§ 25. Mr. Shortasked the Secretary of State for War why Trooper Walton of Bovington Camp was placed under close arrest on 11th May; why the commanding officer did not communicate with Bensham General Hospital regarding the serious illness of his mother; and why no action was taken to grant compassionate leave until the intervention of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.
§ Mr. RamsdenTrooper Walton was placed under close arrest because he had threatened his commanding officer that if he was not granted leave he would go absent. The commanding officer had been in close touch with the family doctor about the health of the soldier's mother. As soon as a diagnosis of serious illness was made, the hospital informed the unit, and it was as a result of their subsequent discussions, and not, with respect, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, that compassionate leave was granted to the soldier.
§ Mr. ShortWhile I am delighted that the outcome is that this young man has 573 been posted near to the hospital where his mother is a patient, may I ask whether it is not clear to the Minister that nothing happened until I intervened? Will the Minister agree that if a recruit, who has applied for compassionate leave because of the very severe illness of his mother, is being questioned by his commanding officer, and the latter says to him, "What will you do if I do not grant leave?", the commanding officer is really provoking him to say something for which he could be put under close arrest? Is that not exactly what happened in this case? Secondly, will the Minister say why this commanding officer did not follow the universal rule when he heard that this woman had gone into hospital of telephoning the hospital or the police to get to know the facts? He did not do that. Why not? Is it mot time that comparatively junior officers had these powers of arbitrary arrest withdrawn from them?
§ Mr. RamsdenNo, the hon. Gentleman really has got the background wrong. The background to the young man being put under close arrest is that the unit had been in close touch with him and with the family doctor about his mother's illness and his wife's illness, and nothing had transpired to show that either of these were serious. He had been generously treated in the matter of leave. Events took quite a different turn when we heard from the hospital that there had been a much graver diagnosis of his mother's illness. It was for this reason that he was, quite rightly, granted leave.
§ Mr. ShortIs not the Minister aware that when he says that events took a turn for the worse, what really occurred was that this young man's sister telephoned to the unit to say that her mother had been taken into hospital and that the commanding officer then told her to get a medical certificate, when leave would then be considered? Should not the commanding officer then have telephoned to the hospital? Why did he not do that?
§ Mr. RamsdenNo, Sir. I do not accept that the commanding officer did anything wrong. It is true that he heard from the sister, but he had no reason to suppose that this was not a further report about the conditions of illness of 574 which he was perfectly well aware already. He was quite right to ask for confirmation. It was while this was being sought that the hospital itself telephoned to the unit. Confirmation was received by that call, and leave was given at once.