HC Deb 18 April 1969 vol 781 cc1566-72

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

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

I originally put down this case as "The strange case of Corporal H. J. Russell". The reason I called it the "strange" case—although that adjective proved in the event to be out of order—is that this is a case which reverses all the normal circumstances of such matters when they come before this House. The vast majority of cases concerning the problems of members of the Services, when hon. Members raise them in the House, are about young men who wish to leave the Service. There have been frequent debates on soldiers having regretted undertaking a lengthy period of service and who have wished to withdraw. In this case the opposite applies, and this is why I sought to call it the "strange" case of Corporal H. J. Russell.

I think I can best describe the circumstances by reading a letter from Corporal Russell which he wrote to me following an interview with me. It states very clearly indeed the nature of his complaint. During the second week of September 1967, or thereabouts, I was ordered to report to the officer in charge of the unit's administration for an interview. When I attended the interview the officer in charge told me that I would not be allowed to sign for a further period of service with Forces Postal Services, but should I wish to sign on I would be posted to any other unit or corps which I chose. When I asked him for a reason for this decision, he said he was not empowered to give me any answer. However, when I pressed for further information … he said he would endeavour to obtain permission to tell me the reason.… I then inquired into the possibility of obtaining redress of my grievance from the Army Council or the General Officer Commanding London District. Perhaps I should say that, before then, Corporal Russell had approached the commanding officer without success. He then said that even this would be impossible, and that any attempt on my part to find out the reason by any other means would result in my immediate posting away from the unit. However, as I was leaving his office, the officer in charge asked me what nationality my wife was. I told him that she, like both her parents, was English. During the course of the first interview I was told that I would be immediately withdrawn from postal and courier duties and that I would in future be working as a pay clerk in the pay office of the Civilian Volunteer H.Q. attached to Home P.C.C.D., and that this employment would continue till I commenced my terminal leave in December 1968. I should add that, up to the time of receiving this information, I had every intention of signing on to complete 22 years with the Colours. However, on receipt of this information, I had no option but to submit my application to leave the Service at the nine-year point. On 27th November this year, I happened to find out by chance that it would be possible for me to withdraw my notice to terminate my Colour service if I intended to transfer to another Corps and trade. Pausing there, the position is that Corporal Russell had been refused continuation of his service in the post office section but had been told that he could continue elsewhere. No reason was given for that but he had then decided that, after all, he would like to continue in the Service, and, as he said in his letter: I therefore approached the unit paymaster, under whose direction I was working, with a view to finding out whether or not he would be prepared to recommend me for a transfer to the Royal Army Pay Corps. He said that if I wished to apply to withdraw my notice to terminate, it should be possible to do so, whether I wished to transfer or not. He then said that he would speak to the officer in charge of administration about it. A few minutes later, the officer in charge called me into his office and said he had no idea that I wished to continue in the Service. He then asked me about my wish to transfer to the R.A.P.C. I told him that I would much prefer to stay in the Forces Postal Services, but should that prove to be impossible I would prefer a transfer to the Pay Corps, to any other unit, as I had been working on soldiers' pay accounts for the past 14 or 15 months and therefore already had a fair knowledge of the job. He then said that if I wished to make application to the officer in charge of Royal Engineer Records at Brighton to withdraw my notice to terminate my Colour service, he would give it his wholehearted recommendation, and when this was authorised, he would attempt to have me retained in the Postal Service. I then made and signed my application to withdraw my notice to terminate; the officer in charge added his recommendation, and the application form was sent to R.E. Records. When no reply had been received by 9th December, I saw the orderly room documentation clerk, who contacted Records by telephone. He was told by a clerk working at the Record office that the application had been approved. However, the following evening the officer in charge called me to his office and told me that the assistant officer in charge of Records had contacted him by telephone, that the clerk concerned with the first telephone call had made a mistake, and that the application had not in fact been approved. The officer in charge said that no reason had been given for the non-approval. I then commenced my terminal leave in the usual way on 13th December. In conclusion"— says Corporal Russell, or, perhaps I should say, ex-Corporal Russell— I would like to add that the officer in charge of administration for the whole period covered by this letter was Major Dunkeld, the Commanding Officer was Lt.-Col. Bennet and the Paymaster was Major Kincaid, and in all fairness to them both Lt.-Col. Bennet and Major Kincaid offered me the fullest references when I left the unit. Hoping that the information given herein can assist you in obtaining the fullest possible explanation for the shabby way in which I consider I have been treated—Corporal H. J. Russell. I also felt that my constituent had been shabbily treated, without any explanation for this extraordinary behaviour. I wrote to my hon. Friend who is to reply, sending him this letter, which sets out clearly the circumstances of the case. Whatever the reason can be for the failure to retain Corporal Russell in the Army, it is not that he lacks power to express himself clearly and cogently in writing. In reply I received on 3rd January a statement that inquiries were being made into the matter. On 16th January the inquiries were still not complete, and on 29th January I received a letter saying that The Officer in Charge of Records' decision will be based on a number of considerations, many of them purely official, and we cannot in an individual case enter into discussion about reasons for a decision not to permit a soldier to continue in the Service. This seems to be a most extraordinary state of affairs.

I put down a Question, and got the answer that nothing could be added to the letter. I looked into the possibility of taking the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner, but I found that this is one of the matters which is excluded from his range of considerations.

I therefore come to this Adjournment debate as my final recourse on behalf of this constituent. What Corporal Russell wants to know is why he has been treated in this fashion. He has had a number of years service, he has been promoted, and his service, according to his officers, is satisfactory. He has now been told "You cannot continue". Presumably, the Army are short of recruits. Therefore, why is my constituent unacceptable to the Army? Are the reasons personal to Corporal Russell?

Is it suggested that in any way security questions are involved? What is the consideration in this matter? Is it something which my hon. Friend cannot tell me about? Is it something he cannot write to tell Corporal Russell about? Is it reasonable that in any form of full continuous service a man should be discharged, with no reason whatever given to him as to the area in which the inability to retain his services is contained?

I hope that my hon. Friend in his reply will at least be able to give some impression of the reasons that this decision was taken. It may be—and probably this is the case—Corporal Russell does not now wish to return to the Army. One could hardly be surprised if that was his conclusion. I believe that he has obtained other employment.

This matter is a bad advertisement for the Army as an employer. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to improve the picture and give some assurance and explanation about the peculiar set of circumstances which have affected my constituent, as a result of which the Army no longer employs the services of Corporal Russell.

4.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden)

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) raises two points: first, why Corporal Russell, who wished to withdraw his notice of termination of his nine years' engagement, was refused permission to continue serving in the Army; and, second, why I refused to give my reasons for this decision.

I am afraid that I have nothing of substance to add to my letter to my hon. Friend of 29th January this year. In this letter I explained that a soldier who has given notice to terminate his service has no legal right to withdraw it at a later stage. He may apply to do so, but agreement is at the discretion of the Officer in Charge of Records. His decision in each case will be based on a number of considerations, many of these purely official, and we cannot in individual cases enter into discussion about the reasons for a decision not to permit a soldier to continue in the Service. This is often as much protection for the soldier as it is necessary for the Army.

Having said all this, I have reviewed the case carefully and thoroughly, and I am quite satisfied that no injustice was done to Corporal Russell. For the benefit of my hon. Friend, let me recapitulate the main facts of the case.

From February, 1967, Corporal Russell was employed as a postal clerk in the Royal Engineers Postal and Communications Depot in London. In October, 1967, it was decided that he would no longer be employed in the trade for which he was trained; namely, as a postal and courier operator. This was explained to him by his commanding officer, and he was given the opportunity of applying to transfer to another trade. Corporal Russell said that he did not wish to be transferred. Instead, he gave notice that he would terminate his engagement in the Army on 12th January this year—the end of his nine years' engagement. From his own point of view this was a sensible decision. He could decide to do this at any time before the final six months of his engagement. Because of the decision not to be transferred or trained in other duties, Corporal Russell was retained by his unit and re-employed on pay duties as a temporary measure. This could only be done for a time before the end of his engagement, and enabled Corporal Russell to stay where he was and suffer no alterations in his pay or conditions of service.

Corporal Russell was due to go on his final terminal leave in the middle of December, 1968. It was not until 28th November that he said that he had reconsidered his decision to leave the Army and would like to withdraw his notice to terminate his engagement. As I have said, it was within the discretion of the Officer in Charge of the Royal Engineers Record Office to decide at that late stage whether Corporal Russell could withdraw his notice of termination of service. Under the Army Terms of Service Regulations, 1967, where any notice to withdraw an application for discharge is within the last six months of service it has to be approved by the competent military authority. In this case, the competent military authority was the Record Office. After considering the case, the Officer in Charge of the Record Office decided not to approve the notice. It was entirely up to him to make this decision. As I have said, I have reviewed the decision thoroughly and carefully, and I think that it was the right one. It was most unfortunate that, through some misunderstanding, a clerk at the Record Office passed inaccurate information to the unit before the final decision was known. I am naturally sorry that this happened and for any distress that it may have caused.

As I have already said, I am quite satisfied that it was in the best interests of Corporal Russell that he should be allowed to leave the Army.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Will my hon. Friend clarify one point on that? He said that he is quite satisfied that it is in the best interests of Corporal Russell. Will he say why he is so satisfied? Why is it not in the best interests of Corporal Russell to tell him?

Mr. Boyden

I must ask my hon. Friend to accept that I have personally applied my mind to the matter.

Mr. Jenkins

I want to know why.

Mr. Boyden

I have done it in the way I deal with all cases of this sort. I am on the side of the soldier, and am most anxious to see that fairness is done. I am satisfied that in this case it was. It would not be in the best interests of Corporal Russell to go into this in any further detail.

Corporal Russell, now Mr. Russell, is happily employed—I have heard this indirectly—in the same sort of work, in the Postal and Telegraphic Office of the General Post Office. I assure my hon. Friend that it is right to leave him there, and not to press me any further.

Mr. Jenkins

I am very dissatisfied with that answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Four o'clock.