HC Deb 15 February 1967 vol 741 cc617-24
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the case of Mr. Leslie Parkes.

After considering all the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Mr. Parkes last week, I have come to the conclusion that he should be released from custody. His commanding officer has dismissed the charge of desertion made against him.

Mr. Ashley

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I appreciate and warmly welcome his statement about the freeing of my constituent? Consequently, the application for the writ of habeas corpus which was prepared this morning will not now be made. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that this case has caused grave misgivings about the conduct, attitudes and practices of some Army and police officers, although I should deplore any general condemnation of the Army or of the police? Will my right hon. Friend please consult the Home Secretary with a view to ascertaining of what kind of iceberg the Parkes' case is the tip?

Mr. Healey

Let me say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has handled his part in the case. It is a model of what a Member of Parliament can do for a constituent in certain circumstances.

On the broader questions which my hon. Friend raised, I can assure him that this case is quite unique in the experience of my Department and of the Home Office. I have been able to find no case which is a precedent. There are certainly aspects of the case and of the handling of the case which require consideration by myself in so far as they affect the action of military authorities and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, by himself in so far as action of the police is concerned. All these matters will be considered and, if necessary, the appropriate action will be taken.

Mr. Powell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three brief questions? How could Mr. Parkes be kept in custody if the charge against him has been dismissed? Secondly, is Mr. Parkes now a civilian or a soldier? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of his announcement, reaffirm the undertaking of an inquiry on the military side into the circumstances of the arrest and the reasons for the delay given on Monday?

Mr. Healey

On the first question, I should tell the House that Mr. Parkes was released from custody at 3.30 this afternoon, the point at which the charge against him was removed after I had considered the case. On the question of whether he is a civilian, because steps have been taken, the Army has wiped the slate clean, and if he wishes to have his discharge papers he can have them. He is now a civilian. On the third question, certainly I am inquiring into those aspects of the case which require consideration.

Mr. Shinwell

Does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement is very welcome to those who thought that an act of injustice had been done to a British citizen? However, if he suggests, probably quite rightly, that there are special aspects of this case, would it not be better in all the circumstances to disclose all the facts? Will he bear in mind that, whatever criticism we have to make, it is' no criticism of the Army, because we recognise that discipline is essential?

Mr. Healey

Yes, I certainly recognise that.

Mr. Thorpe

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the very least that could have been expected in this case? May I ask him, first, what guarantee there is that in future the military will not ride roughshod over the civil courts? Secondly, is he aware that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army misinformed himself about the position on footnote No. 7 in the Army Act and the right to bail in those cases? Thirdly, do we take it that this is a case of mistaken identity, or has the Army merely given up hope? Fourthly, will this man be entitled to damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, and what guarantee is there that this shameful episode will not occur again?

Mr. Healey

On the first question, I cannot accept that the Army rode rough-shod over a decision of the civil courts. I think that those who have had an opportunity to consider this matter will be able to accept that fact. On the second question, the footnote to which my hon. Friend referred on Monday has stood for many years in the Manual of Military Law as expressing the opinion of military lawyers, and it does not appear to have been challenged. It is not, however, part of the Act itself, and my hon. Friend regrets if, on Monday, he gave the impression that it was. On the question of damages, it is, of course, perfectly open to Mr. Parkes to sue for damages if he wishes to do so. That is a matter for him.

Mr. Thorpe

Would it not be better if an ex gratia payment were made?

Mr. Healey

In all the circumstances of the case, this is not required.

Mr. English

In the inquiry promised by my right hon. Friend, will he include the statement reported in the Press, and not denied by his Ministry, that an Army spokesman said that Mr. Parkes was being treated as a criminal because in the eyes of the Army he "is" a criminal before he had been tried?

Mr. Healey

I shall certainly inquire into that aspect.

Sir A. V. Harvey

As a result of this case, would the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to all three Services that in future no man on a similar charge should be treated in this savage manner, with manacles, and allowed to be photographed on television? What chance has this man got of getting a job? If he is not prepared to consider damages, in view of the Army's seven months' wait, will the right hon. Gentleman give the man seven months' pay, to which he is entitled?

Mr. Healey

There are many aspects of this affair into which I have already instituted inquiries, but I must point out that it was not by the wish of the Army authorities that any photographs were taken of this man.

Mr. Driberg

Would my right hon. Friend clarify his answer to the second question asked by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—whether this man is now a soldier or a civilian? My right hon. Friend said something about "wiping the slate clean." Does this mean that the man was regarded as a soldier up to 3.30 this afternoon, or what?

Mr. Healey

Yes, of course, he was regarded as a soldier up to 3.30 this afternoon. This was why he was arrested on Friday. But he is now a civilian.

Hon. Members

How.

Mr. Powell

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's last answer but one, is he to investigate the circumstances in which Press photographers and others obtained admission to War Department property?

Mr. Healey

Yes, Sir; indeed, I have already had a report on this matter.

Sir C. Osborn

Tell us about it.

Sir Richard Glyn

Will the Minister say on what grounds and by whose authority Mr. Parkes was kept in handcuffs from the time of his arrest by the military police for the greater part of the time he was in custody?

Mr. Healey

This is a matter into which I am inquiring.

Mr. Hector Hughes

As the Minister has said that this case is unique, will he clarify the status of Mr. Parkes as to whether he is now a free and independent citizen without any blemish?

Mr. Healey

I thought I made it clear that, so far as the Army is concerned, the slate is clean and Mr. Parkes is no longer a member of Her Majesty's Services.

Mr. Ronald Bell

What are the contents of the report which the right hon. Gentleman has received about access by photographers to War Department property?

Mr. Healey

I think I am justified in going so far as to say that there was a large number of Press men at the gates of the Army barracks concerned and it would have been impossible to prevent them having access without the use of a degree of force which the local commander considered inappropriate.

Mr. J. T. Price

Does not this remarkable case indicate quite dramatically that so long as hon. Members of this House carry out their duties as zealously and conscientiously as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in this case, there will not be much need for an Ombudsman in this country?

Mr. Healey

I certainly cannot imagine any Ombudsman performing his duties more effectively or expeditiously than my hon. Friend did on this occasion.

Sir J. Hobson

Could the Secretary of State say whether he decided that the charge should be dismissed and the commanding officer observed his direction, or was no evidence offered against this man? Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify now whether commanding officers in discharging their statutory duties of trying soldiers will do so under the direction of the Executive?

Mr. Healey

I think that on reflection, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes into account the point made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) yesterday, he will realise that that was not a helpful question in the circumstances.

Mr. Concannon

Could my right hon. Friend explain just what Mr. Parkes has been living on for the last seven months, because in my experience without having any demobilisation papers he might have been unable to be employed as a civilian?

Mr. Healey

That is not my concern.

Sir F. Maclean

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the usual practice is in regard to handcuffing prisoners?

Mr. Healey

I think I am right in saying that prisoners are handcuffed if there is reason to believe that they may be violent when in custody.

Mr. Spriggs

Is my right hon. Friend insisting that Mr. Parkes was indeed a deserter?

Mr. Healey

I think the House must understand that I took account of all the circumstances relevant to this case when I reached my conclusion. None of the circumstances by itself would have justified the conclusion I reached, but taken together in combination they did.

Mr. Carlisle

Reverting to the question asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party, surely the real issue is that the military police would not have power to arrest this man unless he was subject to military law. Since the matter having been taken to a civil court and that court having found that he was not subject to military law, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that the police were not riding roughshod over civilian courts?

Mr. Healey

At the time when the court of summary jurisdiction considered this matter under procedures allowed for in Section 186 of the Army Act, and considered the application of the police to hand this man over to the military authorities, he was regarded as a deserter. It was not so satisfied and this was the only decision the court had to take. This was in no sense a judicial decision; it was a decision of whether or not there was a case to go for justice. It is always open in civil or military law to reconsider a matter of this nature if further evidence can be adduced.

Mr. Heath

Will the Secretary of State give a clear answer to the House? Did he or did he not direct the commanding officer to dismiss the charge? That is what the House wants to know, and it is his responsibility. Under what powers did he do it? Is it not clear that there is such a confusion of circumstances surrounding the case in relation to the report of the inquiry that we should have a White Paper setting out specifically what the situation was and the grounds on which the Secretary of State took action?

Mr. Healey

I cannot accept that there is a case for a White Paper on this occasion, but I will undertake to inform the right hon. Gentleman and the House in as much detail as I can of the factors which emerged from the inquiries which were made.

Mr. Heath

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first question. Did he direct the commanding officer to dismiss the charge?

Mr. Healey

I informed the commanding officer of the conclusion I had reached and he decided to dismiss the charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mrs. Anne Kerr

As an hon. Member representing a constituency which is traditionally military and naval, I wonder if my right hon. Friend recognises the extent to which the statement he has made this afternoon will be warmly welcomed? Will he in future work out precisely just who should be handcuffed and when? I should like him to answer why, if a man is not violent nor considered likely to escape in a violent manner, he can be handcuffed in this fashion.

Mr. Healey

This certainly is an aspect of the case which I shall be considering.

Mr. Peyton

As the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to make this decision, does he not now think it right to add just a note of regret, or even apology, for the fact that a man has been arrested, handcuffed and imprisoned? Does he not think that it would be fitting to offer compensation rather than wait to be sued?

Mr. Healey

I cannot accept that. I must remind the hon. Member of what his right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday, quite rightly, that there are circumstances which arise in the administration of government when, in the light of all the circumstances, it is right that a Minister should step in and wipe the slate clean. That is what I have done on this occasion, and I do not think hon. Members who raise that type of point are particularly furthering any of the interests which we all have at heart.

Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must protect the business of the House.