HC Deb 16 February 1966 vol 724 cc1494-504

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

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell (Birkenhead)

I wish to raise the case of Junior Corporal Barry Morgan, who was drowned in the Thames on 18th June, 1964, at the age of 18, in the course of an Army canoeing exercise. At the inquest a verdict of accidental death was recorded. This verdict was entirely proper and on the evidence no other verdict could have been recorded. However, serious charges have been made which were not within the province of the inquest to decide. There has been no inquiry into these charges, and an inquiry has been refused by the Army authorities.

These charges are, first, that there was inadequate supervision on and before the day of the accident, and secondly, that Barry Morgan was improperly coerced into remaining a member of the canoe club when, as is not denied, he wished to resign from it. The refusal of an inquiry into these charges is, in my view, a serious denial of justice. Was there proper supervision? Should Barry Morgan have been permitted to take part in the exercise on that day in the conditions then prevailing—it was raining hard—and in a canoe which, on some evidence, would have required a very experienced canoeist to control it? According to the officer in charge, Lieut. Brown, giving evidence at the inquest, Morgan had been a member of the canoe club at least since the previous summer, in other words for at least nine months.

This figure was confirmed to me in a letter of 31st May, 1965, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), when Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Army. Corporal Hyland, a friend of Barry Morgan, who claims to have been responsible for getting Morgan to join the canoe club, has said in a signed statement that Morgan had only been a member for about two months. What are the facts? Did Morgan have enough experience or did he not? I have given my hon. Friend notice that I would like an answer to that question. Was Barry Morgan a sufficiently good swimmer? He only had a 25-yard certificate, and Hyland said that he was a weak swimmer, who was inclined to panic when tipped into the water. Members of the canoe club were required to be able to swim 50 yards in light clothing.

The only evidence that he was a sufficiently good swimmer is that of Lieut. Brown, the quality of whose supervision is under question here. Learned counsel, whose advice was sought as to whether Morgan's parents could bring an action against Lieut. Brown or the Army authorities, commented: I am not prepared to accept the evidence of Lieut. Brown given at the inquest…that Barry was a 'very good swimmer,' and so far as canoeing was concerned, 'one of the more experienced'. This was on the basis of reading the evidence in the files, which I understand my hon. Friend has seen. Even more important was whether Barry was improperly coerced into remaining a member of the canoe club when, as is accepted on all sides, he wished to resign, following an incident in which his canoe capsized. In his signed statement, Hyland says that in the presence of other men, including a captain, Lieut. Brown accused Morgan of being "chicken" and "yellow" because he wished to resign. Hyland also says that Morgan told him on the day of his death, in the presence of another N.C.O., that he had tried to get out of the canoe exercise and that Lieut. Brown had threatened to put him on a charge. It is accepted by the Army authorities that Morgan was entitled to resign if he so wished. They do not deny that he wished to resign. It is alleged that he was improperly coerced into not resigning.

These are serious charges, and Morgan's parents wished to bring a civil action again, against Lieut. Brown, and/or, the Army authorities, for breach of duty but they were prevented from doing so by the issue of a certificate by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance saying that the death was due to service for pension purposes. This has stopped any proceedings. Notwithstanding, the questions remain. There should be an enquiry, either in public or in the Army, to determine the answer to these accusations. There has been no such inquiry. All there has been is an inquiry into what additional safeguards, if any, should be instituted in the future. I have not been permitted to see the report of that inquiry. As learned counsel put it in his advice given on 13th November, 1964: In my opinion, there is upon the information available at present a prima facie case against Lieut Brown. He knew that Barry wished to resign from the club, yet there is evidence that he taunted him for his cowardice and in the end, in effect, if not in law, ordered him on to the river in a difficult canoe in bad conditions. I consider that this unhappy case merits, however, more inquiry from the evidential point of view. There has been no such inquiry.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State tells me that the inquest constituted such an inquiry. He states that as questions embodying these accusations were put to Lieut. Brown at the inquest, and the accusations were denied by him and were not pursued by the Morgan family's legal representatives or by the coroner, no further inquiry is necessary. The Government take their stand on the inquest.

But these charges were not investigated at the inquest. The inquest took place on 23rd June, five days after the accident. By that time, no proper investigation had been made into Hyland's accusations. Indeed, although he had mentioned his views to Morgan's father, he had not yet been seen by the Morgan family solicitors, nor had he made any statement. Subsequently to the inquest he made a signed statement. The truth or falsehood of the charges which he makes in that signed statement has never been investigated by the Army authorities. '

Not only was the inquest not used; it could not have been used as an investigation of this sort of accusation. I have been advised by the Morgan family solicitors that if an attempt had been made at the inquest to substantiate the accusations by calling Hyland and the other relevant witnesses, this would almost certainly not have been permitted by the coroner. An inquest is an inquiry into the cause of death, not into blame. In short, the inquest could not have been used as an inquiry into these facts. This advice has since been confirmed to be by a barrister.

The solicitors representing the Morgan family at the inquest certainly did not abandon their line of questioning because they were satisfied with Lieutenant Brown's answers. On the contrary, they state in a letter of 24th June, 1964: Our impression was that this line of questioning was disturbing to this witness and it may well be that there is greater truth in the allegation than he was prepared to admit. However, let us suppose for a moment that contrary to the legal advice which I have received, the inquest could have been used for an inquiry into these charges. In fact, it was not so used. Hyland and the other possible witnesses were not called. Surely, in the interest of the Army, an inquiry should be held. The truth or falsehood of these charges was never tested at the inquest. Why have the Army authorities not investigated these charges?

In a letter of 5th December, 1965, I asked my hon. Friend the Undersecretary for the following categorical assurances. First, that there had been an inquiry into Hyland's allegations at which Hyland's gave evidence and that the inquiry was satisfied that these allegations were untrue. Secondly, that the various people who were in the van when, according to Hyland, Lieutenant Brown used the words "chicken" and "yellow" in relation to Barry Morgan were interviewed at the inquiry and denied that such words were used.

My hon. Friend replied on 25th January, 1966: I am unable to give such assurance since the allegations to which you refer were, in fact, considered by the coroner at the inquest. That reply is totally unsatisfactory. The coroner did not consider the allegations. To have done so would have been outside his terms of reference. Neither did he hear the witness upon whose allegations the charges were based or hear the other witnesses who could have confirmed or denied Hyland's charges.

The position, therefore, is that there has been an accident resulting in death. Serious charges stood upon the record and have not been investigated. It is alleged that there were improper coercion and inadequate supervision. There is evidence easily available which could be used to test these serious allegations. Or does my hon. Friend not consider these allegations serious? No question of security is involved, yet the Undersecretary of State puts me off with the suggestion that an inquest held five days after the accident, in which these charges were not investigated, and in which the evidence, even if available so soon after the accident, would almost certainly have been inadmissible, is an adequate inquiry into these charges.

I have made clear from the start of the long correspondence in which I have been engaged with two Under-Secretaries of State that I do not claim to know the truth of the charges. They may be true, but they may be false. What is certainly true is that they should be properly inquired into. The nature of these charges has been known to my hon. Friends for at least a year. I ask for an inquiry both as a matter of justice, and for the reputation of the Army, which deserves a better defence than my hon. Friends have yet provided.

1.5 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

In bringing this issue before the House this evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is seeking to reopen inquiries into a fatal accident which happened a year and eight months ago. I do not suppose that this long interval has done much to lessen the grief of the parents of Junior Corporal Barry Morgan. If I thought that anything could be done to help, or to clear up genuinely unsatisfactory features of this case, I should of course, be very ready to do so, but I have as yet no reason to think that the inquiries which my hon. Friend is asking me to pursue could serve any such purpose. My predecessor and I have explained to him the reasons why we hold this view, and there has been a considerable correspondence. I must now for the record repeat those explanations to the House.

My hon. Friend has told how Corporal Morgan was drowned in the Thames near Shepperton while taking part in a trial over the Army canoe championship course. Perhaps I should begin, therefore, by saying something—because this has arisen in the correspondence—about canoeing in the Army, the extent to which is a duty and the extent to which is a voluntary recreation. Hon. Members will realise that physical training and exercise play a large part in the programme of boys' units. There is a wide choice of games and sports, ranging from the traditional games on playing fields to some of the sports which have developed and become fashionable in recent years. As regards the element of compulsion, the position is that boys must take part in sport of some kind. That is compulsory, but the choice of sport is voluntary, and the emphasis is on encouragement rather than compulsion once a boy has taken up the game or recreation of his choice. Canoeing is very popular in boys' units, and is encouraged because of its value for leadership and confidence training.

The position, therefore, is that when a boy soldier is canoeing he is on duty because it is part of his training to take part in a sport; but at the same time canoeing itself is not compulsory, because he may transfer to some other sport if he wishes, and he cannot be compelled to continue as a canoeist if he does not wish to. This point has been raised before, and I felt I had to make it clear tonight.

I should now turn to what we know about the accident itself and the events leading up to it. Corporal Morgan was a proficient canoeist. He had competed in national events and had attended a weekend course organised by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. It was a rule in this unit that all canoeists must be able to swim 50 yards in light clothing, and Corporal Morgan had passed these minimum requirements. My hon. Friend has questioned what has been said about Corporal Morgan's experience. It was given in evidence at the inquest that he had been a canoeist for about nine months. This was repeated at the board of inquiry. I have had a further check made of the unit records, and I can confirm that he joined the canoe club in the spring term of 1963. There is no doubt about that, and I do not know where my hon. Friend obtained his contrary information.

Similarly with swimming: at the inquest, the officer said that he had himself conducted the 50 yards swimming test which is compulsory before membership of the canoe club, and that he had also seen Corporal Morgan swim 50 yards at Southampton Baths.

On 18th June, 1964, a party of 17 apprentices from the Junior Tradesmen's Regiment, Army Catering Corps, went to Chertsey for a trial run over the championship course. They were in the charge of the officer, Lieutenant Brown, who was responsible for canoeing in the regiment. He himself had been a canoeist for some six years and had passed the instructor's examination of the British Canoe Union. At Chertsey, the river was high and it was raining hard, but the water was calm and there was no wind. So that, although conditions were not pleasant, they were not dangerous or difficult from the point of view of the exercise. A party was made up for a practice run in three double and three single canoes.

Corporal Morgan, as one of the more experienced boys, was put in a single canoe of the type known as a racing kayak. He was wearing light clothing and P.T. shoes, and wore a life-jacket of a type approved by the Ministry of Transport. The jacket is designed to be worn like a waistcoat, but Corporal Morgan had folded the jacket and wore it tied round his waist. This was customary among some canoeists, who found that the jacket chafed and hampered movement if it was worn over the shoulders. Corporal Morgan had previously used racing kayaks of a similar type, though he was using that particular canoe for the first time that afternoon.

The race was started by the officer in charge, who watched the party disappear round a bend in the river and then set off in the truck with the rest of the apprentices to meet them at Shepperton Lock. At Shepperton, he saw that Corporal Morgan's canoe was missing, and walked upstream with four members of his party until he saw the canoe floating upside down. It had also been seen by two people living on Pharoah's Island, who had launched a boat. The officer swam to the canoe but could find no trace of Corporal Morgan, whose body was recovered early that evening by the police close to the spot where the canoe had capsized. Corporal Morgan's life-jacket was missing, and was never recovered.

An inquest was held at Chertsey on 23rd June, five days after the accident. The officer was closely questioned by the coroner about all details of the race, the preparations made for it, the condition of the river, Corporal Morgan's experience as a canoeist, and every circumstance which might explain how the accident happened. The officer was also examined by the legal representative of the boy's family. A verdict of accidental death was returned by the coroner, and nothing emerged from the inquest to show why the canoe capsized or, what is perhaps even more mysterious, why a young and fit apprentice, lightly clad and a reasonable swimmer, should have drowned when he fell out of the boat.

I should perhaps add that there is a standard drill to be followed after capsizing whereby the canoeist does not attempt to right his boat but simply catches hold of a rope which is provided for that purpose and remains with the canoe, which is buoyant even though it is capsized. Nothing has emerged to show why none of these precautions succeeded, or why Corporal Morgan should have drowned.

I will turn now to the question which is the real reason for this debate; that is the allegation that Corporal Morgan was compelled or goaded into continuing as a canoeist when he wanted to give it up. What I can tell the House about it is taken from evidence at the inquest, and I should say at once that I have no information about this aspect of the accident which has not already been given in open court. It was not dealt with by the Army's board of inquiry.

Mr. Dell

Is my hon. Friend saying that he has not seen Corporal Hyland's statement?

Mr. Rees

I am saying that I have not seen Corporal Hyland's statement. I will come back to that in a moment.

After any serious accident a formal Board of Inquiry is held with the main purpose of finding out what happened, and seeing what lessons should be learned. In other words, the Board will recommend changes in safety precautions or standing orders, or propose modifications to equipment or anything which its inquiries show to be desirable to avoid repetition of the accident. It is a purely military and domestic proceeding, and does not usurp in any way the function of an inquest. As I say, it was not dealt with by the Army Board of Inquiry, nor has there been any separate investigation about it. So far as the Army is concerned, and so far as I am concerned, this is an entirely open matter which was brought out at the inquest and disposed of.

When the coroner had completed a very thorough examination of the officer in charge of the canoeing party, the legal representative of Corporal Morgan's father asked him about the boy's wish to resign from the club. The officer told the court that Corporal Morgan had been on a canoe rolling course organised by the British Canoe Union. He had not liked it, and had told the officer that he wanted to resign. He was thought, however, to be a very keen member of the club, and the officer had asked him to reconsider and had given him time to think it over, suggesting that it would be pointless to give up after all his experience.

Questions about coercion were then put to the officer by the solicitor. In reply, he pointed out, correctly, that he was not in a position to order anyone to continue in a sport. He then categorically denied having called the boy's courage in question. The words "yellow" and "chicken"—which my hon. Friend has quoted—were put to "the officer, and he denied quite clearly that he had used such words to the apprentice. He said that he would not normally use that type of phrase, and that he had not done so on this occasion. The solicitor also put it to him that there had been an allegation or indication that the boy's courage was being called into account, and he denied this suggestion categorically. There was no ambiguity about this evidence. It was a firm denial, on oath, that there had been any order, or threat, or improper coercion. The coroner did not take up any of these questions, and there was a verdict of accidental death.

My Department's correspondence with my hon. Friend began with the technical question whether Corporal Morgan had been on duty at the time of his death, and when my hon. Friend was satisfied about that he continued with the question of Corporal Morgan's ability as a swimmer.

But in June of last year my hon. Friend said that the main point was whether Corporal Morgan had been coerced and threatened into continuing in the Canoe Club. It appears that this information came from another boy in the unit, and on the strength of it my predecessor was asked to re-open the inquiries. I cannot say how this other boy's allegations were originally made. The proper course would have been for him to take any complaint to his Commanding Officer. Nor can I say why the boy was not asked to give evidence at the inquest, if his story was known at that time, as it apparently was. I should have thought the inquest to be the proper place to bring out any matters of this kind, not through suggestions by solicitors to the main witness, but by direct evidence if it was known to be available.

My hon. Friend has said tonight that the family had only a general indication of this evidence at that time, and that its precise nature was not established until after the inquest. I think that that is correct. I accept that. But enough was known for the solicitor to put precise questions to the officer, and to impute actual words to him, words which are the crux of the allegations. These suggestions were made and were denied. The coroner had the advantage of hearing the officer's evidence, and accepted it without remark.

I wish to make my attitude about this quite clear to my hon. Friend and to the House. In my view, on all the evidence avilable to me, this young officer acted throughout with competence, and in accordance with his experience and with standing orders. Nothing to his discredit emerged from the inquest or the Board of Inquiry, the purpose of which I have explained this evening. The allegation that he taunted Corporal Morgan to his death was put to him and was firmly denied on oath. I have not the slightest intention of asking among the other boys more than 18 months after the accident to try to find some indication that the officer had lied. Even to begin such inquiries would imply mistrust when I have no reason to doubt him in any way at all.

My hon. Friend has made accusations which could cost the officer his reputation, his honour—

Mr. Dell

I have made no accusations. I have stated what the case is as pre sented to me in a sworn statement by Corporal Hyland. I have specifically said that I do not know whether these charges are true or false, but that they should be inquired into.

Mr. Rees

I will come to the question of the sworn statement, because—

Mr. Dell

Signed statement.

Mr. Rees

—signed statement in a moment. Statements which can be carried to all parts of the country have been made here tonight, in the privilege of the House, so that the officer is deprived—I know that my hon. Friend realises this—of any means of redress.

My hon. Friend implies that he has evidence which I have not seen. If that is so and he wishes to send it to me, I shall consider it—

Mr. Dell rose—

Mr. Rees

If there is something substantial and corroborated and there is good reason why it was not brought to the authorities at the time, I shall, of course, be willing to look at it.

Mr. Dell

I have referred to Corporal Hyland's statement in the course of this correspondence continually. I have indicated to my hon. Friend and to his predecessor that I am willing to put all the evidence I have at their disposal, but I assumed that they had this evidence. If my hon. Friend is now saying that he has not seen Corporal Hyland's statement, how does he account for the fact that he read letters from me quoting from this statement, without asking to see the full statement? It seems to me that the position of the Under-Secretary of State is quite impossible.

Mr. Rees

I cannot accept that. If there is evidence which was not presented, it was not put through the normal channels. I have not seen that. If there is something substantial and corroborated and there is good reason why it was not brought to the authorities at the time, I shall, of course, be willing to look at it. But I must make it clear that I cannot take up anything which is vague or lacking in substance. I make this further point. If the evidence is put to me, I will look at it. Failing this evidence, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the situation as it is.

Question put and agreed to.

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