. Mr. B. SMITHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. F. G. Garland, No. 200,891, Portsmouth, with two good conduct badges, who served 24 years and five months in the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Reserve, including two years and five months boy's service, with character very good, except for the year 1891 when it is good with ability superior; whether he is aware that Mr. Garland was recommended for the long service and good conduct medal in 1920, and that Mr. Garland has been refused the medal and the Royal Fleet Reserve gratuity of £100 owing to an alleged participation in the 1306 collective refusal of duty on 29th April, 1921; and whether, seeing that Mr. Garland denies that he was guilty of refusal of duty and has never been before any officer or court of inquiry with respect to the alleged offence, he will arrange for an inquiry to be held so that Mr. Garland may receive the medal and gratuity that are apparently due to him?
§ Mr. HODGESIt is clear that on the occasion in question this Royal Fleet Reserve rating did not obey the bugle ordering the men to turn out on parade, and for this disobedience all implicated have been punished. Garland was very exceptionally given leave to go home the morning after the offence on account of domestic affliction, and seems on his return to Portsmouth to have missed the interrogation of all concerned which took place. On the other hand, in various communications to the Admiralty he has never satisfactorily explained the fact of his failure to obey the bugle. I am afraid that it is not now possible to arrange for a special inquiry into this man's case.
§ Mr. SMITHIs the hon. Gentleman aware, having regard to his undoubted knowledge of naval discipline and naval methods, that when a bugle is sounded for an assembly, and it is not attended to, the blue jacket can be reported as a defaulter? No such report having been been made in this case, and leave having been given on the following day, which is evidence of no report, otherwise he could not have gone, leave having been granted because of affliction, no default being attributed to this man, but on some report he is denied a gratuity after 24 years and five months' service, I am asking whether, in the light of the statements that have been made to the Admiralty, an inquiry cannot now be afforded to this particular rating, so that, if he is right, he can be given what he is entitled to, and, if not, the objection can be maintained.
§ Mr. HODGESThe hon. Member has repeated the substance of his question. This decision was arrived at in 1920 and has been the subject of two or three special investigations by the Board since that date. I have myself seen the papers, and, despite my limited experience of the Admiralty, I have been able to come to the conclusion, quite satisfactorily to myself, that I find it impossible to reopen the case.