House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Jul 1993

Sir David Mitchell : The hon. Gentleman has referred to a point to which I was about to turn. I am sorry that I gave way to him. As I was saying, the Minister will hear loud "Hear, hears" from Hampshire regarding that proposal.

The third point in my hon. Friend's letter is that the existing system does not provide sufficient accommodation for gipsies. I agree. It follows, logically, that steps should be taken to provide more accommodation.

How will the Minister take these steps to put right the under-provision that he recognises? He sets that out in his draft circular of 26 May. The under-provision is a matter of sites for nomad encampments. At present, there is a duty on the county council to provide sites. There are insufficient sites, so the Minister tells us, so does he intend to strengthen that duty? No, he intends to abolish it.

If there is no duty, how will the special needs of gipsies be met? Will it be met by relaxing the strict nature of planning controls so that either gipsies have their own camp sites or farmers use set-aside land for private sector provision? No. The Minister's main intention is, first, to reflect

"the plan-led nature of the planning system".

That means, in practice, that, if a local plan says it is open countryside and that there is to be no development there, it will be enforced--no matter that there is a deserted chalk quarry, or a gravel pit, hidden from sight by surrounding trees, out of the way where it does no harm to anybody. That site will not be allowed to be used, because it will be outwith the local plan.

No matter that there is a hamlet of some 20 or 30 houses, with contiguous, half-hidden sites. That hamlet does not exist in the planners' eyes, because the planners have declared the area to be open countryside and it is forbidden that there should be any development in that sort of country. If my hon. Friend wants to know more about that, I urge him to look at the case of the Day family

Column 969

in my constituency, a family of settled gipsies who sought to stay on their own land and who are under threat of being moved. An appeal that went to my hon. Friend's Department was heard by an inspector appointed by my hon. Friend, and was turned down, purely because it was outwith the plan that my hon. Friend intends fully to enforce. Does my hon. Friend intend to ensure that local authorities give special consideration to the needs of gipsies? No, he is going to withdraw the previous guidance stating that special consideration could be justified for gipsy sites in respect of protected areas including green belts. That is a double no, and a double blow. Planning applications in respect of the gipsy community should be treated on the same footing as those from anyone else. However, in our over-populated south-east of England and with tight planning controls, the prospect of obtaining planning consent for gipsy sites under the new conditions outlined by the Minister is virtually nil. I want now to consider the evidence given to the Department in response to the consultation document. Why has my hon. Friend the Minister not published an analysis, or placed in the Library of the House an analysis, of the responses that he has received? Is it because the advice has been generally unhelpful? Is it because it has shown virtually no support for the Minister's proposals on site provision? Is it not true that most respondents wanted to keep and to strengthen the present system?

My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the conclusions of the Cripps report of 1976 and the Wibberley report of 1987, which stress the importance of private site provision. In response to the Minister's circular Hampshire county council stated :

"Traditional Gypsies generally have the greatest difficulty obtaining planning permission There is no evidence to suggest that traditional Gypsies will be more successful in the future in obtaining planning permission."

The measured terms of the Hampshire county council response to the circular states :

"If the slight advantage they have, by virtue of the advice given in the Department of the Environment circulars 28/77 and 57/78 is removed, then the prospects are likely to worsen. The County Council sees no prospect of a significant reduction of the numbers of Traditional Gypsies on legal and illegal sites if a main part of Government policy is to expect them to make their own provision from the same starting point as the settled community, and without the present small advantages stemming from Department of the Environment advice."

No doubt the Minister has been to the DOE library and has read the responses. Is he aware that my research shows that the Council for the Protection of Rural England is concerned that the replagipsy site policy should be to secure sufficient sites in the most environmentally acceptable locations.

The Country Landowners Association feels that the provision of gipsy sites should continue, while gipsies should receive encouragement to provide sites themselves. More local authority sites should be provided on local authority land. To some extent, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was successful.

The National Farmers Union states that the present provision of gipsy sites is unsatisfactory. There are not

Column 970

enough of them, and some are poorly managed. The NFU is against absolving local authorities from their present duty. The National Trust states that a repeal of the duty to provide sites will result in lack of incentives to local authorities to provide sites. The Town and Country Planning Association disagrees most strongly with the repeal of the 1968 Act duties and believes that there is no good reason why travellers should not receive assistance at a level similar to that received by other sectors in the provision of places to live and work.

The Association of County Councils believes that the proposals do not provide a solution that is intellectually coherent, acceptable in humanitarian terms or workable in practice. I agree with that. Response after response informs my hon. Friend the Minister that he has got it wrong. He rightly consulted, but he appears to have ignored the responses that he received.

I want now to consider the draft provisional circular on gipsy sites and planning of 20 May. What does that document tell us? I will not read the whole document--I do not have time and I would not seek to do so--but I shall quote the essence of it :

"The proposed removal of the local authorities' duty to provide gypsy sites is expected to lead to more applications for private gypsy sites."

That is quite right. It goes on :

"Local planning authorities will need to be aware of the accommodation and occupational needs of the travelling community". Hear, hear, but what is being done about that? It goes on : "It will be important for local planning authorities to be ready to discuss gypsies' needs at an early stage".

Very nice. It goes on :

"Authorities' plans may"--

not "will have a duty"--

"identify locations suitable for gypsy sites Other areas which may"--

I stress "may"--

"be suitable for gypsy sites might"--

not "must", not "should"--

"include vacant land or surplus local authority land."

So it goes on. There are pages and pages saying not very much. It states :

"Authorities should"--

not "must"--

"take a positive approach in considering planning applications for private gypsy sites There is, however, no special status attaching to gypsies in determining planning applications."

In practice, that means that not a single proposed gipsy site in Hampshire, and certainly none in the Test valley, will ever be given consent. Gipsy sites are unpopular. They are an unpopular decision to be taken. Unpopular decisions can be relatively easily taken by large authorities, because only a small section of representatives will kick up a fuss. However, when the matter moves from county size to district or borough size, the furore when a gipsy site is proposed will ensure that it will be turned down by the planners.

My hon. Friend's document consists of pages and pages, but it does not do anything to help provide for the sites that are required. I ask the Minister to draw back now before it is too late. I understand that he intends to introduce a Bill following the Queen's Speech in November. I staged this debate to say, first, that the proposals on mass disturbance and the Public Order Act 1986 are excellent ; and, secondly, that the proposals to curb illegal camping are okay, provided that alternative

Column 971

provision is made. But the proposals to remove the county duty to provide sites and let gipsies take their chance like everyone else with the planning system are deeply flawed.

Local authorities will use their powers to move gipsies and nomads off unauthorised sites, and, like the Arcadians, they will go--but where? To another, probably more unsuitable site, causing more nuisance for local residents than the original site that they were on. The Minister should take back the proposal and think again, and, with respect, listen to the consultation responses that he has received. It is better that he does that now than incorporates a ministerial banana skin in a November Bill.

I now wish to refer to unauthorised sites occupied by nomads. Parish councils and constituents alike have three principal complaints about such sites : they are insanitary--there is the comment about going into the bushes with a spade in the hand, or even none--rubbish and litter around the sites, and their unwashed appearance.

I put a constructive point to the Minister. One of the main components of a successful policy will be the provision of transit sites, which are better chosen by the local authority than by the nomads who are driven from site to site. Such transit sites need four things : first, a bit of waste ground, well away from housing ; secondly, two lavatories ; thirdly, one stand pipe for water ; and, fourthly, a skip for rubbish--nothing else.

That costs a lot less than providing public housing for nomads who do not want it. Most of them live on £44 a week income support. They do not draw housing benefit. It is far more economic and makes far more sense to give them a loo, a water supply and a skip for rubbish than to criminalise them by taking away their existing unauthorised site and failing to make alternative provision.

7.49 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : I will try to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) in the comparatively short time available to me. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) intervened to make it clear that there should be a continuing duty in terms of public provision. I will also address that issue.

My hon. Friend has had a continuing interest in this matter. In an earlier debate, he referred to three main concerns--illegal camping by small numbers of people in caravans sited on green lanes ; large convoys of new age travellers who descend on my hon. Friend's constituency during the summer solstice on their way to Stonehenge ; and ravers who are associated with the new age travellers in setting up unlicensed music festivals. We have taken steps to tackle those concerns--steps which have been welcomed by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is concerned that our reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 will not ensure that a sufficient number of sites will continue to be made available. I urge my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns with hon. Members from constituencies in Avon and Somerset. Despite the statutory duty on local authorities under the Act, which has been in force for more than 25 years, the provision of sites in Avon is woefully inadequate. Continuing disputes arise between districts and the county about the location of those sites. Every application is subject to considerable contention in the local communities and each application is politicised.

Column 972

Despite the operation of the 1968 Act for more than 25 years, few districts in Somerset are designated as offering adequate provision for caravans. That Act, which commanded all-party support, was introduced with the best of motives, but it simply has not worked. Less than 40 per cent. of local authorities have made adequate provision under the terms of that Act so that they can become designated. In reality, even those that have been designated would need to make further provision because the Act was deeply flawed in its estimate of the number of gipsies for which it needed to make provision.

We think that the time has come for that to change. As my hon. Friend has made clear, the 1968 Act has failed local authorities, local communities and the gipsies. For that reason, we believe that in future travellers should seek to make provision through the planning system.

Many travellers already have made provision through that system and many private sites exist. I have two in my constituency, which offer 50 pitches each. In the 10 years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never had any difficulty with either of them. I have never received any complaint about them ; nor has any question been raised with me about them. The sites are well managed. The planning system is perfectly capable of making the necessary provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West is concerned that no gipsy site will ever receive planning permission in the Test valley should we opt for that system. With due respect, my hon. Friend is wrong, for two reasons. Firstly, the Test valley district council and every other district council will have to make provision within its local plan for reasonable provision of gipsy sites, just as it must make provision in the local plan for every other planning contingency. That is what the planning guidance circular is all about-- ensuring that local authorities make adequate proposals and provision for travellers in their development plans. Then, if a local authority unreasonably refuses applications, an appeal is possible. I am determined that the planning system should operate fairly. At present, it does not explicitly recognise gipsies' special accommodation needs. Local planning authorities are required only to have general policies in their structure plans, which are seldom translated into detailed policies and local plans. Planning applications from gipsies are nearly always treated as departures from local planning policies. That is why we have issued, in draft form for public consultation, planning guidance which will require local planning authorities to include specific gipsy site policies in their local plans. That will give gipsies confidence in the system and encourage them to follow the rules.

In the past, in incidents such as the one that my hon. Friend described, when gipsies have sought to make their own provision and have had their applications refused, and inspectors have then turned them down on appeal, this has almost always happened when gipsies have bought land, moved on, and sought to set up pitches without planning permission. Then, when the local authority has tried to take enforcement action, the gipsy family concerned have applied retrospectively for planning permission, and if it has been turned down, they have appealed. Not surprisingly, inspectors have said that it was wrong to flout the planning system in that way.

I have every confidence, however, that, if gipsies make proper applications to local planning authorities, they will be provided with planning permission. Moreover, they will be able to see that local authorities make proper provision

Column 973

within their development plans. If they do not, I have no doubt that the National Gypsy Council and others will draw our attention to the local authorities that they do not believe are making such provision. The Department can intervene in the development plans concerned and tell the local authorities that they are failing to make adequate provision.

This will be a far more effective way of proceeding than the present cumbersome system, in which the Secretary of State's only recourse in such cases is to serve a statutory direction under the 1968 Act. A direction was served on Avon some years ago, but despite the application of the stick, adequate provision has yet to be made. The National Gypsy Council and others have welcomed the increased provision for private sites. The council, in response to the consultation paper that we issued in August 1992, said :

"private sites are beneficial to all concerned : to gypsies because they offer them the security of a legal home and a base from which they can send their children to school ; to local authorities and central government who are spared the expense of developing and managing sites ; and to the local settled community by the reduction in numbers of unauthorised encampments private gypsy sites are in locations where the gypsies who live on them will want to be ; they suffer none of the problems due to incompatibility which are sometimes found on local authority sites ; and once private sites become established, families on it quickly prove themselves to be good neighbours."

So the gipsies themselves have welcomed our proposals.

My hon. Friend asked why we do not publish a detailed analysis of the consultation. That would be very difficult, given the sort of responses that we obtained. They were often based on complete misunderstandings. For instance, press reports had led quite a few of those responding to believe that we intended deliberately to force gipsy families away from their traditional lives into domestic residential housing. There was never any suggestion of that. It was a red herring, but it affected many of the responses.

Also, as my hon. Friend said, some of those responding merely wanted taxpayers to continue to provide a 100 per cent. grant. That has failed in the past. We have invested £56 million in the public provision of gipsy sites since 1968, but fewer than 40 per cent. of local authority areas are properly designated as having made adequate provision for gipsies.

I very much hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the measures that we have--

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,

That Mr. Michael Ancram be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Robert Jackson be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. MacKay.]

Column 974

Sergeant Robin Feddon

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

8 am

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : I rise, after a very long night, to request the Minister to order a board of inquiry into the death of Sergeant Robin Feddon. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of his death, but his mother has still not received a satisfactory explanation of the events that led to the death of her son. She is a constituent of mine whose husband, brothers and sons have all served with the British Army. She is proud of that tradition and of the fact that her son, Robin, served with distinction in the Gulf. She believed in the fairness of the Army and in British justice, but, almost two years after her son's death, her faith has been shattered by the Ministry of Defence's failure to order a board of inquiry into her son's death.

I relate what happened. The Feddon family was based in Munster in Germany with the British Army. Sergeant Feddon was with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, but served with the Hussars. On 28 July 1991, Mrs. Feddon left the family home at 1.20 pm, believing her husband to be alive. She returned at 1.30 pm with a friend, Mrs. Pritchard, and found him hanging by a skipping rope in the cellar. Mrs. Feddon and Mrs. Pritchard left the house without trying to save Sergeant Feddon. They did not seek help for at least 10 minutes--some argue that it was 20 minutes--but at 1.50 pm the guardhouse received a report about the incident. At 2.6 pm, Sergeant Feddon was pronounced dead.

Before the funeral, Mrs. Feddon went to Holland on holiday with her boyfriend and Sergeant and Mrs. Pritchard. Mrs. Feddon decided to have her husband cremated in Germany rather than bringing the body home for burial in this country. That ruled out the possibility of a coroner's inquest. Mrs. Feddon received moneys totalling £165,000 from Army gratuities and insurance policies.

Sergeant Feddon's brother claims that the widow told him that Robin had drunk half a bottle of spirits on the morning before he died. The post- mortem results record no alcohol in his bloodstream. Sergeant Feddon's mother says that Sergeant Pritchard phoned the family to say that Robin had been receiving psychiatric treatment, but the medical records show that that was not so.

I have stated the facts. I am not accusing Mrs. Feddon of any crime ; this is not trial by Parliament. I am relating the events to make it clear that it was not a usual death, or suicide, if that is what it was. It was unusual in the extreme ; it was bizarre, yet there has been no inquest or Army board of inquiry to which witnesses could be called under oath.

Army regulations state :

"Matters to be investigated in accordance with Defence Council policy. The Defence Council declare that, as a matter of policy, the matters set out below are usually to be investigated by a board of inquiry."

The first of those matters is

"Unnatural death abroad.

(1) Of any person subject to military law, other than death by enemy action."

That certainly applied to Sergeant Feddon.

Since Sergeant Feddon's funeral, his family have been pushing for further investigations. They have written to the Ministry of Defence, to Robin's commanding officer,

Column 975

to generals, to the Attorney-General and to the Prime Minister. I have written to two Ministers on five occasions and have had two meetings with Viscount Cranborne. On the first occasion, I had to threaten to seek an Adjournment debate because he refused to see me. I last wrote to him on 28 February requesting a board of inquiry ; I have yet to receive a reply.

I advised the family that to take the matter further I would have to seek a debate in Parliament, which would mean making it public. They agreed that that was the only action remaining to them because of the Government's reluctance to hold a board of inquiry. I again telephoned Viscount Cranborne to see whether he would hold a board of inquiry before I applied for an Adjournment debate. Again, he refused.

Two articles appeared in The Guardian on 13 July. The first dealt with my call for an inquiry and the other reported the suicide, or death. They were written by a Lobby journalist. It says much for the family that after two years they decided that the story should be dealt with in a responsible way. David Hencke wrote the article in a responsible way. Many of us can imagine how the tabloids would have handled the story.

The family have been careful and patient, yet the Government have treated the matter with contempt. The Minister may argue that now is not the time to hold a board of inquiry because two years have passed since Sergeant Feddon's death. The fault for that lies with the Army and Defence Ministers, not with the family. Army regulations state that a board of inquiry should have been held, but it was decided not to hold one.

If nothing else, I hope that the Minister will at least say that such an incident will never happen again. The Guardian article reports Lord Cranborne as saying :

"I agree that formal proceedings might have prevented subsequent recriminations. The need for a board of inquiry in such circumstances is being reinforced."

That is an admission by the Army that a board of inquiry should have been held, that a mistake has been made and that the matter should be rectified in the future.

That is not good enough. I do not accept that an investigation by the military police is a substitute for a board of inquiry or an inquest. If Sergeant Feddon had died in the United Kingdom, there would have been a police inquiry and a public inquest, at which witnesses could have been cross-examined under oath. That was not the case, so I do not accept the argument that, if there was a police investigation, that should be the end of the matter. It is nonsense to say that there should be one law for the Army and those who serve overseas and another for civilians in this country.

There has been a cover-up. I do not know why there has been a cover-up and I am not accusing anybody of committing any crime. I am just saying that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Government have given great thought to the matter, consulted the Minister in the other place, and decided that there has been a mistake and that there should now be a board of inquiry so that, on the second anniversary of Sergeant Feddon's death, his family will know that all the facts of the case will be made public. Then, perhaps, his mother can get on with grieving for her son.

Column 976

8.10 am

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley) : The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has taken this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the sad facts surrounding the case of Sergeant Feddon. This is by no means the first opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has had to air the facts of the case, and I know that he knows the facts intimately. I very much hope, for the sake of the Feddon family, and not least the children, that it will be the last. He said that letters to my noble Friend Viscount Cranborne had not been answered, but he must admit that he has had two meetings with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence as a result of those letters, and has received full explanations. I hope that he will regard those meetings as replies to those letters. Of course, I understand the distress of Sergeant Feddon's parents. The hon. Gentleman said that this is not a trial by Parliament, but it seemed to me to be getting pretty close to it. He said that there has been a cover-up, but I believe that the facts will show otherwise. I hope that this morning will be the end of the matter. At about 13.55 hours on Sunday 28 July 1991, as the hon. Gentleman said, exactly two years ago tomorrow, the Royal Military police, Munster, received information that the apparently lifeless body of Sergeant Robin Feddon had been found by his wife, Mrs. Juliet Feddon, in the cellar of their married quarter. It seems he had committed suicide by hanging himself with a skipping rope.

The scene was visited by the investigating officers of the special investigations branch of the Royal Military police and the senior medical officer. The senior medical officer pronounced Sergeant Feddon dead at 14.06 hours, the cause of death to be determined by post-mortem examination. It was established that the body had not been disturbed and, after photographs had been taken, the body was removed to the mortuary. No letter was found and there was no obvious evidence that Sergeant Feddon had intended to take his own life. A full military police investigation subsequently took place. The results of this investigation are copious and detailed, but I consider it important that I devote some time to enlarging upon its outcome.

Mrs. Juliet Feddon was interviewed at length and it transpired that, following an argument between Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon at a mess function in the early hours of Saturday 27 July, Mrs. Feddon stayed with friends. Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon agreed to meet at their quarter on Sunday 28 July to discuss their differences.

On that Sunday Mrs. Feddon was accompanied by a female friend who remained with the two Feddon children in a nearby park while Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon talked. Mrs. Feddon recounted that she and her husband reached an amicable agreement to divorce and at 13.20 hours she told her husband that she was going to the play park to collect the children.

Mrs. Feddon stated that the children were reluctant to return with her to the quarter but were persuaded to do so by the promise of an ice lolly each. On reaching the house Mrs. Feddon went to the freezer, which was kept in the cellar, to get the ice lolly. On reaching the cellar she saw her husband hanging by his neck from a skipping rope tied to some water pipes near to the freezer. Mrs. Feddon estimated that this was about half past one.

Shocked, she ran back up the cellar steps and told her friend what had happened and that she was going to seek

Column 977

help from a neighbour. She stated that she went to the house of a neighbouring Army captain where a barbecue was being held. Mrs. Feddon stated that she was understandably shocked by the discovery of her husband's body and too frightened to approach him.

Mr. Martlew : In fact, both Mrs. Feddon and Mrs. Pritchard went in. In The Guardian article from which I quoted, Mrs. Feddon said that she thought that her husband was alive at that time.

Mr. Hanley : I do not have the information that Mrs. Feddon thought that her husband was alive at that time. I believe that she said that she thought that he was 99 per cent. dead. What exactly that means, I know not. All that I know is that she was understandably scared. I have had a report from a psychologist who says that when a person finds another hanging one of a number of normal reactions is to leave the scene immediately.

The hon. Gentleman might want to put himself in Mrs. Feddon's place. Is it a duty to cut down someone who is hanging? Is it a duty to try to lift his feet to try to relieve the weight? Is it a duty to try to ascertain whether he is dead? I submit that it is one of the normal reactions to be so scared with what one has found that that person departs from the scene immediately to try to get help. I am not saying that that is the only reaction. It may not be the way that the hon. Gentleman would react in such circumstances. Certainly, Mrs. Feddon said that she was so shocked that she left the scene immediately. Her friend also stated that she, too, was scared of going down to the cellar and that she also went to seek help after Mrs. Feddon's departure from the House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that both women left and neither of them felt that she could approach the body.

A statement taken from another Army captain who was a guest at the barbecue confirms that he witnessed his host with Mrs. Feddon telephoning the emergency services. She was certainly distressed. At almost exactly the same moment the emergency services received a call from another neighbour of the Feddon family, a staff sergeant, who had been approached by Mrs. Feddon's friend.

I have gone into some detail about what transpired on that afternoon because I know that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Sergeant Feddon's family have expressed some concern at the time that elapsed between the initial discovery of the body and the arrival of the emergency services. The hon. Gentleman has also called into question whether Mrs. Feddon might be guilty of any crime by not cutting down her husband's body immediately. Some people may regard that suggestion as distasteful and inappropriate. I have tried to explain that it is regarded as one of a range of normal reactions. In any event, I am advised that there is no evidence of any criminal conduct on Mrs. Feddon's part. I also ask that the hon. Gentleman makes allowances for the shock that any wife might feel in such appalling circumstances.

The investigating officers found no evidence to suggest foul play and that conclusion was supported by the results of the post-mortem examination. As the hon. Gentleman said, subsequent tests showed a nil alcohol level in Sergeant Feddon's body. Again, as the hon. Gentleman said, his medical records made no reference to his ever having undergone psychiatric treatment--nor is there any

Column 978

evidence of anyone alleging that he had had such treatment. The special investigation branch concluded that Sergeant Feddon's death was an act of suicide and that the other details were merely hearsay.

The hon. Gentleman referred to insurance moneys and payments from service charities. I am not sure what he is implying, but again it is true that it would be quite normal for someone to take out insurance policies, especially when her husband went off to the Gulf or to some other such episode. No doubt it is another detail that could give rise to suspicion in the minds of those who, perhaps, were unprepared for what happened.

My sympathy and that of the Ministry of Defence remains with the whole of Sergeant Feddon's family. I know that my officials, in responding to their many inquiries, have been courteous and understanding at all times. I have been through the complete file in the few weeks since I have taken on these responsibilities. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a very thorough investigation was carried out and a number of additional inquiries made by the Feddon family were followed up.

Once the investigation was concluded, Mrs. Feddon, as next of kin, was at liberty to choose to have her husband's body either repatriated to the United Kingdom or cremated in Germany. She elected, quite within her rights, to arrange a cremation in Germany and her husband's remains were then repatriated to the United Kingdom. Incidentally--the hon. Gentleman referred to it as a detail which might cause suspicion--that meant that Sergeant Feddon's death was not subject to a coroner's inquest as it would have been had his body been repatriated to England or Wales prior to cremation or burial. It would not have been subject to an inquest if it had been repatriated to Scotland or Northern Ireland, so the inconsistency is not total. However, the purpose of an inquest is to establish who the deceased was and how, when and where he died. It does not apportion blame or address matters of civil or criminal liability.

The hon. Gentleman is also aware that the brigade commander exercised his discretion not to convene a board of inquiry into the case on the basis that such an inquiry would unearth no further relevant facts. The brigade commander was within his rights not to hold a board of inquiry, since although it is Ministry of Defence policy that a board of inquiry should be held into any unnatural death overseas, Queen's regulations do not make that mandatory where the death has been investigated by another form of inquiry or investigation. In this case, the special investigations branch of the Royal Military Police had made a full investigation.

The hon. Gentleman has since requestedanborne refused the hon. Gentleman's request on the ground that witnesses could not be compelled to return to Germany to attend if a board of inquiry were held there, and civilians cannot be compelled to attend wherever a board of inquiry is held. No further physical or witness evidence is therefore likely to emerge now. I have to concur with Lord Cranborne's conclusion that a board of inquiry, which would necessarily have to be based upon the investigating team's original findings, would achieve nothing now. Indeed, I consider it vital that we keep at the forefront of our minds the well-being of Sergeant and Mrs. Feddon's two children on whom any further inquiry could

Next Section

Home Page