HC Deb 27 November 1945 vol 416 cc1085-8
Mr. Driberg

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the allegations newly communicated to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Major Wyatt) concerning a second fatality in Stakehill Detention Barracks, he will reconsider his decision that the court of inquiry into conditions in these barracks should be held in secret and should be exclusively military in its composition.

Mr. Lawson

In the case of the fatality referred to by the hon. Member, which took place some 15 months ago, the coroner decided that no inquest was necessary. I see no reason to reconsider my decisions as to the composition and procedure of the forthcoming court of inquiry.

Mr. Driberg

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the coroner may have taken that decision, the dead man's relatives report that when they saw his body, the face and neck were covered with bruises; and does not the fact that so long a time has elapsed before this matter came to light in itself provide additional strength for the case that there should be a full public inquiry?

Mr. Lawson

The easiest way out for me in this matter would have been a public inquiry. I told the House why there would not be a public inquiry when my hon. Friend had the Adjournment, and I made a statement as to the reasons then. I thought—-as a matter of fact, I am certain, and those who were here will agree—that the announcement concerning the nature of the court was received with perfect unanimity at the time, as I was then in a position to give a statement as to the reasons for having a military inquiry. They were, roughly, that there were irregularities discovered by the inquiry, and I wanted to get at these irregularities, as I myself suspected there was something else behind the business, and I wanted the facts. Frankly, too, it may be that out of this there may arise a court-martial, and I did not want the court-martial or the case of the men who may possibly be tried as a result of it prejudiced. As a matter of fact, I understand that my hon. Friend who communicated this case to me does not wish the name of the person concerned to be mentioned, and there is nothing to stop this case from being dealt with at this particular court of inquiry if necessary.

Major Wyatt

In view of the fact that King's Regulation 773D lays down that in a case of death the court cannot express an opinion but may only state the facts, does not my right hon. Friend think it rather detracts from the value of holding a purely military court of inquiry? Newspapers always keep names out of their reports if they are asked to do so.

Mr. Lawson

When this inquiry reports, if I think the facts are such that a further public inquiry is necessary, there is nothing to stop it. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will not exclude it, but I do want to get at the facts of this particular case in the interests of justice and, it may be, of those concerned in this matter.

Captain Blackburn

Would my right hon. Friend explain why it would be likely to prejudice the court-martial for this inquiry to be held in public rather than in private?

Mr. Lawson

I thought a certain amount of publicity might have that effect, and I want these men to have a fair chance if a court-martial be the result of the inquiry. I wanted these irregularities properly probed by military men.

Mr. McAllister

If the Secretary of State insists in making the inquiry purely military, will he give consideration to the appointment to the inquiry of some members of the excellent War Office psychiatry department?

Mr. Lawson

Yes, Sir, I have put a psychiatrist upon this inquiry and the House will probably remember also that I arranged, although it was very difficult, to have a barrister upon the inquiry in addition to the military men proper.

Mr. S. Silverman

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable public anxiety arising out of this and similar cases, that the only point in having an inquiry at all is in order to allay public anxiety, and that therefore any inquiry which is held in secret must stultify itself?

Mr. Lawson

Yes, I did bear that in mind, and, for myself, if I had wanted to seek the easiest way out I would have had a public inquiry. Where there is need for such at any time, I certainly will have one. In this instance, as a result of the facts brought out by the inquiry, I thought that in order to get to the roots of the facts the best thing was to have a military and a secret inquiry. I can assure those Members who were not present that the House received that suggestion with great approval.

Mr. Pritt

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that every important criminal trial in this country takes place after a previous public inquiry before the magistrates, and that no one would suggest that prejudices a fair trial? If that is so, why should a court-martial be prejudiced in this case? Further, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in this country and in every other country, one gets the facts better by having a public inquiry rather than an inquiry behind closed doors?

Mr. Lawson

I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion in these matters, but I do not think there is any analogy in the point that he is making.

Mr. Driberg

In view of my right hon. Friend's reply, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the desirability, in view of the considerable public anxiety concerning conditions at Stakehill Detention Barracks, that the forthcoming inquiry into these conditions should be held in public and should not be exclusively military in character.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has asked my permission to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. I must decline to give that permission, because I cannot see that an event which occurred 15 months ago can be regarded as of very definite and urgent importance now. It is reason that I must decline to give permission.

Mr. Driberg

On a point of Order. With great respect to you, Sir, may I point out that what makes it urgent is the fact that this court is about to open? It will open next Tuesday, and it will then be too late to alter the composition of the court.

Mr. Speaker

The Secretary of State is responsible for setting up the court. His conduct can always be challenged by this House, but, subject to that it must be left to the Minister to act as he thinks fit, and it is not for the House to tell him how to act.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to the point of Order. Is it not the case that any actions on the lines that you, Sir, have recommended, would take place after the event, and that what is proposed by those who are interested in this case is that this inquiry, which is to open next Tuesday, shall be public and not secret; and is not that a matter of public importance? Is not that definite and is not that urgent?

Mr. Speaker

That is not my view, otherwise I should have ruled differently. We will now proceed to the Orders of the Day.