AIR TRAINING CORPS CADET (INJURY) (Hansard, 30 April 1970)

§ Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston upon Thames)
I am sorry to have to bring the Under-Secretary of State for Defence here at an hour at which although by parliamentary standards is still comparatively early, is perhaps a little late in the day by the standards which most of our fellow countrymen would apply. I am also sorry because I understand that it has caused him to be brought from an official function, to which I also had the privilege of being invited, and because it is the second occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has; had to arrange to be present. He will agree, I am sure, that it was no more my fault than it was his that a Count was called 10 days ago when I had the Adjournment. I owe it to Mr. Speaker, with his characteristic care for the interests of individual Members, that the Adjournment of which I was deprived by that circumstance has been given to me again tonight.
I am sure that the House will agree that a Member should not seek to raise an individual issue on the Adjournment until he has taken, and exhausted, all other steps available to him. Whatever 1602 else the Under-Secretary may say in reply I hope that he will acquit me of having raised this matter before that stage has been reached. I have had two Questions answered by his hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration; I have had voluminous correspondence with the Minister of Defence for Administration who was also good enough to invite me to see him. I had a fairly long conversation with him, to which I shall seek to refer tonight. It is only because the request I am making has been refused up till now that I sought, and I am happy to say obtained, Mr. Speaker's permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not mind my making a personal comment on behalf of my constituent, the father of the boy injured, and of myself. Neither of us is among that, I am afraid, quite substantial number of people in the country who enjoy sniping at the Armed Forces of the Crown. My constituent is a former Regular warrant officer of the Royal Air Force and his son, the cadet concerned, might well have been, but for the circumstances to which I shall refer, in due course a candidate for recruitment to that great Service. As far as I am concerned, apart from the period which I shared with many millions as a war-time soldier, I happen to be both the son and the father of a Regular soldier. Neither my constituent nor I therefore is a person who would wish to attack the Armed Forces of the Crown because of any antipathy. Our bias is in the opposite direction. I have for the Royal Air Force an enormous respect for its courage, devotion to duty and immense technical efficiency. If it has a weakness, it is a weakness which is a little more relevant to this issue, and that weakness is on the administrative side.
I shall outline the facts briefly because I know that the hon. Gentleman is well briefed about them. They will give rise, I think, to a clash of testimony between what he has been informed of and what I have been informed of. I think that there is here a clash of evidence. I would only say on that matter that my sources—my constituent and his friends —are people who have nothing to gain whatever by any suppression or misrepresentation. The damage has been done. The boy has been injured and, after a 1603 considerable interval, has made what I hope and believe is an adequate recovery.
The hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that his information comes primarily from the officers and others concerned at the R.A.F. station whose competence and care of those entrusted to them are in dispute and whose professional standing and reputation and prospects could conceivably be affected by any decision about this matter.
Nevertheless, I am not asking the House, not even the hon. Gentleman, to come to any final decision tonight on the conflicting evidence. I am asking for something which, from my own Ministerial experience, I would have thought would be easier for him to concede. I am asking him only at this stage to allow an independent inquiry, and for that reason I do not propose now—because I know that there is this clash of evidence—even to mention the names of any of the officers or other people concerned. I think that at this stage it is fairer not to do so. I am going to ask him simply to agree to an independent inquiry.
There are two arguments which I hope will appeal to the hon. Gentleman. First, he belongs, as I do, to a profession which sets great store by the doctrine that justice should not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done, as I submit it has not been in this case. Secondly, if that argument does not sway him, as I hope it will, there is a practical one.
Plainly the object of the expenditure on the A.T.C. and on the camps to which they go at R.A.F. stations is largely because of the reasonable hopes that it will help recruiting to the Royal Air Force. In my own area, in the area of this particular A.T.C. squadron, that recruiting has had a set-back, not so much because of the facts of this case, but because of the way in which it has been handled by the Royal Air Force. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that if one wishes young people to enter the service or their parents so to advise them, it is of crucial importance that they should feel that not only will they be given care and proper attention in that service but that if anything goes wrong it will be impartially investigated.
There is from the hon. Gentleman's own point of view—and he knows as well 1604 as I do that recruiting is a good deal less good than he and I would both like to see—there is an overwhelming practical argument, apart from the philosophical one, for conceding an independent inquiry. I understand that there has been an Air Training Corps inquiry, but as my constituent was neither asked to give evidence nor informed of the results, it is not material to my request tonight.
I will come to the facts. The cadet concerned, Paul Evans, who was at the material time 14 years of age, went last August as a member of 328 Squadron A.T.C. to a camp under the control of the R.A.F. Station, Scampton. They were accommodated at R.A.F. Station, Hemswell. The age of the cadet is perhaps material since when I asked one of my Questions earlier in the year I referred to him as a child. That was remarked upon by the Minister of Defence for Administration who said that the young gentleman concerned would not wish to be so described. That may be so, but it is important to realise that we are dealing with a case of someone who, certainly by the standard of this House, is pretty young and who in the case of our own families we would feel at the age of 14 still required a good deal of care.
The A.T.C. cadets concerned were accommodated, not in the well-equipped R.A.F. station at Scampton, though they did their training there, but at R.A.F. Hemswell, some miles away. Here I come to the first point of criticism. They were accommodated in huts at that station and throughout the evening or a large part of it these 200 boys, not only in the squadron I mentioned but also others, were under the disciplinary control of one adult only, one grown man officer, for a considerable part of the evening. Equally they had very little indeed to do by way of legitimate amusement or entertainment.
In his letter to me of 27th November the Minister of Defence for Administration described in the most eloquent terms the recreational facilities which according to his information, existed at Hems-well. I showed this letter to my constituent, the father of the boy concerned, and I will read it to the House his comment: Recreational facilities at Hemswell These are stated to be recreational hangar outdoor 1605 football pitch, badminton, youth club leader. None of those who attended the camp to whom 1 have spoken were aware of the existence of these, except the recreational hangar, which the cadets spent two evenings trying to clean of debris as a punishment for staying out late. The officer who told me this said it was not really punishment as it did at least give the cadets something to do in the evening. It is often the case that the facilities provided for those in subordinate positions look rather more comfortable and splendid when seen from a distance. The toad beneath the harrow knows Exactly where each pinpoint goes. The butterfly upon the road Preaches contentment to that toad. The training took place in the day. For a considerable part of the evening, 200 boys with one adult in charge of them were at Hemswell with virtually nothing to do to occupy them. In the words of the late Philip Guedalla, The inevitable happened, as it so often does. There was, of course, a good deal of liveliness and roughness. I am not suggesting that there was a riot or any misconduct. On the whole, these were very well-behaved boys. But it does not need much argument from me to enable the House to imagine what happened, and what the difficulty would be for the youngest cadets, which included my constituent's son.
On the last night that they should have been there, 22nd August, he was hit on the head by a pillow, fell sideways across a bed, suffered concussion, partial paralysis and, most enduring of all, a badly twisted neck.
Despite what I have said about disciplinary arrangements there, an A.T.C. warrant officer—a responsible senior boy—behaved very sensibly. He got in touch with Scampton, and transport was arranged for the injured boy. He was taken to Scampton and was seen by a medical officer. As I have said, I will not mention names. But that medical officer decided that the boy was sufficiently seriously injured to require immediate admission to hospital, and he arranged for his admission to Lincoln General Hospital.
Then comes the second point of criticism. He was sent there by ambulance, as his condition required, but no one accompanied him except the driver. It has been pointed out by the Minister of Defence for Administration 1606 that it was an ambulance with no obstruction between the driver's seat and the patient. Nonetheless, the driver had to drive the ambulance, and with an injured child inside. I suggest that that was a sufficiently responsible job at night to demand his full attention.
In the circumstances, with a boy of only 14 with a head injury sufficiently serious to demand immediate admission to hospital, it seems very much subject to criticism that no one saw fit from the fully staffed R.A.F. station at Scampton, with a full medical staff, to accompany him on the journey. The one memory that the concussed boy has was of being told insistently before the departed that in no circumstances must he go to sleep on the journey. Apart from the driver, no one accompanied him to make sure that he did not.
I hope that I will not break the rules of the House if I say that an A.T.C. officer, subsequently discussing this arrangement with my constituent, used an expression which I could not use except by way of quotation, saying that it was "bloody disgusting".
The boy was detained in Lincoln General Hospital for five days. He had been due to go home the next day, 23rd August. No step was taken to inform his parents. When he did not appear, they telephoned the local police station every half hour, since they were anxious lest a child of this age might have got lost on the journey. They were informed only at four o'clock that afternoon, hours after he was due home, when the boy himself, still partially concussed and with his head over at an angle, was sufficiently responsible to struggle to a telephone in the hospital ward and telephone his parents, whom he realised would be anxious. This again shows a good deal of lack of care either for the child or for his parents.
It is fair to say that he was not visited in Lincoln General Hospital by any member of the regular staff at Scampton, though an A.T.C. officer, since it was the last day of the course and he could not remain, went there prior to departing. He did not see the boy, but he left his kit, which otherwise would have remained at Scampton.
The boy remained in hospital for five days, which argues, as we know that 1607 hospitals do not like to have beds occupied by people who do not need them, that the injury was, at any rate, of a certain degree of severity in the view of the hospital authorities. On 27th August, after five days in hospital, he travelled south, unaccompanied, without any assistance in making the journey.
On 28th August he was examined by his family doctor. I should like to read what that doctor, a very experienced physician, said: I saw this patient on 28th August, 1969, when he was complaining of headaches and severe neck pain. On examination his neck showed gross limitation of movement—painful movement—and marked muscle spasm. These findings are consistent with those found in injury to the neck following head injury. He required five consultations in all, including a number of manipulative adjustments of his neck to put the matter right. It appears from a later note that these treatments had to be continued until December.
It is a matter of comment that a boy with these injuries, in some pain, and, according to his parents, still pretty knocked out by it, was allowed to travel the substantial distance from Lincoln to Kingston without anybody at Scampton seeing fit to make arrangements to assist his journey.
Not unnaturally, his father wrote to the Group Captain commanding at Scampton asking for an explanation. For weeks he received no answer. At no time did he receive a full explanation. This in itself is a matter of criticism. It was only after some months of this kind of thing that my constituent, having failed to clear the matter direct, as he sought—particularly as he is an ex-warrant officer —came to his Member of Parliament.
I now come to the Parliamentary developments. On 3rd December I asked a Question. On 6th December, the Press department of the Ministry, referring to the Question, put out a statement which reads: A Ministry of Defence spokesman said yesterday that the boy had no head injuries at all. He had received a blow on the neck and was taken to hospital for an X-ray examination where he was kept overnight for a consultant's examination. I ask the House to note those last words, because he was in fact in hospital for five days.
1608 I am sorry that the Minister of Defence for Administration, when I saw him, sought to argue that that was a fair statement of the position. It is fair to the Minister of Defence for Administration to say that when I pressed him he agreed not to withdraw this wholly inaccurate and misleading Press statement, but to put out a further statement which I would read, but I know that the Under-Secretary wants time to reply. That statement does not withdraw it, but merely says: We naturally regret any misunderstanding that may have arisen. If it were stated that unhappily the Minister had to be detained in hospital overnight for examination, very few people would realise the sad fact that he had been detained in hospital for five days. It is rather revealing of the Department's attitude to the matter. Even as experienced a man as the Minister of Defence for Administration did not immediately appreciate that, though the words were literally true, they were—I will not say intentionally—but manifestly misleading.
What has finally aggravated my constituent—and, I confess, has aggravated me—is this attempt to play down the matter. As those of us who have been in the services will recognise, it has all the signs of "covering up". It is obvious that the less the injuries, the less the officers concerned could be expected to have done. The worse the injuries, the longer the time in hospital, the more doubtful is their conduct, and the more careless and less competent they would seem to have been. It is because the Department and the Ministers concerned have not been prepared to probe the matter but have allowed this covering up process to take place that I raise the matter tonight.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think that I am presuming on a certain measure of ministerial experience if I say that it is a great mistake for Ministers to get themselves into a position of even appearing to be covering up. If Ministers are not prepared to allow an independent investigation where there is a clash like this, particularly in respect of an event concerned with the welfare of young people, it strengthens what suspicions there may be that there has been or is a covering up, whereas a Minister who has the courage to say, "I shall 1609 have this probed by an independent investigation. I am confident that my Department did not handle things as has been suggested. I believe it would come well out of an independent investigation", would have the respect of outside opinion, the opinion of the House, and, I would guess, even of his own Department.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say that although he will not necessarily concede the various points that I have made he is prepared to submit the issue between him and me and between my constituent and his Department to an independent inquiry. I do not wish to be dogmatic as to the form that such an inquiry should take. I am prepared to leave that to him, so long as it is independent. An examination that included hearing witnesses from both sides, conducted by a Queen's Counsel, or under, say, a chairman of quarter sessions, would seem to be a practical, economical and efficient method of proceeding.
I hope that the Minister will allow me to say—as one who has great admiration for the Royal Air Force as for all the Services of the Crown—that if, after such an inquiry, the Service is shown to hive behaved as they should have be-hived, and as one would have wished them to behave, no one will be happier than I. If, on the other hand, they are shown not to have behaved in that way, from what I know of the Minister he will be the first to seek to put them right. I ask him not necessarily to deploy a long argument on the merits of the case; I accept that these are in dispute. I ask h m to answer the simple question: why not concede an independent inquiry and resolve once for all a matter which, if it is not so resolved once for all, I shall pursue against him indefinitely?

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard)
I am very surprised, having listened to the right hon. Member, that he should have taken the trouble to have an Adjournment debate on this matter, since it is now the second occasion that he has sought to raise it and has asked for an explanation—

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The third.

§ Mr. Richard
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon—the third occasion. 1610 He is an experienced Parliamentarian—far more experienced than I—and has sat through more Adjournment debates than I, and he will know that to allow a Minister precisely six minutes to answer is unfair. I am surprised that he should have stooped to such tactics on this occasion.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
There is only one question to answer.

§ Mr. Richard
There is not only one question to answer. The right hon. Gentleman has deployed what he believes to be a powerful case. If he had allowed me the normal time to reply I should have been able to answer that case to his satisfaction—had he been prepared to judge it objectively—and, I hope, to the satisfaction of his constituent. But the right hon. Gentleman leaves me little alternative other than to sketch in the situation in the barest outline and to fill in some of the facts that he saw fit to leave out.
It is a great pity that he should have chosen that course. If he had not done so, this would not have been a matter of such great contention, and perhaps between him with his professed admiration and perhaps love for the Services—and myself, representing the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force, we could have had a dispassionate, sensible, rational, moderate and, one would hope, helpful discussion of this incident. I regret that it is not possible so to do because of the short time that he has seen fit to leave me.
Perhaps I may now sketch in some of the background, because it is wry important. The House may like to know that about 20,000 cadets attended summer camps in 1969 at Royal Air Force stations. It is not possible to accommodate all the cadets that usually attend A.T.C. camps in the best possible accommodation, and from time to time the Royal Air Force is placed in the situation of having to decide whether it is better to cancel a camp or to make some such arrangement as was made in this case, namely, that one should accommodate some of the boys attending the camp at Scampton in the permanent barrack blocks at R.A.F. Hemswell. This is not the only camp that was so accommodated last year or, 1611 indeed, in previous years. I am told that six camps last year were accommodated in this way and that there was no trouble.
It is not true, as the right hon. Gentleman has alleged, that the only provision for the boys at Hemswell was one officer for some 200 boys. If the right hon. Gentleman re-reads the correspondence that he has had with the Ministry and, indeed, the conversation he had with the Minister of Defence for Administration, he will find that the ratio was one—that is, an adult officer—to 100, and there were a number of A.T.C. warrant officers present.
I do not accept in totality the criticism that the right hon. Gentleman makes of the recreational facilities provided. There were some provided, and again it is noteworthy that many cadets availed themselves of these facilities.
On the last night of the camp, Cadet Evans was involved in a pillow fight with two other cadets. That is the starting point of this whole affair. During the fight he received a blow with a pillow which resulted in injury. The cadet warrant officer responsible for the cadets—and certainly I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can complain of 1612 lack of supervision in this respect—as soon as an injury became apparent, did what he should have done. He summoned the duty officer.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I said the same.

§ Mr. Richard
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that there was nothing wrong with the supervision. In other words, the people in charge of the cadets, when injury was sustained, did precisely what was expected of them. They summoned the duty officer. The duty officer then summoned the station medical officer at Scampton and the boy was carefully examined. Again I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have had any complaint of that.
The station medical officer having diagnosed that the boy was suffering from no serious injury but that there was tenderness in the neck muscle—