HC Deb 22 May 1952 vol 501 cc666-71
Mr. Bartley

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War to say why an application has been refused for compassionate leave for Lance-Corporal Dobson to enable him to see his brother, Eric Dobson, who is dangerously ill and considered to have only a few days to live.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)

Compassionate leave is only granted in the case of death, imminent death, or dangerous illness of a wife, child, parent, or other recognised next-of-kin. This rule has been in operation for many years and is known and observed throughout the Army.

I deeply sympathise with Lance-Corporal Dobson and his parents in this sad case, but since both parents and his sister are now at home I much regret that I am unable to grant him leave since the case lies outside the scope of the scheme.

Mr. Bartley

In view of the very serious and urgent nature of this case, will the Minister please exercise some humane considerations in this instance and give further consideration to the application with a view to granting it? Will he arrange as early as possible for Lance Corporal Dobson to be brought home to see his younger brother?

Mr. Head

The scheme as it is operating at the moment produces a very big liability in the number of cases granted and if I extend the scheme to cover brothers and sisters, although, obviously, there are grounds for saying that that is desirable, it would immensely widen the scheme and the number of cases would rise astronomically.

Mr. Shinwell

Although the right hon. Gentleman has stated quite accurately what the Regulations are, would he not agree that frequently at the War Office and in the other Service Departments they do extend compassionate consideration on the merits of the case presented to them? Would he agree to exercise his judgment and discretion and, I believe, his humanity in a matter of this sort?

Mr. Head

I am only too anxious to exercise discretion and humanity, but every case where a brother or sister is dangerously ill and likely to die is sad and I can see no reason why if I granted this application I should not have to extend the scheme to all other cases.

Major Anstruther-Gray

Could my right hon. Friend tell the House whether this man is serving at home or abroad, and in what theatre of operations, so that we can have a proper appreciation of whether the War Office are being reasonable or unreasonable?

Mr. Head

This man is serving at Fayid, in the Canal Zone.

Mr. Murray

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of Washington Colliery is upset by the decision on this case? Does he not realise that they think the War Office have a heart of stone on questions like this? Will he consider this case on its special merits? Here is a child of 11 years of age crying out for his brother to see him, yet it is absolutely turned down by the War Office; cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the case?

Mr. Head

I do not accept that in these cases my Department is very hardhearted. In the last three months the War Office alone have granted more than 2,000 cases of compassionate leave. This case is a very sad one, but all cases of brothers or sisters dying are extremely sad and if I extended the scheme to cover a far wider field it would create problems of movement and expense throughout the Army.

Mr. Ellis Smith

If he were an officer he would be at home now.

Mr. George Wigg

Would the right hon. Gentleman read the preamble of Queen's Regulations, which lays down quite clearly that, although the Regulations have to be applied, there are self-evident exceptions? Is this not one of them? Is not this a case where he ought to throw the Regulations overboard, accept the obvious will of the House, and grant this man leave?

Mr. Head

I sympathise very much indeed with this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but I see no reason at all to think that hon. Members opposite have a monopoly of sympathy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Exercise it."] Certainly I sympathise with this man, but what I am trying to explain to hon. Members opposite is that every case of a young brother or sister dying is extremely sad. Why should I grant it to this man and refuse it to others? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I can only grant it to all, or else I shall only make the scheme ridiculous.

Mrs. Mann

The right hon. Gentleman is doing himself less than justice; he is held in very high respect on all sides of this House. If he wants to know why he should grant leave in one case and not in another it is surely because he must know of families that hold together very closely and other families that just seem to scatter and do not care about each other. Therefore, is there not room for the exercise of his discretion in the case of families such as the one in question?

Mr. Head

I can assure the hon. Lady that, supposing neither of the parents was at home, or if they were dead, I would, of course, make this an exceptional case, but this is a case where I cannot judge between family and family. I must go on the facts of the case as I know them. Naturally, young brothers would like to see their older brothers who are away, but I do hope that hon. Members will realise that if I extended the "next-of-kin" to cover a large family I would have a large administrative problem on my hands which would get out of control.

Mr. Bartley

While appreciating that the Secretary of State for War has at least had sufficient time to consider the case—I have been in correspondence with him for almost a fortnight, apart from personal interviews with his Under-Secretary—may I, as a last resort, ask the Prime Minister to give consideration to this case and to over-rule the Regulations and show he has some human sympathy and sentiment in this kind of case?

The Prime Minister

I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend's discretion and sense of humanity and I have seen no reason, except the lively interest taken in the House, for making an exception.

Mr. Bartley

On a point of order. As evidently the House, in all parts, is very much concerned about this case and as there is evidently deep sympathy in this case, will you, Mr. Speaker, accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the House so we can debate it?

Mr. Speaker

I could not accept that Motion as falling within the rules of order.

Later—

Mr. Bartley

On a point of order. I beg to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Secretary of State for War to grant compassionate leave in the case of Lance-Corporal Dobson, whose brother is at the point of death. I do so under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Speaker

The Motion does not fall under the Standing Order because it has been repeatedly ruled that actions taken by a Government Department in pursuance of the ordinary course of the law are not subject to the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot accept the Motion.

Mr. Short

On a point of order. This boy has only a few days to live. If you refuse to accept this Motion for the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker, can you advise us how this matter can be raised?

Mr. Speaker

The only way it can be raised is in the way in which it has been raised. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to put a Private Notice Question. There have been a number of supplementary questions on it. It is now out of my hands, and out of the hands of the House. There is nothing more, I am afraid, that I can do. The Secretary of State is well aware of what has been said.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is it not the case that the rule about not granting or not recognising a Motion of this kind under this Standing Order is that it is not granted where a Minister is acting in the ordinary course of the law, but that that does not apply to such a case as this, where the Secretary of State for War recognises he has a discretion; that where there is involved an administrative action of a Minister, in a matter in which he has discretion to do a thing or discretion not to do it, it is not a matter which can fairly be called the due operation of the law?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the discretion of a Minister is part of the ordinary process of the law.

Mr. Ellis Smith

The House appreciates the position you are in, Sir, but it must be obvious to the Secretary of State for War that the whole House is very sympathetic to this case, so may I ask him if he will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Bartley) immediately after Questions to consider what can be done in this case?

Mr. Head

I am quite prepared to talk to the hon. Gentleman about this case, but I should be deluding the House if I were now to suggest that we could settle this matter. I would ask the House to remember that in the past, and ever since I have been at the War Office, many similar applications for compassionate leave, in identical circumstances, have been turned down. This has been going on for many years—ever since the war. If we were suddenly to go against all this the people who have been turned down would feel a great sense of injustice.

Mr. Smith

Will you allow a little latitude on this matter, Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances? The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have indicated their sympathy, but their hands are tied because of the procedure. Because of that, and in view of the extreme sympathy that has manifested itself in the House, will the Secretary of State now reconsider this special case? It may be that the House will have to face up to amending the Regulations in order to deal with this kind of case.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

I really cannot allow this to go on.

Mr. Bartley

I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory replies we have received, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first convenient occasion.