SOLDIER'S DEATH, EGYPT (Hansard, 2 February 1954)

§ Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)
The subject I want to raise tonight concerns not a matter of broad national policy, but a humble family who find themselves considerably distressed as the result of the callous and indifferent attitude adopted by the War Office. I wish to raise the case of constituents of mine who are suffering a good deal of distress as a consequence of the manner in which the War Office dealt with a question arising in the Canal Zone. This seems to be a case where there has been no consideration whatever.
This young man, 19 years of age, was doing his National Service in the Canal Zone and was in the full bloom of health, not having known a single day's illness. Suddenly, from out of the blue, on 6th April, his parents get a telegram from the War Office informing them that their son was on the "Dangerously ill" list. Less than 24 hours afterwards they received a further telegram from the War Office intimating that their son had died at 13.40 hours on 7th April.
Three weeks later they received a communication from the unit commander. The letter is dated 10th April, and is headed, "35 Corps, Engineering Regiment, R.E.M.E." It says: DEAR MADAM, It is with very great regret that I write to you of the death of your son William, who died in hospital on 7th April. The post-mortem shows the cause of death to be acute nephritis which I understand to be a disease of the kidneys. The letter is signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Foulkes.
On 19th January, in reply to questions from me, the Under-Secretary of State for War informed me that the unit commander was in possession of the report of the inquiry into the stabbing of this young man some 10 days before, so that it is quite clear that when the unit commander wrote this letter on 10th April he was not only in possession of the report of the post-mortem examination but he was also in possession of the report of 322 the committee of inquiry which established the fact that this young man was stabbed in the right arm and right side on 27th March, and that the shock which brought on acute nephritis was as the result of that stabbing.
Yet the language of the letter seems to indicate, "After all, what could these people expect?" Their son had left for the Middle East, some months before, in the full bloom of health, never having had a day's illness. Suddenly, they were informed that he had died of kidney disease. No attempt was made to inform them of the other circumstances surrounding his death.
On 14th May, the parents wrote to the War Office complaining of lack of information. On 29th May, the Director of Personnel, Administration, replied to the parents' letter. He again went into long detail about what had been done to get the son into hospital, and the action that had been taken, after the son became seriously ill, to inform the parents by telegram. But there was not a single word in this letter of 29th May, from the Director of Personnel, Administration, that this young man had been in a stabbing incident 10 days before his death. The letter of 29th May, like the letter of 10th April, led the parents to believe that the boy had died from kidney disease, but when the belt and boots of the young man were sent to his home in West Hartlepool his parents noticed blood splashes on them.
Nothing further was heard from the War Office until 19th November, and then only in reply to a letter from the parents, dated 16th November, asking for further information. On 28th October they were visited by one of the dead man's comrades. He believed that the parents knew the story, but when he offered his condolences he was horrified to find that the only information the parents had was that the boy had died of acute nephritis. It was left to that young man aged 20, home on leave from the Middle East, to tell the parents that the boy had been stabbed, whereupon the parents wrote to the War Office asking for information.
On 19th November a reply was received from the Director of Personnel, Administration, and, I will read two extracts from the letter. The first is: When I wrote to you on 29th May, informing you that your Son's death was due to acute nephritis, I gave the cause which had 323 been reported by the medical authorities overseas, and this coincided with the diagnosis of the complaint which necessitated his being placed on the Seriously and Dangerously Ill lists. It was, therefore, visualised that this was a natural complaint not connected with an injury. I deeply regret to have to tell you, however, that it is now realised that your Son's illness resulted from stab wounds in the right side of the chest and right upper arm, which he sustained on the 27th March. So it is 19th November—more than eight months later—that the first official intimation is given to the parents that the boy had died as a result of stab wounds. The letter goes on: These injuries were not however reported in the signals received from the Middle East notifying his illness and death. They have, however, been the subject of a military inquiry and I will write to you within a few days and let you know the full circumstances in which your son sustained these wounds. With all due respect, I suggest that that last sentence has been written to create in the minds of the parents the belief that the military inquiry was then proceeding, but we now know that that inquiry took place on 1st April, and, according to the hon. Gentleman's admission to me, that report was in the hands of the unit commander on 8th April; yet we have the Director of Personnel, Administration, seeking, by inference at any rate, to point out that the inquiry is about to proceed.
The Director of Personnel, Administration, continues: I sincerely regret my failure to inform you in my letter of the 29th May that your son's unfortunate death was connected with his wounds and deeply apologise for this failure.' I shall indicate later the excuses advanced by the Under-Secretary. In a letter he wrote to me on 23rd December he said: A full medical report…was received in the War Office shortly after the dispatch of this letter… That is a reference to the letter of 29th May. The hon. Member is telling me, in December, that the medical report was received a few weeks after the dispatch of the letter of 29th May. Yet it took an inquiry from the parents, on 16th November, for even the War Office to inform the parents how their son was murdered.
Even that does not square with the statement of the Director of Personnel, Administration, who said: 324 I sincerely regret my failure to inform you in my letter of 29th May that your son's unfortunate death was connected with his wounds…. If the report from the Middle East did not arrive in the War Office until a few weeks after the dispatch of the letter of 29th May, there was surely no need for the Director of Personnel, Administration, to include that sentence in his letter, because, if he did not have the information, there was no purpose in his apologising to the parents for his failure to inform them of the truth about their son's death.
Even on 19th November he was not able to inform the parents of the findings of the court of inquiry. He wrote again on 26th November, reporting the findings of the court. The parents, quite naturally, came to see me and complained, and I wrote to the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of December. On 23rd December, as I have said, he wrote to me, stating: A full medical report was…received in the War Office shortly after the dispatch of this letter…. He then went on to advance an amazing excuse. He admitted that the parents were not advised, and he offered his sincere regrets. I want the House to note the excuse which he advanced. He said: This was most regrettably due to an administrative error caused by the move of the branch concerned from Central London to Stanmore. So inefficient has the War Office become in the last two years that it advances the paltry excuse of shifting a couple of hundred papers from London to Stan-more for not advising these parents. But we already have the admission of the Director of Personnel, Administration, that he omitted to advise the parents on 29th May. Then we have the hon. Gentleman telling us that the reason why they did not so advise the parents was because the papers were lost.
It might have been possible for an official, at one point, to have made a mistake or to have committed an administrative error, but we first have the letter from the unit commander in the Middle East, with the post mortemexamination report before him—because he refers to it in his letter—then, on the admission of the hon. Gentleman, the unit commander has the report of the court of inquiry in his possession two days before he wrote his letter. Not one word is said about the cause of the nephritis in this young man. 325 Then we have the letter of 29th May—something like seven or eight weeks afterwards—from the Director of Personnel, Administration. In November he admitted, first of all, that he was not advised from the Middle East that the accident had taken place. Secondly, he expressed his regret for overlooking the fact that he ought to tell the parents how the boy contracted nephritis.
Next we have the Under-Secretary of State who, a month later, first of all said that the report did not arrive in the War Office until a couple of weeks after 29th May and, secondly, said that in any event they lost the papers in shifting from London to Stanmore. What an excuse for a responsible Minister of the Crown to offer for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to a father and mother who, a few months earlier, had bade farewell to a boy of 19 years of age and in the full bloom of health.
The boy's father wrote to me quite recently. No wonder that he uses this kind of language: I shall always believe that my son was stabbed on night guard due to negligence in providing one of sufficient strength, and that it was hushed up to save unnecessary complications with the Egyptian Government. I do not necessarily accept that, but small wonder is it that these parents feel this way when they have been treated in this callous and indifferent fashion by the War Office and by the Director of Personnel, Administration.
We are having considerable difficulty these days in persuading parents willingly and enthusiastically to allow their boys of 18 or 19 to undertake National Service. What are we to say to the parents of young men in this country when the War Office treats such cases as this in so callous a fashion?
The court of inquiry which was set up in the Middle East is far from being sufficient and, in conclusion, I want to demand that an independent inquiry should be set up in this case to ascertain why it is that this kind of suffering is inflicted on innocent parents. How does the Minister think that parents of young men compelled to join the Forces will part with their children when, in the event of an accident, they are treated in this callous and indifferent fashion?

§ Dr. H. Morgan (Warrington)
As a medical man I have heard of this case from my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and I must say that this looks very much like the case of a man who developed generalised sepsis because of the original wound which he sustained. My friends in the medical profession may say that that is a guess, but in medicine we have to take things as they happen. Although it is very seldom that a man who is stabbed in a part of the body distant from a kidney subsequently dies of nephritis, it is perfectly clear that this man got sepsis from the wound, that it spread throughout his body, that a kidney was affected and that he died of nephritis consequent on the original wound. I may be quite wrong in saying that, but it is a perfectly legitimate medical surmise and opinion.
An ordinary man does not die from an ordinary stab wound unless it is a very deep one and I have read the papers and I see no indication that this was a serious stab affecting one of the organs of the body. I think that this man had a wound, that it became septic, that he developed a general sepsis and that his kidneys were affected in that way.
The Under-Secretary of State for War should look at this matter again and consider whether, in consultation with his senior officers and, if possible, an outside consultant, he could not deal with this case not only from a merciful point of view but from a scientific point of view. He should do all he can to help the parents who have lost a very devoted son.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison)
At the outset, I would point out to the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. H. Morgan) that the statement he has just made will certainly be considered. I should now like to get back to the speech of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones). I think that it is wise when we look at this distressing case to try to see it in perspective through the eyes of the commanding officer. I have seen the commanding officer and had a chance of discussing this matter with him and questioning him about it because he has now returned to this country.
A good commanding officer, and I believe Colonel Foulkes to be a good com- 327 manding officer, regards himself in loco parentisof the men under his command, if for no other reasons but that he comes to realise that if he does not show himself to be considerate and understanding of them not only in their Army problems but in problems of their ordinary life, they will not give him of their best. As evidence that this commanding officer was considerate and thoughtful, he had a letter written by the officers in his unit to the next of kin of every National Service man under his command shortly after his unit arrived in Egypt.
It has always been held in the Army that when a man is committed to hospital and is not gravely ill, it is his duty and responsibility and, indeed, his right to inform or withhold this information from his parents. Often a man considers that he is causing unnecessary suffering by letting his parents know. Accordingly, facilities are afforded to any soldier when he first arrives in hospital to send information back to his parents, or if he prefers one of the hospital authorities will do it on his behalf. There are two exceptions to this general rule. If a soldier is a battle casualty or is so gravely ill that his name is on the seriously ill or dangerously ill list, then the War Office inform the parents themselves.
Bearing that in mind, let us turn to the details of the case which the hon. Member has outlined with considerable accuracy, although I am convinced that he has over-stressed the word "callous." There is no callousness in this matter at all. On the night of 27th–28th March, Sapper Crangle left camp with some comrades and unwisely broke bounds after having had a drink in Fayid. On the way back, he was attacked by a band of Egyptians. They scattered and in the ensuing fracas Sapper Crangle was stabbed. He was at once admitted to hospital and at this point he could easily have informed his parents that the stab wounds were not considered to be serious and, indeed, he was making good progress.
On 1st April a court of inquiry was set up to go into the facts of the stabbing incident. On 6th April, five days later, his condition deteriorated and he was put on the seriously ill list. Next day, 7th April, his condition worsened. He was put on the dangerously ill list and, alas, that day died. On that day his parents 328 were informed by telegram both of his being on the dangerously ill list and of his having died. On 8th April the court of inquiry made its report. It should be noticed that the court of inquiry had no responsibility or duty to inquire into the diagnosis of the illness or the cause of death. It was entirely a fact-finding inquiry on the incident which had taken place resulting in the stabbing.
On 10th April the commanding officer wrote to Mrs. Crangle informing her of her son's death, but before doing so he spoke to the medical authorities, who told him that a post mortem had been held and that death was due to acute nephritis. Nether the medical officer with whom he spoke nor the commanding officer at this stage connected the fatal nephritis with the stabbing incident.
Should the commanding officer have told the parents? The hon. Member thinks so, and thinks so strongly. But we must remember, first, that the man himself had not chosen to inform his parents while he was quite able to do so; second, that the incident did not redound to the man's credit; and third, since Mrs. Crangle had not heard, as the hon. Member has stated, until a good deal later about the stabbing incident, it shows that the Roman Catholic priest, who visited Sapper Crangle in hospital, did not choose to mention it either, although it is the sort of thing about which padres frequently write to parents. Would then to have mentioned the stabbing have caused the parents more or less distress? I do not know. It seems to me that the judgment is balanced on the edge of a knife. That is the story so far as the commanding officer is concerned. I am satisfied that no blame can attach to him.
Now, let us turn to the War Office. Some days later, towards the end of April, the medical authorities, on further consideration of all the facts, came to the conclusion that the stabbing had at least played a part in the ultimate cause of death. This information only reached the War Office in June. I admit straightaway that that was far too late, and we have taken steps to speed up the system.
There followed a further misfortune. The hon. Member may think it is incredible, but it is nevertheless a fact, not an excuse, that the Casualties Branch was at that time moving from London to 329 Stanmore. Most regrettably, the file containing this story became mislaid and the information miscarried. Much later, as the hon. Member has said, in October, Mrs. Crangle was informed by another soldier of the stabbing incident, and when the matter was taken up with the War Office we fully explained the whole position and apologised for the miscarriage of information. So did I to the hon. Member, fully and without stint, when he took the matter up with me. So would I always when we are at fault. From time to time we will be at fault. When an organisation has the duty and responsibility of looking after more than 400,000 soldiers, the possibility of human error cannot be excluded; but so far as possible it will be kept at a minimum.
I know the gnawing anxiety of parents, and I have the deepest sympathy with the father and mother in their tragic loss. I, too, have a son, an only son, at present doing his military service as a lance-corporal in the Army. And so I can well understand their feelings. 330 In view of the full and frank expressions of regret, which have in no way been withheld, either from the parents or from the Member of Parliament, for such failures and delays as occurred, I was puzzled why the hon. Member wanted to bring this matter to an Adjournment debate. I came to the conclusion that by my once again explaining things that have been already explained, by once again offering sympathy, which has been offered, and apologising afresh for the failure of the information, I might be helping the parents. If that is so, if by standing here and making this explanation I can bring one jot or tittle of comfort or solace to a bereaved parent, I am willing to do it; I am even glad.