HC Deb 02 December 1960 vol 631 cc823-30

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

4.0 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson (Carlisle)

I am glad to have the opportunity of raising the question of the death of Guardsman Charles James Nugent, the son of one of my constituents, while a Regular soldier on active service. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for any inconvenience I may have caused him by him having to be here this afternoon.

This is, unfortunately, one of the tragic cases which occur from time to time with young men on service, in this case as a Regular soldier, and which cause immense distress to the parents. Not only are they very tragic in themselves, but one can imagine the immense distress caused to parents who lose a son. In circumstances such as these I do not think that my hon. Friend's Department has been fortunate in the way in which it has dealt with cases of this nature.

The event with which I am concerned happened eighteen months ago, on 18th March, 1959. I think that an explanation is owed to my constituent for the time which it has taken, for very valid reasons, to bring the question of their son's death to the Floor of the House. My constituent first came to see me a month after his son's death and I wrote to the Minister setting out the facts of the case. I received a reply from the Minister which I forwarded to my constituent and then waited for his comments. He thought the matter over and made approaches of his own which were unsuccessful. He approached me again towards the end of last year, and I tabled a Qusetion to the Minister at the beginning of March this year. I did not find the Answer to that Question satisfactory, and I applied for an Adjournment debate which had to take its place in the Ballot and has only just come before the House.

First, I should give a short description of how the incident happened. It happened during rifle practice of the Scots Guards, at Pirbright Camp. I understand that the normal thing is for the men to be arranged in a semi-circle. Perhaps on this occasion it was more of a semi-circle than usual, because Guardsman Nugent and another man, whom I shall refrain from naming, were facing each other.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden)

My hon. Friend has said that this was rifle practice, which, in the Army's terminology, implies a rather different thing from what was, in fact, happening. Technically, I think that we should call it weapon training. The words "rifle practice" suggest live shooting.

Dr. Johnson

I thank my hon. Friend for his correction. As he rightly says, the practice was not being carried on with live rounds. Dummy ammunition was being used.

From the account given at the coroner's inquest, it would seem that the soldier opposite to Guardsman Nugent lost one of his rounds and that he or somebody else—the account is vague—found another round, which he did not distinguish from the rounds he was using. The next thing that was known was that there was a louder bang than usual. The soldier who was opposite, who fired it, heeled over and had a severe crack under the jaw from a kickback which he was not expecting. Guardsman Nugent was found severely injured and was taken to hospital, where he died shortly afterwards. I believe this to be a correct resumé of the incident.

These very sad incidents inevitably occur from time to time in Service training, but it is the course of subsequent events which has given my constituent genuine grievances. His first grievance is that he received no notification of the coroner's inquest. He only heard about the inquest on his son, who had been killed in these sad circumstances, when, owing to the non-attendance of certain witnesses, it was postponed and he saw the announcement in the paper. He then took the initiative and made inquiries about when the inquest would be resumed. Only in this way was he able to verify the date of the inquest and be present.

As is customary, the coroner's verdict was brief: accidental death due to shooting. I understand, however, that the coroner made a recommendation that further inquiries should be made by the military authorities about exactly how the incident happened and how a young man could lose his life in circumstances of this nature. Inquiries were made and there has been a report.

My constituent's second grievance is that he has been told nothing whatever about the results of the inquiry, what might have been discovered, whether there was any culpability on the part of the non-commissioned officer in charge of the squad at the time, or culpability elsewhere concerning the marking of the bullets so that they should not have been mixed up in this extraordinary fashion. We do not say that those things have come out at the inquiry, but it is possible that they might have done. It is on such matters that my constituent—I completely support him on this—feels entitled to further information. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to say a word or two on this score.

These are not ordinary circumstances and it is not a minor incident. It is a matter of grave sorrow to parents. It is a matter of confidence in the Army authorities by parents who, even when boys enlist voluntarily, feel that they are handing over the welfare of their sons.

I think that if a résumé could be given to my constituent he would appreciate it very much indeed. I can see no valid reason why it should not. I know that there is privilege, and all that sort of thing, but, none the less, there are natural rights and the sorrows of parents, including the right to a certain amount of information. He would not want anything at all revealed which might be damaging secrets, but he does want to feel that the authorities have investigated this case thoroughly and that they have, perhaps, found a reason how his son's life was lost in this way, and, above all, that they are taking precautions to ensure that this type of accident does not happen again.

I have covered briefly the main facts of this case, but there is just one further grievance which my constituent feels he had when he removed his son's body back to Carlisle for burial there in suitable circumstances. There is the question of the gravestone. It is not a question comparable with what I have said before, but he does feel that the authorities have not given him generous treatment over the question of the cost of his son's gravestone. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say a word about this, too, but principally, however, I want to hear about the other two points about the inquest, about why my constituent was not informed about the date of the inquest, and, secondly, the question: can he not be given more particulars about the inquiry?

4.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) for giving me notice of the points which he wanted me to cover. Perhaps I could begin by saying that what I should like to be able to assure the hon. Member and his constituents about is that in these sad cases the attitude of the Army is a sensible and a human one and that our actions in this particular case bear this out.

Accidents, I am afraid, will happen with us as in civilian life. When they do we try to behave sensibly about them, and the rules which we have for the guidance of those concerned are only those which it is necessary to have in any large organisation. They are aimed first at sparing the relatives all possible distress, and in this I include seeing that they have for their peace of mind the fullest possible knowledge of the circumstances of the accident. Secondly, they are aimed at seeing that the wishes of the deceased's family about the arrangements for burial are respected and met so far as is reasonably practicable and at seeing that the Army expresses a proper feeling of respect at the death of a serving soldier. Finally, we must see—and this is the thing invariably uppermost in the minds of the relatives of the deceased as well as in our own—that such a thing should never in the same circumstances happen again.

Guardsman Nugent, as my hon. Friend has described, died in the Cambridge Military Hospital on 18th March, 1959. His father, as next of kin, was informed on that day by telephone from the Cambridge Military Hospital. The inquest was on 20th March at Aldershot, and it was adjourned until 8th April.

On the face of it, it does look bad when the hon. Member says that the parents were able to attend the inquest only because they happened to see a Press cutting which gave them the date, but there has been a misunderstanding here about what actually happened. I am advised that what normally happens in these cases is that a coroner's court is convened at once for the formal purpose of identification and to dispose of other matters which have to be done before there can be a funeral. Then there is an adjournment, and the inquest proper into the causes and circumstances of the death is taken later on. I ought to say at this point that the coroner's court is essentially a civil function. This means that the police undertake some of the arrangements though they do ask us—that is, the Army authorities—sometimes to see to the notification of the relatives, in which case we do so, but normally it is they who notify the next-of-kin.

In this case the local police did not notify Mr. Nugent of the first formal inquest on 20th March. They would have known that evidence of identification only would be taken on that date and they wished to spare the relatives as much distress and inconvenience as possible. They notified Mr. Nugent on 21st March that the adjourned inquest would be held on 8th April. Therefore, there was no question, I am glad to say, of the parents not being able to be present at what was to them the material part of the proceedings before the coroner. I hope that what I have said will clear up the misunderstanding about Guardsman Nugent's parents having heard of the inquest only through what they had seen in the paper.

At the inquest, the coroner commented on the similarity between one type of drill round and live ammunition. Drill or dummy rounds have, of course, to be used in weapon training. To provide against the danger of practice rounds and live rounds getting mixed up, there are strict rules about the issue and control of live ammunition. There is a difference not only in the appearance but in the feel of drill and live rounds and this was brought out in evidence at the inquest. There was, however, still in existence a type of drill round which, because it was all metal, had some similarity to the live round. To guard against the possibility of future accidents of this kind, this type of dummy ammunition has been or is in the course of being withdrawn.

As to the arrangements which were made for Guardsman Nugent's funeral, here we come back to what I said about big organisations needing to have rules. The present arrangements are that when a soldier dies he is buried in a military cemetery or plot near the place where he died. He is buried with military honours, and in the United Kingdom two relatives are invited to attend the funeral. A headstone is provided and the grave is maintained in perpetuity. All the expenses of this are met from public funds.

But the next-of-kin may well wish to have a private funeral. We then explain to them that they will be responsible for all expenditure, including the cost of a headstone. But where the death has occurred in the United Kingdom the body is transported to a given address at public expense, and in all cases a grant of £5 or £10 is made according to whether or not a military coffin is supplied. We explained all this to Mr. Nugent at the time and I believe that he fully understood the position.

We have to make the rules on the basis of the normal case, that is, on the basis of a military funeral. Where relatives prefer to have a private funeral we have to have a rule too, and the cost of the two to public funds has to be in proportion. That is the rule and it was followed in this case, though I am glad to say that, as things turned out, that was not altogether the end of the matter, since I understand that Guardsman Nugent's regiment was glad to be able to help his father over the financial arrangements for the funeral.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle did not mention today the case of Trooper Carter but it was raised in previous correspondence and perhaps I may briefly refer to it. Here again there was a complaint that the next-of-kin received no notice of the civil proceedings. Once more, I must emphasise that it is civil proceedings which are in question, and it is for the civil authorities to notify those concerned. In this case the soldier was abroad and the civil authorities might well have asked us to pass on the information to the relatives.

In considering whether or not we should do so we should have had regard to whether there would have been time for the relatives to attend or to be represented at the proceedings and also whether, if they had been able to get there in time, they would have been able to take any useful part from their point of view in what went on. We did not notify Trooper Carter's father partly because there would not have been time for him to get out to Kenya so as to be there, and partly because, as the object of the civil proceedings was to determine whether there had been criminal negligence on the part of the driver whose vehicle struck Trooper Carter, his father would have had no opportunity to take any part.

I think that what we did in this case was right in the circumstances, but in view of what my hon. Friend has said—this applies to the previous case as well—I will see whether in future cases we ought, as soon as we are told the date of the legal proceedings, ourselves to notify relatives of the date. It will be for them to decide whether they wish to attend or to be represented. I must here point out that we cannot in any circumstances undertake to pay or to make arrangements for parents to be present at legal proceedings.

I now come to my final point in reply to my hon. Friend. In cases like this there is normally a military inquiry by the Army, independent of the civil proceedings under the coroner. This is a purely domestic investigation, and it is not open to the public, and, therefore, relatives of deceased soldiers, unless they are required to give evidence, are not invited to attend.

Reports of the proceedings of military inquiries cannot be made available to the members of the public. There is nothing sinister about this, and we do not have these rules in order to hush up details or to prevent next-of-kin knowing anything which might contribute to their peace of mind. It is simply that when an accident has happened we have to decide—this is what happened here—what to do to ensure that a similar accident will not happen again. I must ask my hon. Friend to accept that we need to have our own domestic piece of machinery for ensuring that we have the proper evidence on which to base action for preventing similar unfortunate occurrences in the future, and its proceedings cannot be publicly disclosed.

Summing up, following upon the representations made by my hon. Friend, I have undertaken that we will have another look at the machinery for notifying next-of-kin of the date of legal proceedings in these cases to see whether there are any improvements which we can make. I assure my hon. Friend that I have made a careful study of this question, and I hope that he will be satisfied with what I have said.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock.