HC Deb 28 April 1970 vol 800 cc1203-14

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

10.42 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark (Londonderry)

I am very much obliged to the Minister for coming to the House at this late hour.

The case which I wish to raise concerns a 37-year-old man, Mr. Thompson Nicholl, who lives at No. 2 Gulf Road, Killaloo, Claudy, Co. Londonderry. The Ministry of Defence is involved in this case because the man of whom I shall speak was a member of the U.S.C., in which he was a sergeant, and had been a member of the force for about 131 years. He applied to the U.D.R. and was turned down, with certain unhappy consequences for himself.

That in itself would not be enough to justify my raising the matter in the House, because I fully accept the right of the Ministry of Defence to turn down an applicant, as indeed it does for the Army, without giving any reason whatsoever. But Mr. Nicholl is a man who is jealous of his reputation and good name. Perhaps it would be convenient at this stage to say something about his background, since it gives the picture of the man whom we are discussing tonight.

He was for many years the sexton of his church, and he is now people's churchwarden in his present church, a position which may be described as one of the highest honours which parishioners can give to one of their number. He was formerly employed by a firm in Craig Claudy for about 20 years, and was wholly satisfactory. He is now employed by the Londonderry Development Commission.

He would like his name cleared of a certain serious stigma which surrounds it. I have warned him of the risks involved to him in my raising the matter in the House, but so strongly does he feel that in the interests of his integrity he wants me to raise it and do what I can for him.

As the Minister will guess, I have had certain reservations about raising the matter, because the last thing that I want to do, believing as I do in encouraging the Ulster Defence Regiment, is to have it become something of a political football in this House. But my judgment, based on intimate knowledge of the area, is that it will be beneficial to clear the air over this case. It may even do some good to recruiting.

This case is typical of the cases of many other people living in the same area. Obviously, I cannot mention them all by name but many of them have suffered in the same way as Mr. Nicholl. I hope that the Minister and I will between us be able to say something to afford these people some consolation and do something to stop the wicked wagging of tongues, which has hurt so many over the last few months and has dictated the attitude of some people living in the area to the U.D.R.

On 4th January, 1969, the People's Democracy march from Belfast to Londonderry reached the unfortunately now notorious little glen of Burntollet. There is no need for me to describe the shameful affray which took place there. Suffice it to say that, however provocative the march, the subsequent behaviour of those involved in the fighting cannot be excused. Since then, vengeance has been wreaked in a particular way upon the innocent.

On that day, a Saturday morning, Mr. Nicholl had got up somewhat late, and had planned a visit to his brother-in-law who was building a new bungalow across the border at Raphoe in County Donegal. He got in his car and took his normal route, which would have taken him past Burntollet. It may be noted that he was accompanied by his wife, a circumstance which even those who might allege he took part in the affray in the glen would admit was an unusual way of preparing for battle. He took no part in it.

I have here a letter—it is not necessary to read all of it—from a newspaper reporter who was covering that march. In this letter—which I will make available to the Minister should he wish to see it—he clearly proves that Mr. Nicholl could not have taken any part in that affray. He ends by saying: I declare this to be the truth, and I am prepared and willing to go before any properly constituted court or tribunal to evidence under oath. It is signed by him.

I have with me, and will, if necessary, read, letters from two respected clergymen in the district, from a former rural district councillor, from a civil servant who lives nearby, from the principal of a local school and from a justice of the peace—every one testifying to the good character of this man and his high integrity.

But in the aftermath of recrimination which followed Burntollet many innocent people have suffered from the sins of others, some in a particular way. A formidable number of people from that area who applied to join the Ulster Defence Regiment, Nicholl among them, have been turned down. Of course I recognise that the Army has a perfect right, and that it is normal practice, to turn down men without giving reasons, and this is so in normal circumstances. I would not in the normal way raise such a case in the House, but in this case, because of a certain notorious incident in the area, rejection for the U.D.R. has, alas, become almost synonymous with the belief that the rejected were involved in the incident at Burntollet, and many have suffered in their private lives—ostracism by their friends, disruptions of relations in particular with those belonging to another faith. In extreme cases. the slander has affected their jobs and careers.

I find this intolerable, particularly because there appears to be no means of redress for these people. One man has even said to, " I would rather that it was believed that I had been refused admission to the U.D.R. because I had been convicted on some criminal charge than that anyone should think that I had taken part in such an occurrence."

There is a widespread belief that certain ill-disposed persons, one of them prominent in the community, sent to the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere lists of persons whom these sources would like to believe were involved in Burntollet. I would very much like the Minister to tell us—I appreciate the delicate situation here—that this is not true or that if such information was tendered, it has in no way influenced the decision of whether to admit men or not. I might be able to tell him plenty about the validity of such sources but I do not want to add to any of the bitterness which has already been created.

In Mr. Nicholl's case two facts could have led to the " information " being laid against him. One is his friendship with the Rev. John Brown, an officer of the U.S.C. since 1955, against whom smears have already been delivered in this House. I want to say something about this aspect as it is connected with the case of Mr. Nicholl.

It is probably well known in County Londonderry that I have certain acute political differences sometimes with Mr. Brown, but I am certain that he was not involved in this or any other incident of such a kind. Indeed at one moment later during that march he arrived in time to save a youthful supporter of the marchers from attack by some of the spectators. He, too, was refused admission to the regiment, and at some time the Minister will perhaps be able to answer the serious allegation that information concerning his rejection reached the Press within an hour of his own notification. Since some sort of reason has been given to him as to why he was rejected—which is unusual—he is entitled to have it spelt out as to why he was rejected, particularly as it may affect Mr. Nicholl's case.

There was another reason which may have been put forward as to why Mr. Nicholl was pilloried. This is that it was alleged at one time that the battle of Burntollet was planned at a meeting at Killalor. Meetings which Mr. Nicholl attends at Killalor take place at regular intervals, but I understand that on the occasion about which the allegation was made there was not, because of bad weather, even a quorum present to perform the functions for which the meeting was called—and that was certainly not to plan the battle of Burntollet.

A local clergyman, a man well known for his liberal views, writes in a letter which I have here that the allegations about this were simply not true, adding that Certain individuals made these allegations in the hope that it would cause sectarian strife and further their own particular aims on the principle that the end justifies the means. As I have said, I fully respect the right of the Ministry of Defence to turn down applicants without giving reasons but it is obvious that in the case of Mr. Nicholl and Mr. Brown and many others there are special circumstances and that an injustice has been perpetuated which has brought a considerable burden of misery to their lives. I want to put on record my conviction that neither of these men was involved in the Burntollet incident and also that many others have also in all probability—indeed, certainly —been traduced. There is abundant evidence that these two gentlemen could not have been involved. I appreciate the difficulties I am putting the Minister in on behalf of my constituents, but I want him to show some sympathy with this problem and try to find some words which will bring a little comfort to some of the innocent men who have suffered, through no fault of their own, a grievous wrong.

10.54 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

It is, of course, the privilege of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) within the rules of order to raise whatever matter he chooses on the Adjournment, but I must reply to his speech in a way that I fear he may regard as at best oblique. I want to make it clear at the outset that I understand that privilege perfectly well and also the obligation he undertakes to represent the interests of his constituents.

But, having said that, I must say that I fear that the request the hon. Member made to me at the end of his speech is not one which I could answer in the terms he suggests. I know very well that he has couched his speech in terms concerned with the public reputation and social standing, and, therefore, the welfare and well-being of the man involved, but what he is really asking for is comment by me on an individual decision by the Army, a decision to reject a specific applicant from membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I must make it clear that an individual application and the applicant's success or failure as a result of that application are not something which I could properly discuss in the House. I cannot give the reason for his rejection. Nor can I eliminate the possible causes of his rejection.

To discuss the reasons for acceptance or rejection in any unit of the Armed Forces is not our practice. To change that practice would not be in the interests of the Army, and in many instances it would not be in the interests of the men involved. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that in present circumstances I do not believe that it would be in the interests of Northern Ireland to discuss the merits or demerits of men who have not been accepted for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

The hon. Gentleman has raised, as he is entitled to do, what seemed to him to be an exception to that general rule, acknowledging that it was our practice never to divulge the reasons why a man might be rejected for this regiment or from any other unit. He mentioned Mr. Brown, who is not the subject of tonight's Adjournment debate but whose case is related to it.

Mr. Brown had been told by the headquarters in Northern Ireland why he was not acceptable as a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He is one of two clergymen who applied for membership of the regiment. Both were told, as I am assured is the normal practice in the Services, that we do not normally recruit clergymen of any denomination for combatant duties. That is our general rule, and they were, therefore, told of that general prohibition.

It is my judgment, therefore, that they do not come within this general rule, which excludes us, I believe properly, from discussing individual rejections or acceptances. The merits of this rule seem even stronger in the case of the Ulster Defence Regiment because the regiment is a force which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree must be insulated from political and sectarian influences.

I remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army said in Committee on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill—

Mr. Chichester-Clark

While I do not expect an immediate answer, may I ask what the situation would be if a minister without a congregation—or, a minister who decided to give up the cloth and resign—applied for membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Would he then be acceptable?

Mr. Hattersley

I have considered exactly that situation this afternoon, and I hope that my answer is more than tautology.

If a minister ceases to be a minster, he can apply for membership of the regiment in his non-ministerial capacity. He would then be subject to the same processes of rejection or acceptance as any other non-minister. In other words, if a minister—I use the word in the religious rather than in the governmental sense—abandons the cloth, he is considered in the same way as an ordinary member of the public is considered. There is nothing to prevent an ex-minister from making such an application.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army said in Committee on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill, in stating our objective in these procedures, that it is to establish that an applicant is of good character, is not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum and is likely to act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole ".—[OFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1086.] It would be tragic were the ultimate decisions on acceptances or rejections into the regiment to be taken in this House. It cannot be a matter for a debate, which is based on information supplied by my Ministry or by me. It is, in fact, properly a part of a professional process which the Army has organised for many years and which it is organising in basically the normal way for the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland.

What do I mean by the normal processes? This brings me to the theory of acceptance or rejection. Like all good theories, it is also the practice of acceptance or rejection. But I have described it in these terms of theory to make it very clear that what I have to say about the general procedures does not necessarily apply to the man whose name appears on the Order Paper tonight.

Applicants may be rejected for any of a number of reasons. Some may be rejected on grounds of age. Some are rejected because of their medical history. Some men have been rejected because they have a criminal record, and, as we made clear in the U.D.R. White Paper, the regiment is open for membership to men of good character.

We also reject those upon whom we do not feel we can rely to discharge their general obligations as members of the regiment—the obligations outlined by my hon. Friend. That is sometimes a difficult judgment to make. It is certainly a judgment which is bound on occasion to give rise to criticism. The reply to that criticism must be that our judgment is based on the professional processes run by the Army rather than on any political debate in this House or on any political pressure.

The assessment of applicants' suitability to join the Ulster Defence Regiment is based on all the information available to Headquarters Northern Ireland, including reports on interviews with the character referees—the referees supplied to the Army by the U.D.R. applicants themselves. Occasionally a man is excluded before his reference is taken up—excluded, that is, on some of the grounds that I have already given, such as age or health. But normally at least one referee is consulted. This is always the case before a man is accepted, and the reference system is the basis of our vetting procedure.

The interviews with the referees are carried out by the experienced staff of the Army Security Vetting Unit, working in Northern Ireland. Where the pressure for quick but thorough interviews has been very great they have been assisted by a number of specially selected regular officers. As the House will expect, Headquarters Northern Ireland does not rely on these sources of information alone. It is its duty to make an assessment on all information available to it. That, of course, Headquarters Northern Ireland does.

Since the hon. Gentleman has raised what he clearly regards as an inappropriate source of information—I mean the lists of which we have heard before—I would make one point about the lists very clear. Of course in a situation as tense as that in Northern Ireland there are many people who write accusing members or prospective members of the U.D.R. of some crime or some activity which it is suggested makes their membership of the regiment inappropriate. There have been many lists and many letters. They have come from many different sources, certainly sources on both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed, we occasionally get such letters from Members of Parliament. Our practice with all such letters and lists is the same. The fact that some person, no matter how respected, or some organisation, no matter how responsible, may have made an accusation against a prospective member does not in itself exclude him. Men about whom such accusations have been made are subject to the vetting procedure, and our decision as to acceptance or rejection is arrived at after taking all factors, both favourable and unfavourable, into account.

I have said that the vetting process includes as one of its basic processes the interview of referees. It is absolutely essential that we respect the referees' confidence. In no case could I possibly divulge, even by suggestion or implication, the content of a reference. The hon. Gentleman and the House must not conclude from that that I am making any comment on Mr. Nicholl's references. I am not saying that they were good and I am not saying that they were bad. They must conclude nothing whatsoever about the references from my general insistence that no hint can be given as to a reference's content. The whole purport of my speech is to make it absolutely clear that on this individual case, as on other individual cases, there is no information about the references and referees which I can properly give to the House.

One thing I must make absolutely clear, and again the House must not believe that I have referred directly to Mr. Nicholl. We have over the last three months operated vetting procedures on over 5,000 applicants. It was essential that we did them quickly as well as thoroughly. It is inconceivable that out of those 5,000 there have not been occasions when we have been overcautious. But my instructions to the Army, and I am sure that they are instructions which the House would endorse, were that in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland if doubt there had to be, we should err on the side of caution.

It is because of that proper caution that I must emphasise that the processes of examining an applicant is not a trial. It should not be and it cannot be. Its simple intention—and I can do no better than quote my hon. Friend again—is to establish that an applicant is of good character, is not an active supporter of any organisation at one or other extreme of the political spectrum and is likely to act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. No man has a prescriptive right to membership of this or any other regiment of the British Army. The exclusion of an individual on any grounds is not to be, and should not be, taken as an indictment of his character or his loyalty. It should be taken as the Army operating with proper caution in what is, by any standards, a delicate situation.

It is the very delicacy of this situation which makes me so regret that the hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to debate this individual case tonight. I know that he is motivated by proper concern for his constituent, but I suspect that he shares with me the fear that the House having debated this case —if "debate" is the right word to describe what has happened, in view of the absence of information from this Dispatch Box tonight in reply to the hon. Gentleman—it will be followed by many other hon. Members raising the claims of many other people who have been rejected from membership of the regiment. Complaints about rejections might well be followed by complaints about acceptances.

I echo the hon. Gentleman's words. Nothing could be worse than to have the membership of the regiment the subject of continual political controversy. Of course there have been rejections—on grounds of health, on grounds of general unsuitability, and on grounds of age. Of course there have been cases when individuals who are well known to hon. Members have been rejected, although the hon. Members who know them are surprised at their rejection. If we were to debate such exclusions we should not be doing the best service to the regiment or to its general political objectivity or, indeed, its insulation from politics, which must be a feature of it in the years ahead. To debate the regiment in those terms would undermine the confidence of the regiment. Indeed, it would do more and it would do worse. It might well undermine the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland in the regiment. That would be the case if hon. Members were continually questioning exclusions and if we then went to the inevitable next step and there were continual questionings of inclusions.

I back without hesitation or qualification the objectivity and integrity of our acceptance procedures in the Army and of the men who operate those procedures. If we want, as I am sure we all do, the regiment to be accepted as part of the Army, with all the standards of detachment and objectivity which characterise the Army's every action and of which the Army has traditionally been so proud, it must be allowed to conduct its day-to-day affairs free from the pressure of politics. Clearly, from time to time the pressure of politics will appear. Clearly, from time to time in a situation as tense and as delicate as that in Northern Ireland we shall all be tempted to make political points about the composition, success and operations of the regiment.

We owe to the regiment and to Northern Ireland a self-denying ordinance. I am prepared to swear that I will not say in future that I was right about the proportion of Catholics who would join. Perhaps all of us should equally swear that we understand the importance of keeping the regiment what it is and what it must be—a special but nevertheless in many ways typical regiment of the British Army doing a crucially important job and doing it rather better when it is allowed to get on with its job insulated from the day-to-day pressures of political activity.

Mr. Chichester-Clark

The hon. Member will be well aware that I share his sentiments and would not have raised these cases in the House had they not already been raised in Parliament, either in Northern Ireland or here, and had not these individuals already been traduced. I simply could not, nor could any hon. Member, leave any stone unturned to try to clear their names, and that is what I have done tonight.

I am grateful to the Minister that in his delicate position he has done what he can, although I cannot pretend that it is entirely satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock