HC Deb 16 March 1965 vol 708 cc1241-6

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

11.49 p.m.

Mr. David Griffiths (Rother Valley)

I must apologise for raising this matter at this late hour when you, Mr. Speaker, and all respectable people should be in bed, but I was so incensed about it that I felt that I had to bring it to the notice of the House. Furthermore, I not only feel incensed about this case but I have a feeling at the back of my mind that there may be many similar ones.

This matter concerns a boy in my constituency who is desirous of entering the Royal Air Force as an apprentice, but who has been refused entry. To me this as the height of ridiculousness and inconsistency on the part of the Minister of Defence and his advisers and staff, because this boy has an elder brother who is in the Services. He is a non- commissioned officer, who after embarkation leave is now serving in foreign parts. There is no question of a security risk in the case of his elder brother, but for certain reasons the boy has been refused entry on so-called security grounds.

What are the reasons? Is it because the boy's mother was born in Poland? Cannot she be trusted? Cannot the boy be trusted—a boy with five G.C.E. "O" levels, who is physically fit and highly respected both in and out of his school? The boy's mother was born of humble parents, who died during the war in Poland. She was taken to Westphalia, in Germany, and there met her present husband, who was serving in the Yorks and Lancs Regiment. After marrying him she came to live with him in Dinnington. They have now lived there for 20 years, and have brought up a highly respectable family.

I have the utmost respect for Dr. Balogh and Dr. Kaldor, the two very distinguished people, both of Hungarian extraction, as I understand it, who have been called in as advisers to Cabinet Ministers. Why should there be a differentiation between this boy and these two older men? I cannot understand it. Why cannot this boy be allowed to enter the Services when he and his parents have the respect of their neighbours, as did his grandparents?

I have as much regard for security as my hon. Friend, and my noble Friend in another place, but I feel that some of these regulations are too stringent. But, on the other hand, I feel that this is taking the matter to the height of absurdity.

I have letters here, one from the British Legion and one from another source, speaking to the respectability of this family. The first reads: Mrs. Hill is a good citizen, well known and respected in Dinnington. Mr. Hill is also a well known local resident. I have known him for over thirty years, and he served himself with the Armed Forces from 1939 to 1945 at home and abroad. Surely, Sir, this is proof enough of the family's loyalty". The second says: I personally can vouch for the integrity of Mr. Bernard Hill and his family, who were born here and are an old Dinnington family. Like his brothers and father before him, he served his country faithfully in time of war. Both he and his wife are well known and respected in Dinnington. He, his wife and family are well known and take an active part in the social life of the village community". Will my hon. Friend now ensure that this boy has an opportunity to go into the Service and do something which has been his ambition ever since his school days? Cannot he set aside some of these—as I regard them—stupid and foolish regulations? I appeal to my hon. Friend and to my noble Friend to tell some of the "brass hats" to get off their high horse.

11.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Bruce Millan)

I know how very strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. David Griffiths) feels about this particular case. I say at once that my reply to him tonight will not give him a great deal of satisfaction. Perhaps I should first briefly state the facts of the case.

My hon. Friend's constituent, Paul Leslie Hill, applied last September for entry into the Royal Air Force as a technician apprentice. He was informed by letter from our Inspector of Recruiting on 20th November that he was not to be accepted into the Service. Following that, his father wrote to the Ministry of Defence and asked whether we could state a reason for rejecting his application, and the Director of Manning replied on 27th November confirming that, unfortunately, we were not able to accept the boy into the Royal Air Force and saying—this is, of course, the main point in the complaint which my hon. Friend has raised—that it is not and never has been our practice to give reasons for rejecting any particular application for entry into the Royal Air Force.

After that letter on 27th November, the matter was raised by the boy's parents with my hon. Friend, and he has been pursuing it ever since. As I say, I know that he feels extremely strongly about it. He has been in correspondence both with my noble Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force and with me about the case. He has spoken to my noble Friend about it and has had a brief word with me on the subject, too.

Both the Minister and I have considered the case very carefully. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that. We have not taken it as being by any means a completely closed case when it was put to us, but we have both considered it most carefully. But the fact is that we do not give reasons for rejecting any applicant. This is not a special kind of rule which applies only to ourselves. It is a rule which most employers adopt, that they do not give reasons for rejecting applicants for particular jobs. I have looked into the rule very carefully, because obviously there may be circumstances in which there is reason to believe that the application of this rule might lead to misunderstanding and even to injustice in particular cases. Having looked into it, I am convinced that there is a very good reason for it. Certainly in the vast majority of cases it is much better that we do not give any reasons for turning down an applicant.

All I can say in this case is that the application was given every proper consideration and that, having looked at all the details—and I have seen the application form and all other documents in the case—I am convinced that we had perfectly legitimate reasons for refusing him entry into the Royal Air Force. It is always stated in our recruiting literature, apart from anywhere else, that we reserve the right to refuse entry even to applicants who seem to be potentially qualified for entry into the service. In particular, the recruiting pamphlet concerned with R.A.F. apprenticeships, in paragraph 38, page 8, says that even potentially suitable candidates will not necessarily be offered apprenticeships.

In this case the boy applied for a technician apprenticeship, and the standards which we lay down for these are very high indeed. It is, therefore, no reflection on the boy or his ability, and certainly no reflection on his ability to make a worth-while career in some other field, that we have not been able to accept him for this kind of apprenticeship. Certainly it is no reflection at all on his family circumstances that we have refused him entry into the Service.

My hon. Friend mentioned the circumstance which troubles him most—that the boy's mother is Polish—and asked whether this was the reason why we refused the boy entry into the Service. I am afraid that the same kind of consideration applies here as I have already laid down as a general principle—that we do not give reasons, whether they are reasons of family circumstances or anything else, why any applicant is turned down. I am sorry to say that, despite my hon. Friend's appeal on this point, and despite the fact that he feels very strongly about it, I am not prepared this evening to go beyond that. I must rest on this principle that the Royal Air Force does not give reasons for turning down a particular applicant.

But I assure my hon. Friend again that the fact that we have turned down the application is neither a reflection on the boy himself nor a reflection on his family circumstances or the respectability of the family, as my hon. Friend so eloquently described it. I know that this must be a very disappointing answer not only to my hon. Friend but also to the boy himself and to his family.

Mr. Edmund Dell (Birkenhead)

Even if my hon. Friend cannot give reasons why the boy has been refused, surely he can deny one specific reason—that the boy's mother is Polish?

Mr. Millan

The boy's mother is Polish. I am not denying that. It is a fact which is not in dispute. What I am saying is that I am not intending to give any reason at all for rejecting this application to join the Service. There are very good reasons why we do not give reasons in these cases, and I am sorry that, despite my hon. Friend's appeal, I do not want to go beyond what I have said tonight.

I assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend and I have looked into this matter most carefully. I do not think that that is in dispute between my hon. Friend and the Department. I have also spoken to my hon. Friend about the case. The answer I have given must obviously be disappointing to my hon. Friend, the boy and his parents, but I hope that, although we have not been able to accept him into the R.A.F., the boy, as I am sure he will, will find a worthwhile career elsewhere and forget this disappointment.

Mr. David Griffiths

Still very unsatisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.