BRIGADIER F. A. G. ROUGHTON (WIDOW'S GRATUITY) (Hansard, 23 November 1948)

§ Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)

Before the House tonight is a subject that has had the scrutiny of quite a number of officials. I should like to take the opportunity at the commencement to pay my tribute to the courteous way in which a great number of our permanent officials have behaved from time to time, when I have had to go and put this matter in front of them. The story is rather a long one. Originally Brigadier Roughton had put to him during the planning of the Burma campaign the question of demolishing the oil wells and fighting his way out through advancing Japanese. Ultimately he managed to get back and then he collapsed and by the rigours of the campaign was killed. The point at issue is the question of the gratuity to his widow. In this House we all know the points with regard to the Royal Warrant and how the Royal Warrant is confined, but equally we know that as war alters the type of campaign, so a formula has been found on occasions for including within these terms certain different types of death which were not originally envisaged.

1207 In the early part of 1947 I called to see the present Secretary of State for Air, who at that time was at the India Office. I was received by him with every form of sympathy and understanding when I put the question to him. He promised to refer it to the Minister of Pensions, and the Minister of Pensions at that time was the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd). He consulted with the present Secretary of State for Air and the conclusion they arrived at was that it was not possible to include the widow of Brigadier Roughton in this gratuity. Shortly afterwards the Minister of Pensions resigned his office and Mr. George Buchanan took over. I approached him and Mr. Buchanan received this matter with great sympathy and said he would go into a detailed examination of the case.

On 27th January, 1948, I put a Question with regard to this case to the then Minister of Pensions. His answer to me was that he would give sympathetic consideration to the case. I then put this supplementary: While welcoming the Minister's reply, will he impress upon the Departments concerned to give sympathetic consideration to this case? His reply at that time was this: If I may say so, on reading the papers I thought that this was possibly the bravest man about whom I have ever read. If I personally had the power I would do this at once. Unfortunately, I am bound by past Government decisions, and also by the fact that this is a Government of Burma decision. It partly put me to shame when I read the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 818.] Those hon. Members who were present at that time will remember the sincerity with which the Minister put that point.

That was not the end of it. The next morning practically every national paper in this land carried the story about this being the bravest man that Mr. George Buchanan had ever heard about. Such headlines as this "The Bravest Man I Have Read About" appeared in the papers, and then under the heading "Bravest Man" this appeared: While pointing out that they had no information on the matter, an official of the Burmese Embassy has declared that he was certain that the Government of Burma will consider the case of Brigadier Roughton's widow with very good heart. 1208 I wrote to the Minister and these are some of the expressions of his letter of the 23rd March: He said that a certain delay had occurred because he wished to find the argument to put up for this case, and he said: After reviewing all the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sending a personal letter saying that in this exceptional case he hopes to be able to pay Mrs. Roughton a gratuity. Time elapsed, and it could readily be observed that differences were arising and that another review of the case was occurring. Because of that I wrote a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he will remember, asking him whether I could go to him to discuss the matter with him. He wrote back, and used these very carefully selected words: This is a matter entirely for the Minister of Pensions. He said he could not intervene, and that, therefore, there was no purpose in my going to argue the case with him. After that, more time elapsed. Mr. George Buchanan left his office, and the present Minister accepted the office of Minister of Pensions. I asked whether I could see him to argue this case, and he immediately granted me an interview and did everything he possibly could at that time to look into the case. He then wrote me a letter. Here are some words I should like to quote from it: When you came to see me, however, I undertook to study the case carefully again. I have since done so, and have consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Really, I hardly see how that remark can be reconciled with the fact that the Chancellor had said that this was the responsibility of the Minister of Pensions only and that he could not intervene.

I felt that this matter should really be argued in this House, and that it was not possible to do it by Question and answer. I want to establish these points. Let us remember that it is no good for the Ministers concerned to argue the fact whether someone else in another category may or may not have received this pension, because already one Minister of Pensions, after a thorough scrutiny in his Department, has agreed that there is great substance in the case. Furthermore, there was consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there must have been one given moment 1209 in which the Chancellor agreed that there was sufficient substance in the case for him to say that he would personally interest himself in it.

If at some future date some other matters arose, I do not believe that they concerned the question of Brigadier Roughton or the widow of Brigadier Roughton. I do not challenge the right of the Government to see in what way they can come to a satisfactory conclusion, but I do argue that no one should suffer—not any one individual subject of the Realm should suffer—because other and perhaps weightier matters may have arisen.

The Chancellor might argue in this fashion—and I do wish to put this case before the Chancellor primarily, even more than before the Minister of Pensions, and I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for being present at this Debate on the Adjournment. He might argue: My deeds upon my head! I crave the law, The penalty and forfeit of my bond. Or he might argue: I cannot find it; 'tis not in the bond. He could argue to affect this case both ways. He is a great lawyer and he could do it with skill. I ask him not to do it that way at all, because, as in the scene from which I have quoted, there is a merciful way out. There is a way which he can take. In the glare of the publicity that there has been and taking account of the Ministers' statements and letters, extracts from which I have read, no person in the Kingdom could have thought other than that payment was to be made. What can he call in aid; what can he, in fact, do? This wise country of ours made provision for that in the days of Queen Victoria. It sought in such a case as this the Dispensing Warrant of 1884—Royal Warrant Issue of Pay, Non-effective Pay and Allowances. May I read from that Warrant: Our Will and Pleasure is that it shall be competent for Our Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners of Our Treasury, to grant, in exceptional cases, Pay, Non-Effective Pay, and other Emoluments or Allowances at rates, or to persons other than those mentioned or under conditions other than are laid down in any of Our Warrants or Regulations. 1210 Under that Warrant, it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make payment. I sincerely trust that the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not argue the complete letter of the law, for I thoroughly realise that on that the case might fall. I am arguing from the real justice of the case and from the question of the Minister's statement, from the question of what people thought at that time and what they had every right to think, and I trust that the consciences of the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are such that they will see fit to state tonight that they will reconsider this case.

§ The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand)

May I begin by a reference to some matters in this case which are certainly not in dispute? May I say, at the outset, that Brigadier Roughton was undoubtedly a gallant officer, that he performed his duty with courage, and that he died as the result of the performance of his duty. May I say also that I have, my right hon. and learned Friend has, and everyone who is connected with this case has the profoundest possible sympathy with his widow and with his son, who is himself a brave man. I must also point out that it is, I think, not in dispute that responsibility, at any rate the normal legal responsibility for compensation, lies with the Government of Burma.

Brigadier Roughton was fighting in the Burmese Frontier Force, and it has been acknowledged that any compensation payable would be payable by the Government of Burma. The Government of Burma has recognised that responsibility. They are paying Mrs. Roughton now an annuity of £300 per annum, which is the amount which would have been paid in this country to the widow of a Brigadier whose death was attributable to war service. These matters, I think, are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the possible payment of a killed-in-action gratuity. I must take a few moments to explain what that is. So far as the Army is concerned, this gratuity dates back to about the middle of the eighteenth century and I understand that it was inaugurated to encourage officers when leading men into action. The conditions of modern war are very different from 1211 those of the eighteenth century. I need not elaborate the point that an officer flying on a bombing raid, or an officer serving in a submarine in an attack on an enemy navy is performing an action as brave as any officer charging into battle in the eighteenth century; but because of the changing conditions of modern war it was necessary for successive Governments to review the payment of this gratuity and to try to lay down some well-defined conditions so that applications for the gratuity might not be so large as to be not easily subject to handling.

Successive Governments have reviewed the provisions of this gratuity. That was last done in 1943 by the Coalition Government, who then agreed on a formula whereby "killed in action" should include the death of any officer killed whilst on duty, or whilst proceeding to report for duty as the result of an emergency summons, by

"(1) a missile discharged by the enemy or by our own Forces in combating an actual or imagined attack by the enemy;
(2) an actual or presumed specific act on the part of the enemy: for example, the discharge of a torpedo or the laying of a mine;
(3) an act on the part of our own Forces whilst attacking or proceeding to attack the enemy."

Now, any Minister is bound to apply the terms of the Royal Warrant as laid down, and in applying this particular provision he is not given any discretion. It is true, of course, that a Royal Warrant might from time to time be varied, but while it remains as it is the Minister at that time must apply the terms of the Warrant. They have been defined as carefully as possible and the Minister must stick to them. It is not possible for him to select some particular brave act and to say: "I think very highly of that. I will pay a gratuity to the dependants of that man." He must ask himself about the death of any officer brought to his attention simply: Does it satisfy the conditions laid down for a "killed-in-action" gratuity? The blunt fact is that it is possible to be killed in action without being exceptionally meritorious, and to die in an exceptionally meritorious way without being killed in action. Now, that is not a quibble. That is applying the law. It may be that the law ought to be changed; 1212 it may be that the law might, with advantage, be abandoned; but that is not the issue here. The Minister must apply the law.

The death of Brigadier Roughton was first brought to the attention of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. J. Hynd), when he was Minister of Pensions, as a result of a letter sent to the Secretary of State for India and Burma. The hon. Member for Attercliffe in the course of his reply gave a decision, with which, after reading all the evidence most carefully, I entirely agree. He said: As I understand it, Brigadier Roughton died on board a hospital ship of heat exhaustion following an arduous cross-country walk in great heat. Clearly, therefore, the case is not covered by (a) of the formula"— which the House will remember refers to a missile. As regards (b), while it is no doubt true that the enemy was active at the time. I do not gather that any specific action of the kind envisaged "— that is, the discharge of a torpedo or the laying of a mine— played any part in the officer's death. As to (c), it could not reasonably be held that the officer was killed by an act on the part of our Forces whilst attacking or proceeding to attack the Forces of the enemy. In the circumstances, I regret that I am bound to say that if the case were for the decision of my Department I could not regard it as one for the award of a gratuity under Article 25 of the Royal Warrant. A copy of that letter was sent to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), as he has told us tonight.

One might have supposed that it would end the matter. However, in January, 1948, the hon. Member raised the matter with the new Minister, Mr. Buchanan, and he has reminded the House tonight of the circumstances. He quoted part of the letter which Mr. Buchanan wrote to him on 23rd March, but I should like to quote a sentence or two in addition to those quoted by the hon. Member. Mr. Buchanan said: You know, of course, that Brigadier Roughton's case is not one for which my Department is responsible"— It is, of course, the responsibility of the Government of Burma— but had this been the case I am afraid that the cause of his death would not have brought him within the terms of the Royal Warrant governing the payment of 'killed in action' gratuities. For this reason we found it very 1213 difficult to advise the Burmese Government to pay. Nevertheless, after reviewing all the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sending a personal letter to the Prime Minister of Burma saying that in this exceptional case he hopes they will see their way to pay Mrs. Roughton a gratuity. That is how my right hon. Friend comes into the story, because of his personal acquaintance with the Prime Minister of Burma, of which he hoped, I will not say to take advantage, but to make some use, in this matter. The House will note that Mr. Buchanan repeated the opinion that "the cause of death would not have brought Brigadier Roughton within the terms of the Royal Warrant covering the payment of 'killed in action' gratuities." Two months later—and I make no complaint of the lapse of time, since the letter was to be sent to Burma, and that would take some time—the hon. Member wrote again to Mr. Buchanan asking for a final decision. He had reached no such decision because of the change which had taken place, and I myself came into office on 5th July. In due course, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman the letter to which he has also referred. He emphasised that I said in that letter that I consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is true. I said: You are aware from Buchanan's letter of 23rd March, 1948, that the only possibility of obtaining a special grant for Mrs. Roughton was that the Burmese Government might make an ex gratia payment in response to a special request. Sir Stafford Cripps had indicated that he would be willing to send a letter on a strictly personal basis to the Burmese Prime Minister. However, after consulting our Ambassador in Burma, Sir Stafford was advised that the circumstances in the case were not so exceptional as to justify such an approach. He has, therefore, been unable to write as suggested. I went on to say, For my part, I entirely agree with the decision which had been made earlier by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. To sum up, in June, 1947, after very careful consideration of the matter, the hon. Member for Attercliffe gave advice to the Secretary of State, which led the Secretary of State to conclude that he ought not to request the Government of Burma to pay this gratuity. Later, the hon. and gallant Gentleman secured a full review of the case by a Minister who took a somewhat more favourable view of what the Government should do. Even he, however, concluded that the United King- 1214 dom Government would not pay a gratuity in these circumstances.

I myself have reviewed the case at very great length and, as I have already said, come to the unhesitating conclusion that the hon. Member for Attercliffe was right. So that all that remains to be discussed is whether the United Kingdom Government should itself make an ex gratia payment to Mrs. Roughton. It is absolutely beyond doubt that this Government would not pay a gratuity if Brigadier Roughton had been serving in the United Kingdom Army. Three Ministers who have looked at the case have come to the same conclusion on that point. But it is suggested tonight that the United Kingdom Government ought to make a special payment, I suppose because it gave Mrs. Roughton reason to expect that she might receive a gratuity from the Burmese Government and she was then disappointed in that expectation. But no promise was made beyond saying that a letter would be sent to the Burmese Government.

If that letter had been sent, my right hon. and learned Friend would have been bound to say that in the circumstances the British Government would not itself have paid a gratuity had it been responsible. What chances there would have been that the Burmese Government would have acceded to his personal request, who can say? But in fact, my right hon. and learned Friend was advised that the circumstances were not so remarkably exceptional that it was at all probable that the Burmese Government would do what he asked, even if he asked in that intimate, friendly and personal way in which he proposed to ask. So we are faced with a situation in which we would not pay this gratuity to the widow of a soldier in the United Kingdom Army, and that we had been advised that the probability was that the Burmese Government would not entertain a special request. In all the circumstances, I feel that we could not possibly justify payment by the British taxpayer of money when we would not ourselves have been able to make a similar payment had the gallant officer been serving in the United Kingdom Army at the time of his death.