HC Deb 20 February 1956 vol 549 cc158-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Beresford Craddock (Spelthorne)

The case to which I wish to draw attention is that of the late Lance-Bombardier Albert Dillingham, whose home was at 110, Long Lane, Ashford, Middlesex—a young National Serviceman who, unhappily, died in Germany while on duty as the result of a road accident.

I had protracted correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, who dealt with the matter in his usual sympathetic and courteous manner. I must say, however, that there are many features of this unfortunate business which, in my view, merit further investigation because, as I hope to show, the Army authorities handled this matter in, to say the least of it, a most unsatisfactory way, causing much additional distress and anxiety to the young man's parents. I realise that nothing can now be done for this young man, who died in the service of his country. I hope, however, that as a result of this case other parents and relatives who may in future have to face similar regrettable circumstances may be spared additional grief and anguish.

Lance-Bombardier Dillingham was doing his National Service and was stationed in Germany. On 29th August last, whilst he was on duty, the truck in which he was travelling skidded on the wet road and overturned and the Lance-Bombardier was seriously injured. The accident occurred at about 6.30 p.m. The young man was admitted to the City Hospital, OsnabrÜck, and placed on the dangerously ill list. His father was notified by telegram on the following day, 30th August, the time of despatch of the telegram being 11.40 a.m. Unfortunately, Lance-Bombardier Dillingham died on 30th August at 11 a.m.—forty minutes before the telegram notifying his serious condition had been despatched. The telegram notifying his death was despatched from Sidcup, Kent at 3.45 p.m., less than five hours after the time of death.

The father requested that his son's body should be brought home for burial and was informed by the authorities that this would cost £120 by sea or between £40 to £70 by air, plus an additional £12 10s. for the coffin. The body was brought back to England and arrangements were made for the funeral to take place on Monday, 5th September. No death certificate was sent with the coffin, and on arrival in England an inquest had to be held so that the father could identify his son, and a post-mortem was carried out. These proceedings resulted in the postponement of the funeral from the 5th to the 7th September.

The death certificate was not received from the Army authorities until fifteen days after the death of Lance-Bombardier Dillingham, and the inquest, which had been adjourned on 5th September, was resumed on 15th October. The Army certificate stated that the cause of death was a perforated duodenal ulcer causing peritonitis. At the resumed inquest this was characterised by the Deputy West Middlesex Coroner, Dr. Gorsky, as nonsense. The post-mortem examination in this country was carried out by the well-known pathologist Dr. William Dunne-Evans, who declared that there was no evidence whatsoever of a perforated duodenal ulcer and gave the cause of death as a fractured skull. Dr. Dunne-Evans stated in evidence that he was quite satisfied with his finding, and the Coroner advised the jury to accept this as the true cause of death. Those are the facts.

I now wish to address certain specific questions to my hon. Friend. First, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the accident was not caused by excessive speed? Mr. Dillingham, the father of the young man, has been in touch with a German citizen who claims to have witnessed the accident, and this person alleges that the truck was being driven very fast. I understand that this particular type of lorry in which the unfortunate young man was travelling is called a "Four-by-four" and is restricted to a maximum speed of 20 m.p.h. The fact that the vehicle skidded so violently, overturned and rolled down the bank, in my view, indicates excessive speed. I am, therefore, not satisfied with the inquiry and think that a further investigation is called for.

My second question is this, and it follows on naturally from my first point. The findings of the post-mortem examination in Germany make me even more suspicious. Like the coroner, I prefer to accept the pathologist's findings in this country. It seems very strange that the cause of death should be certified by the Army doctors as a perforated duodenal ulcer which normally one would assume to be death by natural causes and nothing to do with the accident. It looks to me—I hope I am not being unfair—as if this was a deliberate attempt to hide something and rule out any question of negligence or dangerous driving.

In my opinion, further inquiry should be made as to how such an extraordinary mistake in diagnosis could be made by a competent medical officer. Moreover, I would draw particular attention to the fact that no mention in the Army death certificate was made of a fractured skull. I feel sure that my hon. Friend must regard this as a grave matter which merits the fullest investigation.

I now turn to the question of the two telegrams to the parents. The accident occurred, as I have said, at 6.30 p.m. Yet the telegram notifying the parents that the young man had been placed on the danger list was not dispatched until 11.40 a.m. the next day—a delay of some seventeen hours. The telegram notifying death was dispatched about four and a half hours after the event. Why the discrepancy? Why could the parents not have been notified the same evening, namely, the evening of 29th August, that their son had been placed on the dangerously ill list? If that had been done, arrangements could have been made to take the parents over to Germany by air to see their son, if they so desired.

I must say that I think it absolutely shocking that the death certificate from the Army authorities did not accompany the body when sent to England and was not forthcoming until 15 days after the death. I have described what happened as a result of this negligence and the added distress caused to the young man's father and mother, and I hope that whoever was responsible has been severely dealt with.

The father, Mr. Dillingham, expressed surprise that the coffin was not draped with the Union Jack on arrival in this country. This may seem a small point, but I submit that it is nevertheless a worthy point. I appreciate that there might be difficulties in doing it, but, after all, this young man died in the service of his country just as if he had died on the field of battle, and I suggest that such a gesture would have been an honourable tribute in an honourable service.

Then there is the question of bringing the body to this country for interment. I understand that Germany is classified as a home station. Why, then, should the father have to pay such a large sum? I see no reason that the conditions which apply to those serving further afield should apply to Germany which, as I understand, is classified as a home station, and which we all know is not very far from England.

It may well be that if negligence on the part of the driver of the truck had been found, a claim for compensation by the young man's father might lie. I do not propose to pursue that aspect of the matter. I think I have said enough, however, to show that this case has been very badly handled by the Army authorities, resulting in a great deal of additional pain and sorrow to the late Lance-Bombardier Dillingham's parents.

No payment of money can compensate for their sad loss, but, as an act of grace and in view of the peculiar and, I think I am justified in saying, special circumstances, I feel that the Army authorities should not call upon the father to meet the expenses of repatriation. Apart from other considerations, I might point out that Mr. Dillingham senior gave loyal service in the Army during the last war. He is a lorry driver in civilian life earning £8 per week and he can ill afford this heavy expense. I bone my hon. Friend will be good enough to give special consideration to the plea which I make in that connection.

Finally, there is a broader and more general aspect of the case. As we all know, there is today a good deal of criticism about National Service. I should have thought that the Army authorities would take particular care to see that nothing is done which may give rise to further criticism. In the case of the late Lance-Bombardier R. A. Dillingham, I regret to say that in my opinion the authorities have failed to do so. I trust that my hon. Friend will agree and will be able to assure me this evening that he has so informed those in authority who were responsible.

10.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean)

I should like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) for the opportunity which he has given me of clearing up the various points which he has raised, and I hope that by the time I have finished I shall be able to convince him and the House that, with one notable exception, everything possible has been done by the Army authorities in this unfortunate case. My hon. Friend has recounted the circumstances in which the late Lance-Bombardier Dillingham lost his life. I should like to take this opportunity of conveying a message of sincere sympathy to his parents.

My hon. Friend has raised various points, and I should like to deal with them in order. First of all, there is the question of notification. My hon. Friend has asked why notification of the accident and of their son's injury was not conveyed to his parents sooner. The reason for that was that the message sent after the doctor had examined Lance-Bombardier Dillingham did not reach this country until late the same evening. By then, the General Post Office had ceased to deliver telegrams, and hon. Members will be aware that telegrams are not delivered between 10 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock in the morning.

The message was not passed on by telephone, because as a general practice we do not consider that it is advisable to notify casualties to the next-of-kin by telephone late at night. Our experience has shown that to do so causes distress, and it is, therefore, our policy not to do so. With certain exceptions, such as soldiers gravely ill in this country, our policy is to wait until the following morning and send a telegram.

In this case, my hon. Friend said that the telegram was not dispatched until 11.45 the next morning. My information—and I will look further into this point—is that it was dispatched at 10 o'clock on the morning of 30th August. That was the telegram informing Mr. Dillingham that his son had been placed on the "dangerously ill" list. A further signal was received from Germany early that afternoon reporting Dillingham's death, and a telegram to that effect was sent to Mr. Dillingham at 3.30 p.m., followed the same evening by the usual letter of confirmation.

In these circumstances, I think it will be seen that there was no error in this case. It is our practice, and hon. Members may agree or disagree. Our experience has shown that it is the best way not to deliver telegrams at night and not to make telephone calls late at night to the next-of-kin.

I next come to the question of the certificate of the cause of death, and here I would distinguish between the two documents—the ordinary death certificate and the certificate of the cause of death. Mr. Dillingham decided to have his son's body brought home at his own expense. B.A.O.R. Headquarters have issued a general routine order which lays down that in such cases the following documents should accompany the coffin; first, the certificate of the cause of death; secondly, personal particulars, such as the full name, place and date of birth, occupation, and place of death; and, finally, a Customs certificate.

In the case of Lance-Bombadier Dillingham, these instructions were not complied with, and the certificate of the cause of death was not included in the documents which accompanied the body. That was a serious mistake on the part of the unit concerned. I can assure my hon. Friend that its attention has been drawn to it. In my view there is no excuse for that mistake. I apologised to my hon. Friend as long ago as 24th November in my letter to him of that date, and I should like now to repeat my apology for that mistake. I am afraid that it is bound to have caused unnecessary distress to the bereaved parents. It also made necessary an inquest and delayed the burial considerably.

As to the ordinary death certificate, it is not the practice of the Army to issue a death certificate unless it is asked for. As soon as it was asked for, on 8th September, two copies were sent to Mr. Dillingham, for insurance purposes. There again there was no undue delay. We follow the practice which is usual in civil life; we do not send a death certificate unless one is applied for.

I should like to try to clear up the point about the cause of death. A post-mortem on Lance-Bombardier Dillingham was held on 31st August. It was held by an Army pathologist in the presence of the assistant director of pathology, who is the senior British pathologist in Germany. The cause of death was found to be traumatic cerebral haemorrhage—that means bleeding into the brain due to injury—aggravated by peritonitis due to perforation of a duodenal ulcer. The skull was not fractured. That was the finding of the pathologist who examined the body. I think it must be recognised that that was a serious medical opinion—I have quoted the authority—of an Army pathologist supported by the assistant director of pathology. That opinion differs from the opinon given by doctors in this country.

The question of whether or not the skull was fractured is one which in this conflict of evidence I am certainly not competent to decide, but my advice from my medical advisers is that the skull was not fractured. As to the perforation of the duodenum, I understand that the coroner's pathologist said that he could find no evidence of that, but I should point out that part of the organs concerned had been removed for further examination in Germany and, therefore, were not available at the second post-mortem.

The important thing to remember is that everybody must be agreed that this soldier's death was due to injuries received in the motor accident. It has certainly never been suggested by the Army medical authorities, and I cannot believe it would be suggested by the civil authorities, that it was due to anything else.

My hon. Friend has raised the question of repatriation of bodies. As there are a lot of other points to be discussed and there is not much time left to discuss them, I will just say that our decision not to repatriate the bodies of soldiers who lose their lives abroad is a policy of long standing. It rests on the tradition that soldiers who die overseas in the service of their country should be buried by their comrades near the place of death. They are given dignified and impressive funerals and their graves are carefully tended in perpetuity.

If my hon. Friend would like to pursue this matter in greater detail, I would refer him to the Adjournment debate in this House on 5th April last year, when we went into the matter in some detail. I am convinced that that is the right policy. We do at the same time make arrangements for parents or relatives who wish to repatriate the bodies of soldiers, but in those cases we do not feel that the expense should be borne by the taxpayer. Therefore, it is done as a private arrangement, and we do anything we can to help.

My hon. Friend suggested that Germany is regarded as a home station and should not, therefore, for this purpose be treated as an overseas station; but the fact remains that Germany is regarded as an overseas posting for all purposes except one. The one exception is that, for Regular soldiers, service in Germany does not count towards an overseas tour. The principal reason for this is to give soldiers serving there the great benefit of being able to take their leave in the United Kingdom and to be brought home for that purpose without charge. For all other purposes, however, Germany is regarded as an overseas posting. Therefore, we could not without unfairness make an exception for soldiers in Germany and refuse the same benefits to soldiers who die, for instance, in Malta or Gibraltar, or other foreign stations not so much further away.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Union Jack. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Union Jack was removed from the coffin before it was placed in the aeroplane. The reason was that it was felt that the parents should be spared the trouble of packing it up and sending it back again.

As to the speed at which the truck was driven, I have myself looked at the proceedings at the court of inquiry. There was no conflict of evidence on this point. The driver, the surviving passengers, the expert witnesses and, finally, the German civilian, who, I am informed, was the only other person present, all agreed that there was no excessive speed. It is generally agreed that the speed was between 20 and 25 miles an hour. The accident took place because the road was wet. It was a straightforward case of a skid on a wet road.

My hon. Friend has raised the question of compensation. The matter has already been referred to the Claims Commission, which, I understand, has replied to Mr. Dillingham saying that no claim is admissible; but the Commission has added that as the soldier's death was attributable to service for the purpose of the Royal Warrant relating to the disablement or death of soldiers, it is open to Mr. Dillingham to approach the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for advice as to the possibility of his entitlement to a pension.

I should like to conclude by saying once again how much I regret the very unfortunate error that occurred in the matter of the certificate of the cause of death.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.