§ Motion made, and question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]
1005§ Major C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)I apologise for detaining the House, but I make no apology for raising this particular subject. It is the privilege and duty of hon. Members of this House to raise grievances of their constituents. On 20th September, 1943, I received complaints of wanton damage and vandalism by the Army to certain property in my constituency, and I want to ventilate this complaint. My constituency of Eastbourne has been damaged sufficiently by enemy action. The residents are rightly conscious of this fact, but I can assure the House, although they have been long suffering and brave and truly British in their resolution and courage, they do not like wilful damage by our own troops, through carelessness or lack of proper control and supervision. The damage was done to property on the downlands and in the area of the downlands, stretching from Beachy Head. This area covers a good many miles. The first question I must ask is why was this particular part of the Downs where there is a private residence chosen for an anti-tank gun range, when there were large areas of downland which have no buildings on them at all?
Even if it was necessary to choose this spot, I am not an anti-tank gunner but I understand that on an anti-tank gun range a safety zone can be made, a red flag could have been put up here and a red flag some way further down the range.
§ The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson)The hon. and gallant Member has mentioned the place.
§ Major TaylorI understood there was no question of security. When I wanted to raise the matter in the first place I was never given any warning about security. I have not been given any notice that I must not mention the site of the property involved, because that is a very material part of my case. Why, if this particular place is to be chosen for an anti-tank gun range, does not the War Office or those responsible make a safety area for the part upon which this particular lighthouse stands? I understand that it is very usual to say that no shooting shall take place between x degrees and y degrees and that apart from that, the range can be shot over quite freely.
I am informed that Canadian troops were responsible for this damage. I have 1006 no grudge whatever against Canadian troops, although three of them once punched me rather indelicately on my nose. They occupied my own house in Sussex but they did very little damage. In fact, I think they did no damage at all except what was necessary for blackout alterations and other such things. I think that mainly they are excellent fellows and that they have on the whole behaved pretty well in this country, but I suggest that in this particular instance they made a very grave mistake, and I suggest that there was not proper supervision.
I must say I rather sympathise with them because on this anti-tank gun range there was this lighthouse sitting up pointing like a finger to the sky. It must have been a very serious temptation to them to take a potshot at it but if it had been explained that this was a private residence, the home of a very distinguished surgeon who had spent a considerable sum of money on improving this property upon turning it into a private residence; if had been explained to them that it was a landmark, a very fine old landmark; if it had been explained to them that it was a beauty spot, a beauty spot which we in Eastbourne value, then perhaps it might be they would have taken greater care to see this place was not shot at deliberately. If that destruction had been necessary, if it had been inevitable, I would have been perfectly willing to admit that there is a war on, that troops have to be trained, and I would not be raising the matter now. But I really do not believe it was necessary and I really do not believe it was unavoidable. That is why I asked the Secretary of State to make an inquiry into the whole question, and I do feel that if there was any deliberate carelessness, lack of supervision or any wanton destruction, then the culprits should be brought to book.
§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)Arising out of the question brought forward by my hon. and gallant Friend I would add that there have been complaints all over the country of injury to property, and to old country houses in particular, by His Majesty's Forces. I wonder whether the time will come when the Financial Secretary to the War Office will make a statement on the instructions given to commanders to look after the property where they are installed to see 1007 that no injury is done to property, particularly old houses and places of great interest. I have had many letters complaining about injury done by troops for whom accommodation has been provided in country houses, posting hotels, and other interesting places.
I happen to be associated with a number of hotels in this country. Believe me, the condition in which His Majesty's troops—I am not now speaking of either our own troops or Canadian troops in particular—have left these places when they have moved away to other headquarters has been deplorable. I would suggest that, at some time convenient to the Financial Secretary, a statement might be made to the House of the precautions taken by the War Office to secure that, where facilities are provided in the way mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, there is, within the limits set by the need for proficiency in the Army, no interference with the amenities of the locality that could reasonably be avoided. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate the importance of this matter. All over the country there are complaints of damage which might easily be avoided if the local commanding officer had a talk with his troops and said, "Here you have been accommodated in this house, or in this hotel, as the case may be. Observe the decencies, and do not inflict any damage which might be avoided on this property." In particular, old country houses, which are part of our old island story, should be protected.
§ The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson)The information for which my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) has asked has been given to the House on previous occasions, but I shall be glad to have it given again if he will raise the matter in the usual way, by a Question. As regards the matter raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor), I fully appreciate his concern about the damage to this lighthouse, and I would certainly agree that if the damage had been deliberate, or through carelessness on the part of troops, drastic action would have to be taken. As my hon. and gallant Friend has indicated, the house is adjacent to an anti-tank range, under the control of the Canadian military authorities. They have 1008 been most co-operative in the special investigations which have been made following my hon. and gallant Friend's complaint. The range, which, for obvious reasons, is close to the coast, is used for the training of anti-tank gun crews, who fire at moving targets. The guns fire from a vantage point within well-defined limits. At every practice, I am advised, instructors and safety personnel observe the actions of the crew, to ensure that no gun is laid outside the confines of the target run. There is always an officer present when a shoot takes place, usually an instructor of gunnery, with the rank of major. The range commandant is a Canadian brigadier, who is also a gunnery expert. The building itself is well outside the are of fire formed by the gun position and the confines of the target run.
I have, however, received a report from two senior artillery officers, one British and one Canadian, who have made personal investigations on the spot. They state that, although the building is outside the fixed are of fire of the guns, it does lie within the danger area. This, apparently, is due largely to the contour of the ground, which rises somewhat steeply behind the moving target, together with the high velocity of the shell used, results frequently in a ricochet from the point of impact behind the target, amounting to as much as 8o degrees. They, therefore, report that the property is thus subject to damage from ricochets which it is quite impossible to control. They are satisfied that there is no question of any deliberate firing on the building by the troops using the range, more especially in view of the precautions taken to see that negligence is reduced to the minimum.
It will be appreciated that the guns cannot be laid in any other direction, firstly, because there must be a direct run for the tanks, and, secondly, because, in this area, guns must be fired in the direction of the sea. It is true, as my hon. and gallant Friend will know from his own military experience, that, while the shells that are fired hit rising ground behind the moving target, there are frequent "overs," which find their way into the sea, so that it is essential that the guns are fired in the direction of the sea. It is not possible to move the range elsewhere. If this had been possible it would have been done for military reasons, apart altogether from the question 1009 of damage to this lighthouse. Compensation will, of course, be paid when the building is finally de-requisitioned, and, in the meantime, certain valuable relics have, at the owner's request, been removed from the exterior and are now stored at the expense of the War Department. I realise that what I have said is not very encouraging, from the owner's point of view, and I fully share my hon. and gallant Friend's feeling with regard to the serious damage that has been and is being occasioned to this building.
§ Major TaylorI was not asked to raise this matter by the owner, but by other constituents.
§ Mr. HendersonI appreciate that, and I understand that the relationship between the owner and the military authority has been as friendly as could be expected. I am making no complaint of my hon. and gallant Friend's part. I fully share his feeling with regard to the damage to this building. I feel I must place on record that I am satisfied that the Canadian military authorities have taken all necessary precautions to avoid unnecessary damage, and that I can find no evidence of deliberate destruction or carelessness on the part of Canadian troops who used this particular range.
§ Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.