§ 8. Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the complaints made by the hon. Member for South Croydon, as to the soldiers engaged in clearing a bombed site?
§ Mr. LawThe soldiers to whom my hon. Friend refers belonged to a working party of 30 other ranks which had been detailed to assist in rescue and demolition work under the city engineer's department in two roads in the town in question. They were in two parties, each under a non-commissioned officer. No officer was detailed to supervise them because they were working under the direct orders of the city engineer's department, whose representatives were on the spot all day. They were, however, visited by an officer at 3.p.m. and found to be working satisfactorily. They were dismissed by the representatives of the local authorities at about 4 p.m. as their assistance was then no longer required. Both parties then assembled to await transport back to bar racks, and it was during this period that they were seen by my hon. Friend. I may add that the city engineer informed the military authorities the following day that the work carried out by these men was in every way satisfactory and that the troops had co-operated efficiently and keenly.
§ Sir H. WilliamsCan my hon. Friend explain how it was that a non-commissioned officer at 4 o'clock told me that no officer had been on the site all day long, having regard to my hon. Friend's statement that an officer was there one hour before I came?
§ Mr. LawThe explanation probably is that, although the 30 men were divided into two separate units, those units were still further sub-divided and scattered widely about the site, and it is quite possible that the non-commissioned officer missed seeing the officer.
§ Sir H. WilliamsBut the site was less than 100 square yards, and it was impossible that the non-commissioned officer could not see the officer when he arrived; and what explanation can my hon. Friend give of the complete lack of interest of the Brigadier when I reported the matter to him?
§ Mr. LawThere was no evidence of a complete lack of interest on the part of the Brigadier, but there was evidence to show that he took up the matter immediately. He might have given the impression to my hon. Friend that he was not interested, but that may have been in the nature of what the psychologists call "defence mechanism," because my hon. Friend sometimes is very violent, even on the telephone.
§ Sir H. WilliamsIs my hon. Friend aware that I telephoned to the Brigadier twice and that on both occasions three witnesses heard all that I said and are aware that I was studiously moderate in making my complaint and can confirm it?