MILITARY PRISONS AND DETENTION BARRACKS (RECOMMENDATIONS) (Hansard, 14 December 1943)

§ 41. Major Gates
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the action which is being taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry set up by the Prime Minister to investigate the conditions in military prisons and detention barracks; and as to any decision reached with regard to the medical officer in medical charge at Fort Darland detention barracks immediately prior to the death of Rifleman Clayton?

§ Sir J. Grigg
In view of the length of the reply and the general interest which has been shown in these matters in the House, I propose, with your permission, Sir, to make a statement after Questions.
Later—.
Immediately after the death of Rifleman Clayton on 17th March arrangements were made for a court of inquiry to investigate and report on the cause of his death. This was the first court of inquiry set up in connection with this matter. It reported that Rifleman Clayton had died from natural causes but that his death was accelerated by ill-treatment and injuries which he had received. Meanwhile, however, as a result of the verdict of the inquest held on 12th May, the two warrant officers responsible were committed for trial on charges of manslaughter, and further military inquiries, which would inevitably have involved these two men, had to be suspended pending their trial.
A separate second court of inquiry which had already been set up to inquire into the medical aspect of the case was, however, proceeding with its work. Its report found that the medical officer at Fort Darland had made an error of judgment in the diagnosis of the case after carrying out a full examination of his patient but that he was not guilty of negligence. This opinion was confirmed by the Director-General of Army Medical Services and the Consulting Physician to the Army, and I have accepted this opinion. The report of this second court revealed further that a non-commissioned officer and a private had made errors of judgment but that they were not guilty of neglect. Immediately on receipt of the report, the General Officer Commanding 1387 issued instructions designed to minimise the possibility of the recurrence of these errors of administrative judgment and to ensure that staff concerned with these medical matters are fully aware of their duties and trained to perform them. The two warrant officers were convicted of manslaughter at the Maidstone Assizes on 25th June, and it was then open to pursue the question of the military administration at Fort Darland. A third court of inquiry was set up for this purpose and started its sittings on 5th July. This court had the following terms of reference: To investigate and report on Fort Darland Detention Barrack and the treatment of soldiers under sentence there. The report will cover all aspects of the soldiers' treatment from reception until discharge, including inspections by outside authorities, medical care and medical inspections, the administration and supervision of discipline, welfare arrangements, feeding, accommodation and sanitation, education and training, and the adequacy of the staff provided. The court found no serious cause for criticism, but made a number of detailed recommendations about conditions at Fort Darland. Some of these recommendations affected all detention barracks. Action was taken on the majority of them, but in regard to some which concerned the establishments of staff at detention barracks and barrack regulations generally, it was thought desirable to await the outcome of the Oliver Committee, which had meanwhile started its investigations.
The Report of the Oliver Committee was published on 22nd November, and its recommendations have been and, to some extent, still are being closely examined. They have all been accepted in principle, and most of them are in fact now being implemented. With the present very limited resources of man-power and materials it is impossible in some cases to do this as fully and as speedily as would otherwise be desirable. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement showing the progress which has so far been made in implementing the recommendations of the Committee which concern the Army.
But while the various recommendations made by the Committee are important and are receiving the urgent attention they deserve, the House will, I am sure, agree with me that the most important feature 1388 in the Report is the fact that a Committee carrying such weight and public confidence has stated categorically that: the main matter for public concern, viz., calculated brutality to men in detention, does not in their opinion exist, and that there is not now, nor has been for some time past, any violence or physical ill-treatment practised upon men in detention.

§ Mr. Bellenger
With reference to the medical aspect of the Clayton case, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any indication on the medical history sheet of the disease from which he was suffering and ultimately died?

§ Sir J. Grigg
I should like to have notice of that question. If the hon. Member will put it down, I will look it up and give an absolutely categorical answer. My recollection is that there was no such indication.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Was the right hon. Gentleman's statement drafted in association with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and are we to take it that it covers naval detention quarters?

§ Sir J. Grigg
No, it does not cover naval detention quarters. I understand that the First Lord proposes to make a statement on the next Sitting Day.