HC Deb 27 May 1966 vol 729 cc975-92

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath)

It is very noticeable that the concluding debates before we rise for the Recess are being conducted by the Celtic fringe. This underlines the anxiety that we sometimes feel about things which happen in our own areas.

The events of the recent military exercise which has taken place in parts of South Wales have given cause for concern. We have heard of incidents which have been happening in quite separate places. Obviously, those who live in South Wales are concerned about the manner in which future military exercises are to be conducted. This afternoon it is not my purpose to generalise about this. Instead, I wish to particularise on the more serious incidents that occurred during this military exercise. I hope that by doing this I shall be able to lay more stress on the general situation which has arisen.

The incident which took place at Lletyrefail farm on the night of 9th May which I am about to recount to the House would be more in keeping with the experience of those who suffered during the occupation of Europe in the last war than with the experience of those who live in rural Wales in peace time.

When I first read the account of the incident in the Neath Guardian I was inclined to think that we were being given, perhaps, an example of journalistic imagination. The story seemed very much out of keeping with the Welsh scene. But my inquiries and those of the police seem to confirm entirely the story which appeared in my local newspaper. It is because the reports of this incident have been confirmed from so many different sources that I think it right and proper that they should be examined by the House this afternoon.

The first intimation which the occupants of Lletyrefail farm, a farm situated about 800 ft. above sea level in the Vale of Neath, had that a military exercise was to take place in the vicinity happened when, a fortnight before the exercise was due to begin, the owner of the farm, Mr. John Roberts, was approached by the military authorities for permission to allow the Army to land helicopters on his land. He gave permission for this operation to take place, but he gave it very reluctantly. These people, living in remoteness as they are, are rather unsophisticated. The very fact that they had had a visit from the military made them feel that they were compelled to grant this permission. But, in giving his permission, Mr. Roberts laid down certain specific conditions.

One condition was that, if any damage was done by the landing of helicopters, it should be made good. He laid down the condition that there was to be no interference whatever with farm personnel. He required that there should be no interference with the operations of the farm. He laid down the condition that any activity which took place during the exercise should be well away from the vicinity of the farm itself.

The next intimation that anyone on the farm had that the exercise was taking place came early on the night of 9th May, when Mr. David Richards, who is employed on the farm and whose son was involved in the incidents which took place later that evening, saw troops being disembarked from helicopters. He tells me that he did not advise anyone else on the farm of the arrival of the troops, who left the area of disembarkation immediately.

Mr. David Richards, the son I have just referred to, is known locally as Robert Richards. He is a young man of 23 years of age. He is married and he lives with his wife and 10-week-old son on Lletyrefail farm. Mr. Robert Richards left the farm at about 9 p.m. on 9th May and went to a club at Resolven, a small village two or three miles from the farm. He left the club at approximately 10.30 p.m. During the time that he was at the club he consumed three pints of beer. On leaving the club, he drove his car, a 1957 Ford Anglia, to a small village known as Tonna, where he met a friend with whom he talked for a while before driving home to the farm via the main Vale of Neath road.

Lletyrefail farm is approached by a steep, winding stony track which requires a great deal of caution and care to negotiate it. I have travelled up this way in broad daylight, and it was quite a frightening experience, because in places the pathway drops away sheer to the road. On the approaches to the farm there are three iron gates. They have been placed at intervals as a means of preventing sheep—sheep farming is the main job on the farm—from straying.

As Mr. Robert Richards rounded one of the bends, he was aware of shadowy figures on either side of the track who made an attempt to stop his car and who, he tells me, banged on the roof of his car with rifle butts. The time of this incident was 11 p.m. It is reasonable to suppose that, if somebody had wished to question Mr. Roberts, it would have been best if someone were placed on the track in front of him to give a signal to enable him to realise that somebody wished to question him. But there was no one in front of the car. The only attempt made to stop his car was made by the people on either side of the track.

Mr. Richards' experience left him very shaken. He accelerated his car and shook off the men who attempted to stop him proceeding to the farm. On his arrival at the farm, Mr. Richards, who his wife described to me as being really scared, dashed into the farmhouse, which is occupied by his family and that of his brother-in-law, a Mr. Jim Evans, and told his wife to call his brother-in-law, who was in bed, as he had had a remarkable experience on his way home to the farm and wished his brother-in-law to accompany him to the police to report the experience.

Before going out to his car, Robert Richards picked up a Mossberg single barrel repeater shotgun and loaded it with three cartridges, one of which was in the breech ready for firing. The two men left the farm and got into Mr. Richards' car, which they reversed, and were about to put the car into forward gear when they were surrounded by a group of soldiers who ordered Richards, at gun point, to get out of the car. As he got out of the car, Richards fired the shotgun in the air in an endeavour to frighten those people who were detaining him.

Mr. Richards was immediately knocked to the ground from behind, and the shotgun fell from his hand. He was picked up by the soldiers, who attempted to bend him across the bonnet of his car to search him. His brother-in-law, Mr. Jim Evans, who was sitting in the passenger seat of the car, attempted to leave the car to assist his brother-in-law, but was prevented from doing so by men pointing rifles at him. Later he was taken from the car and taken to the place where his brother-in-law was being detained by the soldiers. This was done at gunpoint, and an attempt was made also to search him.

During this Mr. Robert Richards made an attempt to go for one of the people who were detaining him and found himself hit on the hand with a rifle butt, which resulted in his hand being split open. Mrs. Richards, who had now come on the scene and was protesting at the treatment of her husband and Mr. Evans, was prevented from approaching any further by soldiers who held rifles across their chests. During the whole of this time there was no attempt at explanation on the part of the soldiers. The only words used were those of command.

They were then marched at gunpoint into the farmhouse, where a means of identification was demanded, and Mr. Evans then produced his driving licence. The soldiers seemed to be satisfied—as to his identity, but when a request was made that they should be permitted to leave the farmhouse, to attend to a sick cow which was calving, this was refused, and they were told they must not leave the farmhouse that night. The soldiers left the farmhouse, but before leaving the farm precincts they searched the van belonging to Mr. Jim Evans and also the outbuildings of the farm. They left the farm eventually at 12 midnight.

The next morning, when Mr. Richards and other occupants of the farm went to report the incident to the police at Tonna police station, they found the track had been obstructed in that large boulders had been placed across it, and they also found that the gates along the track had been left open, which resulted in the sheep straying on to the main road.

This, then, is the recital of the events which took place at Lletyrefail farm, events which have given rise to a great deal of concern in my constituency, for, while it is appreciated that there is a need for military exercises which must have a touch of realism about them, the inter- ference with civilians which has been demonstrated on this occasion has aroused a great deal of public disquiet, and such things are not good for the image of the Army.

It is essential that the Minister, in his reply to the debate, should give answers to questions which have been put among people who have heard of this incident. I would ask the Minister to say why there was such an apparent disregard for the instructions which, we have been told, have been given to troops on such a military exercise concerning their behaviour towards the civilian population. I also ask him whether he can say why no explanation was given to the police or to the people at Lletyrefail farm that this exercise was to take place, and why, when these actions were taking place, no explanation was given to those people about the intrusion into their privacy. Why was there an attempt on the part of military personnel to prevent the occupants of this farm from reporting the incident to the local police?

Will my hon. Friend tell the House this afternoon what action the Army has taken against those who were responsible for this outrage, and what means of redress there is for these people who have been so ill-treated? I also ask him to clear up entirely the disquiet which is in the minds of people throughout South Wales, where military exercises are likely to take place, by telling us what his Ministry will do to ensure that this kind of behaviour does not occur again when troops are engaged in similar military exercises.

This incident has appalled the people who live in my constituency, which has a long history. The district has been the scene of important military operations, in the times of the Romans and in the times of the Normans, but this latest interest in the area by the Army is one which my constituents will not recount as being a matter of importance in the history of our ancient borough.

Public opinion demands that full assurances should be given that those who are responsible for such an incident as this will be dealt with severely, and that the Army will ensure in future that the strictest precautions are taken against such incidents ever occurring again.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

I do not wish to dramatise these events, but, on the other hand, I hope that the Minister will not try to understate their importance. The significance of the episode goes far beyond the individual cases, important as they are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) said, no one denies the need for military exercises, but, as I was told in an Answer from my hon. Friend the Minister, the Army alone, during the past five years, has had to pay compensation in 1,144 cases for damage or injury arising from military exercises. This is an average of 229 a year, and the total cost over the five years is £44,000. In other words, individual irresponsibility is being financed from the public purse.

I tabled five Questions on the dangers of this exercise before the events at this farm took place. I do not say this with an attitude of "I told you so", but because I want to establish that the dangers inherent in the exercise should have been apparent to all. I submit that the whole exercise was astonishingly ill-conceived. To begin with, contact with the public was absolutely inevitable, because this was an escape and evasion exercise, and the essence of such an exercise is that the escapee disguises himself as a civilian, mingles with civilians, has to be singled out from civilians, and can only be singled out as a result of many civilians being asked to prove their identity.

In peace time it is very difficult for the military to be able to do this without going beyond their legal powers. In pursuing the objectives of this exercise they were bound to stop cars, and I question whether they had any right to do so. They were bound to question civilians, and I am even doubtful about their right to do that. My hon. Friend the Minister, in an Answer to me on the 18th May, said: Military personnel are not empowered to stop, interrogate and search civilians during a peace time military exercise. That is, of course, no reason why they should not ask questions of civilians."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 261.] The question arises: when does questioning cease to be questioning and become interrogation? If I were being asked the time of day at the wrong end of a sten gun, I would think that I was being interrogated. I am sure that many of the public feel the same. Many of them must have wondered what would have happened had they failed to answer the questions. The first feature, therefore, is that contact with the public is inevitable.

The second feature was that there was no public warning, a fact which added to already manifest stupidity. A spokesman for Western Command, when asked by a reporter from the South Wales Echo on 9th May why there had been no warning, said that it was an exercise of a highly confidential nature. He said: We did not want publicity on this". That objective clearly failed. Two days later, on 11th May, the Minister said that chief constables were told in confidence, but that no general warning was given to the public.

Why should the public have been warned? The first simple and obvious reason is that some of them would be frightened. These were paratroops and the Special Air Service corps, who were carrying guns. No doubt my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will assure us that those young men have hearts of gold and that the milk of human kindness oozed from them as they asked their questions. Nevertheless, they were armed with sten guns. One can understand a certain disquiet on the part of the public.

It is no good being told, as we were two days after the event, that the public need not have worried because the guns were not loaded. These subsequent assurances were of no use, because a posthumous explanation is no cure for an instantaneous heart attack. That is the sort of thing that could conceivably have happened.

Secondly, the exercise was taking place in lonely countryside, much of it after dark. Some of the public might have refused to stop. What orders had been given to ensure that they would stop, or what would have happened if in refusing to stop they had run down one of the soldiers? Again, many workers in the area are farm labourers and others who, by reason of the nature of their work, would have been wearing Army surplus clothing, which is serviceable for that type of work. Ordinary working men going about their work or on their way home would inevitably be confused by this exercise.

It should also have been envisaged that there were bound to be firearms on the farms. They are kept for the purpose of shooting pests. In this instance, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath has said, one man in his constituency could have been made a killer as a result of lack of good public relations. Some of the public, not inconceivably, would have been to "pubs". We have to recognise that temperament can be a little fickle after a person has had a pint or so of beer. The troops would have to handle people who might not be quite as responsible at 11 p.m. as they would have been at 7 p.m.

The exercise might have involved people who were ill, or in some other condition requiring special attention. gather, for example, that the sister-in-law of the young farmer was pregnant and expects a baby during the summer. What if she, and not the farmer, had been driving the car? What if it had been she who had been coming up the car track at 11 p.m.?

No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say that he cannot answer hypothetical questions. The misfortune is that more hypothetical questions were not asked before authority was given for the exercise to take place. Had there been a little more hypothesis, these silly incidents need never have arisen.

In these circumstances, where inevitably there was contact and the public were unaware of what was going on, there was an obvious requirement for close control of the troops. This was essential if there were to be no public incidents. Some of these troops were in the "pubs" drinking. I do not object to a soldier having his pint, like anyone else, but these men were on duty and about to interrogate the public. It hardly seems reasonable that they should be allowed to have a drink before indulging in this type of exercise.

As to the degree of control, we can best leave a description of this to the Army. Asked on 9th May by the South Wales Echo how the Army would guarantee that there was no repetition of these incidents, a Western Command spokesman said, encouragingly: I don't really know. He proved it by subsequent events. But strict orders have been issued that the public are not to be subjected to any discourtesy. That was on the afternoon of 9th May. My hon. Friend has told us what happened a couple of hours later that same day after these "strict" orders had been issued.

What was the Army's reaction? One would expect perhaps mild concern that these strict orders had been ignored, but no. On 19th May, the Western Command spokesman, again approached by the South Wales Echo, said: You cannot call the statement made on Monday, May 9, an assurance. I am sure that most of us would not regard that attitude as much of a reassurance. He went on: We said orders"— he has dropped the word "strict"— had been given that the incidents were not to be repeated. Orders can be given but this does not mean they will be carried out. What an astonishing thing for a spokesman to say on behalf of the Army. If the Army could not guarantee that its orders for the non-molestation of the public would be carried out, it should never have unleashed the troops on the public. Such was the chaos of information, or lack of it, that two days after the incidents in my hon. Friend's constituency, on 11th May, I had an Answer from the Minister of Defence for the Army in which he said: The only incident that has been confirmed is that of an officer, in civilian clothes, who was captured and, in an attempt to escape, claimed that he was a civilian and telephoned the local police."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 86.] Thus, two days later, the Minister himself did not even know that this situation had arisen. On 16th May, a Western Command spokesman excelled his previous comments by saying: We know nothing"— this was seven days after the farm incident— of any incident involving civilians. I wonder whether there is any literacy test in the Army these days, because the newspapers had been full of the incident. The Sunday papers had splashed it the day before in banner headlines. It seems that everyone in England and Wales knew —all except the Army, the people responsible.

All of this arises from astonishing lack of vision and of complete failure to anticipate the obvious. Yet this is an elite corps of the Army. What use will it be if it cannot anticipate the obvious? In war time, its role is to be to anticipate the unexpected yet it could not even envisage situations of this sort.

The trouble was also the result of bad communication with the public. After all, the public had a right to know, because it was public liberty that was to be intruded upon by the troops. Surely, in any case, it would have been sheer common sense to tell the public in the first place so as to try to cut down the number of incidents that could arise.

There was also bad communication with the troops themselves because they seemed unaware or, alternatively, unconcerned or unconvinced about their powers in peacetime. Finally, there was the complete lack of discipline which seems to have been manifest throughout the exercise, when strict orders seem to have meant nothing. No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give youthfulness as an explanation and I am sure that the House is willing to accept it as a partial explanation and as an amelioration, but one can never condone this sort of behaviour merely by describing it as youthfulness.

This should never have arisen with a disciplined force. We have had breaches of the peace, trespass, threatening behaviour, assault and battery, wrongful arrest, and wilful damage. We have had all these from people whom we are paying to protect us. I urge the Minister to give us an assurance that this will never happen to the public again.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Morgan (Denbigh)

As the hour is late I shall limit very much the remarks which I propose to make. I intend to make only the briefest intervention in this matter which has been so properly raised by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman).

As the House is aware, this matter has already been ventilated to some extent in the form of Questions by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and Answers by the Minister of Defence for the Army, and it would appear from them that this was not the only incident which occurred in the course of this exercise.

As one who, more years ago than he cares to remember, took part in exercises of this kind, I appreciate that such exercises must be held. I fully appreciate the difficulties involved, and, that, unfortunately, incidents are bound to occur from time to time, but in fairness to the Army and to the other Services it must be said that for every exercise which involves unhappy incidents of this kind a hundred pass whhout any difficulties at all.

But having said that, I must add that the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member for Neath indicate a most disturbing and extraordinary state of affairs. The House will require a very clear statement from the Minister of Defence both as to the arrangements which were made for this exercise, and also as to precisely what instructions were given to the troops concerned. It has been said—I think this was in the Answer given on 11th May by the Minister of Defence for the Army ID the hon. Member for Swansea, West—that the officers and men taking part were briefed on their conduct towards civilians and private property and were told, in particular, that they had no powers of arrest over civilians. Perhaps we might be told a little more about this briefing, because, if there is any truth in these reports, it appears that the conduct of the troops concerned calls for the most searching inquiry.

I said earlier that this appears not to have been the only incident during the course of this exercise. A curious one was disclosed in the Answer given on 11th May, and must have occurred before that date, which involved an officer in civilian clothes who was captured, and, in an attempt to escape, claimed that he was a civilian and telephoned the police! It was later confirmed that there had been complaints of incidents on two farms, and I take it that the farm at Lletyrefail referred to by the hon. Member for Neath was one of them.

I do not seek to prejudge this matter in any way, but it appears that there is some suggestion about difficulty of identification. I do not know whether that will be put forward as some sort of excuse for the soldiers concerned.

I appreciate that in an exercise of this kind there cannot be any question of everyone wearing uniform, or even some distinctive brassard, but to avoid unpleasant incidents of this kind I would have thought it not beyond the bounds of possibility to have a distinctive password or some other means of ultimate identification. If that had been so, even the incident involving the officer in civilian clothes, which I do not think is a serious matter of complaint compared with the others, could have been avoided.

These incidents draw attention to a more general point on which I think we are entitled to some information and assurance, and which I put in the form of a question. What standing orders, if any, exist for the holding of exercises of this kind, or is the conduct of affairs left to the prevailing whim of the local commanding officer?

I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that there will be the fullest inquiry, if only so that the matter can be put in its proper perspective, and that, if irregularities are found to have occurred, severe disciplinary action will be taken against those responsible and fair compensation paid to those who suffered. Last, but not least, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that, so far as is humanly possible, steps will be taken to ensure that nothing of this kind ever happens again.

3.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. David Ennals)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for raising this matter and also my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) for joining in the discussion, because it gives me the opportunity not only of dealing with the specific points raised, but also of putting into perspective some of the colourful events which have been dramatised—and I would say over-dramatised—to the Press and presented today.

The escape and evasion exercise, about which we are talking, lasted for 12 days and covered seven Welsh counties— a good deal in open, mountainous land. It was designed to exercise Regular troops and members of the Territorial Army in counter insurgency and guerrilla warfare. It included a parachute battalion, a Special Air Service regiment, a unit of the Royal Naval Helicopter Squadron and a small contingent of men of the United States Army. Several hundred troops were involved. It was intended to be a realistic exercise and, as such, despite the incidents that occurred it was a highly successful one. The Commanding Officer of the 12/13 Para (T.A.) Unit described it as the best training his men had ever experienced. It was in fact the annual training camp for this paratroop unit.

The exercise was planned months in advance. Negotiations had commenced in October 1965 for permission to use land for the exercise, and in the main it was confined to land where the owners had contracted to permit soldiers to cross without let or hindrance. In other areas the movement was restricted to tracks, footpaths and roads. It would be impossible to make a categorical statement that all restrictions were strictly adhered to, but much of the value of this type of exercise is lost if it is too closely controlled and the element of realism disappears. From time to time incidents can occur regarding property.

But before the exercise took place the following instructions were issued to the troops taking part. I will give the actual terms in which these instructions were issued:

  1. "1. No action would be taken which would interfere with normal civilian activities or unduly alarm communities or individuals.
  2. 2. Troops would not enter civilian or public buildings without proper authorisation.
  3. 3. Installations or facilities not assigned as targets would not be molested or attacked.
  4. 4. Known local customs and regulations would be observed.
  5. 5. Civilian traffic would not be blocked.
  6. 6. Live or blank ammunition and real demolition equipment would not be carried or used during the course of the exercise."
I agree that it is important that instructions should not only be issued but should be understood, and that those involved in the exercise should not only understand them but carry them out.

Furthermore, the exercise was approved at Ministerial level by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who preceded me in this office—I am not passing the buck, but merely referring to the question of time —and the chief constables of the area were informed in confidence. I say that because my hon. Friend at one stage suggested that the police did not know that the exercise was taking place. If local policemen did not know, it must have been because the word did not pass down the line.

It is in the light of these rules that I would like to consider the alleged incidents which have come to light, and which I can assure my hon. Friend have been investigated in great detail. There are some points which have been referred to today of which I have not had previous notice, and there are certain other inquiries that I shall make; but I have seen the statements made by those concerned, including civilians, soldiers and the police. In one or two cases there is conflicting evidence, although, in the main, the misunderstandings have arisen partly from the highly dramatised statements to the Press. In my view, some of the misunderstandings, and the events themselves, might have been avoided if advance information about this exercise had been given to the general public.

My hon. Friends will be interested to know that so far there have been only four claims resulting from the exercise —a claim for £20 in respect of the rutting of a field by a vehicle; a claim for £3 1s. 5d. for the clearance of litter; an unsettled claim by a farmer who claimed that a heifer, frightened by the noise of a helicopter, had fallen off a cliff, and I understand Mr. Richards, the farmer at Lletyrefail farm—if I have pronounced it correctly——

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes)

No.

Mr. Ennals

—my name is Dai, so I ought to know—is also making a claim. I heard during the discussion reference by my hon. Friend to the amount which had been paid out in claims in previous years. It is true that a tremendous number of exercises take place and the fact that we have paid out claims is an indication of our anxiety and determination that, if this is done, the owners of property do not suffer.

My hon. Friend has described in great and vivid detail Mr. Richards' side of the case, and I think that he and the House will want to hear the other side. There is a good deal of conflict of evidence and we need to understand the situation as it appeared to both sides in this "battle". My investigations produced first a statement by the sergeant in charge of the ambush party near Lletyrefail Farm.

According to him, at approximately 11.45 p.m., a car arrived on the scene in what can only be described as the most suspicious circumstances. Although the area was the worst possible area for motoring, a very dangerous and cliffy area, the car was showing only sidelights. When called upon to halt by three members of the platoon who were standing directly in the path—differently from my hon. Friend's account—the car, in spite of this, drove on and straight at them.

Convinced by these actions that this was a "guerrilla" car, the soldiers gave chase As has been said, they had heard that agents were operating in civilian clothes in that area. A man arriving at that time of night, behaving as he did, caused the soldiers to give chase. Arriving at the farmhouse, the car was parked outside with both headlights on, and on their approach the driver brandished a shotgun and fired. Some thought that he fired at them. If he did he fortunately missed, but he probably fired into the air. However, at this moment the exercise rules were clearly broken.

Not surprisingly, the sergeant decided in his interests—he did not know that there were only three shots in the shotgun—that he should disarm and apprehend the firer. Accordingly, he separated Mr. Richards from his gun—I like that term—and Mr. Richards was escorted with the other occupant of the car, who was wearing pyjamas and wellington boots, to the house to establish his identity. There seems to be no question that Mr. Richards had been drinking that evening, although there is some difference of opinion about the effect of the drink on him. I am not making any play with this.

I have seen the statements not only of the sergeant but of other N.C.O.s who were present, and I want to deal with some of the points on which there is a difference of evidence. Their suspicions were aroused at the time of the arrival of the car because of its behaviour, but mainly they were asked if there was any deliberate attempt to damage the car when they met it. They said that there was not, but added: … some damage might have been caused trying to stop the car". One of the men was hit as the car drove through them, but denied that there was any deliberate attempt to damage the car.

Third, they were asked whether they saw any one using serious violence against the farmer or anyone else at the farm and they said, "No", but did not, of course, deny that they had forcibly taken the gun away from the farmer for fear that there would be serious trouble.

Fourth, they were not aware that any of the soldiers told the farmer or his family not to leave the house during the night. This is denied by all of them, and they also denied that they in any way restricted the ability of the farmer to report to the police. Instead they left only about 20 minutes after the farmer had run into his house.

Another point was made about the landing of helicopters. I have it on authority that no helicopters landed during the hours of darkness.—The following day——

Mr. Coleman

In my statement of this evidence, I did not mention the hours of darkness. This was early evening, about 6 o'clock. It was perfectly light at that time.

Mr. Ennals

Indeed. The following day——

Mr. Alan Williams rose——

Mr. Ennals

I cannot give way to my hon. Friend. Only five minutes are left before the debate ends and there is a number of questions which I want to answer.

The following day an Army officer visited Mr. Richards, both to inquire about the incident and to apologise for any distress which had been caused. He described Mr. Richards as a friendly man who was quite prepared to forgive us, and I understand that at that stage he did forgive us and I hope that he still does.

In relation to this incident at Mr. Richards's farm, I think it is fair to say that in the absence of any advance noti. fication to the local population, the events reflect no serious discredit on either side. Looking at it from the point of view of the farmer; seeing a group of men blocking his way late at night on a country road, it is not surprising that he was frightened and that he refused to stop and rushed for his gun. Probably many of us would have done the same if we had seen a lot of soldiers without knowing why they were there.

As for the soldiers, suspicious that the "enemy" was in the area and using civilian vehicles, it is not surprising that the behaviour of the farmer aroused their suspicions. When he drove right through them, they were convinced that he was a "guerrilla" and gave chase—and get the spelling of "guerrilla" right, please, Mr. Hansard Reporter. When he started shooting, it was natural, to prevent bloodshed, that they should seek to disarm him. The error which was made was the failure to inform the general public in advance of what was going on, and I make a quite frank admission of this.

With the wisdom of hindsight, and hon. Members on both sides of the House are well provided with this sort of wisdom, it seems obvious that the public might have been alarmed by the presence of several hundred troops—large area though it was. It was an error of judgment which I regret. In future I shall ensure that we give the public due warning of any such exercises and the implications for them.

I would like to say that I am genuinely sorry for any distress which may have been caused to Mr. and Mrs. Richards, or their brother-in-law, or anyone else. Any additional claims for compensation will, of course, be very sympathetically considered. It would be easy to suggest, as one of my hon. Friends did, that the whole of Wales was in anguish about this incident, but I do not honestly believe that it has created as much of a sense of public concern as has been suggested. I do not myself attach real or serious blame for this incident to the troops who took part in the exercise.

Of course rules must be obeyed, and I was asked what was the law in this situation. The soldier per se in common law does not have any more right of arrest than the private citizen, although as a natural consequence of the scope of the exercise the personnel taking part might wish to invite civilians to identify themselves if they were suspected of being "guerrillas". But the exercise provided no legal justification for any of the personnel taking part in it to question, let alone take into custody, a member of the civilian population, and it is important that that should be put on the record. It has already been said that the lieutenant who appeared in civilian clothes showed an over-exuberance which may also have made a contribution to some of the misunderstandings.

Having expressed my regret for any misunderstandings which may have arisen, I want to say that I think that the exercise was valuable in providing opportunities for ourselves and our allies to help each other in military training, and valuable for the men and officers of the Territorial Army to take part in a realistic exercise—we do not want to confine them to camp. I am convinced that, apart from the regrettable lack of communication with the general public, this was an excellent and worth-while exercise.

I do not believe that any real harm will flow from the events which we have been discussing. My impression is that relations between the civilians and the military in this area are very cordial and I was very glad that the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) made that point.

I have noted the remarks of the landlord of the New Inn—and, if reports are correct, a number of those involved in this incident had visited the landlord of the New Inn at Ystradfellpe—I think that I have pronounced that incorrectly, too. He said that he did not know what all the fuss was about and said that the local people were enjoying the cat-and-mouse game. I think that probably many of them did.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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