HC Deb 10 February 1966 vol 724 cc772-80

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

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford)

May I draw the attention of the House to the tragic case of Private David Batchelor, who lived in Watford, my constituency. David Batchelor was 17 years old and was longing to go into the Army, His parents reluctantly agreed, and his first assignment was to Aden. He had not been there long when he was sitting in a tent on a bed with a non-commissioned officer. That non-commissioned officer had a sub-machine gun in his hand, and it was his duty before coming into the tent to see that the sub-machine gun was not loaded. He negligently did not attend to this, and the sub-machine gun was loaded. While sitting with it in his hands on the bed with Private David Batchelor, he accidentally discharged its contents into Private Batchelor's body. A bullet entered his heart and Private Batchelor died almost immediately. It was not disputed that he died because of the negligence of this N.C.O.

A letter dated 26th October, 1965, from the Ministry of Defence to the unfortunate parents of the boy stated: You will already know from the commanding officer's letter dated 29th August of the great care that is taken to prevent accidents of his kind, but as a result of this tragedy safety precautions in the handling of weapons are being given even more emphasis in daily training. What a comfort to the parents of this boy to know that he was killed and that as a result of his death the Army will exercise more care in future! Why have we the traditional rôle of refusing to shut the stable door until the horse has bolted?

But that was not the end of the story. Private Batchelor's broken-hearted parents asked that the body should be sent home to England for burial. The Army would not pay for the sending back of the body and, to add insult to injury, Private David Batchelor's parents had to pay the sum of £393 to bring the body of their boy home. If Private Batchelor had been on leave, the Army would have paid. If he had wanted to get married, the Army would have paid for his fiancée to fly out to Aden to marry him. This happened recently in the case of a man who married in Singapore; his fiancée was flown out.

It is known—a Question was asked on 26th January—that a private car of an air vice-marshal was brought home to England from Cyprus by a Royal Air Force Hastings transport aeroplane free of charge".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 207.] Might I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the space occupied by a car could be occupied by twelve coffins, and not just one coffin.

Of course, the Army is very lucky in certain respects. Today, if Smith is injured or killed by the negligence of Jones when they both work in the same company and it is during the course of their employment that Smith is killed, the parents can sue the employer of Smith and Jones and recover damages because Jones did it in the course of his employment. In 1947, that was applied to the Crown, and one can now sue the Crown if one is run over by a jeep driven by an Army officer, but the Act specifically exempts—and I am referring now to Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947—a member of the Armed Forces while on duty as such. The curious result therefore obtains that if I am run over by an Army jeep driven by a colonel, I can claim damages from the Crown, but if I happen to be a soldier on duty when that Army jeep runs me down, I have no redress at all.

The Armed Forces are therefore very lucky in that they can get out of this liability in tort for damages for the death of someone who is serving. Not only, however, do they get out of that liability, but they are now wriggling out of what is a moral responsibility, whereas they should be on their knees to these broken-hearted parents to try to ease and comfort them and to heal their wounds, instead of digging the knife even more deeply into those afflicted, as they are doing.

My correspondence with my hon. Friend, who was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army and who is now Minister of Defence for the Army, resulted in a letter to me written on 13th December in which he says Our policy about this has been modified since the war, but it stems from the tradition that soldiers dying on service in foreign countries are buried there by their comrades. In 1963 we changed the rule to allow repatriation from Germany, which is regarded by the Army as a home station, but extension of this to countries further away would present formidable problems connected with climatic conditions, local health regulations and transport difficulties. Climatic condition, local health regulations and transport difficulties did not prevent this body from being put in a coffin and brought home to England, but the Army would not pay.

I realise that my hon. Friend, who is now Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army and who is waiting to reply, will quote me masses of regulations which provide that there will be no responsibility for bringing home a body of a soldier dying overseas. But those regulations could be altered. It was not always that Smith could claim damages against Jones for negligence if they were both in the same employment. Until fairly recently he could not do so, because of the doctrine of common employment. Smith or Smith's parents could not claim damages against the company for Jones's negligence. The doctrine of common employment was called by one judge the Devil's foster child and at a fairly recent date it was altered to permit Smith or Smith's parents to bring an action against the company. Similarly, regulations of the Armed Forces which bear unjustly on those affected, could also be changed.

I am asking that those regulations, if they exist, should be changed. It is about time that the Army faced up to what is a moral responsibility. I am not asking that they should be changed for every soldier dying on active service. I believe that as it happens the Americans bring home the body of every soldier who dies on active service if they can and that they do not charge the parents, but we do not have the money which the Americans have to do so. I appreciate, too, that if a soldier goes on a mission to Aden, say, and contracts cholera or dies as the result of a sniper's bullet, those are risks which unfortunately a soldier has to take all too often.

What I am asking is that where a death occurs as a result of the negligence of the Ministry of Defence—because here it was clearly as a result of negligence of someone who is employed by the Ministry of Defence, which is therefore morally responsible for this man's death—then these regulations should be altered so that the afflicted parents of the dead soldier may have his body brought back without being charged for it. These cases do not occur every day. They are very few and far between. The Ministry could afford to bring these bodies back. Let us put a little humanity and compassion into our regulations and rules if we are not to be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves in the future.

11.2 p.m.

The Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

Before I go into the details of this case and answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), I would ask him to convey to the parents of Private Batchelor my deep sympathy with them in this very tragic bereavement. To the bitterness of losing a young son is added the knowledge that his death was due to an accident and to negligence rather than to the expected hazards which surround our soldiers on operational duty in the Arabian peninsula.

My hon. Friend pointed out that Private Batchelor was still under the age of 18 when he was killed. I recognise that this adds to the tragedy of his death. The rule is that soldiers may be sent to Germany from the age of 17¼ and to other countries overseas from 17½. This age of 17½ was adopted in March, 1963. It is subject to the safeguard that initial training has to be completed before posting, and all military training has to be completed before soldiers can be employed on operations. But the change of age is because of the growing responsibility and independence of young people which one has noted in recent years.

One point which was not mentioned tonight has arisen in my investigation and I feel that I ought to mention it. In some of the earlier correspondence on this matter it seemed that the parents felt strongly that a letter which they had written to the Secretary of State was not answered at that time. In fact it was answered, and I should like to correct the misapprehension. Any letter which reaches the Department and is addressed to the political head of the Department is handed to that part of the Department where there are professionals with knowledge of the subject. They investigate it. An answer was made. I am most anxious that the parents should not think that any slight was involved.

I turn to the facts of the matter. Private Batchelor was a Regular soldier serving in Aden with the Royal Sussex Regiment. At the time of the accident he was with a detachment in a place called Mukieras in the Eastern Aden Protectorate. On the afternoon of 12th August last year, preparations were being made for a patrol to be sent out, and one of the non-commissioned officers detailed for this duty was a friend of Private Batchelor's and shared a tent with him and some other soldiers.

This lance-corporal was instructed to carry a sub-machine gun on the patrol instead of his own rifle, and he arranged to take over the weapon from another n.c.o. in the company. The submachine gun was given to him fully loaded and with a magazine clipped on to it. He took the gun back to his tent to examine it in preparation for the patrol, and while he overhauled it he sat talking to Private Batchelor who was the only other occupant of the tent at that time. He found some stiffness in the magazine and dismantled part of the gun to repair it. While he was reassembling the working parts of the machine gun, still talking to Private Batchelor, he let the working parts slide forward, and three rounds were fired. Private Batchelor, who was sitting on a bed facing him, was struck by two of the bullets, one of which struck his heart, and he died shortly afterwards, in spite of very prompt medical attention.

All hon. Members who have served in the Armed Forces will realise that not only was was there negligence in the handling of the machine-gun but it should never have been handed over fully loaded from one soldier to another. In this case it had been quite properly loaded for an earlier spell of duty, but the magazine and ammunition should have been removed by the n.c.o. who had been using it before he transferred the weapon from his own charge. We have found that both the junior n.c.o.s concerned were thoroughly familiar with this type of gun and had been fully trained in, and fully understood, the normal and reasonable precautions to be taken in handling firearms. Naturally there has been a very careful inquiry into the training given to members of this detachment in weapon handling. I have also seen the battalion orders published in this respect by the commanding officer.

These orders were most meticulous, even stating the part of the camp where weapons were to be loaded when armed parties were about to leave the camp. Further, inquiries showed that there were repeated periods of training in handling, even to the extent of 10 minutes being devoted to this by every patrol before it set out. This is what one should expect in an infantry battalion in operational conditions. I am satisfied there was no lack of formal training, instruction or supervision. Yet in spite of all this there was this tragic accident.

My hon. Friend has mentioned the question of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. I do not wish to develop this, but I will say that the Crown Proceedings Act was passed to deal with the problem of the Armed Forces. It would be impossible for the Armed Forces to proceed as if they were employed under the same conditions as persons employed with a private company. No one under this Act who is on duty as a member of the Forces is subject to liability in tort for the death of another person also on duty, nor is the Crown liable.

I now turn to my hon. Friend's main point—why Private Batchelor's body was not brought home at public expense for burial in this country. When the telegram with the news of the soldier's death reached the family, his brother telephoned the casualty department of the Ministry to ask about the funeral arrangements, and the possibility of having the body brought home. The rules, about which I will talk in a moment, were carefully explained to him and Mr. Batchelor was advised to seek an estimate of cost from an undertaker before making a decision. The family decided to go ahead with the repatriation and when this decision was given to my Department, we did what we could to help, principally through the administrative arrangements, which were looked after by the Army authorities in Aden. The men of the Battalion in Aden decided to help towards the cost and a donation of £200 was raised.

My hon. Friend said that there should be no need for donations or private arrangements since, in his contention, it should be the responsibility of the Services to bring back to this country the bodies of its members who have died while serving abroad.

Mr. Raphael Tuck

No, not to members of the Forces who die while on service abroad, but to those who die due to the negligence of serving members of the Forces, and therefore due to the negligence of the Army and the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Rees

I thought that I had covered this point when I dealt with the Crown Proceedings Act. My hon. Friend knows that the whole subject is under review, as has been said in reply to recent Questions, and my right hon. Friend expects to make a statement about this quite shortly. That remark means no more than it says. I do not wish to leave the impression that the policy will be changed, but we are going into the whole matter very thoroughly to see whether new rules would be feasible and justifiable. Because of the review there is not a great deal that I can say now.

My hon. Friend will recall that there was an Adjournment debate on 15th November, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy explained the kind of considerations which were being covered in our examination. Briefly, the situation on the general case of burials abroad is that in all the long history of campaigns abroad, soldiers who died were buried there by their comrades. After a time, cemeteries were established, and they are looked after nowadays by the War Graves Commission.

In place of the tradition of burial with military honours in a grave to be tended by the Commission as a public trust, we are asked—and I recognise the growing interest in the House—to institute, as a regular and normal practice, a system of repatriation of Service dead if families so desire.

There was a move in that direction in 1963, when the Government of the day agreed that repatriation should be allowed from North-West Europe. Practical difficulties were not serious, and the change was logical, in that Germany had been regarded by the Army as a home station for purposes of home and overseas postings for some time. But, in announcing the change to the House, the Government said that there would be acute practical difficulties if an attempt were made to apply those measures world wide. That was a very fair warning, as our study has already confirmed.

I need not describe again what is needed to overcome health and quarantine regulations, to provide an embalming service in some cases and to contrive some reliable arrangements for transport. I would point out that the case is sub judice, but there is all the difference in the world between n.c.o.s and men in all these Services being allowed to bring their cars and their families home. After all, the car can wait at the airport for a long time, for weeks if necessary, whereas a dead body cannot. One would need to have a far more reliable transport service in that case.

This was all dealt with in detail by my hon. Friend on 15th November. But I would remind the House that in such a difficult and emotional subject, where contact has to be made with families suffering shock and grief, any new procedures would have to be made straightforward and practical. It is not easy when our forces are so scattered.

There is the difficulty that any new rule has to be seen to be fair. It would be unfortunate if, in the case of one death, the body could be brought home and then, in another case involving almost the same sort of accident or whatever it might be, the body could not be brought home. It is such an emotional subject that we must get the rule absolutely right.

The question of a colonial police officer was raised, who would not have been a servant of Her Majesty's Government. There was a question of a fiancée. In many cases, a fiancée can go out, and in any case a married woman would be able to go out in certain circumstances.

In spite of our diminishing overseas commitments there are still large numbers of Servicemen and their families abroad, some in large garrisons, but many in small numbers and in remote places. The problem is multiplied greatly if one considers the other public servants on civilian duty overseas for the Government. All those cases have to be taken into consideration, which is why our survey is not complete and why I am at pains to emphasise that no promise can be made about changes. My right hon. Friend will make his conclusions known as soon as possible.

To return to the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, I take the point that he is asking for just this classification to be brought home because of the unfortunate circumstances of the death. But I would point out that many of the problems which I have already mentioned arise in these circumstances as well and, again, there cannot be one policy for one type of accident and a different one for another.

I emphasise again the sympathy felt for the parents in these very tragic circumstances. The Army Department is not insensitive to the real feelings of relatives in these and other similar cases. It is very difficult sometimes. There are rules which have to be carried out, and it might be felt that this is an insensitive bureaucracy, but that is not the case. The rules are there, and we must have regard to them. A great deal of time and thought is given to every individual case, and I can assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of time and thought is being given to the existing regulations which the Department has to administer. That is what we are looking at now, and my right hon. Friend will be making an announcement very shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Eleven o'clock.